TexProdigy

Take That Freedom of Speech!

I know the Republicans dislike (even hate) Michael Moore with a passion. Michael Moore is at the Republican National Convention writing a column for USA Today. Ann Coulter tried to do this, but her article was so crappy that the editors wanted to make some changes to it. When she refused to let them make changes, they fired her.

So now the Republicans are using the Secret Service to prevent NPR from talking to Michael Moore. Go here if you want to listen to Andrea Seabrook's attempted interview with Michael Moore. If that does not work, Jesus' General, J.C. Christian) had his inner Frenchman write the transcript.

I cannot believe the Secret Service is allowing themselves to be used as partisan tools. I thought they were above that. It just goes to show you that the Republicans seem to only like one part of the Bill of Rights - the Second Amendment. All those other Amendments are just words scribbled on vellum.

I cannot recall ever hearing about a conservative commentator who was blocked from giving an interview by the Secret Service (or any one else) while at the Democrat's National Convention. Oi! The hypocrisy!

Hey, Pot, This is Kettle. You're Black!

First Bush said we are winning the war on terror. Then he said he miscalculated in regards to post war Iraq. Then he said we cannot win the war on terror, but we can make the conditions so that terror is not a viable option. Now Bush says we are winning the war on terror. Yahoo! News has the details.

Which is it? Are we winning the war on terror or can we not win the war on terror. Bush does not sound like the decisive leader everyone makes him out to be.

Another flip-flop Bush has had recently is his stance on the kind of President he is. First he said that he was a war President. Then he said he wanted to be the peace President. Which one does he want to be? Maybe he wants to be like Leo Tolstoy's book - the "War and Peace" President.

Bush has no room to talk about flip-flopping

Brought Down By a Blog

Representative Ed Schrock, a two-term Republican congressman from Virginia, was brought down by a blog called BlogActive. Actually, it was not the blog that brought Ed Schrock down, Ed Schrock brought himself down. How? He called in to call-in line with an advert very much like this:

Uh, hi, I weigh 200 pounds, I’m 6′4″ Hazel eyes, blond hair….very muscular, very buffed up, uh, very tanned, uh, I just like to get together a guy from time to time, just to, just to play. I’d like him to be in very good shape, flat stomach, good chest, good arms, well hung, cut, uh, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just, fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just take it from there… hope to hear from you. Bye.

For someone who was on the Down Low (DL) like Schrock, you'd think he'd support GLBT issues on the DL. Nope. Schrock was a hypocrite. He voted extremely conservatively. He co-sponsored the Federal Hate Amendment and had a 92 percent score from the Christian Coalition. The HRC gave him a zero rating when it came to GLBT votes.

Since his advert became public about a week ago, Ed Schrock has now decided to resign. Why couldn't just say, "I, too, and a gay American." like Governor James McGreevey? It is 2004, after all. Maybe all his votes against GLBT issues were his way of trying to deny what he was doing on the DL. I have empathy for him, but sometimes Karma is a bitch.

*Update:
I was rereading Ed Schrock's advert and got to thinking about it... Ed said he wants someone "...well hung, cut, uh, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just, fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just take it from there..." Why would Ed Shcrock want a guy who was hung and cut? I think it's because he might be a big old bottom.

"It's Absurd"

I have not said anything about Laura Bush in the past because she has said relatively little. Until now...

In an interview with Time Magazine, Laura Bush shares this nugget of wisdom,

"Do I think they're unfair? Not really. There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband."

Millions? Nice use of hyperbole, Laura.

From the New York Post,

"I think that's a ridiculous allegation by John Kerry -- it's absurd. And I think what my husband did was perfectly appropriate. I think it was the right thing to do in front of the children. I think it was the right thing to do in front of the press that were there. And while he was there for those seven short minutes, his staff was getting more information."

Seven short minutes? Please, lady. He could have been getting that information on his way to Air Force One. His staff members do have cell phones. Cell phones work both ways. The appropriate thing for the "War President" to do was act. Yet he did not. He sat glassy-eyed in front of the children. When he was finally snapped out of his catatonic stupor by his staff, where did he go? To our nation's capital? No, not the brave "War President." He flew first to Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, LA, and then Offutt AFB in Bellevue, NE.

Laura Bush played the role of First Lady that many on the right like. She smiled, looked pretty, and said little of substance. Now I know why. Many on the right decried Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady. They claimed she was too meddling and should go back to smiling, looking pretty, and taking pictures at cutesy events like Sesame Street show and day care centres. I personally disagree. Many First Ladies have a great deal of education and experience on a broad range of topics. If asked, they should give their opinion and not demur to their husband's opinion. If they disagree, they should disagree in a constructive way. They also need to let the press know that they will support their husbands and that the President has the ultimate decision.

Only the Beginning

Robert E. Reccord informs us of his point of view in his column. I do not know where he got his information, but I think much of it perpetuates myths. He says,

"But by just about any standard of measurement you care to use, homosexuals fail to meet the test of persecuted minority."

Really? What are those standards? He does not say. It is sort of like Faux News saying "Some people say..."

He continues,

"As a group, their earnings outpace the national average. They have a higher percentage of disposable income. They exert remarkable influence over the political process, especially considering their numbers. And, they travel recreationally more than most Americans. Most major corporations quickly capitulate when homosexuals come looking for benefits. In addition, homosexuals are celebrated on television and in film, and are virtually never portrayed in a negative light in the news media."

What are your sources? I happen to know quite a few lesbians and gays. Some are quite well off, some are doing okay, and some are not too well off. I think gays and lesbians exert influence over the political process because they organise themselves and are willing to fight hard for what they believe is right. Major corporations do not "capitulate," they decide that discrimination is not in their best corporate and share holder interests. Only recently have gays and lesbians been portrayed positively in television, movies, and news media. For years they were shown as limp-wristed sissies or manly women. Those, like the stuff Robert wrote about, are gross stereotypes.

Robert then writes a couple of paragraphs saying that homosexuals were never slaves and as such their fight for rights is not the same as blacks' fights for civil rights. Roberts is wrong. Homosexuals have been persecuted for quite some time. They were in concentration camps just like Jews, Gypsies, intellectuals, and others who the Nazi party used as scapegoats. Gays and lesbians have been denied housing, jobs, health care, loans, etc. simply because they were homosexual. The issue is simply not just about voting. It is for equal rights. Equal rights for passing one's property to loved ones automatically (as happens with heterosexual marriages). Equal rights for hospital visitation. Equal rights for determining hospital care. I can go on and on, but I would have about 1,049 of items that are default when heterosexuals marry.

Then Robert blatantly lies,

"In fact, people who practice homosexuality have always been viewed equally under the law."

We have? Why did the Supreme Court of the United States have to Rule in Lawrence Vs. Texas that homosexuals were allowed to have private sexual relations in their home without the fear of being prosecuted? Heterosexuals have had this right, but homosexuals in many parts of the US did not. Homosexuals have been fired from jobs or been denied jobs simply because they were homosexual. Please, Robert, do not insult my intelligence.

Then Robert continues his blatant lie,

"But equal isn't enough to satisfy their ultimate desire, which is not equality, but special treatment."

Has Robert ever stopped to read the signs protesters are holding up? They read, "Equal rights, not special rights." No one I know wants any right that our straight counterparts do not have.

Robert blathers on and on. sz from World O' Crap has a pretty good deconstruction of Robert Reccord's opinion, please go read it.

Investigation Pending

I was on Margaret Cho's blog just a day after Kenneth (K.C.) Gillespie e-mailed her a misogynistic, racist e-mail using an e-mail address Ford Motor Company's name (ford.com) as part of the address. She has removed his name,

From: [name and email address removed upon request]*
[Phone number and job title from Ford Cleveland's Engine Plant 1 removed upon request]*
*[Investigation is pending regarding the responsible Ford employee]

I have not. I will not remove it until I read that Kenneth (K.C.) Gillespie did not send the e-mail. Like I said in a previous post, he was a moron for using a company e-mail for sending e-mail that was so derisive and hateful. He deserves all the e-mail and phone calls in the world that politely tell him that what he did was incredibly stupid.

I bet if he would have thought about the consequences of clicking on "send," he would have never sent that e-mail. Unfortunately, he hit "send" and the e-mail went through the ether to Margaret Cho, from her e-mail to her blog, and from her blog to mine (and perhaps many other peoples' blogs). I hope Kenneth (K.C.) Gillespie has learned from this.

Fundraising

This Saturday evening I attended a fundraising/thank you event for Representative Charlie Gonzalez. The event was to thank Charlie for all the hard work he has done to help the GLBT community in San Antonio by voting against bills that are discriminatory.

Charlie Gonzalez is a very friendly and personable man. I was impressed with his knowledge of a wide variety of issues. He will definitely be getting my vote.

Representative Gonzalez spoke about a letter that was written, which he and several other Representatives signed, that was sent to President Bush and courtesy copied to the other Representatives. In the letter, he urged President Bush to not endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. Representative Gonzalez said that the US has never enshrined discrimination into the Constitution and it should not now. He went on to say first we would discriminate against gays and lesbians. Who would we discriminate against next?

I met several interesting people while I was at the event. Many were successful doctors, lawyers, realtors, business people, artists, etc. I am quite happy to have gone.

I do have to thank one other person for making me become more politically active. George W. Bush. If Dubya would have been moderate, I could have lived with him and his policies. However, he started to steer the country to the right since his first day. Since 9/11, he steered the country hard to the right because he thought he could use that tragedy for his own means. He claimed to be a uniter. In one sense, he is right. He has united his opposition against him.

False Headlines

Editors who make stuff up in headlines frustrate me. A Reuters article on Yahoo News!, "Bush Plans Legal Action on Anti-Kerry Ads," has an attention-grabbing headline. However, if you delve into the article, nowhere in it does it directly say Bush will take legal action on anti-Kerry adverts.
It does say things like,

The Bush campaign said it would file its lawsuit in federal court to try to force the Federal Election Commission to crack down on the ads.

They never say whether the Bush Campaign intends to file its lawsuit against the Swift Boat group or all "527's" (The 527's are unregulated groups that can collect as much money as they want, from any source they want, and spend it in any way they see fit.) I highly doubt Bush will file a lawsuit specifically against the Swift Boat group. Who knows, maybe I will be surprised.

The article further says,

McCain has called on Bush to do more to end ads by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has accused Kerry, McCain's friend, of lying about his Vietnam War service.

McCain urged Bush to condemn the ads directly. Though Bush has refused to do so, McCain praised his decision to file suit and said he would work "with the president, both in the courts and through legislation, to force" the FEC to act.

Now, McCain, who I have mixed feelings for, is trying to do the right thing. Yet Bush, who knows these types of adverts worked for his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, still refused to directly condemn the Swift Boat adverts.

I personally do not have a problem with 527's as long as the advertising they put in print and on the air is factual and truthful. The Swift Boat adverts are neither. The Swift Boat guys are bitter men. They are bitter that the US lost the Vietnam War. They see people like John Kerry who spoke out against the atrocities that happened during the Vietnam War as the people who were directly responsible for the protests and verbal abuse they faced when they came home. However, they cannot see past their hate. John Kerry and those like him were trying to get the Nixon administration to bring the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines home as soon as possible. Several administrations, both Democrat and Republican, let America's military members down. Those politicians deserve to be denounced.

I hope we as a country can get past the nightmare that still haunts us - Vietnam. We need to look at the present and prepare for the future. We need to ensure Americans are taken care of today. We need to ensure our children will be better off than we are now. We need to ensure our grandchildren have opportunities. If we continue to focus on and relive the past, we will never move on. Our children and grandchildren will be saddled with our debts. That cannot happen.

Nut Cases

I wonder if Ford Motor Company is aware that one of its users is sending racist, misogynist e-mail using a work computer (or at a minimum, through the Ford Motor Company's mail servers).

K.C. Gillespie is an idiot. Here is why:

----- Original Message -----
From: Gillespie, Kenneth (K.C.)
To: margaret
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 10:22 AM
Subject: Bush

Your are a scumbag bitch whore! I hope you rot in Hell! Go back to Asia slant eyes! Bush in a landslide!!!!!!!!!!!!!YEAAAAAHHHHHH!

K.C. Gillespie
Supplier Quality Engineer
Cleveland Engine Plant 1
(216) 676-7844

Feel free to call Ford and let them know about K.C.

In the United States:
Ford Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126

Phone: 800-392-3673
800-232-5952 (TDD for the Hearing Impaired)

Hours of Operation:
8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)

In Canada:

Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario, L6J5E4

Phone: 800-565-3673 (FORD)

Hours of Operation:
8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)

Outside the United States or Canada:

Ford Worldwide Direct Market Operations
1555 Fairlane Drive
Allen Park, Michigan 48101

Phone: 313-594-4857

Fax: 313-390-0804

Let them know about the content of the e-mail. Let Ford know K.C. is both a racist and a misogynist. Let them know he is abusing Ford company policy. Write back to K.C. E-mail him and tell him how stupid he is.

Just in case K.C. reads this, Margaret Cho was born in the United States. Margaret may be bitchy at times, but she is definitely not a bitch. Margaret may have had quite a bit of sex in her life, but that does not make her a whore. I will not attack your sex life, though I suspect that even an IV bolus of Levitra, Viagra, and Cialis could not help your condition.

I just want to reiterate that K.C. Gillespie is an idiot. By using his company e-mail and leaving his phone number on the e-mail, he will face the wrath of Margaret's many, many fans. They will e-mail him and call him up. They will e-mail and call For up to complain about his actions. If enough people call, Ford will have to act and K.C. Gillespie will be out of a job. Thanks to Bush's "wonder" handling of the economy he will be out of a job for a while. (I know, it's wishful schadenfreude-type thinking). But... That what right-wing idiots deserve.

There He Goes Again...

Why does it seem every time I hear John O'Neill talk another lie comes out of his mouth? Oh! I know! It is because he is a member of Swift Boat Whores for Lying (SBWfL).

I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border,

is what John O'Neill told President Nixon in 1971. Now, according to Yahoo News!, he is saying,

I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia.

"I was in Cambodia..." That is pretty clear to me. If I say I was in my car, that does not mean I was 100 yards away from my car. Besides, borders between countries, especially on rivers are ill defined. John O'Neill did not have GPS to determine precisely where he was.

I tend to trust his recollection from 1971 saying he was actually in Cambodia that his 2004 recollection because his 2004 recollection is tainted by 30 years and his intense hatred of John Kerry and those like John Kerry who protested the Vietnam War. The press just needs to call a spade a spade. Just say that John O'Neill, and the SBWfL (some of whom are bigots - Corsi) are full of it. The TV and radio stations need to refuse to air any more of their trash. Magazines and newspapers need to stop printing their smut. Otherwise, they media is just as culpable as the SBWfL.

Overtime Pay

The Bush administration's new rules for overtime pay take effect this week. From everything I've read (read Trapper John's Daily Kos post for some good links), overall the changes are bad for the average American worker. For the most part, more people will not be getting overtime pay than those that will.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone who counts on their weekly or biweekly paycheck would support someone who is going to take money out of their pocket. Yet I hear from these people over and over that "Bush is one of us." Please! He is not a "commoner." He is from a family of wealthy and privileged New Englanders. He is a carpetbagger. His base is wealthy Republicans and the religious right.

I hope when families now have to work three jobs to make up for the lost pay these new overtime rules cost them they will realise the error of their ways. I suspect, though, that people will not notice it right away. They will notice it around the holiday time when many Americans work overtime. They will notice that their paychecks they bring home this year are not nearly as high as they were last year. Only when they notice it in December, it will be too late.

Unless... People act to have the House of Representatives and the Senate put pressure on the Bush administration to change this inane policy. They their elected representatives do not care to do anything about the overtime rules, then the only other choice is to change who is in office. They need to vote for anybody but Bush.

Big Tent

Saying your organisation is inclusive and your organisation actually being inclusive are two totally separate things. The GOP can say it is inclusive all it wants with cutesy little platitudes like "we welcome into our ranks all who may hold differing positions." In reality, though the GOP excludes those who hold differing positions by shutting them out of the GOP platform writing process. They basically told organisations like the Republicans for Choice, the Republican Youth Majority, and the Log Cabin Republicans that their opinions did not matter because they were not what the party wants to push.

I think Dick Cheney's answer about his views on the Federal Hate Amendment (He is against it, but because Bush is for it, he is for it.) were trying to lure the Log Cabin Republicans back. I have to wonder if the Log Cabins ever feel like abused spouses. They get beaten constantly by the GOP religious right-wingers who tell them that they will go to Hell, they are sinners, etc. Yet time and time again they have issued support for George W. Bush. Do they like the abuse? At some point in time the abused spouse just needs to either get up and go or beat the living crap out of the abuser.

I think next week the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Bush. I doubt they will have a floor fight. Like a abused spouse who has to meet the rest of the family, they will show up at the convention with smiling faces all the while hiding the bruises that the GOP has given them. The same goes for the Republicans for Choice and the Republican Youth Majority.

However, those organisations do have a choice. They can leave the tent. Now, I'm not saying they need to up and switch parties. Maybe the way they can get the GOP to listen to them is to make the GOP move back to the centre. The way they can do that is through voting. These groups do not have to vote for Kerry (though compared to Bush, Kerry is pro-choice and nominally gay-friendly). If they decide to vote for alternative candidates, Libertarians, Greens, etc., it would effectively be a vote of protest against the GOP.

Liar, Liar

As the days go by, I am finding it harder and hard to believe President Bush's statements that he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Whores for Lying (SBWfL)adverts. Yet another reason I do not believe him is an article in Yahoo! News that says that a lawyer for the Bush Campaign also worked with the SBWfL organisation.

Benjamin Ginsburg, a lawyer for the Bush campaign, said he also provided legal advice for the SBWfL. That is the second time in just a few days that someone from the Bush-Cheney campaign (the other was Ken Cordier) has been revealed to also work for the group that is blatantly lying about Kerry's record during Vietnam and now when he spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Is the Bush-Cheney campaign really that stupid? I do not think so. I think they had the SBWfL charges get out to the public in a calculated move. It does not matter if the Bush-Cheney campaign's fingerprints were all over it. The defiling of Kerry's record has already taken place. In the minds of some people who blindly follow the adverts, Kerry did not deserve his medals and he caused American deaths. To them, he is just like Jane Fonda. And they have the Photoshopped picture to prove it!

I hope real, professional lawyers, very much unlike the unprofessional ones who work for the Bush-Cheney campaign, sue the pants off the Bush-Cheney campaign, if they can. The Bush-Cheney campaign is so manipulative and deceitful it would be a pleasure to watch them go down in flames.

Courage

Sorry for the lack of blogging. I have been in the process of rearranging my place. Moving furniture all alone is quite a task. It took some planning, coordination, and heavy lifting, but I got much of it done. Now on to the blog...

Webster's Dictionary defines courage as "mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty." In my opinion, it takes courage to volunteer to go to war. My father had courage to go over to Vietnam. I supposed he could have taken the easy way out and had deferments like Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft. He could have gone into the Missouri Air National Guard. Instead, he voluntarily enlisted into the Air Force and load munitions on planes.

Similarly John Kerry volunteered to go over to Vietnam. I am certain he could have gotten deferments to go to law school or another graduate program. He did not. He went to Vietnam for four months. He was wounded at least three times (as evidenced by his three Purple Hearts). It does not matter if it was just a scratch; a scratch is still a wound. Personally, I think his wounds were more than "scratches."

Contrast my father's and John Kerry's courage to go to Vietnam with George Bush's reluctance to go and you will see there is a world of difference. George Bush received preferential treatment to join the Texas Air National Guard. When he was in, he missed five months of service. If it were any one else, they would have been considered AWOL.

Thirty years later George W. Bush is showing that he is not a courageous man yet again. He is relying on surrogate groups (the Swift Boat group) to smear John Kerry's record in Vietnam. How dare he allow a group to do that when he took the easy way out. Instead of denouncing the group directly, he takes the easy way out, as he always has, and denounces "527's" as a whole.

Throughout his life, George W. Bush has been saved time and again by family friends who covet connections to the Bush family name. Examples of this throughout George W. Bush's life include his entry into Yale, his oil misadventures, his baseball misadventures, and on, and on. He is a cardboard cutout president who is being directed by his puppet masters. They will do everything in their power (and I truly believe everything) to make sure he stays in power. If George W. Bush loses, the country will get to finally see behind the curtain and know that the wizard was not all powerful after all.

She Knows Not of What She Speaks.

Surfing over to Worldnet Daily for some humour, I was reading Linda Harvey's article, "McGreevey is Not Gay." Um, Linda, Jim McGreevey said in a press conference, for all to hear, that he was a "gay American."

She then opines, "No one is gay." Excuse me? I am. I have known since I was about four. I tried the heterosexual route when I was in my late teen and early 20's. I knew it was not for me, and that was not who I was. So I decided to be true to myself and just be who I am, like Jim McGreevey, a gay American.

Here is Linda's "recipe" for making a homosexual:

Start with a very self-focused person, maybe a young person who's growing up and trying to discover him or herself. It helps if this person is a bit of a loner. Add some troubled masculine or feminine identity issues and poor relationships with parents. Pour on a little self-pity and envy: "Why can't I be more like him or her?" Stir briskly while adding continuous school lessons, TV shows, church "dialogues" and news stories about homosexuality. Capture one's stirring emotions in an appropriate moral framework.

Please, Linda. You insult people's intelligence. There is no one formula for gayness. Some gays (and lesbians) are more butch than others. Some are less butch than others.

Linda continues,

Sprinkle in lots of feminist gobbledygook from NOW, Oprah and the DaVinci Code (this is important even if you are male). Whip all this into a frenzy with some alcohol and/or drug use while spicing up the whole concoction with the final, essential ingredient: liberal amounts of ever-available pornography.

Linda, NOW was around when I was growing up, Oprah came much later, and the DaVinci Code was written, what, last year? Neither alcohol nor drugs played a role in my being gay. I do not drink (by choice) and I have never taken any illegal drugs. Many of my gay friends are in the same boat. And porn had absolutely nothing to do with me being gay. I knew I was different, like I said, when I was about four. Way before I even saw my first piece of porn.

So, Linda, You are making shit up. I'm calling you on it. You are bigoted. Today it is against gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendred Americans. If this were 40 years ago you would be writing about African Americans. If this was 60 years ago, and you were in Germany, you'd be writing propaganda for the Reich.

Linda, you are also a hypochristian. If you truly followed Christ's teachings, you would show compassion for all. Jesus cared for the sinners around him. He included them in his group. He gently encouraged them to change their ways. You do not.

Documents Contradict SBWfL

It is interesting to see how Larry Thurlow just a few short weeks ago trashed John Kerry's medal only to find out now that he won a Bronze Star for being in the exact same battle as John Kerry.

As I said in a previous post, I think Larry Thurlow and the rest of the Swift Boat Whores for Lying (SBWfL) are tools (and I do not mean that in a good way). The accepted money from wealthy right wing donor to try to discredit John Kerry 35 years after he came back from Vietnam and campaigned against the war.

Now, Yahoo! News reports that Larry Thurlow described Kerry's Bronze Star citation as "totally fabricated," saying "I never heard a shot." Now, I wonder if Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star is a fabrication. He says he misplaced the citation. Uh-huh. And I bet he was too lazy to write get another copy of that citation? The Washington Post just had to do a Freedom of Information Act request. They had it faxed to them. And for over 30 years he did not care that it said?

You should have done your homework before you started to bad mouth another veteran who was awarded the same exact medal as you for the same exact incident.
Larry, your credibility has been blown out of the water. Only this time John Kerry, and men like him, will not be there to save your ass.

Kerry & Bush Re: GLBT

I was curious about how the campaign sites of Kerry and Bush dealt with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trandgendered people. I entered "gay" then "lesbian" in the search boxes on the respective sites just to see what would come up. Lo and behold the Bush web site had exactly zero (0) hits. Kerry's website had 20, just for gay alone.

The Log Cabin Republicans, if they were smart would, realise that Bush is not the uniter he claimed to be in 2000. Bush caters to the religious right and has no information whatsoever for gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered Americans. He does not want to include GLBT Americans under the Republican tent.

Dennis Prager's Closet

Dennis Prager's most recent opinion has him spouting some real nonsensical statements:

On the assumption that having been married twice he has had sex with at least two women, and on numerous occasions, it is quite likely that he was able to perform sexually with them -- presumably in a way that did not arouse their suspicions.

How is this to be explained? Aren't we repeatedly told by gay spokesmen that a homosexual man can no more enjoy sex with a woman than a heterosexual man can enjoy sex with a man?

Dennis, sweety, it is called being in the closet. Governor McGreevey was deeply in the closet. I have several friends who were married to women, have children, and after several years of marriage come out to themselves, their spouses, and their children. They, like Governor McGreevey, were trying to live to the ideals that they were taught at home, at school, had seen in the movies, and read in books and magazines. Like Jim McGreevey, they realised that the life they were living was making them miserable. It was making their family's life miserable. So they decided to be true who they were and come out.

Granted, Governor McGreevey's story is much more complex than that. I do not know the whole story yet. I doubt anyone but James McGreevey does. Still, Dennis Prager is pulling shit out of his ass when he assumes because James McGreevey had two wives and children that he is bisexual. If that were the case, I'm sure he would have said, "I am a bisexual American."

Then Dennis Prager says stuff like:

Yes, society pressures men into marriage, and admittedly, some men, not only gays, should not marry.

Dennis, honey, I have said it numerous times: gays and lesbians deserver the same, equal rights to marriage as straight people. Thank goodness it is not up to you to decide who can and cannot get married.

Dennis, since you personally do not know what it is like to be gay, a person or colour, a woman, non-Christian, etc., all your statements are bullshit anyway. You have no idea what it is like to be ridiculed or looked down upon because you are a minority. I think that is because you have no empathy for others. You cannot put yourself into their shoes and imagine what life is like for them. And for that reason, you are a sad, sad man.

Ann Coulter's Skinniness

World O'Crap likes to occasionally write about Ann Coulter. sz used to write about Ann much, much, more, but Ann got to be boring. Ann said the same crap every week. One thing that struck me was in the interview Ann gave to a British site, Independent.co.uk, the remarked on her skinniness.

And where does she get her energy from? The painfully thin Ann toys with her salad, eating barely a quarter of it. Perhaps the vehemence of her passions keeps her going.

Or maybe it is something else. I know of a few casual acquaintances who dabble in recreational euphoric substances, namely crystal meth. I do not approve of it, therefore I do not hang around them much. Like Ann, they are painfully thin and have loads of energy. They can party all night long and into the next three days. They also get really short tempered when they are on meth. They can go on long rants about the tiniest things. They blow little things all out of proportion and act all paranoid. They accuse people of doing things that they did not do. The call people names.

Now I'm not saying Ann does crystal, but... Skinny, ranting, blowing things out of proportion, accusing people of doing things they did not do. It really makes me wonder.

Annie Jacobsen, Part V

I read Annie Jacobsen's paranoid, racist screed on Women's Wall Street. It was sent to be by a co-worker. I didn't even know she had written Parts 2 through 4. Now she just will not let the story drop, even after she was discredited by the air marshall that was on the flight. She has written part 5! Pandagon has a hilarious write up of Annie's latest "they have brown skin, sound Arabic, and do not act American, so they must be terrorists" series.

I wonder if "Billie Jo" is a real person or just a made up name so Annie can milk every last drop out of this story. It seriously is becoming a parody of itself. I just want to say to Annie, "Look. You are a paranoid, racist freak. You cannot deny you are - just look at the crap you wrote. The air marshall who was on the flight said everything was okay. The friggin' FBI checked out these 14 guys and let them do their gig at the casino. If 'Billie Jo' was so concerned, why did she not leave her name and contact information with the FBI? Oh, I know. You made her up. Lady, just drop it, already."

I suspect Annie will write one or two more of these "I am a white woman and I am afraid of those brown skinned people." Please, God, Allah, the Great Spirit, or whatever, make her stop!

West Texas Wackos

The Texas Department of Transportation (Texdot) wanted to depict Lubbock reputation for being Texas' windy city. So they commissioned an artist, Michael Ford, to come up with a sculpture. Michael Ford came up with something he called a "windy man." It looked like a face with puffed up cheeks blowing air. (See Jesus' General for pictures.)

Apparently not everyone in Lubbock was fond of the sculptures. So, someone, in his or her god-given wisdom, decided to smash the images. The LubbockOnline editorials had post after post claiming the "windy man" was a pagan image. It was just an image used to depict windiness. Oy! If people would have been sacrificing animals or small children to it, then yes, it would be a pagan image. Michael Ford even called it "windy man" and not "windy god."

The people of Lubbock who smashed the "windy man" remind me of the Taliban who smashed the Bamyan Buddhas. The Taliban smashed the Buddhas because they though it depicted a worship of Buddha. If they knew any Buddhist, they would know that we do not worship Buddha. We view him as an ideal - something we should all strive for. Instead of trying to understand and appreciate the art that the "windy man" was, someone (or several people) in Lubbock decided that it would be better to smash art than appreciate it.

In my mind, from reading the letters to the editor on LubbockOnline regarding the smashing of the "windy man" and the actual destruction of the "windy man," not much separates the writers and the destroyers form those in the Taliban who destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas. Both groups are intolerant of others and cannot simply let things be. They must act out what they in their unique, twisted logic deem is prudent. Last time I checked God did not go on vacation and leave either the Taliban or the religious nuts who smashed the "windy man" in charge. If God had wanted the art to be destroyed, I think he could have done it quite easily without the help of people.

Didn't They Try This Before?

If you do not succeed at a task, sometimes it is good to try gain. Other times, you just need to know when to walk away. Some people just do not know when to quit.

From Faux News, a California-based (!?) group, Christian Exodus, wants to move to South Carolina and so they can initiate their takeover of the state and have it secede from the rest of the Union.

I guess Christian Exodus did not read their history books. That was tried before in the early 1860's. The South lost and the United States is just that, united. Somehow, I do not thing they will succeed. Their organisation is too wingnutty to have any following beyond wierdos.

Can you imagine if every group in the US decided to move to an area to take it over and have it secede from the US? You might have California belonging to the gays. Parts of the South belonging to African-Americans. Parts of the plains states belonging to Native-Americans. Each group of people would try to carve up the country. It sounds stupid to me as I write this. I know the people in Christian Exodus think they are doing what they think is right, but if they would just stop and really, really think about what they want to do, they would see how stupid their plan actually is.

James McGreevey

I do not really care if James McGreevey is gay. That does not make one bit of difference to me. I do, however, care that he had an affair. I do not care that it was with a man.

I understand James McGreevey lived a conflicted life. He had to have an appearance of being "normal" because of the career path he chose. To appear "normal" he married - twice. He had children. Until recently, all outward appearances were that he lead a "normal" life. James McGreevey fell victim to what many fall victim to - infidelity. Republican or Democrat, gay or straight, black or white - it happens all too often.

If James McGreevey felt the need to be true to himself and his sexuality, he should not have cheated on his wife. He should have simply divorced her, paid alimony and/or child support (if his wife had custody of his children), and then lived his life the way he wanted to. Unfortunately for him, his wife, and his children he did not do that. His political career is, for all intents and purposes, over.

I wish the best for James McGreevey. I hope he and his wife can resolve this situation amicably. I would like to think this would not negatively impact his children, but that will not be the case. James McGreevey needs to move on with his life. He will have much support from the GLBT community.

The Numbers

According to a Washington Post article on MSNBC:

1.7 trillion - amount in dollars of the Bush tax cuts
1.1 million - number of fewer jobs now than the day Bush took office
7 million - number of jobs short of the level the White House had predicted when trying to sell the tax cuts
2.7 trillion - total deficits left by the Bush administration

I look at the numbers and see a ton of red ink. I think red ink = time for change. It worked for California; it will work for the US.

I Could Not Have Said it Better Myself

Go read this.

Need to Know

I know about two things when dealing with classified information - security clearance and "need-to-know." If your security clearance is too low for the information you want to look at, you cannot look at the information at that time. If you do not have a "need-to-know," you cannot look at that information at that time.

Regarding the outing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent, in my opinion, was wrong. The question Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor of the naming of the CIA agent, has to be asking is who had a "need-to-know" her name and occupation? Furthermore, did they have the clearance level to know it?

Only a few people in the Bush administration would have had both parts of the puzzle - security clearance and "need-to-know." The person or persons who then divulged information released information that could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

I cannot believe that the person or persons who divulged this information did not know what they were doing. Did they have the clearance to have that information and did they have the "need-to-know?" If they answer was yes, then they had to have known that her name should not have been released. What this person or persons then did was go to the press (six journalists in particular). One "journalist," Robert Novak, published her name.

I know for a fact Robert Novak and the other journalists have neither the clearance nor the "need-to-know" for that information. The person or persons who leaked her name to the journalists did so, I believe, to get back at Ambassador Joseph Wilson for writing an op-ed column in the New York Times and letting America know that the Niger information was false and based on forgery.

The journalists should have known better. In their zeal to get the scoop, they threw their brains out the window then printed and went on the air with Ambassador Wilson's wife's name. If they were true journalists, they would have researched whether her name could have been released. They would have found out that it was not. Then they would have had a real story on their hands - "Why is the Bush administration trying to out a CIA agent?" Alas, they were lazy.

I think the judge is right for threatening to fine the journalists $1000 per day and put them in jail until they name who outed Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. I also think the journalists are right for not naming names. I do hope this gets resolved and the person who divulged her name get sent to prison. If this had happened during Clinton's presidency, it would be all over the news 24/7. How fair and balanced is that?

Laura Bush

For the past three-plus years I have heard very little from Laura Bush. She may be a "behind-the-scenes" type of First Lady. On the other hand, she may be trying to emulate what some people believe - that a First Lady should be seen and not heard. That is what I heard time and time again in the press when Hillary Clinton was the First Lady.

Now Laura Bush decides to speak up about stem cell research. Here are Laura Bush's words of wisdom:

"We don't even know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything — much less that it's very close" [to yielding major advances.]

With all due respect, Laura, research into finding cures for various ailments and diseases takes time. We will never know if stem cells will provide any cures if we do not do the research. We do not know if it very close because the funding your husband, George, promised is practically nonexisent. Twenty-one out of the seventy-eight lines your husband approved are available. That is less than one third of the available lines. No wonder researchers are slow in finding cures for anything.

I do not know if stem cells will lead to a cure to any disease or not. I would rather have the stem cell lines and funding available to test the theories and hypotheses of researchers to their logical conclusion. If they find cures, wonderful! Those cures will save lives. If they do not, maybe knowledge will be gained in the process. Researchers are on a path. It may be a short path with an abrupt disappointing end. It may be a long path with a wonderful ending. Researchers will never reach the end of that path if they never start.

Abstinence and Texas

Abstinence education in Texas has worked wonders! No, really! It has made Texas number five in the Union in number of teenage pregnancies.

Now Texas wants to include such informational nuggets as "...a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence.

Please! It has been a while since I've been a teen. Although I was abstinent during high school, it was not for lack of trying. Try being a gay teen in Nebraska in the late '80/early 90's. It was tough to find others like me. Anyway...

Not teaching children about other forms of birth control is totally irresponsible. I know that no for of birth control is 100% effective. The pill, condoms, and other birth control measures will fail for a variety of reasons. However, abstinence, when it fails, it fails big time. With the pill, depo provera, and other hormones, when taken properly, do a pretty good job at preventing unwanted pregnancy (oops babies). When coupled with condoms or other contraceptives, they can decrease unwanted pregnancies (and in turn, the number of abortions) even more.

Condoms can help prevent many sexually transmitted diseases. While it is true that they are not 100% effective, it is better than no method at all. When used properly, condoms are about 76 percent effective when used to prevent unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand, abstinence is about 15% effective. If I was a betting man, I'd use a condom to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Texas is doing a great disservice to its children by not informing them of all their options available. I agree that when abstinence is observed, it is 100% effective. However, peer pressure, teen urges, and other factors all lead to teens breaking their abstinence. When they do, I think they should be educated and informed so they will not catch a sexually transmitted disease that may stay with them for life or face an unwanted pregnancy. I personally would advocate an "abstinence plus" concept. Tell teens they should wait for sex. If they cannot, then tell them what to do when the time comes (no pun intended).

Swiftboat Whores for Lying

From now on, I will refer to the group "Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth" as the "Swiftboat Whores for Lying." Why? Because they are just that. People like them who sell their services to the highest bidder are whores.

None of the men in the advert I heard ever served directly with John Kerry. They were all on other boats at least 50 yards away. Fifty yards is a pretty good distance away, in my book.

Three people who were actually on the boat John Kerry was on - Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat - all say "Swiftboat Whores for Lying" did not tell the truth about the events that lead to John Kerry getting the Silver Star and Purple Heart.

Who would you trust? People who were actually there or people who were at least 50 yards away?

I would trust the people who were there. Although I have never been in combat, I have been in hectic, stressful situations like a car accident. I cannot remember with clarity all the events that took place during those stressful events. I highly doubt that with bullets flying, fellow sailors getting wounded, and the like the "Swiftboat Whores for Lying" would be able to recall the events as well. Add to that 30 years of time and memories fade. I sometimes cannot remember what happened last week, let along 5, 10, or 15 years ago with crystal clarity, and I have a good memory. I doubt the "Swiftboat Whores for Lying" are able to recall what happened 30 years ago accurately.

"Swiftboat Whores for Lying" is a smear group that is being funded and used in large part by Republican operatives. These same types of people smeared John McCain in South Carolina. They will stop at nothing to lie and distort someone's record to that their favoured candidate (George W. Bush) can get elected. The bonus for Bush is that he can semi-truthfully say that he has nothing to do with this group. Do not be believe that fallacy. The Bushies know exactly what is going on.

Scrabble Scramle

Every once in a while on Wednesday evenings, my friends and I gather at a local coffee house and play Scrabble. When we play, if the word is in the Scrabble dictionary, it is a usable word. It does not matter if the word is clean or not. I cannot tell you how many times we have had words like "bitch," "fuck," or other similar "bad" words.

I understand when you are televising events, sometimes unforeseen things happen. Some things are, according to the FCC, not appropriate. According to Yahoo! News, an event like that recently happened concerning the word "lez," which is slang for lesbian. The player who put down the word, Trey Wright, caused a bit of a stir.

I think the whole controversy is stupid. A word is only "bad" if you say it is. If you refuse to give "bad" words power, then they will be simply words. That is how my friends ad I play Scrabble at the coffee house. That is how it should be played, even on ESPN. If ESPN is so worried about getting fined by the FCC, they can blur out the tiles and bleep out the word. However, that would cause controversy as well because then viewer would be suspicious of the word and if it was actually allowed or if the game was rigged.

Show Me...

A good chunk of my immediate family lives in Missouri. My parents voted in the primary elections on 3 August. Since I live in Texas, I do not know that much about Missouri politics. The one amendment, Amendment 2, to the Missouri Constitution I hoped would not pass did.

Here is the text of the amendment:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman?

It is ashamed that the 70 percent of voter are so bigoted that they will enshrine discrimination into the Missouri Constitution. And my mom wonders why I do not want to move up there.

Since I do not live in Missouri, I do not know the adverts that were aired to get this discriminatory amendment passed. They probably played on people's fears. The only thing I want, and that many other gays and lesbians want, is to be treated fairly and equally, just like every one else.

Friends Moving Away...

One of my good friends, jadash, took his LSAT and passed with flying colours. I had no doubt he would. He is a super-smart guy. He's funny, too. He has quite a number of good qualities that makes his moving away bittersweet. Part of me would like him to stay in SA (for selfish reasons), but I know law school will be a good experience for him. I know he has mixed feelings about moving, too. I have no doubt in my mind that he will go to law school and do well and make good friends while he is at law school. He best not forget about the ones he's left behind, though. If he does, I will be there and say, "Moo!"

For his going away, I got him quite a bit of stuff that I hope he finds useful. In the group of friends I hang out with, I tend to get the thoughtful, useful gifts. It is mostly because I would rather have my friends have something they can use for a long time rather than something that will go in a box and get put on a shelf.

I can deal with friends moving away. It is tough every time, but since I was a military brat, I have gotten used to it. I hope we will be in touch. He did say that I did have a sofa I could use to crash on if I did go out to visit him.

Everything Old is New Again!

I have been reading on CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, and all of them have been saying that the intelligence that sparked the alert dates back to 2000 and 2001. 2000 and 2001!? Wow! This administration is really on the ball! It sometimes makes me wonder about the timing of the terror alerts. I wonder if someone has a chart documenting the release of the terror alerts and news that would be detrimental to the Bush administration. It seems to me to be entirely too coincidental that these warnings come out just at the same time The Democrats are ratcheting up their campaign.

I remember when Clinton was in office the press, Fox "News" and CNN, would charge that President Clinton would launch missiles to deflect attention from Monica and the impeachment trial.

I think turnabout is fair play. If, as Eschaton showed on his site, Judy Woodruff can claim in 1998 that launching the missiles was a "wag-the-dog" event, then why can she not say that now? She has to be more intelligent than that, right? Maybe I am giving her too much credit. Maybe she is one of the many media whores (and that term applies equally to males as it does females) who do the bidding of the almighty dollar.

Journalists who do not do their job and investigate stories and report on them in an unbiased way should stop calling themselves journalists. If they do not want to, they should at least have to say a disclaimer before they speak. "Hi, I'm Judy Woodruff. I'm a conservative media whore. Everything that comes out of my mouth has a conservative slant." The same could apply to liberal media whores.

In any case, I agree with Howard Dean. All these announcements seem entirely way too coincidental to be anything but planned to distract the American public. Pretty soon the American public will grow weary and ignore the warnings. That is the time I fear most, because that is when terrorists will strike.

Cuba

This weekend I watched a program on Cuba and Elian Gonzales on NBC. I was not too interested in the Elian Gonzales part of the program because I think that story was beat to death four years ago. That, and I was with my significant other and we had that on as background while we did other things.

I was more concerned with the new policy the Bush administration put in place to limit the number of visits to Cuba by Cuban-Americans. The Bush administration also limited who it considered family member - mother, father, siblings, and not too much more. One man they interviewed said this would be his last trip to see his aunt, his last surviving direct relatives still living in Cuba, until the policy would be changed. I find that to be totally outrageous. Why does America, a supposedly democratic country, limit where, when, and what Americans can do when they travel? We do not limit travel to Vietnam or China, as far as I know. And as far as I know, we do not restrict who you can see when you go to Vietnam or China.

I think the reason Bush still has sanctions in place against Cuba, still restricts who people can see in Cuba, and still treats Cuba as a pariah is because he cannot see that change is not brought on by isolation. Change is brought on by promotion of free trade, by promotion of tourism, by promotion of travel and commerce. Once people see the goods, services, and items offered by the US, they will want them. If Castro's regime refuses to give them what they want, Cuba will undergo another revolution. Hopefully it will be a velvet revolution.

I think it is simply wring to limit who Cuban-Americans can visit when they go to Cuba and how often they go. If I were Cuban-American, I would be totally upset that I could now visit my father or mother only once every three years instead of once every year. I think Bush is stretching out the suffering of the separation of Cuban-Americans from their families in Cuba for as long as is politically necessary. He will say, "This is against Castro, not you." That may well be, but the fact of the matter is that it affects many more people other than Castro.

Again, I say if Bush were to be as compassionate as he claims to be, he would seriously rethink his policies. I would smother the Cubans with kindness. I would allow the exchange of cultures. I would help rebuild Cuba to make it a jewel in the Caribbean. I think once that would happen, any Communist regime would quickly fall. All rhetoric the regime would use would be empty and powerless because my actions would speak much louder than their words.

Laci, Jon Benet, Lori...

I have noticed that the "news" is not really focused on news. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and all the others focus on ratings-grabbers. It is not a shock to me. They are a business. They need to bring in revenue. What brings in more revenue, boring facts and figures or who killed the pretty white (or white-looking) woman (or girl, in the case Jon Benet Ramsey)?

The answer, from what I have been seeing week in and week out, is the latter. I think the reason Americans do not know what is going on in the world is because of a viscous cycle that has started. The news shows attractive white female who was killed and the intrigue over her death. They public talks about how terrible the crime was and tunes in to see who the killer is. The news shows see this brings in the ratings and money, so they show more stuff like it. It is almost like a perpetual motion machine. Alas, like in the real world, perpetual motion machines do not exist. Eventually, people will tire of the dead white females and the "news" will move on.

I wish the news would be even-handed when focusing on the sensational. Plenty of people of colour are abducted, killed, hurt every day, yet we do not hear their stories. We do not hear their plight. Some "news" agencies claim to be "Fair and Balanced. I know that is a crock.

The news needs to stop focusing on the sensational and report things that will affect Americans not only now, but in the future. They need to focus on how the gutting of environmental regulations will hurt our children and grandchildren. They need to focus on how each party (Republican, Democrat, Green, etc.) can help or hurt the country.

I am not going to delude myself, though. The "news" will continue to hype dead or kidnapped attractive, white females because they bring in the ratings.