Sorry this one's a little late in the day, but I didn't want to bury it under my earlier ramblefests.
DemiOrator, whose author, WordLackey, generously graces this blog regularly with his presence in the comments threads. His blog is terrific, and one of the best-kept secrets in the blogosphere. (Though not for long, I hope.)
Blog of the Moderate Left, authored by another Shaker, Jeff Fecke. Jeff and I don’t always agree on everything, which makes his blog a nice complement to this one.
Poverty Barn, which is full of good stuff, and deserves a space on the old blogroll for its clever name alone.
Slack LaLane, the baby of Ace Cowboy, who mixes sports and politics, which is something I might consider, if the Cubs ever get their shit together. Always a nice stop for a dose of snark, too.
And finally…she’s hip, she’s sassy, she’s DC Media Girl. Go say hi.
Friday Blogrollin'
Confession time...
I'm a gay man, and I hate the Pride Parade.
No, really. I can't stand going. When I first came out, I was very enthusiastic about participating in the parade... I was the organizer of the float when my company participated... I really got a feeling of empowerment, of acceptance, of progress, of community.
All of that changed after a few years, though. Why? I have a few reasons:
1. Lack of Purpose: Back when I first started participating, I felt a sense of purpose in marching. We were still a very much maligned and persecuted community. Hitting the streets was a means of protest, of demand for equality. Seeing PFLAG marching made me realize that not all parents hate their gay children. Seeing all of the organizations gave me a sense of community. I really felt a sense of accomplishment after the parade.
Now? It's a tea dance on floats. Sure, we still have PFLAG marching, we still have the Dykes on Bikes, we still have the organizations and political leaders. But groups with "purpose" are in the minority now. And let's face it, everyone's there to see the boys in their underwear on the Altoids float. There was also flesh when I first started attending the parade, but now it has become the main focus. Get in your y-fronts and shake it for the crowd.
2. Feeling of Exclusion from "The Community:" I'm not a perfect-bodied, gorgeous gym queen. When I see all the hot boys at the parade, I feel ugly, fat, and shoved aside. Getting older doesn't help, either. I really get a feeling of "ugly and old need not apply." Again, this is just me; it's not intended, but it does make me feel unwelcome.
3. Commercialization: It's very liberal "no logo" of me, but when I see floats for Budweiser, Altoids, and a million other advertisers, I get angry. Especially when I know the company doesn't support gay rights in their actions, but they're more than happy to take our money.
Anyway. Call me cranky, but I just can't get enthusiastic about the Pride Parade anymore.
But lately, I'm wondering....
Bush wins the election, and a large part of the reason is homophobia. There's the recent Microsoft nonsense, and things like the Texas Gay Foster Parents Ban. (Go read Francesca for more.) The new Pope hasn't even had time to wrinkle his new robes yet, and he's already railing against gays. States are rushing to change their constitutions to discriminate.
It's okay again to hate faggots, and the bigots aren't being shy about it.
So... my fellow GLBT-ers.... (and friends)
Are we going to take our most powerful public forum and begin using it again? Are we going to take to the streets, and demand equality? Are we going to say we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore?
Or are we going to strip down and show off our sixpack?
Call me a grumpy old man, but it's time to once again get deadly serious.
(cross-posted from my blog)
Question of the Day: Choices
Imagine you are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you find yourself in the wake of a major hurricane, surrounded by chaos, flooding, collapsing buildings, people screaming…utter madness, total disaster. Nature has revealed the depths of her power in a furious, tragic rage. Your job is to capture the event on film.
You see a man in the swirling water, fighting for his life, trying not to be swept under, and as you move toward him, you realize it’s President Bush. The raging water threatens to pull him under, and you realize he will drown if you don’t do something quickly. You can save him, or…you can take the most dramatic photos of your life, documenting the death of the world’s most powerful man, sure to win you accolades, perhaps even a Pulitzer, catapulting you into a stage of your career about which you have only dreamed.
So here’s the question:
Would you select color film, or go with the classic simplicity of black and white?
(Shamelessly stolen from Paul, because it made me laugh.)
Twats of the Day
1. Senator Joe Lieberman
Anytime there’s a “Twats of the Day,” you know Joe Liebertwat is going to be first on my list. Unsurprisingly, he was a twat ten years ago, when he was for eradicating the filibuster, just like he’s a twat now.
"I was concerned the system was being used by the minority to frustrate legislative accomplishments," he said, noting that he wanted to reform the entire system and end filibusters against legislation as well as judges. Had he succeeded, he contended, it would not have helped the Democrats.Whatever. The real twattiness about which I’m irritated today is that Liebertwat thinks he might still vote for Bolton.
He was concerned that legislation was being bottled up. Since then, Lieberman pointed out, the Senate has become more polarized along partisan lines, and the role of the minority has arguably become even more crucial. It is now, he said, one of the only ways to get Congress to work in a bipartisan way.
"Circumstances changed," he said, "and my opinion about supermajorities changed."
"I'm still a potential vote" for President Bush's nominee for United Nations ambassador, Lieberman, D-Conn., said Wednesday.Yeesh. I still can’t believe this guy was the Dems’ VP nominee at one point. How embarrassing.
[…]
The two have spoken recently and Lieberman, who has generally supported the White House's policies against terrorists, found "he's going to the U.N. not to destroy it, but to reform it."
On the other hand, the senator said, "I'm troubled by what seems to be a repeated record of difficulty by people working with him and for him."
The committee delayed a Tuesday vote on Bolton after new allegations surfaced, notably a report that he threatened a female government contractor.
Lieberman said he wants to study the situation further. "I have not reached any conclusions," he said.
2. Rep. John Graham Altman
Our next twat of the day is South Carolina Rep. John Graham Altman, who killed a bill that would have protected the victims of domestic abuse against their batterers and raised a domestic battery charge in SC to a felony from a misdemeanor. (Yes, that’s correct—domestic battery is still considered a misdemeanor in SC.) Altman explained:
“I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them… tell me what self respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?”Probably not many, but that’s the problem with being a victim of sustained abuse—self-respect ain’t that easy to come by.
Altman did, however, find it in his heart to protect gamecocks from cockfights the same week he killed the domestic abuse bill.
“I was all for that. Cockfighting reminds me of the Roman circus, coliseum.”Give the man props for consistency. Either way, if you’re a cock, he’s got your back.
3. Senator Rick Santorum
Our third twat of the day is none other than Rick Santorum, the handsome heterosexual lunatic currently serving as Republican Senator for the proud state of Pennsylvania. I know he’s been up to a lot lately, what with comparing gays to bestialists and trying to eradicate the filibuster, but this time, his twatitude is more in the Tom DeLay-bought-by-corporate-interests kind of area. After having received nearly $4,000 from AccuWeather’s founder and executive VP, Santorum last week introduced a bill proposing that federal meteorologists be banned from competing from companies such as (ta-dum!) AccuWeather and the Weather Channel!
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced the bill last week. The senator's supporters (among them the founder and executive vice president of AccuWeather) note the bill provides an exemption that would allow organizations the National Hurricane Center from alerting the public to hazards.Um, yeah. They also do things like help warn people about hurricanes and tornados, which are, in case the federal government has forgotten, not just convenient tragedies for funneling federal money to swing states.
"The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property," said Barry Myers, the Executive Vice President of AccuWeather told the Palm Beach Post Thursday. "It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'"
A spokesman for Florida's Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson was taken aback by Santorum's bill, questioning the intelligence of a bill that the senator believes might be dangerous in the wake of several hurricanes.In other words, just another privatization scheme bought and paid for by the private enterprises who most stand to benefit from it.
"The weather service proved so instrumental and popular and helpful in the wake of the hurricanes," Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin told the Post. "How can you make an argument that we should pull it off the Net now? What are you going to do, charge hurricane victims to go online, or give them a pop-up ad?"
In a release Apr. 14, Santorum said the bill was sorely needed.
“With the support of my colleagues, we can pass this legislation to modernize the description of the National Weather Service’s roles within the national weather enterprise, so that it reflects today’s reality in which the National Weather Service and the commercial weather industry both play important parts in providing weather products and services to the nation,” Santorum said.
4. Former Texas TV News Anchor John Criswell
This guy is just off the charts:
Tuesday's Volunteer Center of Collin County lunch was not the appropriate place for former longtime local TV news anchor John Criswell to make statements about personal religious beliefs, the center's executive director said.Okay, Nutty.
[…]
"I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, every word of it," Criswell told almost 600 attendees.. "Like many other evangelical Christians, I understand that my only purpose on earth...the only reason I take up space and breathe in air...is to add to God's Kingdom, and when that purpose has been completed. I know where I will be for eternity."
[…]
Criswell's speech also linked the news media to Satan.
Until the media stops portraying people of faith as "crackpots and dangerous zealots no different from fanatics who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center...the fight is not over," he said.
Referring to an earlier linguistic comment that listeners infer, but speakers imply, he added, "Did I just infer that some in the media in America are acting as the tools of Satan? No. Remember, you infer, I imply," he said.
Gee, I can’t imagine why anyone would assume he’s a crackpot, or a zealot, or a fanatic. Someone who takes an opportunity to address a crowd, there to hear about a Volunteer Center, about how the media is a tool of the devil is perfectly reasonable and totally not crackpottish, zealous, or fanatical. Ahem.
This ends our examination of twattery for today. I could go on (and on and on), but there’s only so much time in a day.
In Other Rightwing Religious News…
Pope Ratz has condemned Spain’s decision to legalize gay marriage and adoption.
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.That certainly sets the tone, doesn’t it?
The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.
A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.
Next, Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox has 22 questions for Pope Ratz. It’s a thought-provoking list, but perhaps the most interesting, in light of the previous story is:
2. If you denounced Hitler why do you support today the Spanish priest Escriva who admired him publicly and why did you rush Escriva, founder of the opus dei movement, into canonization thus leaving the impression that fascism is a path to holiness?In case you’ve not heard, by the way, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a member of Opus Dei.
And finally, Charles Cutter traces the origins of the legitimization of “God-based hate groups” back to Ronald Reagan:
Deb Comer, an American living in the United Kingdom, writes to ask: "What is happening to our country? Why do so many people appear to be part of God-based hate groups?"Read the rest. It’s really good.
To answer her question, it’s necessary to understand the fundamental goal of the fundamentalist Christians: To deny basic human rights to segments of society they deem unworthy in their god’s eyes. They believe that Americans should reject the Constitutional concept of equality in favor of their religious caste system. They seek to legally stigmatize all non-fundamentalist Christians.
Historically, Christianity has been used to justify such atrocities as the genocide of Native Americans and the institution of slavery; current favorite targets include women, gays, atheists, and pro-choice supporters.
In recent years, however, it seems that religion - as a political tool used to solidify voting blocs and foment divisiveness - has become both common and acceptable.
Ready to Rumble
Normally, I don’t do this, but because this is an important issue, as it very well could be indicative of a very unsettling sea change, and because John Aravosis covers so many important issues here, including explaining what Microsoft’s role in similar situations has been in the past, I’m going to repost one of his posts in its entirety (his emphasis throughout). Some additional comments of my own follow at the end.
Microsoft caught lying to New York Times about abandoning gays
by John in DC - 4/22/2005 12:27:00 AM
What a bunch of pigs.
Here I am getting all sorts of tips that this was all a big misunderstanding and that Microsoft would issue some wonderful statement shortly, and then I look at tomorrow's New York Times, and what do I read? One big fat lie after another.
Per the NYT:
Microsoft officials said that the meetings with the [anti-gay religious right] minister did not persuade them to back away from supporting the bill, but that they had already decided to take a "neutral" position on it. They said they examined their legislative priorities and decided that because they already offer extensive benefits to gay employees and that King County, where Microsoft is based, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with a law as stringent as what the state bill proposed, they were focusing on other legislative matters.Excuse me? Well if that's your rationale, that you don't need to support gay rights legislation when your employees are already covered by your own company policy, then why did you support the state legislation LAST YEAR when your employees were ALREADY covered by your company policy back then? Or were you wrong all these years to support gay civil rights legislation?
And why do you NOW support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would protect gays nationwide from on-the-job discrimination, since your employees are already protected from anti-gay discrimination by your own company policy? Are you planning to pull your support from ENDA now too? Or are you going to stay on ENDA and prove that you just lied to the New York Times about not supporting civil rights bills when your employees are already covered?
And you got an award from the LA Gay & Lesbian Center a few years back for, among other things, fighting anti-gay ballot initiatives. Well, call me crazy, but those initiatives wouldn't have revoked any job protections YOUR employees get since your own company policy already covers them. So are you going to pull your opposition to the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the future too? And if so, when we do get our award back?
And by the way, what does the fact that your county has a gay rights law have to do with anything? Your employees are covered by your company policy regardless of the county law, so why does that factor into your opinion on the state law? Your response is simply bizarre.
There's more:
"Our government affairs team made a decision before this legislative session that we would focus our energy on a limited number of issues that are directly related to our business," said Mark Murray, a company spokesman. "That decision was not influenced by external factors. It was driven by our desire to focus on a smaller number of issues in this short legislative session. We obviously have not done a very good job of communicating about this issue."Yes, well we're disappointed that you just confirmed what we've been saying for the past 24 hours. You used to support the gay rights legislation and now you don't. Spin that, Sherlock. And you're admitting that this is part of a larger change in strategy by which Microsoft will focus more closely on what matters. And clearly, we are not what matters any longer.
Mr. Murray added that company officials had met twice with Dr. Hutcherson but that it was "long after our decision to focus on a tighter legislative agenda."
”We're disappointed that people are misinterpreting those meetings," he said.
Then State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and sponsor of the bill, catches Microsoft in a bold-faced lie:
But Representative Murray said that in a conversation last month with Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, Mr. Smith had made it clear to him that the company was under pressure from the church and the pastor and that he was also concerned about the reaction to company support of the bill among its Christian employees, the lawmaker said.Excuse me? The reaction from the "Christian" employees? What kind of bigoted comment is that? Newsflash, Microsoft: The religious right doesn't represent all Christians, thank you very much. Speaking as a Christian myself, lots of your "Christian" employees are surely pro-gay and support the bill, and even some of those "Christians" are actually gay themselves. It is unbelievable this man has these Neanderthal views on religion and sexual orientation and he's the freakin' general counsel of Microsoft?
And more:
Mr. Smith [the general counsel] would not comment for this article.Oh really? Then I assume Microsoft is equally sensitive to its evangelical employees who believe that their Jewish employees killed Christ. Then there are those employees who hate blacks, of all the thousands of employees you must have a few - does Microsoft make policy decisions based on the opinions of employees who feel differently about "Negroes"? Or does Microsoft now have a double standard on prejudice? Jews and blacks good - gays, not so much, or at least open to debate.
Mr. Murray [the good gay state rep.] said that in a recent conversation with Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith said that the minister had demanded the company fire Microsoft employees who testified this year on behalf of the bill, but that Mr. Smith had refused. Mr. Smith also said, according to Mr. Murray, that the minister had threatened to boycott the company if it did not withdraw its support for the bill and that the company was going to take a "neutral" position on the bill this year.
According to Mr. Murray, Mr. Smith said "that while he did not do the many things that the minister had requested, including firing employees who had testified for the bill, he believed that Microsoft could not just respond to one group of employees, when there were other groups of employees who felt much different."
And, last time I checked, the evangelical employees have federal civil rights protections based on religion, so in fact, the two groups are not equal - unless Microsoft now plans on coming down as "neutral" on the freedom of religion? That should be fun.
Here's more from the state rep:
"My refrain back to him was that this is a historic moment, that I only had a few weeks and I wanted Microsoft to do the right thing, to support an issue of justice, an issue of justice of concern to the huge number of his employees who happen to be lesbian and gay," Mr. Murray said. "Their concern, he said, was that obviously they were hearing from fairly conservative employees who were connected to this minister. They needed to sort out how they were going to deal with those problems."Yep, Microsoft lied. And continues to lie to spin and spin and spin this story rather than come clean and admit it. They screwed us, and it wasn't a mistake. It was a corporate decision reached at the highest levels and they stand by it. They threw us to the radical right dogs and now are risking every other company in America withdrawing its support for our civil rights legislation as well.
Mr. Murray said the company's contention that the decision not to support the bill had nothing to do with the Christian church was "an absolute lie."
A Microsoft employee who said he attended a meeting this month with Mr. Smith and about 30 employees, most of them gay, said that Mr. Smith discussed his meetings with Dr. Hutcherson and left the impression that the company was changing its policy on the bill as a result of those meetings.
"Brad was very clear that the decision to be neutral on the bill was made subsequent to his meeting with Ken Hutcherson," said the employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the company. "My gut feeling is that the pastor and his threat of a boycott and the general sensitivity around this issue was a factor in this decision."
He added, "At the meeting, what Brad told us was that Microsoft made its decision on the bill between the first and second meetings he had with Hutcherson."
Thanks for nothing, Microsoft.
EPILOGUE
Gang, this is a big deal. There is no other way to cut it than Microsoft has decided to back off of its previously staunch defense of gay rights. NO other way to cut it.
Sure, they've been great on gay stuff in the past, and they're now signaling that those days are over. They're more concerned now with focusing on their business. Well what we're they doing before? Supporting gays just for the hell of it?
And the bigger impact, which remains to be seen, is whether Microsoft now chucks us overboard at the national level and if other companies start to follow suit, following the corporate leader, as it were.
Microsoft should be ashamed of itself. And we should consider this a warning. It is no longer safe in America to be gay - or liberal for that matter. We've taken our rights for granted. And now they're being taken away, and our friends are being taken away by an ever-growing climate of hostility fed by an extremist administration and their Sieg Heil friends in America's Taliban.
It's time we started fighting back, and fighting back hard. It's time we took the gloves off and stopped playing nice. You're either with us or you're against us, as our enemies like to say.
Microsoft has chosen its side.
Have you?
Yep. And it isn’t Microsoft I’ve got my sites set on. I’ve got bigger fish to fry. And I’m done dancing around. I’m calling it like I see it: There’s an entire network of sick fucks who want to legislate the oppression of gays and women under the guise of religion. They’ve hijacked the term “Christian” for their own, because it makes it harder to attack them, but there’s nothing Christian about what they’re doing, and there’s nothing American about what they’re doing, either. They stand under the cross and wrap themselves in the flag, and then they look at people like me and tell me I shouldn’t have control over my body or whether I procreate, and they look at people like Mr. Furious and tell him he shouldn’t have equal rights. I know plenty of Christians and plenty of patriots who disagree.
It’s on, motherfuckers.
Interesting....
(NOTE: This is cross-posted from my blog. The important aspect of it is the update; the rest of it is just me being snotty. But I suggest you go over to Bob's blog and read his post.)
See how adults play politics?
I'm sure dear leader will follow suit... after all, his little skirmish was a tad illegal as well..
Watch me hold my breath.
UPDATE: Trust me guys, it ain't comin'. I suggest you don't hold yours either.
Via Bob Harris.
Fame or Something Like It
The Hollywood Walk of Fame is really going downhill:
The host of "American Idol" has become an idol himself.At least megabitch extraordinaire Simon still has some sense. Of course, the best comment has to be from Seacrest himself:
Ryan Seacrest was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame Wednesday in a ceremony attended by his Fox TV colleagues, "Idol" judges Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson and Simon Cowell.
"Listen, Simon," Jackson said to Cowell during their ceremonial speech. "What would we say about this day?"
"Ill-deserved," the famously grumpy Cowell replied, dryly. "I cannot believe that April the 20th is going to be Ryan Seacrest Day. I am officially taking this day off my diary."
After the ceremony Seacrest told AP Television News, "I actually thought it was a joke when I heard that they were going to do this."Join the club, buddy.
“You messed with the wrong faggots.”
In case you haven’t heard, the gay rights bill lost in the Washington state Senate today by a one-vote margin, 24-25, and Microsoft, which has been a civil rights supporter for years, stayed silent while equality for gays and lesbians was voted down. John Aravosis is not happy:
Dear Microsoft,John is an astute and motivated activist; these aren’t empty words. If anyone can bring any kind of significant challenge to Microsoft’s admittedly formidable doorstep, it’s him.
You messed with the wrong faggots.
You thought you were avoiding a religious right boycott by suddenly going anti-gay. And you may have thought "hell, the evangelicals boycott us, the gays boycott us - we've got to choose one, and the evangelicals are in power, so let's screw the gays."
But here's something you didn't count on. You messed with the wrong faggots.
We have no intent of launching a boycott. Boycotts are hard to enforce, especially when dealing with a monopoly. And in any case, we're smarter than that. We're the country's top lobbyists, and grassroots activists, and lawyers, and politicos, and bloggers working in both Washingtons (state and DC).
When we fuck back, we don't launch boycotts. When we fuck back, we go for the jugular.
Changing the subject, we understand congratulations is in order. You're planning a 2.2 million square foot expansion of the Microsoft campus in Redmond over the next ten to twenty years. The expansion, we hear, would allow you to hire 10,000 to 20,000 new employees.
Well bully for you. You must be quite excited about that.
We also hear that you're going to need a lot of help - a LOT of help - from the state legislature and the Redmond city council to actually make that expansion work, for highway and road improvements and the like, and that not everybody is real happy about it.
Well, wouldn't it be funny if some really smart faggots decided to use their political expertise to kill any possibility of you getting the legislation and city council approval you need to make that expansion happen? And wouldn't it be even funnier if those same faggots went to your competitors and asked them to finance the entire campaign to kill your expansion?
It'd be pretty hard to hire those extra employees without your expansion, wouldn't it? I'm not saying anyone is going to do that to you. I'm just saying it would be really funny.
Best of luck to you with the legislative session over the next 24 hours.
Yours truly,
One of the faggots you just screwed
Good luck, John. We’ve got your back.
Good News in Connecticut
Connecticut has approved civil unions. Pam’s got the lowdown here.
The compromise was that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman, but the civil unions would give same-sex couples all of the rights afforded married couples under state law.
Equal rights and protections is what it’s all about. My marriage is essentially a civil union, as we just headed down to City Hall to get legally hitched, without any religious marriage ceremony. If gays and lesbians were afforded the same opportunity, with each church left to determine for itself whether it wants to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, there would be no debate.
It’s not like gays and lesbians and their supporters are asking the church to change its laws. Heck, no one’s bitching about the fact that the Catholic Church wouldn’t marry Mr. Shakes and me; after all, we’re not Catholic. It’s the same principle. The church has its rules, and the state’s rules should be separate. Sometimes I wonder what the hell we’re arguing about; it just seems so simple.
Got Gas?
I have a chronic case of indigestion, in no small part because of how much it’s costing me to fill up my damn car these days:
President Bush lamented the soaring cost of gasoline Wednesday but said he doesn't have a "magic wand" to make high prices disappear.In other words, it's Clinton's fault!
Speaking to members of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Bush suggested that he's powerless to stop price increases that pushed the average price of gasoline to a record $2.28 a gallon last week. Rising gas costs have taken a toll on consumer confidence and Bush's standing in public opinion polls.
"Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices," Bush said. "I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow; I'd do that. Unfortunately, higher gas prices are a problem that has been years in the making."
And I thought the President did have a magic wand by the name of Bandar Bush. Huh. Guess not.
Bush experienced the political impact firsthand during a trip last week to Fort Hood, Texas, where a soldier urged him to take action on high gas prices. Bush said the soldier asked him, "Why don't you lower gasoline prices, Mr. President?"Aww. Well, it’s sweet of him to care.
"I wish I could," Bush said he replied.
Enough of this stuff, Spuds... let's really get to work!
Greetings and salutations, Shakers! Shakespeare's Sister has kindly extended her hand to this lowly groundling and asked me to join the family. I am eternally not worthy.
I will post here occasionally, but most of my posts you can still find on my blog, The Adventures of the Smart Patrol. Most of what I post here will be things that I feel are relevant to the usual discussion that goes on.
I promise to brush up on my grammar skills.
In the meantime, I'd like to direct you kind folks over to a post I wrote yesterday that I rather liked. I must say that I'm surprised I didn't see similar posts on other blogs. Woo-hoo, I'm unique!
Again, thanks to the Shakespear's Sister family, Shakes herself, and all you little spuds.
Duty Now for the Future!
I Think God Got a Blackberry
Really busy today. Will try to get some good stuff up later. In the meantime…
No, I have not utilized this service:
Got a prayer or a problem for the new pope? Now you can e-mail him. Showing that Pope Benedict XVI intends to follow in the footsteps of John Paul II's multimedia ministry, the Vatican on Thursday modified its Web site so that users who click on an icon on the home page automatically activate an e-mail composer with his address.This, for some reason, reminds me of a funeral attended by a friend of my mom’s, at which was on display a large spray of flowers supporting in its center a pink, plastic princess phone, the handset off the hook. Above the phone was a banner that read in gold script: Jesus Called.
In English, the address is benedictxvi@vatican.va. In Italian: benedettoxvi@vatican.va.
Onward, Christian Cadets
This is the story that has lots of people talking:
Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.As I noted earlier today, I don’t have an intrinsic hatred for religion. What I have is a pretty stringent policy of intolerance once people start using religion (or anything else) as a justification for restricting the rights of others, which includes the right to be free from harassment and prejudice, and a shield against criticism. We’ve come to a point in this country where if someone can be described as “religious,” it is automatically presumed to mean “ethical.” This story is indicative of why such uncritical associations are fallacious.
There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.
[…]
More than 90 percent of the cadets identify themselves as Christian. A cadet survey in 2003 found that half had heard religious slurs and jokes, and that many non-Christians believed Christians get special treatment.
Critics of the academy say the sometimes-public endorsement of Christianity by high-ranking staff has contributed to a climate of fear and violates the constitutional separation of church and state at a taxpayer-supported school whose mission is to produce Air Force leaders.A filthy Jew?! Fucking hell. Like that “filthy Jew” Jesus Christ?
They also say academy leaders are desperate to avoid the sort of uproar that came with the 2003 scandal in which dozens of women said their complaints of sexual assault were ignored.
"They are deliberately trivializing the problem so that we don't have another situation the magnitude of the sex assault scandal. It is inextricably intertwined in every aspect of the academy," said Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, N.M., a 1977 graduate who has sent two sons to the school. He said the younger, Curtis, has been called a "filthy Jew" many times.
How is such behavior remotely defensible? There is nothing, nothing, in Christian doctrine that advocates such behavior.
[Lt. Gen. John Rosa] himself intervened when Christian cadets began promoting "The Passion," Mel Gibson's movie about the crucifixion of Christ. He told cadets they should not use government e-mail or other facilities to promote their personal agendas.Incorrect. People would have to be acting like Christians for that to happen.
Two of the nation's most influential evangelical Christian groups, Focus on the Family and New Life Church, are headquartered in nearby Colorado Springs. Tom Minnery, an official at Focus on the Family, disputed claims that evangelical Christians are pushing an agenda at the academy, and complained that "there is an anti-Christian bigotry developing" at the school.
Those who refuse to excuse behavior that’s taking place at the Air Force Academy are not bigoted against Christians, or Christianity, or religion. They’re rightfully angry at the inappropriate actions of a select group of pricks who use a disfigured notion of Christianity as means to rationalize regular, old-fashioned hatred. That such repulsive behavior is associated with Christianity is their doing, not their critics’.
Indeed, those who seek to denounce these incidents for what they are—the shameful conduct of bigots using religion as a shield—without indicting the religion itself, are greater protectors of the true nature of the religion than men like Minnery, who would defend the actions of any adherent, no matter how repugnant.
TAKE ACTION: Microsoft Abandons Gays
This is really important. John Aravosis has all the details here at AMERICAblog.
As Ms. Julien says: Read, think, ACT!
Thoughts on Religion
I am often accused of being anti-religion, which careful readers will know is not true. Religion is not something to which I subscribe, but I respect and defend the rights of others to practice religion in any way they see fit, right up until such practice begins to encroach upon the rights of others.
My parents are active Christians who attend church at least once a week. They’ve gone to the same church for over 30 years, in which my sister and I were both baptized and confirmed. My father is president of the congregation; my mother is the music director. They’re both currently on the call committee to find a new minister, and over the years, they’ve served the church in many other capacities—my mom has been a Sunday School teacher, a Vacation Bible School teacher, a youth leader, a member of the choir, the choir director, a Sunshine Singer, a member of the Ladies’ Guild, designer of children’s bulletins; my dad has held every church office at least three times, and he’s been an elder, a member of the choir, a reader, a greeter. When I was a kid, the church couldn’t afford a janitor, and so the congregation was dependent on volunteers to clean it. I spent many, many a Saturday over at the church vacuuming and scrubbing toilets with my parents and sister. For as long as I can remember, they put their tithe in an envelope each week. They still go to adult Bible study every Sunday. My mom has spent the past year dedicating many, many hours a week to writing a Christmas cantata, including all the music. Their friends are primarily “church friends,” and the vast majority of their social activities are church-related. My mom sings hymns while she makes dinner, and my dad and Mr. Shakes playfully argue about the origins of morality in the living room. Neither of them is ever without their gold crosses around their necks. My parents are 100% churchified, with the love of God, the Ghost, and the Baby Jesus coming out their wazoos, the epitome of Mom and Pop Middle America Christians taking full advantage of the religious freedom guaranteed them in this country. Their lives are all about the Big Man in the Sky.
And neither of them has ever had to trample on anyone else’s rights.
Their religion is a celebration of their faith in God and a moral compass by which they decide right and wrong. My dad in particular tends to be quite a black and white thinker; he believes there is a right way and a wrong way to handle most things. He believes, for example, that homosexuality is a sin. But what that means for him is that he shouldn’t engage in homosexual sex. Period. End of story. It doesn’t mean that he judges our gay friends, or treats them differently than he would expect to be treated by them—we’re all sinners, he’d say. And it doesn’t mean that he believes that the LGBT community deserves to have fewer rights or protections than he has; he unequivocally supports civil unions. His religion guides him, and he finds within it his definitions of right and wrong, and he makes his own decisions accordingly. He believes the word of God is truth, and it’s there to be found for those who seek it; he’ll tell anyone who will listen about what he believes and why, but it’s not meant to be legislated.
My parents and I disagree on plenty of things when it comes to religion, but I don’t disdain their freedom to practice their religion any more than they disdain my freedom to not practice any religion at all. Neither would choose the other’s path, and yet we firmly defend both choices as valid.
The defense of choice is what separates people like me—and my parents, who are quite conservative by this site’s standards—from the fundamentalists. Whether Christian, neocon, or any other inflexible contingent of fundamentalism, fundies are interested only in the restriction of choice as governed by a particular limited philosophy that makes no exception for opposing views.
The fundie view of gay marriage, or abortion, or birth control, or any number of other privacy-related rights, is that they should be categorically banned, the reason being because they believe it’s wrong. Those who believe otherwise would be shit out of luck under the fundie laws.
The liberal view of gay marriage, or abortion, or birth control, or any number of other privacy-related rights, is that they should be legal, with each person having an option to use the privilege or not as he or she sees fit. Those who are against gay marriage, or abortion, or birth control aren’t required, simply because they are legal, to marry a person of the same sex, or have an abortion, or use birth control. They can choose not to, and that ought to be good enough.
There’s no earthly—or heavenly—reason to think otherwise.
So let’s put to bed the notion that liberals who defend choice as vigorously as fundies fight for its absence are two sides of the same coin. And with it, the charges that liberals are anti-religion. I’m not anti-religion; I’m intolerant of those who wield their religion like a weapon, who seek to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others when doing so offers them no reward but bragging rights. God gave me free will; I’ll never understand what makes them believe they have the right to take it away.
Absolute Power
So, it looks like the nuclear option will be voted on sooner rather than later. (I suppose it’s mere coincidence that Frist seems likely to push it immediately after Justice Sunday. Ahem.)
John Warner, R-VA, is one of the Republicans currently being courted by both sides—a swing voter:
"I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority," Mr. Warner said, "and we should be very careful before we try and make any changes."Normally, I tend to think Warner’s a pretty okay guy, but his statement is completely incomprehensible to me. He acknowledges the filibuster as “the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority” yet remains willing to entertain the notion of eliminating it. That his position is considered moderate is illustrative of how extreme, how blind with control, the GOP has truly become.
[…]
At stake is the future of the filibuster, a two-century-old parliamentary tactic that has recently been used by Democrats to prevent 10 of President Bush's appeals court nominees from being confirmed. The filibuster can be broken with 60 votes. Republicans, who have 55 members in the Senate, want confirmations to depend on a simple majority of 51.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I despair for our country’s future if this madness goes forth as I fear it will.
[Kudos to Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island for going on record in opposition to this insane and antidemocratic power-grab.]
Wednesday Blogwhorin'
Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and various things of interest.
What's going on?
Question of the Day
To what do you attribute the rise in fundamentalism we're seeing in America? 9/11? An evangelical president? Part of a larger movement toward fundamentalism the world over?
Whaddaya think?
