Fallacy Findings

Post-Test Relief

2009-07-30T11:24:00.003-05:00

Just wanted to give everyone an update: I passed the national certification test this month!

Now the job search begins...

I hope everyone is having a great summer. Mine has been extremely busy, but I still plan on keeping up with this blog as much as possible.

Peace.

Pre-Nurse Practitioner Certification Exam Anxiety

2009-06-18T12:57:00.008-05:00

In less than a month I will take the national certification exam for family nurse practitioners. Similar to law school grads who experience a certain discontent at graduation with the summer Bar exam looming over their heads, my own graduation was a bit marred with the anxiety of my upcoming exam.

Basically, until I pass that exam and am licensed to practice, my nurse practitioner degree is meaningless. While excited that I was nearly done with school, I started studying for this exam while in the midst of finals.

Today, I also ran into a really cool blog written by a family nurse practitioner in New York, while looking for ways to assuage my pre-exam anxiety. It is a relevant, interesting blog, and one that I plan on keeping up with while beginning my own career as a family nurse practitioner.

I would like to detail my own experience while studying for the NP certification exam. Hopefully in months or years to come, other soon-to-be NPs will stumble upon this and find some solace that they are not alone in what they are going through.

Oh, and hopefully I pass.

1. I, many times a day, alternate between being convinced I am way too stupid and not prepared and am going to fail the exam, and being convinced I am a genius who probably doesn't really need to be studying at all.

Until I get to questions like:

"Actinic keratosis can be described as:

A. a slightly rough, pink or flesh-colored lesion in a sun-exposed area.
B. a well-defined, slightly raised, red scaly plaque in a skin-fold.
C. a blistering lesion along a dermatome.
D. a crusting lesion along flexor aspects of the fingers."

(The correct answer is A.)

2. Along that same vein, I am also convinced that when I start practicing, I will either be the best nurse practitioner ever and all my patients will love me, or I will kill my first several patients and be sued and lose my license within the first couple weeks.

Let's hope it's the former.

3. Within a couple months, I will be unleashed into the real world and expected to be able to accurately diagnose, manage, and treat lots of weird diseases out there.
People will walk into my office one day soon and expect me to know what things like neurofibromatosis, thalassemia, and hand, foot, and mouth disease are.

While I may or may not always have an MD or more experienced NP around to help guide me through my first year or two in my new career, the thought of all of this is overwhelming and scary. Am I ready?

Well, I better be soon.

4. I really, really hope my test is full of questions about STDs, HIV, and upper respiratory symptoms.

5. I have an unabashed admiration, bordering on a crush, on Margaret Fitzgerald, her review book, her courses, and her mnemonics. I will never forget the cranial nerves again.

6. Until I take this test, I have free reign to drink as much as I want. And afterwards, of course, in celebration. Or sorrow.

That's all. I guess I should study now.

Stolen Lines #2

2009-06-08T17:23:00.007-05:00

"Tell me... have you ever thought...of
changing your life?"

I asked the Vietnam veteran corner store clerk as I
picked up the daily newspaper on my lunch break one overcast
November day. It was a day just like 100 previous
days: I woke up at 7 o'clock, drove the 45 minutes to
Bloomington after lugging myself out of my dad's
pull-out couch in the basement, parked in the drab, concrete
parking garage, and walked up the hill to the tiny law firm
where I was a secretary for a lone practicing
attorney.

It was a day just like the 100 previous work days that
I sat transcribing my perverted boss' lawyerly notes
into his beaten-down Mac computer, answered ridiculous,
angry phone calls from bitter divorcees for the upstairs
attorney, got bitched at for not bring their faxes upstairs
quickly enough, and wasted a perfectly good college
education and year of law school on a pointless $10 an hour
job with no chance of upward mobility.

It was a day, like every other day that would come for
the next year, in which I desperately wanted something more
yet could only muster up the ambitiousness to look forward
to each Friday's happy hour at the corner bar, finding
solace in the next round of Blue Moons and pretending I was
okay with where and how I had ended up for the rest of my
life.

"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but
your entire left cheek is showing."

Said the Vietnam vet. I don't even know if
he had been in Vietnam or was even a veteran,
but he smoked cigarettes in his shop, had a limp and a plethora of
American flag t-shirts, and wore his black-gray
hair in a ponytail. We chatted amicably like this
every day for the past 100 days. I really enjoyed our
shared apathy and friendliness, we bonded nearly every day over cokes
and central Illinois' most "pressing" news of the
day. Then I would walk to lunch and pore over the
classified's, hoping to find that one
lucrative career for an English major/law-school
drop-out within 30 miles of my hometown.

"Wait, what?!"

"Your entire left cheek. It's
showing. You have a rip in the back of your pants. I
thought I should tell you."

I turned around and there it was, in plain sight for
all of downtown Bloomington to see. What had
happened?

I froze, I panicked. I did the only
thing I could think of and asked the Vietnam veteran, with his
years of hard-core military experience and living a hard
life. He would know what to do.

"Well? What the hell do I do?! And of all the days to wear a thong!"

He's been through war. This is nothing to him.

Calmly, he answered.

"There's a seamstress next door.
She may be able to help you. Good
luck."

Though the sign said, "By appointment only,"
I walked into the drab building directly across from the law
firm at which I worked, and pleaded my case to The
Seamstress.

Suddenly, everything in my life depended on
the whim of this all-powerful Seamstress, and her needle and
thread. My fate was in her hands for the next 30
minutes.

"I live 45 minutes away. I've got an hour for lunch, please fix my pants."

I sat pantless in the dressing room on that gray
November day that wasn't like the 100 previous days,
reading an oversized book of horoscopes for the next 30
minutes while The Seamstress sewed my pants back together:
"The Sun, ruler of our inner nature, is somewhat
dimmed in Cancer, the home of the Moon. Creative and
romantic, with a strong love of home, family and tradition,
you are a good communicator and a strong provider. Your deep
sensitivity presents you with valuable and illuminating
intuitions, especially regarding those you care
for."

Well, I never felt as if I was reading something more
inaccurate about my life at the very moment.

I left The Seamstress after repeated failed attempts
to pay her for mending my pants and grabbed a quick goulash
at the Pub down the street, silently reading my newspaper
picked up from the Vietnam vet's corner store.

I trudged back to work, transcribed more lawyerly notes
from my perverted boss, answered ridiculous, angry
phone calls from bitter divorcees, got bitched at for not
bringing the faxes upstairs quickly enough, checked my email
and make plans for happy hour on Friday. At 5
o'clock, I walked down the hill into the drab, concrete
parking garage and made the 45 minute drive home.

I parked my little car behind my dad's over-sized Man Truck and walk inside, weighing my desire to make people laugh against my embarrassment
at the day's events, when something caught my eye.

On the kitchen table in my dad's green one-bedroom
house, next to the Hamburger Helper (three-cheese special)
and slices of white bread with butter, my dad's favorite
meal that year, was a large white envelope addressed to
me.

"We are pleased to inform you that you have
been accepted into the Nursing Program for the Fall 2004
Quarter."

I signed the letter, informing the school I would be
attending classes in the Fall, and put the envelope back in
the mailbox. I went downstairs, pulled my bed from the
couch, had another meaningless conversation over
the phone with my girlfriend in a relationship that was
headed nowhere fast, and fell asleep to the tv. I
woke up at 7 o'clock, drove to work, parked in the gray,
drab parking garage and walked up the hill to the tiny
lawyer's office where I worked for the next 200
days.

My last day on the job, I walk into the Vietnam
Vet's corner store, and inform him I am leaving
town. We laugh at the pair of mended pants I am
wearing, and we say our good-byes. He gives me a
newspaper for free, and this time I read it without
searching the classifieds as I eat my goulash at the the Pub
further up the hill.

I walk to The Seamstress' store and leave a small
check on her desk, thanking her for helping me out The Day
My Left Cheek Was Showing. I grudgingly have a beer
after work with my perverted boss and drive home as soon as
I can politely get away, to enjoy one last happy hour with
my friends.

I buy the next round of Miller Lites at our favorite
bar, laughing and hugging my friends. Newly
single, I scan the crowd unsuccessfully for traces of
another lesbian. The band is loud, but the music is
good. We are drunk and happy to be together, next
Monday is miles away. They want to know why I am
leaving our town, our bar, our beer, and our fun.

In my mind I don't hesitate. I think
of my stagnant, dead-end relationship,
transcribing lawyerly messages for my perverted boss, the
rip in my pants, the Vietnam Vet, The Seamstress, the
angry messages from bitter divorcees, the plain gray parking
garage, the hill, and getting bitched at for
not bringing the faxes upstairs quickly
enough.

I take a swig of my beer, not wanting to seem eager to leave them behind, and
answer.

"Tell me... have you ever thought...of changing your life?"

(The first line was stolen from the play, Betrayal, by
Harold Pinter. This is also part of Grace's Stolen Lines series.)

Lesbians and HIV

2009-06-08T13:24:00.002-05:00

Rachel Rabkin Pechman's June 2009 article in Poz, entitled, "The L+ Word" gives a nice synopsis into an often unnamed, unheard-of, and un-epidemiologized segment of the population: that of the HIV positive lesbian.

Given my recent accidental occupational needlestick, I became hyperaware of this issue as I was waiting for my own HIV results.

Sadly, even I in the LGBT healthcare field had not really thought about lesbians who are living with HIV. While the percentage of lesbians living with HIV is likely much lower than that of gay males and much of the heterosexual population, they do exist. Lesbians, like any other group of people, cross and re-cross the pre-determined boundaries and categories set by epidemiologists. As with everyone else, lesbians can be infected through IV drug use, sex with men, and even sex with other women (though a definite documented case is yet to exist).

What I think is most important from a health-care provider perspective is knowing what to ask patients, and what to tell them in regards to safer sex. Mainly, never assume someone's sexuality without first asking them who their sexual partners are. After that, it becomes easier to tailor education to the patient, based on those sexual practices, and what is safest and most relevant to them.

Which brings me to the next point, if you are NOT being asked by your health-care provider who your sexual partners are, it's time for a further discussion with her, or to switch to someone you do feel more comfortable with. Health-care, as we all know, is very costly right now, even to those lucky enough to have insurance. And, most importantly, you're stuck with your body your entire life. We all deserve to be treated safely, and with dignity and respect by our health-care providers.

Stolen Lines

2009-05-18T19:37:00.010-05:00

Feeling both empowered and terrified as I drove into work, I looked up at the sky and started talking.

I can't believe I did it. I asked for the test, calmly entered the orders myself into my chart, sat while the blood was drawn from my arm, dark red wine after a painless little pop of the vein, cracked jokes with my favorite medical assistant while she offered me kind words of assurance and nervously drew the blood. Gloves clear with sweat. Laughing and hoping, worried, I went about my day.

Suffering ends when craving ends. When one is freed from desire.

I did this on my own. I can do anything on my own.

But taking the time, being brave enough to face my fears, that is empowering. Sure, my test is probably negative. Sure the chances are like 1 in 10,000. But knowing my luck as of late, nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me. And so what if it is, I'll join a convent of lesbian nurses. I'll go on a spiritual retreat. I will forgo alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, sex. After all, it's always best to be prepared, have a back-up plan for everything. A chuckle forms at my lips, thinking of how I am going to tell all my friends about how scared I am. How scared I was, when really there is nothing to be scared of at all.

"You'll be fine, dawg, I know it," they all said.

If three months ago I had accidentally plunged a large-bore hollow needle into my thumb after injecting it into an HIV+ person, I would be scared shitless.

Three months of hoping and waiting.
One month of medications, really it's nothing in relative terms.
Three days of testing.
One day off of work.
A milli-second mistake.
For some people, it's life. And they are okay with it.
Maybe one day, I would be, too.

Life as we know it ultimately leads to suffering in one way or another.

I start to cry, imagining just how I am going to break the news to my friends, my family. I can see it now, "Jane, you have to come in to get your results." That is never good news. Co-workers, friends, acquaintances, all with that same look in their eyes. Pity. The same look I have given patients so many times, when delivering the news that forever alters the courses of their lives. There is no way to really make it better. For myself, for them.

I collect myself, and call a friend. Several minutes of reassurance and going back and forth, I convince her to let me check my results on my own.

I don't want to put you in that awkward place of giving me a positive result.

Click.

And a few more clicks on my keyboard.

Crescendo.

Result not back yet.

Decrescendo.

What does that mean? It's been 24 hours. Negative results are always back in 24 hours. Well, it's been 21 hours. Why is it not back yet? It must be positive. Maybe it's, what if it's positive? I start crying. Should I go for a run? Yes, I'll go for a run. 30 minutes gone by, and I will look again. Surely they will be back by then. Maybe the lab isn't open yet. Maybe they went for their morning coffee run. Maybe each and every one of the protein markers is slowly turning positive. Ooh, this episode of "Charmed" is funny today. Prue turned herself into a man to entice this witch-lady who only goes after men, and she totally pulls off drag. Maybe she's gay. Oh my God, what if Shannen Doherty were gay? Maybe I should look again one more time before my run. Maybe I should finish watching the episode and laugh one last time in my life, then check my results. Wow, is that her real voice? It's so deep. I bet she watched drag-king shows in preparation for this episode. She's a much better actress than people give her credit for.

Episode over.

I walk to my computer and, crying, log in to my chart. Result back, unsigned. No one else has seen it yet.

Non-reactive.

Negative. I tested negative.

I check again, just to be certain there is no mistake.

Non-reactive.

The doctrine further asserts that because things are impermanent, attachment to them is futile and leads to suffering

Crescendo.

I start crying. I walk to my bedroom in silence, slip on my running clothes, turn on my i-pod, and go for a jog. 30 minutes later, I get home, take a shower, and get dressed. I text message friends and let them know, thanking them for being so kind and supportive.

Decrescendo.

I slip on my white coat, stethoscope folded in my hands, I get in my car.

Feeling both empowered and terrified as I drove into work, I looked up at the sky and started talking.

(Note: this is part of Grace's "Stolen Lines" series)

Update #2

2009-05-12T12:09:00.002-05:00

Hello everyone and anyone who may still read my blog. (thanks if you still do, by the way).
I feel that I owe you another update on my recent HIV scare 3 months ago. I just got my 3-month re-test yesterday, checked my results this morning, and they were negative.
It was a huge relief.
Thank you to call who have wished my well, held their collective breaths, and said their prayers to whichever gods and goddesses you worship. I feel like I can finally start to put this nightmare behind me.
I expect to be up and blogging again shortly. School is almost out, the weather has turned beautiful, and I have started to deal with a lot of my stressors in positive ways.
More to come!

Update

2009-04-19T11:19:00.002-05:00

I am sorry for waiting so long to provide an update on my prior article.
As of now, all of my HIV and hepatitis tests have been negative. Good news!

I will be re-tested again in about a month, and that will be an almost definite guarantee that I will not seroconvert.

I do appreciate all of your thoughts and wishes, JHG, Fannie, Antigone, Seda, REM... Thank you so much. It has been a trying and stressful couple of months, and I am relieved it is nearly over. I hope everyone is doing well, and I will be back in the blogosphere soon.

My HIV Scare

2009-02-18T14:57:00.003-06:00

I haven't posted for a while. I am sorry. In the midst of the usual work-study-school cycle that I have endured for the past 2 years, I have also been dealing with something else.

So, this will be a break from the usual political or health-themed articles I have been writing. Basically, I am scared, and I haven't told many people even in real life.

But this is my relatively anonymous blog, where only a few people really know who I am. In my own way, this is my therapy.

Without being too specific, within the past 2 weeks I accidentally stuck myself with a used needle while doing my nursing duties.

The needle had caused the patient to bleed. I am not sure if or how much blood was on it.
The needle was relatively large and hollow-bored.
While fumbling with the so-called "safety" mechanism on the needle, the syringe slipped from my hand and while trying to catch it, my thumb penetrated the used needle. I should have just let it drop to the floor, I suppose.
Within seconds I was also bleeding from inside my glove.

The source was an HIV-positive person.

I suppose everyone at some point in their lives has a moment like this. An accident. A diagnosis. The death of someone close. One single moment that you soon realize will determine the course of the rest of your life.

I can only describe the way I felt when it happened as a wave of nausea accompanied by visions of everything that led up to this moment, everything I had worked for, and everything that one little mistake might mean for the rest of my life.

Realistically, the chances of health-care professionals' seroconversion when exposed to HIV are around 0.3%, per the CDC. I know the odds are in my favor. But the chances are never zero. And just knowing that I was definitely exposed in a real way to something is not good for my hypochondriac soul.

Within a couple seconds I was hovered over the sink, washing my thumb with hot water and soap (also squeezing it like a snakebite, as if that would actually help), while calmly letting the patient know what had happened.

I am also in the midst of completing a rather hellish course of PEP (Post-Exposure Prophylaxis), which for me is 4 different HIV medications...which can have both annoying and serious side effects themselves. The purpose of the PEP therapy, based on what is known about the pathogenesis of the HIV virus, is to prevent systemic infection by introducing anti-retrovirals within the 24-72 hour period it takes for the virus to infect regional lymph nodes at the site of innoculation. Basically, the medications I am taking, we hope, would prevent any replication of any theoretial virus or virus-containing cells that may have entered my body. Of course, studies in humans for this are rather limited for obvious reasons (ie-thousands of health-care workers who were exposed would have to enroll in an efficacy trial), but the limited animal and human studies that have been analyzed have shown an 81% reduction in HIV seroconversion following a 4-week course of PEP.

I'm trying to keep a good outlook on things.

I will be re-tested in a couple weeks. I may or may not ever write another post about this again.

Just thought I would share my story.

Peace.

Christians for Equality

2009-02-03T23:31:00.003-06:00

I just found the following wonderful new blog, called Christians for Equality.

It looks like the author is attempting to counter the widespread tendency of anti-gay folks to mis-represent themselves as "victims." Well, and not only that, she is showing that (obviously) Christians can be for gay rights and equality. I am sure we all knew that, but it seems like the squeaky wheels of the Christians always get the most grease. This looks like it could be a refreshing new blog.

Her post today, for example, is a youtube clip featuring "Christian-bashing" vs. (the very real) gay-bashing.
Please check it out.

Sabbatical

2009-02-02T22:52:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the long delay and for not checking in. The school year picked up again after the New Year, and I've been busier than ever. These last 5 months are the home stretch and I won't get much time to write until then. I'll stop by every now and again, and I'll still be reading other blogs.
I just have to devote more of my energy to school right now, instead of writing for fun.
I'll be around...

Until then, enjoy.

Well-wishes for Patrick Swayze

2009-01-10T11:49:00.004-06:00

Today, I am sending out some positive energy to Patrick Swayze and family, in hopes of a speedy recovery from pneumonia, a likely complication of a chemotherapy-weakened immune system from his year-long battle with pancreatic cancer. Swayze checked himself into a hospital on Friday, just 2 days after his Barbara Walters' interview aired on ABC.

Swayze has been one of my favorite actors since the classics Dirty Dancing and Ghost. And he is pretty foxy, too.

I wish him the best.

Ellen thanks "roommate" Portia at People's Choice Awards

2009-01-08T15:35:00.004-06:00

Kudos to Ellen Degeneres.

Not only is she one of the funniest, most positive comedians out there these days, she won a People's Choice Award for "favorite talk show host" again last night.

Keeping up with her trend of becoming more outspoken about LGBT rights, at the end of her acceptance speech, she thanked her "roommate" (wife) Portia de Rossi, an obvious note of sarcasm directed towards the recent passage of Proposition 8 in CA.

*sigh*

I heart her even more.

The editor of one of the best lesbian websites I have found, Sarah Warn, also writes about it here.

Blogging for Lesbian Health Day

2009-01-05T17:07:00.008-06:00

Today's article is part of "Blog for Lesbian Health Day," which was started by organizers of the National Lesbian Health Summit 2009. Back in December, I was approached by an organizer and asked to write about issues that affect me in all or some of those roles within the overall health-care experience. More specifically, I was asked about my personal health-care experiences as a lesbian, and also what issues I am concerned about for myself and community.

So, without further ado, here are my individual thoughts and experiences. As a patient and a nurse. And always, as a lesbian:

The first and most obvious issue of concern regarding lesbian health revolves around lesbian sexual health. A term within the (LBT-knowledgeable) health-care community is "lesbian neglect." Lesbian neglect refers to the fact that many lesbians fail to get Pap smears, do not get them regularily, and/or do not think they need to get them.

Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo of the University of Washington has published several reports on the sexual health of sexual minority women. In one, she discusses barriers to infectious disease care among lesbians. For one, there is relatively little data on STIs, Pap smear screening, and cervical dysplasia among lesbians, all of which are needed to make clinical guidelines for lesbians. Secondly, health-care providers and lay-people commonly assume that a.) sex between women confers virtually no risk, or b.) it is at the bottom of a hierarchy of higher-risk behaviors. However, transmission of HPV, syphilis, and HIV between women have been reported. All of that being said, it is important to reiterate that virtually no data exists of the relative risk of STD transmission in same-gender sex among women.

Of the data that exists, it does show that lesbian neglect is a fair portrayal in regards to lesbians and Pap smears. In the Marrazzo articled previously mentioned, 95% (236) of lesbians in one study believed they should receive Pap smears annually or every 2 years after normal results, yet 36% (90) provided a reason for not having done so. The most commonly cited reasons were "lack of health insurance, adverse experience at prior Pap smear screening, and a belief they did not need it because they were not sexually active with men."

Sadly, 9 of the women reported being told by their health-care provider that they did not need a Pap smear since they did not have sex with men. As an FYI, Marraazzo and other LBT-knowledgeable health-care providers recommend that lesbians follow the same cervical cancer screening guidelines as all women.

Per the American Cancer Society that means that women should begin getting a Pap within 3 years of their first sexual activity, and no later than age 21 for women sexually active after the age of 18. For all of the recommendations, please go here.

Pap smears and lesbian neglect hit close to home for me. I received my first one at the tender age of 26, when I finally had health insurance...and, when I got over my case of lesbian neglect. It was quick and relatively painless. My doctor had been practicing for 30 years or so, and I didn't feel uncomfortable. She also did a sexual history, inquired about the gender of my sexual partners, and provided non-judgmental care. She was nice. But she wasn't LBT knowledgeable. At the end of my visit, she came back to my exam room and told me that since I didn't sleep with men, I didn't need another Pap, ever.

Needless to say, even though she was nice and the procedure was painless, I never went back to her. Everyone deserves culturally competent care, and sexual orientation should always be a part of that competence and knowledge base.

That is my one major advice to lesbians (and any sexual minority): You have the right to be treated compassionately, non-judgmentally, and competently. You also should always be given the change to disclose your orientation or identity in a non-awkward manner. A health-care provider should never just assume you are heterosexual without first asking you who your partners are.

Which brings me to my other point, the one major issue I would LOVE to see incorporated into nursing schools and med schools is sexual minority health.

I graduated from nursing school within the past 5 years, so I know that the lack of education on sexual minorities we received is not a matter of time-appropriateness.

The one time in my nursing school program that lesbian health was even mentioned was when my professor stated, "Lesbian and bisexual women will have...other... concerns, but we aren't going to discuss those today" before venturing to the next nursing school topic du jour. (because we ALL need yet another lecture on HIPPA or standard precautions)

I was forced with a milli-second decision on whether I was going to risk outing myself (by virtue of guilt-by-association) to a class that considered it somewhat okay to make fun of gays and lesbians occasionally, or sit there and silently wonder to myself just what these "other" issues unique to lesbians were.

In retrospect, and having since come out to my nursing school and classmates, I should have raised my hand and demanded a further explanation. A discussion, at the very least. But that didn't happen at the time. And thus, none of my classmates nor I ever received education on lesbian health.

Instead, I chose to go into the field of LGBT healthcare following graduation from nursing school. I take part in any related continuing education courses offered by organizations in my area. However, my education on LGBT healthcare is taught to me, 9 out of 10 times, by my colleagues and patients. Sometimes it feels like we are making it up as we go. But usually there is someone more senior, more knowledgeable, and with more experience we can go to. I am thankful that the tide seems to be turning in regards to lesbian health awareness.

There are, of course, other health issues that occur more often in lesbians (like smoking, depression, obesity, etc.) that I believe definitely need more attention. Our little community is, I believe, doing a decent job of addressing these issues.

And thanks to the groundbreaking work of people like Dr. Marrazzo and others who study sexual minority women, and the National Lesbian Health Summit, we can all look forward to a day in the near future when it is no longer taken for granted that all women are either heterosexual or have no health issues.

To a day that lesbian health is deemed a worthy topic in nursing and medical schools.

And most importantly, to a day that lesbians are included in national guidelines relating to "women's health" and not simply overlooked as unimportant or (mistakenly) without risk.

After all, we are women, too.

Reference

Marrazzo JM. Barriers to infectious disease care among lesbians. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2004 Nov [retrieved on 1/5/09]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no11/04-0467.htm

Keep your religion out of my health-care

2008-12-29T15:22:00.002-06:00

My good friend Antigone today blogged about something I have been meaning to for a while now. I actually did blog about this back in July. Antigone did all the hard work this time, so I will link to her article.

The article details Bush's eleventh hour regulation, the "right of conscience" rule, enacted on December 18.

With some luck, the law will be quickly overturned after Obama's inauguration.

Gay Marriage and Why I am Sick of Talking About It

2008-12-12T18:47:00.005-06:00

I have been absent from the blogosphere lately due to a number of reasons, including watching my (single, heterosexual) best friend have her baby and a recent conversation over at Opine Editorials and on my own blog.

I am attempting to sift through personal attacks and just plain mean-spirited, evasive responses to get to the real issues here in the gay marriage debate.

I am convinced now that the issue is much more complex than I originally thought and that many people can't see beyond their own prejudices on both sides of the issue.

The first, and most visible side to me (as a gay marriage advocate) is that of what we usually call "the homophobes." We see them in anonymous internet chat rooms, and as private citizens who vote against anything that has to do with giving gay people rights to form families, get married, or end job discrimination and hate crimes. Quite simply, they usually don't know any gay people, they have had a bad experience with one or two gay people, their religion tells them gay is wrong, or they just hate gay people because their parents and/or members of society taught them to and they never questioned it. Their reasons for wanting anti-gay measures to pass lie in the one fact that being gay is bad, sinful, perverse, or against the Bible or other major religious book.

These people are the reasons most of us LGBT folk (though not all) are fighting for equality. They are the ones we see in groups of 10 or so picketing gay pride parades and passing out Bible passages condemning homosexuality.

They enrage us, they incite us, and they often make us bitter.

Homophobes threaten our very existence. They would love for us to not exist, or at the very least, to be invisible to them and everyone else. They are oblivious to their own heterosexual privilege and see any attempt to normalize gay and lesbian relationships as a threat and "shoving sexuality in their faces." They see nothing wrong with making out with and groping their girlfriends or boyfriends in public while shunning a gay couple for walking down the sidewalk holding hands.

While these people are easy to counter and argue with, I don't believe they should be the sole reason to fight for gay marriage. In fact, I wish we could just ignore them until they change their minds. Unfortunately, because they rely so often on lies, defamation, and propaganda we can not ignore them. To ignore them would be giving up our voices to defend ourselves against their malicious attacks, as well as defending ourselves to the rest of society, to whom the homophobes are feeding misinformation.

Another set of anti gay marriage folks are the "gender integrationists." These folks are aplenty (or a couple) at Opine Editorials and elsewhere. They are the folks who insist on innate, immutable gender roles and the importance of a biological mommy and (most importantly) a daddy in every child's life regardless of circumstance. They often can not even acknowledge that sometimes (often, even) a biological mommy, daddy, baby situation just is not in the best interest of the child(ren) they claim to want to protect. They are also against gay couples adopting children on that same basis of them allegedly selfishly "intentionally depriving a child of a mother or father."

I would love to continue a discussion on gender roles. However, I am not inclined to discuss it with those who rely on knee-jerk reactions of "innate gender roles" without reputable evidence to back it up. Obviously, to me, gender is part biology/evolution and part social upbringing. Some things (like physical size and strength) are innate and biologically based, but many (like women belong in the home and only men should work) are not. Because there are biological differences in gender, I believe, is no reason to continue to perpetuate societal gender roles that have outgrown any evolutionary usefulness.

I wholeheartedly acknowledge that many boys may need a strong male role model in their lives, and girls a strong female role model. But I am not willing to discount gays and lesbians from adopting children on that basis alone, when role models can be people other than parents. I have seen the studies showing that adopted children of gay and lesbian families turn out just as "good" as those of heterosexual families.

I have also seen the many position statements that acknowledge this. Have our opponents?

Do they really attribute the entire body of scientific evidence regarding children raised by gay and lesbian parents to some vast liberal gay agenda?

Really?

I wonder why, if people claim to not be biased against gays and lesbians and not have ulterior motives, one would ignore all the most recent professional statements and research.

Sometimes it truly is hard to sift through the various agendas to get to what is really the heart of the matter. I am concerned that some of the fellas at Opine Editorials are either deceitful about their motives in the gay marriage debate, or not able to articulate what is important to them if they are so unwilling to concede what medical professionals and child welfare leagues are saying really is best for children.

That is where I misunderstand them a lot of the time.

It is true that our relationships demand the same respect as heterosexual relationships. Why? Because just as heterosexuals' romantic relationships and families are the epicenter of their lives, so are ours.

It is also true that gay marriage and federal, state, and local legal recognition of these relationships is one major step in the right direction towards true equality and lessening of discrimination, violence, and other unfair behaviors towards LGB (and sometimes T) people.

However, I now believe that one step in the fight for the end of discrimination is acknowledging that, on a basic level, gay couples will never be the same as straight couples in one major way: the ability to procreate.

Do I think this means that gay couples should be banned from marrying each other? No.

But I think if a change were to be made in the overall definition of marriage, there definitely needs to be a conversation regarding procreative rights, genetic engineering, and adoption.

Further because a change in the definition of marriage warrants discussion of these complex issues is NO reason to immediately deny the rights of gay people to get married on the basis of "it just being too complicated a discussion." I understand that many people are traditionalists and will automatically discount gay marriage on that basis alone. However, it just is not fair to continue to reward one type of romantic relationship legally and socially, while punishing another just as valid type. If one agrees that that type of relationship is valid and deserves respect. If one believes in human dignity.

Heterosexual couples, by their very nature, usually are able to biologically bear children that are genetically related to both parents. However, if they are not able to do so because of infertility, they can choose to undergo various fertility and/or family planning options, including artificial insemination, donor eggs, surrogate motherhood, adoption, and IVF treatment.

In that sense, a couple who undergoes any such treatment will usually only be biologically related to one parent. Or in the case of adoption, the child will not be related genetically to either parent. So it is my opinion that so long as heterosexual couples can legally pursue these methods of fertilization and family-planning, so should gay and lesbian couples be allowed. Regardless of whether their relationship is called "marriage," "domestic partnership," or "civil union."

As John Howard has brought up in previous blog comments, technology may be available in the future that allows same-sex conception of gametes that are genetically related (but we don't know how related) to both members of the couple.*

His major concerns with this technology appear to be that it is bad public health policy (resources diverted towards follow-up on children created this way, potential problems stemming from the new technology costing even more resources, poor segments of the population retaining the inheritable diseases while rich segments get to pick and choose their children's genetics, all that resulting in contempt for poor people and their natural diseases). As a public health person myself, I can acknowledge that these, finally, seem like real issues in the gay marriage debate.

If this truly is what many people fear with the passage of gay marriage, though, then why not shift the focus from defamation of gay people to one of a discussion on genetic engineering? Further, genetic engineering also does not only include gay and lesbian couples. Nor do I think that any of this should preclude a gay and lesbian couple from equal marriage rights. I think a compromise could be reached that banned gay couples from conceiving genetically engineered children together (until more is known on the topic) and still giving them legal benefits and protections, as well as adoption rights and the same rights to fertility treatments that heterosexual couples have.

I don't think many people have even thought that far ahead from their own knee-jerk disgust with gays and lesbians.

I would LOVE for the discussion to, for once, go beyond that. I would love to learn more about genetic engineering.

I guess I am just bored with arguing about and justifying my relationship to people who will never understand what being gay truly means.

But I would like this article to open a peaceful discussion on genetic engineering if anyone is interested.

[I am purposefully ignoring John Howard's sentence for the time being: "We also need to figure out how to produce fewer gay people who are unable to love someone they can have kids with."]

12 Types of Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

2008-12-04T14:57:00.004-06:00

Jonah Goldberg's article, "An ugly attack on Mormons" was sure to rile up more than a few people. A little research on Golderg found that he is a conservative flame-baiter on any controversial topic du jour.

The gist of the article I mention, is basically that evil liberal supporters of same-sex marriage are attacking, completely unprovoked, Mormons. And that Mormons are the real victims in the Prop 8 hoopla in California.

Blahblahblah. Obvious flame-baiting.

Besides the fact that no one can prove whether the attacks are real or not, most supporters of gay marriage do not approve of physical attacks and violence. That anyone would attribute the actions of any extremist person or group to an entire population of people is an example of pure intellectual laziness.

Goldberg's article collected well over 1000 comments. Among these, not surprisingly were a mix of pro and anti same-sex marriage arguments.

I have noticed many trends in debating the merits of same-sex marriage online. I have noticed many ignorant, many religious-based arguments. However, it is my opinion that they can all be summarized into just a few basic ideas.

Here, from the collection of comments from Goldberg's article and a couple of other articles I easily found online, are the

1. The "I'm-Too-Manly-to-Say-I-Like-Gays-But-Still-Supportive-of-Their-Rights" Married Straight Guy:" "Hey, whatevs. If the homos want to jump into a 50%divorce rate, why not let them be miserable like the rest of us."

[Okay, while technically not an argument against same-sex marriage, this one annoys me.]

2. The "My Bigotry is for The Children" Olde Towne Crier: "Gay marriage puts sexuality in front of children long before they need to be considering it. Kindergarteners don't need to be taught about homosexuality."

[because, you know, straight marriage doesn't do that at all. Just the Gay Marriage.]

3. The I'm-Just-Jealous-that-Gays-Are-Happy-and-I'm-Not-Repressed-Homosexual- Straight-Man: "Gay rights??? The freedom to be openly sexual, the freedom to make others recognize your sexuality so you feel good. That is individual and self-centered by nature. Marriage is a sacrifice, people! I made that sacrifice! You don't deserve to be happy if I don't!"

[because, you know, allowing yourself to be happy basically equates to sinning]

4. The "Gays Are Nazis" Fundamentalist/Extremist Religious Follower:" "The 'Big Reveal' was to find out that gays are nothing but a fascist splinter group,that villified white heterosexuals, enjoys the benefits of being white, and when a democratic decision makes a decision, they take a page out of the Third Reich's book on how to hunt down people that disagree with them. Isn't it amazing to find out that fascism was also in the closet. Boy, was I right that Obama's victory would flush out the closeted bigots. The Gay Reich is on the march!" [note: exact wording taking from an actual comment to Golderg's article]

5. The Psychic Harbinger of The Day of Reckoning [dun dun dun!]: "There are many abominable causes, such as gay rights in America that are about to boil over. The day of reckoning is coming. There are those that are tired of seeing the sickness that is on display daily in America. Those from that silent majority are getting restless, when the pot finally boils over I believe the carnage that will result, will be greater than anyone could have ever imagined."

[Again an actual argument taken from Golberg's article]

6. Alas, beware The Dreaded Circle of No Return Argument: "Gay Marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong because it's against tradition because marriage is for heterosexuals because heterosexuals produce babies so gay marriage is wrong."

[It's best to just avoid entering this one altogether, as their argument is circular, and thus, neverending.]

7. The "Gays-Are-All-God's-People-But-They-Shouldn't-Force-Their-Lifestyles-on-the-Rest-of-Us" argument usually goes a little something like this: "It is homosexuals' God-given right to choose whichever lifestyle they wish. Christians are obliged to treat homosexuals compassionately, as they, like all of us, are children of God. If tolerance were the Gay Rights movement agenda, I would agree. If the issue were simply about a State-issued legal contract binding two consenting homosexual adults, I would support it. But the Gay Rights movement has demonstrated the issue is much broader: putting homosexual "discrimination" on par with racism and sexism, in order to legally force complete acceptance by society. Anyone who dissents is threatened with slurs or legal action."

[Yes, folks. We all choose our lifestyles of Homosexuality (let me find the ICD-9 code for that) and take our Radical Gay Agendas everywhere with us, threatening innocent little Cwistians]

8. The "I'm-a-Patriotic-Blue-Blooded-Gun-Totin-American-Born-American-Yet-Don't-Understand-Democracy" Argument: "Radical, liberal, progressive judges have overruled the will of the people in California. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a law, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. The law was voted on by the citizens of the state back in 2000. This judicial activism is a direct attack on American morality and traditional family values. This is outrageous, offensive, and the good people of California have been dealt a terrible blow."

[Yep, in my world too, is a Supreme Court composed of a Republican, conservative majority called, "progressive" and "liberal" and "activist." Only if it's opposite day!]

9. The "I'm Not Bigoted, I Swear! But Every Single Gay Person is Responsible For the Attacks on the Mormon Church Post Prop-8" Argument: "I was indifferent about the issue until I have seen the aftermath of protests and vandalism. I don't think MLK would have gotten anywhere in the realm of public opinion by sending powder filled envelopes to the state office in AL. I too think that sam-sex marriage is inevitable, but it will inevitably be delayed by the tactics that are being used."

10. The Insane Indecipherable Armageddon Argument: "we will all rot in HELL 4 siding with the DEVIL and his adgenda.To force people to do things against their beliefs is an adbomination .Forcing a photographer those behind this we burn in the fire of HELL.They should of got another member of the Anti-christ to shoot the pics."

[Perhaps I should borrow this person's tinfoil cap and then I, too, will be able to predict the future with such certainty]

11. The-I'm-Too-Ignorant-or-Stupid-to-Learn-What-Gay-Means Argument: "No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have every right to get married, just like heterosexuals do. They can find an opposite sexed partner to do it."

[Just like how straight people can go find a same-sex person to enter into a "Homosexual Relationship" with. See below.]

And, finally, last but not least:

12. "I'm-Either-A-Proud-Gay-Hater-or-Jose-Solano-Who-Doesn't-Hate-Gays" Argument: "If homosexuals wish to obtain special privileges for their relationship they should campaign for a 'Homosexual Relationship License' and let the people vote on its approval..." or, "A man having sex with a man, or a woman with a woman, is a naturally absurd activity, an absurd relationship. No amount of clever sophistry can ever remove that realization from the depths of their consciences. So when the objective therapist or friend communicates from the foundation of this reality, he/she needs to realize that, of course, the homosexual unconsciously realizes this also. The homosexual suffers immensely in trying to reconcile his/her wants with what he/she deeply recognizes as absurd. Almost always the wants win out. This is generally the same with almost all manifestations of concupiscence. It is a truly lamentable hoax that has been thrust on homosexuals by telling them they have been born that way and cannot change. Homosexual scientists themselves have contributed to this hoax by insinuating the existence of a “gay gene” and allowing this debunked myth to proliferate because it suited their political agenda in gaining societal affirmation."

[Funny. Jose, I mean, "others" insist so very admanantly that they know about the course of human nature and science, as if it is all established fact based on scientific reasoning. He feigns to know something that well-established science doesn't yet know. Something like human sexual orientation, which, can not possibly be absolutely known or measured at this time. But I suppose we should just take this hater's word for it. I mean, "Jose's" word for it.]

While there are probably more arguments out there, these are by far the most common types.

I really urge opponents of same-sex marriage to do better.

Or not. The more ignorant and crazy they sound, the better for us. Until next time...

World AIDS Day 2008

2008-12-01T20:44:00.004-06:00

I had a very busy weekend and first day back at work after the holidays today. There are lots of sick people in Chicago and today was a bit overwhelming.

So, I am sorry for the re-post from one year ago, but this is all I can do for now. I wrote this while thinking of a dear family friend who passed, much too early of AIDS several years ago now. Here is what is left of any creative writing talent I have.

In honor of World AIDS Day 2008, my friend "B," the brave patients that I watch fight the disease every day, and those we have lost in the struggle:

In honor of B for World AIDS Day, 12/1/07.

You were too young.

Once she was beautful. I think she is beautiful still.

How does this happen?

Your name kept coming up, your name was everywhere that night.

Every time we listen to that song.

A moment of perfect grace. You are ravishing.

We kept coming back. Coming back to you.

I'll never forget the way you looked.

We knew it was you.

The night you died, we all went bar-hopping. I'm sure you would approve.

Your name still comes up every time we go out. To that one bar. To where it used to be.

When so much is yet to be writ-

We went looking for you once. Your grave was unmarked.

Grace.

Yet we kept finding it anyway.

We laughed and reminisced through the jukebox of frosted glasses of cheap draft beer and smoke-filled rooms.

Rapture.

Ravishing.

Why save your songs for spring? There are more.

We held back our tears. Then we cried.

The Soul of the World awaited him and he would soon be a part of it.

We cried.

You are ravishing...

What is a stranger doing in a strange land?

We wondered. I wondered, what happened?

We hid from you before. We didn't want you to tell on us. We danced and we hid.

Then we drank with you.

And we cried.

You saw us anyway. And you told on us.

I'm sure you would approve.

We all do now.

Once he was beautiful. I'm sure he is beautiful still.

The origin of identity politics

2008-11-30T17:53:00.003-06:00

Certain bloggers have, as a major reason for their opposition to same-sex marriage, insisted upon the existence of a monolithic usage of "identity politics" by gays and lesbians as some sort of evil, echo-chamber-y, brainwashing mentality used by The Gay Agenda to take over the world. Or something. They never quite illicit why identity politics is bad. It just is. And these men expect us to just sort of take their word for it. You know, like red-scare tactics that are all too common of other similar bloggers.

So let's discuss identity politics a little bit deeper for once, shall we?

First, one common definition of identity politics from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is that it "has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination."

The explanation continues a little later, "Identity politics as a mode of organizing is intimately connected to the idea that some social groups are oppressed; that is, that one's identity as a woman or as a Native American, for example, makes one peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereotyping, erasure, or appropriation of one's group identity), violence, exploitation, marginalization, or powerlessness."

I don't think many would disagree that certain groups, based on identity alone, are oppressed. People are killed in many parts of the world for their same-sex orientation. Many children in the U.S. alone are raised to believe that being gay is wrong.

Fathers are still telling their sons they would rather them commit murder than be gay. (as a gay college professor's dad told him once)

To deny that gay people are oppressed is a farce. And I think most people can at least acknowledge that much, whether or not they think the oppression is justified.

I also don't think that many people, in theory, would disagree that it is okay that these groups should seek to empower themselves. I mean, no one wants to openly be an asshole.

Yet, those same oppressed groups, in reality, often face a huge amount of resistance when they do try to empower themselves. (see women's rights, civil rights, etc.)

My argument here is that identities are defined by the in-group, the ones who hold power. Not the oppressed. Gay people wouldn't know they were "gay" or "queer" or "fags" or "dykes" if it weren't for all the hooting and hollering about it by conservative, right-wingers. By parents. By classmates. By teachers, oftentimes.

Yelling that LGBT folks are playing "identity politics" to get gay marriage passed is merely an attempt to disarm the LGBT person or ally to stop them from fighting for equality.

It is a blatant denial of oppression that is very real.

I understand that many white, heterosexual cis-gendered males may be able to toss around terms that to them are only theories. But to the rest of us, these rights we are fighting for are real. They are our lives.

The formation of identity politics for most LGBT people started on the schoolyard, when a boy called another one "faggot." Or when another boy was beaten up for being "too much of a sissy." Or when the athletic girls were called "dyke" by their classmates, or made an outcast by homophobic teammates.

The formation of politic action groups to protect these people kinda makes sense then, right?

That's why I am extending an open invitation for Chairm, Op-Ed, or anyone else at Opine Editorials to explain why identity politics is bad. Do it on your own blog, do it here. Just explain it for once.

I won't hold my breath. But I just wanted to get my piece out there.

I had the privilege of watching the movie "Milk" yesterday, and though he was assassinated, his words ring on. Everyone should come out of the closet. It will help others see that we really are no different, that we are normal, that we are usually friendly, nice, successful human beings with real needs, too. And none of us deserve to be treated as anything less.

Peace.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T12:33:00.004-06:00

In the midst of heated debates with other bloggers/commenters on issues like gay marriage and gay rights, it is easy to forget the many luxuries that I do have. For today I would like to forget about debating and just appreciate what I have in the now. Not only am I privileged for living in the United States, as a (relatively) free person, but I am privileged as a white woman who is educated and employed. While I have worked very hard to get to where I am today, I am not blind to the fact that I have also been privileged in many respects compared to what others in our own country and world face.

So, in great Thanksgiving tradition, here are the things for which I am thankful:

-the delicious food I will eat today (most importantly)
-my family and friends
-my girlfriend who, I have no doubt, loves me very much and is good to me (even when I spend too much time in the blogosphere)
-my dog, who also loves me (unconditionally)
-that I have a stable job in tough economic times
-my career is one of a select few in which job prospects will only increase for me over time
-that I am furthering my education and learning a great deal
-that many people in our country likely set aside personal prejudice to vote for Obama, and that he won
-that nearly half of our country believes in equal rights for gays. While, of course, not ideal by any means, it is a huge step from where we were even 10 years ago.
-other bloggers and commenters (on all sides of any debate that I enter), for they truly help me sort out issues, strengthen my arguments, and encourage me to delve much deeper in my thought processes.

Thanks to all who have helped along the way, and have a great day!

Bad Haircut Fridays!

2008-11-21T14:15:00.003-06:00

In case anyone was wondering what my new haircut looks like, I will provide an example:

So what if my curly-haired hairstylist loves making my wavy hair really big and curly?

Normally, I'm really pretty... I'm just not now.

In honor of trans day of rememberance

2008-11-20T20:20:00.002-06:00

Today, in honor of International Transgender Day of Remembrance, I would like to take the time out to write about and remember our trans brothers and sisters who have died or otherwise been victims of violence due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. While not included in the official "death stats," this also includes those members of the trans community who have inflicted self-harm or committed suicide as a means of escaping a society that has not been ready to love and accept them as people.

What is important to remember, in the midst of a still very transphobic society here in the U.S., is that these victims were not all transgender (some were transvestites, cross-dressers, or other gender-variants), yet they were all harmed due to bias against transpeople as a whole.

I think this rampant transphobia warrants a further discussion on genderism (the belief that there are only two genders, and that gender is is inevitably tied into biological sex). This is something I am passionate about, yet in light of the day, I will remain silent, leaving only this quote by which to remember our trans brothers and sisters who have passed on at the hands of others:

"The violence, discrimination and hatred heaped upon differently-gendered people is an enormous wrong. This bigotry will stop only when the rest of "us" are able to accept our own gender conflicts and pinpoint our own prejudices about biological sex and social sex-roles."

-Pat Califia

Chicago Proposition 8 Rally

2008-11-15T17:54:00.002-06:00

I attended the Join the Impact Proposition 8 rally in Chicago today. Just thought I would share the one picture I took from my camera phone. (Thankfully my two friends brought their own cameras and I will get more pictures later).

Though it was cold and windy (typical Chicago weather), the protest was a good couple thousand people strong, at least, though I am not the best at estimating crowd size. It was very peaceful, organized, and emotional (for me). A handful of Chicago police officers were standing by, chatting amicably with protestors and observing the demonstration. At no point were there any threats or acts of violence. The Gay Men's Chorus sang, several people gave speeches, a little marching band was there, and thousands of LGBT people, families, children, and straight allies mingled and held up their signs. It was a great event, and I feel thankful to live in such a tolerant city. Even the onlookers walking by and people driving by in cars were supportive. At one point, someone mentioned some counter-protestors, but I never saw any of them (I am assuming their numbers were so small they were pretty much invisible).

Just wanted to give a little update from my perspective. Thanks to all who attended the event! It was a welcome, sane, peaceful sight in light of the many events and accusations that have transpired since election day. I am confident that our numbers of supporters will continue to grow, so long as we keep having events like this.

Peace and enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Statin drugs and cholesterol, and easy guide

2008-11-13T14:51:00.007-06:00

What is all the fuss about that pesky cholesterol, anyway? Why do doctors and nurses care so much about it?

Having high cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for life-threatening cardiovascular events.

For those interested in more detail, cholesterol is a soft, waxy-like substance produced by your liver. Everyone has cholesterol and everyone needs it. Cholesterol produces cell membranes, some of your body's hormones, and other important structures. However, technically, your liver produces practically all that your body needs (about 1000mg per day). The excess comes from your diet (anywhere from about 500-1000mg/day), and that is where the trouble usually begins. If your body has excess cholesterol, it lingers in your bloodsteam and clogs your artieries, causing atherosclerosis, strokes, and heart attacks.

For a good breakdown on types of cholesterol, you can go here.

Do you know your cholesterol numbers? If not, you should, as that is the first step in reducing your risk of cholesterol-related cardiovascular events.

If you have already had a lipid panel, and your previous cholesterol levels were normal, then you only need to get re-checked every 5 years. Of course, that time frame decreases if you already have high cholesterol.

Why am I bringing up this seemingly random topic, you may ask?

Because researchers are making important discoveries regarding medications for cholesterol, and they affect each and every one of us. These studies, for the first time ever, included black people, Hispanic people, men, and women.

And, in all of its inclusiveness, these studies focus on people who already have low cholesterol. In other words, they focus on what nurses love best: preventive care.

A couple years ago, in one of my pharmacology classes, my professor mentioned that cardiologists with already-low cholesterol levels were all taking statin drugs as heart prevention. It appears that they, as would be expected, were probably ahead of the curve.

The above-mentioned study showed that when people with relatively low cholesterol levels take statin drugs like Crestor (rosuvastatin), their rate of heart attack and strokes were half that of the group who took the placebo. [Note: The study I am referring to involved Crestor. However, the researchers believe that the cheaper generic statins would be just as effective in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Also note that other statins are relatively safer. Crestor especially has been known to cause a rare, but serious, muscle side-effect.]

An article on MedicineNet describes the reasoning behind the study here:

"Statins are generally prescribed only for people with high cholesterol or those who have borderline high cholesterol and other risk factors for heart attack and stroke, such as diabetes or established heart disease.

But as many as half of all heart attacks and strokes occur among people without these risk factors who have LDL cholesterol levels that are below recommended thresholds for statin treatment.

The newly reported trial was designed to explore whether statins might also benefit these people."

The study was originally planned to last for 5 years, yet independent monitors stopped the study when they determined that those in the Crestor-group were faring better than the placebo-group.

Whether or not this finding is cost-efficient is another matter. Crestor is expensive, and that rare muscle-side effect can be very serious. Are the benefits worth the risks and cost in a person with practically no risk factors for heart disease?

The specific findings are as such: "Looked at another way, there were 136 heart-related problems per year for every 10,000 people taking dummy pills versus 77 for those on Crestor."

From the Crestor package insert:

"Creatine kinase (CK) elevations (>10 times upper limit of normal) occurred in
0.2% to 0.4% of patients taking rosuvastatin at doses up to 40 mg in clinical studies. Treatment related myopathy, defined as muscle aches or muscle weakness in conjunction with increases in CK values >10 times upper limit of normal, was reported in up to 0.1% of patients taking rosuvastatin doses of up to 40 mg in clinical studies."

So there we have it. Here is a quick break-down:

-If you have low cholesterol and don't take a statin, you could be one of the 136/10,000 people who have a serious cardiovascular event (1.36%).

-If you have low cholesterol and take a statin, your risk of a cardiovascular event decreases to 77/10,000 (.77%).

-However, if you do choose to take a statin, your risk of rhabdomyolosis is about 0.1%.

One thing worth mentioning is that if you have low cholesterol, your doctor is not going to put you on a maximum dose statin, either, as that increases the rhabdomyolosis risk. While I am not a fan of having to take or prescribe daily medications when they aren't necessarily indicated, the study offers promising news in preventing those heart attacks that occur despite a lack of any known risk factors. Or in preventing heart attacks in those with low cholesterol but high C-reactive protein levels, which some doctors believe increases risk of heart attacks.

Just a thought, while I am not saying that everyone should start asking for a statin prescription today for heart attack prevention, it is something you can bring up with your doctor if you are concerned. It is perhaps especially worth mentioning to your doctor if you have any other risk factors (high blood pressure, smoking, obesity, family history of high cholesterol/early heart attacks) or your cholesterol levels are nearly elevated.

It will be interesting to see if any physician groups or the American Heart Association start to change their guidelines and advocate for use of statins for everyone for heart attack prevention.

Some final thoughts, before I put this to rest for a while

2008-11-11T21:11:00.006-06:00

This has been taking up too much of my time. And, honestly, the end of the semester is nearing, work is busy, and the holidays are approaching. I am working on putting a lot of this nonsense drama-queen Proposition 8 stuff past me so I can move on with my otherwise happy life.

However, I was compelled to write one last bit before I completely switch gears. I am completely burned out on the topic of Prop 8 and the 2008 election, so this will be it for a while.

It has come to my attention that some anti-SSM bloggers are throwing a fit over one of my recent blog articles.

Within the article I wrote, I had pasted a picture of two little girls wearing "god hates fags" shirts, immediately after a sentence in which I had linked to Opine Editorial's member "On Lawn" and his blog article, where he discussed celebrating the passage of Proposition 8 with his first-grader:

"Last night our first grader (who stood with us cheering on prop 8) was noticeably sad. She was worried Prop 8 would not pass. When she told me why, I was nearly devastated.

It turns out she thought if it passed, same sex marriage would be the law -- meaning men have to marry men and women have to marry women. The wording "same-sex marriage" has a large part to blame in that, but so do we as parents who did not explain it better before. It took a moment of deep empathy to feel the pain she must have gone through to believe that defeating Prop 8 meant breaking up our marriage. Even though her fears were not true, they were real."

Haha! How like, totally, cute. And stuff. His first-grader thought her daddy was going to have to marry another daddy!

While I probably should not have posted a picture of anonymous children wearing such hateful shirts, and for that I apologize, I refuse to apologize for my words that came after:

"I think it's sad that those who shriek at the thought of schools teaching 'sex and marriage' in schools to first-graders are the same people who have no problem telling their first-graders about 'sex and marriage' (ie-gay people) in their homes when GLBT rights are taken away."

What is also sad is that children, before their parents are able to teach them that homosexuality is wrong, often have no reason to dislike gay people, or to root for the passage of a measure that leaves intact gay and lesbian-headed families without the same legal rights as intact heterosexual-headed families.

It's a sad day when children start to believe that their parents' prejudice is "the way the world should be." It is sad because a little girl who cheers for the passing of Proposition 8, an amendment that I am sure she did not look up the meaning of herself, might take that support she learned from her father, and put it to use by making fun of a child with gay parents. Or in some other way she may try to make that child feel inferior.

Chairm, in his reprimand to a pro-SSM blogger, continued about me,

"The mischaracterization produced by that blogger is par for the course for her and almost every SSMer in the blogosphere.

In that blogger's case, this is what she does, relentlessly, and is not something that arose, momentarily, due to dissappointed [sic] with the vote on November 4th."

He also ordered her to "Please acknowledge, confirm, clarify, and/or correct the compliment you gave for that blogger, under that blogpost, before proceeding any further here in our comment sections."

[She did so, which you can read here.]

And you can read my response.

While I am ashamed at some of my past actions, notably even bringing up someone else's innocent children [who may or may not grow up to be just as homophobic as their fathers], I stand by my statements that I made about this anonymous "On Lawn" character over at Opine. I also can not take back anything in the past that I have said or done. Some of my comments, especially the older ones, are when I was also a neophyte blogger and were my knee-jerk responses to blatant homophobia and ill-will towards me and my family.

While I am sure Seda would love a civil discourse, and it looks like that has been going on over there for the time being, what I do not appreciate is being made, by Opine Editorials, to look like some overly sensitive lesbian blogger who thinks that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot.

I have had many a thought-provoking, decent conversation with people who oppose SSM and have ended up agreeing to disagree on the issue. The difference has been in their approach, lack of overt hatred towards GLBT people, and kindness.

I think that people can, actually, oppose SSM and not be homophobic. It's just that that is hardly ever the case.

You see, while Chairm was busy trying turning me into the bad guy in all of this, he casually forgets his own mistakes and bias. While he is busy turning every pro-marriage equality argument into "just another example of overly sensitive gays and lesbians playing identity politics," he is forgetting that he is playing his own form of identity politics, his own heterosexist invisible ideology.

If I have seemed unjustifiably harsh towards the Opine fellas by calling them homobigots, it is because for the past year and a half, I have seen them stand idily by while other Opine members say horrible, horrible things about gays and lesbians, and worse, about their families and children.

And nearly every time outright bigotry has been brought to their attention, someone at Opine rationalizes the bigoted behavior.
I would not feel so inclined to dismiss them as more bigots if they didn't have, as a tagline to their blog the following Shakespeare quote:

"Were kisses all the joys in bed,
One woman would another wed."

[Obviously, they have practically no understanding of what lesbians really do in bed]

While they feel completely justified in attacking our families and the way we raise children on a daily basis, they don't understand why they are called out sometimes in the way they are raising theirs. They can't see that attacks on our family lives are just like attacks on theirs.

That gosh darn invisible heterosexism again.

My current thinking, then, has been that some people are so incredibly far to the right on the issue, that they can't concede even the simplest of things about gay and lesbians families, that they will never change their minds.

In case people have forgotten, I have made several honest, good-faith attempts at dialogue with Opine members. Ones that were actually grossly misused and taken advantage of.

I am open to considering other points of view, but when those points of view are stubbornly strewn about with innaccurate information and religious-based articles, there is really no point. At least, there is no point in wasting my precious time and energy engaging in direct dialogue with people who bombard and constantly bait and switch. Bait and switch. Ad nauseum.

And if that means calling people out and exposing them for what they are, then so be it.

No one's real identity is known here. They can go about their lives in the real world, while quietly [or not?] obsessing over gay families on the internet every day.

With alleged friends of homosexuals like Opine Editorials claims to be, I would rather them my enemies.

All that being said, I wish Seda the best of luck in her dialogue over there. For the time being, they seem to be abiding by her rules respectfully.

Listen, I would love to think that the boys at Opine have somehow changed their ways and are now all of a sudden all about peaceful, respecful dialogue. But I won't hold my breath.

[UPDATE: In case anyone thinks Opine has changed in the least bit, I invite you to observe the following conversation they are having with someone named "Velvet Blade" just today, observe how they ignore homophobic Jose's long-winded diatribes against "sodomy." Observe how On Lawn and Chairm make up their own propaganda speak and then expect their opponent to intrinsically know what it means. And if you don't know what it means, watch them order their opponents to go read through the propaganda archives of their blog. Observe how several members at once write book-length comments to Velvet Blade and expect him to address each and every point they make... or else that means he isn't sticking to the original topic. Watch Fitz dismiss arguments as "silly," forgetting that he can't spell or use simple grammar most of the time (as a lawyer). I'm just sayin'. They will never change.]

Another Prop 8 perspective

2008-11-10T11:01:00.001-06:00

The Los Angeles Times recently published an interesting perspective of Proposition 8.

Jasmyne Cannick, an L.A. resident, offers her perspective on the issue as a woman who belongs to two groups with often conflicting ideological views (black and lesbian). I'll be honest, it was hard for me not to become angry and defensive when reading her letter. Her letter, at times, comes across (to me) as an attack on white gays and lesbians.

And yet, putting myself in her shoes as much as I can, I understand her perspective a little more. She is both black and gay. And, In the midst of many white gays placing immediate blame on blacks due to Proposition 8's passage, she is likely also coming from a defensive standpoint. She also may, right now, feel like she has to "choose" who she is going to side with on the issue.

Just another example of how anger and hostility can keep on escalating, so that in the end, we are all just our separate little groups at war with each other instead of a stronger, more united front. In an effort to unite us, I thought long and hard for a couple days about what an appropriate response to Cannick's letter would be. I know she will likely not ever read this. And I know my blog isn't read by a huge number of people. Yet, I could not rest until I wrote this.

Cannick states that she canvassed the streets urging people to vote for Obama, but she was not inspired to tell them to vote against Proposition 8.

Why?

"Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue."

It is true. All of it. In the hierarchy of social issues like employment, socioeconomic status, and police discrimination black people have it worse than white gays and lesbians. No one is denying that. They, I am sure, have more pressing concerns than gay marriage.

"The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?"

To this, my answer is that we must vote in every election on issues that may or may not directly concern us. But if one is truly to say that they believe in equality, then surely ending this type of discrimination against same sex couples is a step in the right direction for everyone.

I am not about to argue with someone over which group, gays or black people, have had it worse. One has to admit, on any side of the debate, that both groups have been treated rather shoddily by a mostly white, mostly straight, mostly religious majority in the U.S. We have a remarkably embarrassing past in the way we have treated black people, and the effects are still evident in many ways today.

Yet, 94% of our nation's people would vote for a black president. And thank the goddess, we finally have a President of our country who is not white. A President who gives more hope to all of our nation's black men and boys that they, too, can aspire to our nation's highest office.

I know, gays were never slaves, we have never had to sit at the back of a bus, we aren't always easily spotted as an "outsider." Yet gays are still fighting discrimination in very real ways, too.

Roughly half of our nation's people still think it is okay to pass laws specifically banning "homosexual" couples from things that heterosexual couples take advantage of every day. Only 55% of our nation's people would vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate who also happened to be gay. In many ways, America is still stuck in the 1950s regarding issues of gay rights.

That is different from me claiming that gay people are treated exactly like black people used to be treated. The two groups, and their members whose Venn diagrams overlap into the two groups, have unique challenges and obstacles. The types of discrimination the two groups face are completely different.

And yet still so very much the same. Discrimination is still discrimination. And anyone that is not fighting against it, may as well be marching up there with a "God hates fags" shirt (which is why I purposefully included that picture in a previous blog).

More excerpts from Cannick's letter I wanted to address are as follows:

"Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote."

and

"Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either."

I am offended for one that Cannick claims white gays can somehow afford millions individually for anti-Prop 8 advertising. As if we are one monolithic white gay culture feasting at $500 plate dinners, donating our hundreds of thousands of spare dollars to the campaign, and then jetting away to Milan.

Most of the anti-Prop 8 donations were small sums from individual donors. The millions were from large organizations and celebrities. It is just as racist to accuse an alleged monolithic "white gay culture" of all being rich, snobbish, and single-issue oriented. Many of us are hard-working, honest, non-profit salaried employees working for largely poor, largely black/gay/Hispanic organizations. I'm just sayin'. Drawing inaccurate charicatures of people does nothing to alleviate racial tensions.

Now, if that bit about Leimert Park is true, it is a shame. But I think we all need more information regarding whether the white people were "too scared" to venture elsewhere in the black neighborhoods.

Also, racism indeed exists in the white gay community. I have seen it time and time again, having grown up in a small, mostly white, rural area. But I believe I have done my part to help To be white, gay and racist it hypocritical. But it works the other way around, too. To be black, straight, and against gays also seems a little hypocritical to many white gay people. The same way being black, gay, and against whites would be too.

But don't think that just because I am not black, I am not going to fight against racism. Honestly, I don't notice how racism affects me, like, ever. Laws concerning blacks and minorities don't affect me in the least. And honestly, when other things come up that do affect me more directly, I am more interested in them. But I also can reject racism, acknowledge that in many ways I am privileged solely on the basis of my whiteness. And I can still help in the little ways I know how to fight racism against black people and other minorities.

Because, as my 6th grade teacher taught me, to be silent, to be apathetic "just because it doesn't concern me" is wrong.

The person who witnesses a violent crime and does nothing to stop it,
the person who watches a schoolyard bully call an innocent boy "faggot" and does nothing to stop it,
the person who sits silently as racist jokes are being told,
they all may as well be the perpetrators of those injustices.

I know there are larger, more important issues than gay rights and same-sex marriage. But most people, at least I hope, are not single-issue voters. Further, simply because there are more important social justice-y issues is absolutely no excuse to let them slip on by, under the radar.

I will end with the same Elie Wiesel quote that Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese ended with in a mass email he recently sent out:

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Lies and more ad Nazium watch...

2008-11-09T19:47:00.004-06:00

According to the One News Now website, the organization is now shrieking at what they are calling "Homosexual Pledge Cards." To everyone else, the pledge cards are simply a promise not to call others LGBT-related slurs.

You know, slurs that people learn from their parents and other children, and then think it's okay to use on the playground at school. "Faggot," "queer," and "dyke" are, to many kids still today, the ultimate put-down and insult.

To folks like Peter LaBarbara, apparently, this is akin to Nazism:

"This is just bizarre, and it shows how the teachers with their radical sexual agenda want to start early to reprogram these kids' minds. They want to undermine the faith teachings that the kids have at home; this is part of a plan," he suggests. "To me, this is like Hitler with Nazi Germany and the Soviets wanting to get to the youth and change the kids by getting to them at a very young age."

Um, since when is vowing to make schools a safe place for everyone and promising to stop using harmful slurs on par with the Nazis? They seem to think that there is some hidden "Gay Agenda" at play with every move that includes "LGBT" in it, when usually it. really. is. just. about. equality.

I have a feeling that if schools were instead teaching children that homosexuality is wrong, an aberrant "lifestyle choice," they would find nothing wrong with that. So, it isn't the alleged "teaching of homosexuality" they disagree with. It is the teaching against hate speech that they disagree with. Okay, got it.

And seriously, Nazi references are a bit overdone by now, don'tcha think, Peter?

Do they ever learn?

They should be ashamed. And even if they will never be ashamed, they should learn by now that if you don't really have a valid argument to make, simply throwing in a "Nazi" reference is only going to hurt your side more.

Are atheists unhappy?

2008-11-07T13:31:00.005-06:00

I ran across an interesting article by Yale professor of psychology, Paul Bloom, today in Slate. The title is "Does Religion Make You Nice?" Given the current political climate, I was immediately drawn to it.

Bloom begins the article by providing us with the link to a 2007 Gallup Poll, which shows a majority (53%) of Americans would not vote for an otherwise qualified Atheist presidential candidate.

95% of Americans would vote for a Catholic person
94% would vote for a Black person
92% for a Jewish person
88% for a woman
87% for a Hispanic person.
72% for a Mormon
67% married for the third time
57% 72 years of age
55% for a homosexual
45% for an atheist

Good to know where we all stand.

To me, the Presidential candidates our country would vote for are a litmus test of tolerance towards anything other than white, male, and Protestant. If people will automatically discount an otherwise qualified candidate solely on one of the above bases, that is the textbook defintion of intolerance and prejudice.

You can go read the poll for yourself, but it's no surprise that conservatives are far less tolerant of most "non-traditional" groups than liberals and even most moderates.

[On a side note, this is a big, fat told-you-so to those who insist that about half of our country's people are not homophobic despite voting against gay rights consistently]

But I digress. In a nutshell, Bloom tells us of a review published by Science last month, in which "psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff discuss several experiments that lean pro-[Laura] Schlessinger." In other words, if you believe a God or other deity is watching over you, you are less likely to cheat, and more likely to donate money.

More surprisingly even, people are less likely to cheat or misbehave in a room where the posters have eyes on them. Maybe then, if religious people are indeed nicer, it's because they believe someone is watching them at all times.

However, before we start having to defend our atheist and agnostic selves against the religious people in America, Bloom writes about the Danes and the Swedes, who are "probably the most godless people on earth."

He goes on:

"They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy. "

Bad news for the religious Right in the U.S. When they treat sex, drugs, and rock&roll like Eve's forbidden fruit, they of all people should know the consequences.

Bloom goes on to say that perhaps the reason religious people do so well in the U.S., is not so much their "religion" but the sense of community they get from it. Here, atheists are ostracized from many communities.

Bloom states, "Humans are social beings, and we are happier, and better, when connected to others."

Since America is so obviously still a Christian nation in many respects, perhaps it is true that atheists are not as happy. But this is not really the fault of atheism, or not having a god.

"[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."

I don't mean to say, of course, that all atheists are unhappy and do not have a sense of community. Nor that they are bad people. I have been atheist or agnostic since I voluntarily stopped going to church in 5th grade, around the same time I told my parents that I had known for years that Santa Claus wasn't real.

Sure I was happier not going to church. I no longer had to pretend to believe in something that to me was entirely not real. It's not fun to live a lie.

However, it hurt to be ostracized and judged by my many neighbors who were avid church-goers and believers. What Bloom's article gets at then, is not that atheists' unhappiness in America is due to atheism; but that our country, no matter what our Constitution claims, is still too religious to tolerate anything that is not Judeo-Christian.

Or as Bloom says, "The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one."

"Consolation" to their "homosexual friends"

2008-11-05T20:38:00.017-06:00

Some vocal pro-Proposition 8 voters in the blogosphere apparently have not forgotten their alleged "homosexual" "friends."

[In case you were in a coma yesterday and today, Proposition 8 very narrowly passed in CA, 52-48%.]

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one giant step for civil rights for racial minorities has also led to pretty big step backwards in civil rights for gays and lesbians. Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, and California all passed some form of anti-gay measures yesterday.

Further, 70% of black voters in California supported Prop 8, while whites narrowly opposed it, and Asian and Latino voters were split.

Yet, before we go getting all racist and starting a Black vs. Gay war, let's remember that black people only made up 6% of the total vote in CA. More importantly, let's remember the major funders and creators of false advertising for Proposition 8 were the Church of LDS and "pro-family" organizations.

Let's also remember that black people have been fighting their own war against horrible laws and prejudices for centuries. I don't mean to take anything away from Obama's victory and what it means for black people in this country.

And, of course, let's remember our black AND gay brothers and sisters. They often fight homophobia from within their black communities, and racism from within the GLBT community.

While no one likes to paint herself a victim, nor do we sit idly by and let it happen, these ARE realities for gay people and racial minorities. Homophobia and racism, obviously, exist.

So, while I just claimed that gays and lesbians suffered a giant step backwards in the civil rights timeline yesterday, the truth is that we should all celebrate the giant leap forward that Obama's nomination is for everyone.

As an aside, I think the connection between the pro-Prop 8/black vote is rooted in Christian fundamentalism, not race. Higher percentages of black people are religious, and their religions tend more often to be the ones that disapprove of gays and lesbians. And fundamentalist religious people oppose same-sex marriage in much greater percentages than do non-religious people and non-fundamentalists.

Pam, over at Pam's House Blend, addresses the issue much better than I ever could:

"For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn't been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven't reached them; there hasn't been enough effort expended"

Now we know where to direct some new outreach efforts.

I was just sayin', as I said yesterday, it was a bittersweet election.

But, we will trudge on and keep fighting. While hugely disappointed in the outcome of the different amendments last night, the fact that much of the opposition to equal rights for gay and lesbian families is rooted in homophobia/sexism/bigotry just makes me want to keep fighting even more.

Which leads me to my next topic. Some homo-bigots in the blogosphere, in the midst of celebrating with their first-graders the passage of discriminatory homo-bigot laws, have decided to offer their warped version of "consolation" to their "homosexual" "friends" [sic].

It's times like these I wish I had access to a magical split-screen camera to show across the nation. One would show bigot-headed families like On Lawn's, celebrating with their children the fact that they helped restrict innocent people's civil rights and pursuit of happiness. The other would show a family headed by a gay or lesbian couple, hanging their heads in sadness at the continued discrimination they will face by laws in this country.

I think it's sad that those who shriek at the thought of schools teaching "sex and marriage" in schools to first-graders are the same people who have no problem telling their first-graders about "sex and marriage" (ie-gay people) in their homes when GLBT rights are taken away.

In spite of the mockery On Lawn and other anti-gay people purposefully make towards gay families on a daily basis, I was surprised at his attempt at reconciliation today. While I am sure in his delusional mind, he believes he is now making nice with the families he denigrates every day, observe how he ignorantly fails miserably:

"Its [sic] a somber day for those who's [sic] efforts did not bring victory last night. Lets remember that it could have been us. I feel a great empathy for them, though the fears and emotions are not true they are none the less real to them."

A-wha? Did I just hallucinate all that hoopla about rights getting stripped from gays and lesbians last night? Thank you very much, On Lawn, for telling us exactly how we feel, and which of our feelings are figments of our sensitive, wittle gay imaginations.

I mean, is he serious? Some people just never get it. And I have a feeling he never will.

On Lawn then provides a link to Ken the Playful Walrus' article, entitled, "To My Homosexual Friends [sic] Re: Marriage Amendments."

Ken states, "I voted for Prop 8. I argued vigorously for it in this very blog. I do not hate you. I don’t think most of the people who voted for these amendments hate you. Do you really think that blue state California is so full of homophobic bigots? Some, yes. But so many? If you tell yourself that, you misdiagnose the situation, and that will hinder your future success."

Ken offers the following "advice" to gay people:

"Stop obsessing so much about what other people think of your relationships. If you think your happiness depends on what other people think of your relationships, or what the state calls it, you’re going to be miserable for a long, long time..."

I take issue with this. Serious issue. Not because it is not true. Of course it's fucking true. Yet I doubt any gay or lesbian couples placed all of their happiness eggs in the Proposition 8 basket last night. We gays are pretty smart people.

What does our "friend" Ken think gay and lesbian couples have doing since time immemorial until today? Sitting around crying and being miserable until the homo-bigots say we are no longer sinners?

Thanks, but no thanks.

We have gotten by and will continue to do so. My relationship will not fail because homobigots aren't ready to share a word they think belongs only to them. Nor will we ever stop existing. Ken is right about one thing, the fight is far from over, and I know one day we will get marriage equality.

All that being said, if you yourself have access to a word, with all it's legal privileges, rights, and responsibilies, that other people don't have, you are in no position to tell them they should not want it.

My response to Ken, therefore, is this: if YOUR happiness so greatly hinges on what other people think of other people's relationships, then you my friend are already in serious trouble.

The picture I get in my head of Ken, is one of an overweight man eating a giant slab of mouthwatering chocolate cake, matter-of-factly telling a starving man, "If your happiness depends on this cake, then you're going to be miserable for a long, long time."

You know, Walrus, sometimes it IS about happiness. Or at least a fair shot at happiness that heterosexual couples enjoy. It is already established that marriage is supposed to be that one ultimate form of relatioship, a symbol of undying, unconditional love for your partner for life. On the relationship hierarchy, it is tops, eins, numero uno, the Great Bambino of relationships.

Restricting our right to a shot at that kind of legally and socially recognized relationship, is kind of a big deal.

So yes, it is about happiness.

And it is always about dignity. Separate is NOT equal.

But I doubt Ken or On Lawn know anything about either of those things. While gays and lesbians will get by as we always have without equal marriage, one day we hope to have equal access to happiness and dignity that heterosexual couples often take for granted and abuse every single day.

One day in the not-so-distant future, adults will be adults and learn how to share a word. Or better yet, a Right.

And they will realize, sharing isn't so bad. It's the nice thing to do, really.

And they will say, "What was all that fuss about? I am still me. I am still happy. I am still legally married to my own loving spouse. In fact, nothing at all was taken from me."

And then they will say, "Now I know what it is like to truly call a homosexual 'my friend.'"

And then they will find a new group to hate...

Bittersweet election day...

2008-11-04T23:47:00.002-06:00

The night our nation elects our first Black President, thus far at least 3 anti-gay amendments have passed in different states. Let's hope CA's Proposition 8 is an exception. And yet, despite my sadness, I can not help but sit with tears of joy streaming down my face for the Obama family and all Black people and racial minorities. Each advance in civil rights is one step closer to civil rights for us all. Congrats to President-Elect Obama!

Analysis of the latest Prop 8 polls by Dr. Herek

2008-11-02T12:18:00.002-06:00

Continuing his excellent work regarding "sexual orientation, prejudice, science, and policy," Dr. Gregory Herek offers an analysis of the most recent field polls indicating support of and opposition to California's Proposition 8. You can find it here.

Dr. Herek's analysis and explanations are among the most detailed found on the internet right now. I will let you all read it for yourselves, however opposition to the proposition is still in the lead 52% to 44% in support of it. This is a significantly tighter race than in September.

Of note, regarding why the race is still so close, Dr. Herek's explanation is that "old prejudices die hard." He states:

"Perhaps instead we should be remarking on the fact that so many voters have proved reluctant to write antigay discrimination into the California constitution. The widespread opposition to Prop. 8, and the fact that proponents of the measure have been so careful not to publicly bash sexual minorities, are signs of a sea change in public attitudes.

Nevertheless, old prejudices die hard. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are still stigmatized throughout the United States and in much of California. Powerful groups — including the Mormon Church and Focus on the Family — have dedicated their vast resources to perpetuating sexual stigma. And many heterosexuals with generally enlightened attitudes are still uncomfortable thinking about same-sex relationships.

In my own research, I’ve found that heterosexuals’ opinions about marriage equality are very closely linked to their general attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Other factors are also important — including religious beliefs and political values — but antigay attitudes are usually the strongest predictor of marriage attitudes."

Herek's advice? The key factor in the election will be trying to sway the undecided voters. He is urging those who oppose Prop 8 to talk to everyone they know, urge them to vote NO, and tell them why you are voting NO on 8.

I am excited for the likely advance in civil rights that will take place on election day!

They've finally gone too far

2008-11-01T17:21:00.004-05:00

In what may have been the worst move yet in the entire Proposition 8 debacle, the Yes on 8 movement has likened a U.S. with legally recognized same-sex marriages to that of Nazi Germany.

In what has sadly become an overused scare tactic piece of propaganda, Pacific Justice Insitute invoked images of Hitler and Nazi Germany as part of that organization's campaign on behalf of Proposition 8 [I refuse to link to it on my blog].

The Anti-Defamation League has issued the following statement in response to the ad:

"We are outraged and deeply offended that a spokesman for the Pacific Justice Institute has chosen to invoke images of Hitler and Nazi Germany as part of that organization's campaign on behalf of Proposition 8. ADL opposes the Proposition, but in our view, no matter what position one takes on this controversial contemporary moral and political issue, this analogy is hurtful and inappropriate. We should not lose sight of the fact that six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it has become all too easy for some advocates of various political positions to suggest that their opponents are like the Nazis. Such comparisons are profoundly hurtful and should be off limits."

What I find the most ironic and asinine is that they are grossly misusing the Holocaust to their advantage, while at the same time practicing anti-Semitism within their organizations!

Do the intolerant have any boundaries? I think their actions speak for themselves.

Disco song helps medical providers remember CPR

2008-10-21T13:20:00.008-05:00

It looks like the once-popular, all-too-hard-to-get-out-of-your-head, Bee Gee's song "Stayin' Alive" might, in fact, be a real lifesaver.

University of Illinois College of Medicine researchers in Peoria recently conducted a small study in which 10 doctors and five medical students who listened to the "Saturday Night Fever" tune while practicing CPR not only performed perfectly, they remembered the technique five weeks later.

The song plays at 103 beats per minute, which coincidentally, is just the right rate for CPR, per the current guidelines.

"One trouble with CPR training, Matlock said, is that most practitioners, from trained medical professionals to people who take classes at the local fire department, fail to perform the potentially lifesaving technique aggressively enough."

Further, "Both the message of the title and the mechanics of the music support the CPR message, said Mary Fran Hazinski, a nurse at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital in Nashville and senior science editor for the heart association.

While the song's new potential use is amusing, it could save tens of thousands of lives each year. Just this year the American Heart Association (AHA) published a report entitled: Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest. The current recommendations are as follows:

When an adult suddenly collapses, trained or untrained bystanders should—at a minimum—activate their community emergency medical response system (eg, call 911) and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest, minimizing interruptions (Class I).

If a bystander is not trained in CPR, then the bystander should provide hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.

If a bystander was previously trained in CPR and is confident in his or her ability to provide rescue breaths with minimal interruptions in chest compressions, then the bystander should provide either conventional CPR using a 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio (Class IIa) or hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.

If the bystander was previously trained in CPR but is not confident in his or her ability to provide conventional CPR including high-quality chest compressions (ie, compressions of adequate rate and depth with minimal interruptions) with rescue breaths, then the bystander should give hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over the care of the victim.

Remember, you don't have to be trained in CPR to perform chest compressions. Many health-care providers have never done CPR, either. If you witness a sudden cardiac arrest, that person's best chance of survival is immediate chest compressions and automatic defibrillation (many public places now also have defibrillators).

Just hum to the tune of "Stayin' Alive" while doing those compressions, and the rate should be close to perfect.

Who knew that the overplayed disco song is useful not only for making white people dance badly at wedding receptions, but also for saving lives?

National Coming Out Day

2008-10-11T12:55:00.001-05:00

Happy National Coming Out Day to all!

Gay pride and national coming out day is something that is still necessary, as we fight for equal rights in this country. While some of our opponents label gays as "non-existent," or sexual orientation as a "political identity," those of us who are actually gay know that our sexual orientation is something real and central to our happiness and well-being. Because so much of our personhood is wrapped up in who we love and make families with, equal recognition of our families by the government is only fair and just.

I think most people know this by now, as more people are coming out, and as the rest of the world realizes that gay people are often kind, loving, generous people (like most heterosexual people). Once people can put a face to a label that, for so long, was taboo, that label is no longer so scary.

In the sense that many of us in same-sex relationships are fighting for equal rights, being gay is a political identity. Yet, the very reason we seek equal rights makes it that way. The point of a National Coming Out Day, then, is to make our orientations a non-issue. A non-political-identity, if you will. The very people who critique gays for alleged "political ideologies" and "gay agendas" are the very ones who make such "agendas," if you can call it that, a necessity.

It reminds me of those who oppose gay parenting on the grounds that the children might be made fun of by their peers for having gay parents. Why should innocent gay people be punished for the intolerance of ignorant people?

For, the day we stop having to fight for equal rights, protections, and treatments is the day we will be able to stop using our sexual orientations like a political category and get on with just living our lives with the person who makes us happiest, like our heterosexual brothers and sisters. That is when the anti-gay protestors acknowledge that same-sex relationships are necessary for the happiness and sanctity of other people's lives, and not just a political football to sway ignorant masses, or to make money for a select few "pastors" of "churches." And, definitely not a mechanism to elect corrupt, often adulterous, politicians into office.

I wish everyone well on this beautiful weekend. And don't forget to come out to someone today. Whether you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or an ally, putting a face to those labels is one of the best things you can do for our fight for equality.

Those truly concerned about The AIDS

2008-10-07T20:15:00.004-05:00

Should become a doctor or nurse and move to India or other developing countries where the problem is, by far, the largest. Thanks to unprotected heterosexual sex.

The homobigots who only care about The AIDS insomuch as it furthers their anti-gay identity politics, should also read the article, so they learn where the true spread of disease comes from.

I'm just sayin'. Sometimes it's completely obvious that even when you make all attempts to not let your homo-bigotry come out of the closet, it shines through like a rainbow.

Hatin' Palin: A double-edged sword?

2008-10-02T18:05:00.002-05:00

Emily Bazelon, over at Slate, writes an opinion piece titled, "The Un-Hillary:
Why watching Sarah Palin is agony for women."

In it, she describes the grief that women, conservative and liberal alike, encounter when watching and listening to her flawed responses to opponents in debates"

"Conservatives express straightforward disappointment. 'I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful,' Parker writes glumly. 'Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.'"

and

"But Palin's gender is at the center of another set of reactions I've been hearing and reading among women who don't support her ticket, filled with ambivalence over how bad she is. Laugh at the Tina Fey parodies that make Palin ridiculous just by quoting her verbatim. And then cry. When Palin tanks, it's good for the country if you want Obama and Biden to win, but it's bad for the future of women in national politics. I'm in this boat, too. Should we feel sorry for Sarah Palin? No. But if she fails miserably, we might be excused for feeling a bit sorry for ourselves."

I'll admit it. While I am an Obama supporter, of course, a part of me cringes at seeing the only prominent female political figure of the moment mess up so badly, so often. She can't hack it in the big leagues, that much is obvious. But the problem with that for women is that a lot of people are going to attribute her incompetence to her gender. Because Americans really are that stupid.

Another part of me is so incredibly angry that a woman like Palin has sort of undeservedly slipped into a role that replaces uber-prepared and competent Hillary Clinton as our gender's lone representative on a major party ticket.

So put me in Bazelon's camp:

"And yet. When I watch Palin, I can't help but cringe along with Parker. Call it women's solidarity, however misplaced. I keep coming back to this prim phrase: Please, don't make a spectacle of yourself. String some coherent sentences together. Your efforts to wrap yourself in Hillary's mantle make no sense in terms of what you'd actually do in office. But if you could pull off just a bit of her debating prowess—just a bit—I'll step a little lighter when I wake up Friday morning."

Asinine, thy name is Opine

2008-09-23T11:16:00.010-05:00

Let's talk for a minute about a post that, frankly, pissed me off. I had read that article back in March when Fitz first posted it, stopped looking at the website for several months, forgotten about it, then remembered it today due to a situation of personal aquaintances of mine, lesbians, becoming parents.

Like any anti-gay propaganda, people like Fitz and other Opine Idiots like to use isolated instances of hypotheticals or random internet "testimonials" of supposed selfishnesses or otherwise general "immorality" in loving gay and lesbian couples who are ready, willing, and able to take care of children.

In their Quixote-like quest, which involves fighting the windmills of "gay parenting" and "sex segregated marriages," these people far too often lose sight of the far more common experiences of REAL LIFE parenting. Gay or not.

I find it extremely arrogant, close-minded, inaccurate, lazy, and bigoted that a person would stoop so low as to imply lesbians (or gay men) are selfish for wanting a baby.

I mean, they are after all, people, too. Fitz and the other Opine crowd could at least acknowledge that a fundamental part of happiness and fulfillment in most people's lives involves starting a family of one's own.

For example, Fitz, in his typical pessimistic paternalism, patronizingly explains the world of The Lesbian Parent according to his own limited worldview:

"A recent comment by one of our regular posters – Marty came at the same time that a New York Times article revealed the profound selfishness some same-sex couples exhibit when conceiving children as if they were consumer goods designed to satisfy adult desire. "

He goes on in his anti-lesbionic tirade:

"The article refers to the case of Beth R. vs. Donna M. who both work in the media and met in 1999 and moved in together in 2002,.Donna M. became pregnant by artificial insemination in 2003, and just before the baby was due, the couple, who live in Manhattan, went to Toronto and took out a marriage license on Feb. 14, 2004,
'after the birth of the first child but before the birth of a second child, also by artificial insemination.'

So here we have a woman in her 40’s who bears two children in the most self-centered way imaginable. Intentionally depriving these children of their natural Father & indeed any Father whatsoever in the home. – In contrast to both adoption & divorce, these incidents cannot be plausibly severed from 'malice aforethought'

The example such 'pioneers' of selfishness set is mind-boggling. If this same example were followed by the myriad of women who find themselves husbandless as their 'baby hunger' & biological clocks start ticking loudly – we would find ourselves in a world were increasingly Children represent not the natural fruits of marriage but rather accessories born to fulfill adult’s felt needs."

But wait, it gets worse:

"So here are the real fruits of the same-sex “marriage” movement. The treating of children as consumer goods, Fathers as expendable “donors” – with children’s needs & societies interests in promoting responsible procreation all sacrificed on the alter of the ultimate narcissistic tendencies of a radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible few."

In other words, these LESBIANS, in contrast to actual human beings with feelings, have the audacity to use sperm donation to bear a child of their own. As opposed to the single heterosexual mother, who may or may not intentionally leave her children fatherless, LEZZZBIANS are particularily selfish, immoral, and radical because they all(?) leave their children intentionally fatherless. (Insert your nearest picture of a shaved head, armpit hair braiding femi-nazi here.)

I know. It's hard to tell exactly what Fitz' premise is. Other than, of course, calling people names.

So, is Fitz against artificial insemination in general, but not gays adopting children? We never know! You see, in the mind of the bigot, his ideas are rational only to himself. Their selective rationale for being against gay families, who are often unknowingly their neighbors, friends, and co-workers, never has a rhyme or reason. So long as it is anti-gay, it is A-OK!

In Fitz' delusional little head, he has concocted a vision of the world with strict moral and religious boundaries that his church has already laid out for him. There is no room for anything that defies a patriarchal Catholicism (his profile states that he is considering the priesthood), where every little lamb of God has a biological mommy and daddy, and divorce never happens. And so, since it is so easy for him (supposedly) to bow to this version of the world, everyone else should, as well. Regardless of their own religions, or happiness.

So let me get this straight. According to Fitz, all lesbians are "radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible" because of these two lesbians he read about?

So if we are able to base our opinions of lesbians based on one individual lesbian couple, let's take a look at some lesbians that I know. And, I have a hunch that I know a hell of a lot more lesbians than Fitz or Opine will ever know.

My acquaintance lesbian friends just adopted with open and loving arms a cocaine-addicted premature baby from a drug-addicted, homeless mother and father. A homeless mother and father, I might add, that practically begged the lesbians to take in their child for adoption because they know the child will have a better home than they would ever be able to provide. Might I also add that the biological parents had various other options for the baby's placement, including other family members, temporary placement, heterosexual couples, etc.

Yet they specifically chose the lesbians.

Would these same sane, working, non-drug addicted females be "morally reprehensible" and "radical" if they chose instead to artificially inseminate?

Or, are these lesbian unselfish because their baby happens to be needy and cocaine-addicted? And if that is the case, are gay and lesbian parents only fit to take such children with, uh, "special needs."

Or is it the "shotgun wedding" approach that offends Fitz? Would a loving lesbian couple be less moral if they had a shotgun wedding instead of a decade-long courtship that led to a domestic partnership? Yeah, I don't know. Fitz doesn't really know either. He, and the rest of Opine, just like to attach anti-gay venom from any article they see. Regardless of the intent of the original authors of said article.

I am positive we will never get a straight answer to any of those questions from any of the Opiners.

In their typically obtuse way, they will always revert back to their concocted ideas about the necessity of "sex integration and responsible procreation" without ever telling us why they feel that way.

It is just super-duper-important, don'tcha know?

Anyway, I can pretty much guaran-fucking-tee that their baby will never curse it's two mommies for adopting him. He will never feel a lack of love, he will never be in need of affection, food, education, warmth, or anything else that a good parent provides. By taking this baby in, the lesbian couple has already given this baby a head start that it's biological mommy and daddy would never have provided in the selfishness that drug addiction so often entails. (Yet I must commend them for their selflessness in their decision).

In fact, I bet the only ones cursing this lesbian couple for their ultimate "sin" of becoming parents, are people like Fitz. People who are so incredibly blinded by their own fear of gays and lesbians, that even when something is entirely rational, they refuse to concede the truth. Fitz and the rest of Opine Idiotorials would like to, based on misuse of this or that article, take away the rights from people like my friends. People who, for the most part, are decent, honest, hardworking folks who don't deserve to be treated like second-class citizens.

And yet the members of Opine, who let religion constrain them, bigotry guide them, and fear rule their lives are slowly losing touch with reality, while the rest of the world rejoices in the miracle of another happy family that has been created.

They will get by.

They will get by like we all do and always have. No, the laws are not fair right now, but in time that will come, too.

May the goddess bless them.

Gardasil receives regulatory approval for prevention of more cancer

2008-09-16T18:30:00.002-05:00

On September 12, the Food and Drug Administration announced that Gardasil has received regulatory approval for the prevention of vulvar and vaginal cancer.

The news that Gardasil can prevent other types of cancers that HPV causes, of course, is not new information to most health-care providers (I hope), but at least now Merck can officially market Gardasil as such.

Merck is also investigating the vaccine's effectiveness in men (studies thus far have looked promising), and will be submitting data to the FDA later this year.

I'm crossing my fingers, for the sake of men everywhere, that the vaccine becomes FDA approved for men as well as women in the near future.

A woman against women's rights for VP?

2008-09-13T21:30:00.004-05:00

Seriously. In case you haven't heard it already on the blogosphere, back in 2000, Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles signed legislation making it illegal for law enforcement agencies to charge victims or alleged victims of rape for their own rape kits, the city of Wasilla under Mayor Sarah Palin opted to do so anyway.

The article states,

"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."

Does most of America's women (and men) really want this woman pushing similar policies on a federal level?

A Woman? They Are Desperate!

2008-08-29T11:34:00.004-05:00

For the traditional Old White Man Club of Republican candidates (tm), and especially John McCain, to suck it up and choose a female running mate, they must realize they are in deep sh!t.

I can't wait to see how this all pans out.

On Feminism, #1

2008-08-27T17:40:00.016-05:00

I was recently debating with someone on the internet about whether feminism is still needed in society, and about the meaning of "overthrowing the patriarchy." You know the usual arguments that people have regarding feminism.

It all started with this article about frivolous lawsuit king Roy Den Hollander. I'm sure you've heard it about by now. But if you haven't, Hollander is suing Columbia University because they offer a women's studies program.

I believe Fannie, and others, have already sufficiently addressed most of the reasons why this lawsuit is unnecessary and ridiculous.

But I will give my take on it.

This man I was arguing with, Babo, insisted that women now have equal rights. In fact, he ventured beyond equal, and stated that women basically now have more rights than men. And that the alleged goal of "women's studies" programs is to "overthrow the patriarchy" by giving women "everything" and leaving men completely out of things.

I know.

Like most MRAs, his need to oversimplify, overgeneralize, create straw men, and fight windmills that to him represent The Entire Feminist Movement leads to quite a slippery slope. Namely, that femininsts are all out to destroy all men. And now he is just sick and tired of being told "10,000 times" that because he is a man, he is a rapist and violent. You can read the entire exchange here.

Frankly, I don't want to bore you with the entire thing and I've had a long, hard day saving lives to get into it again.

I am too frustrated to explain the simple premises of feminism that men (and some women) like this fail to take the time to learn about. But they are listed conveniently at one place. I don't sincerely expect an anti-feminist to venture to this site, because anti-feminists usually aren't looking for explanations that oppose their prejudices and sexism. All they want is validation from other like-minded men and subserviant women. As men, I suppose they already have the entire world figured out. Men are objective, and correct. Always. And women are whiny, subjective, emotional babies.

Babo is smart enough to not go that far with it. He is smart enough to realize that, "of course," women deserve equal rights, "everyone" knows that by now. But then he immediately goes on to say that women are way past equal rights, to the detriment of men, and dammit our boys are sufferin!

But let's take a look at some things that should make everyone question, as Fannie calls it, The Invisible Ideology.

For example, a man might explain the fact that 138 out of 138 books and authors listed in Wikipedia's "Great Books" entry are written by men, by saying "women just aren't as naturally driven or ambitious" as men. Or "men just write better books." After all, that's just the way it's always been. Men are just the authors of every "important book" out there.

Or would they even notice that all the authors are men?

Would most women even notice?

I mean, is the patriarchy so incredibly invisible that people really believe that the only great books throughout our millenia of existence writing books were written by men? And by mostly white men, at that?

Is it really a "feminist" thought to question this belief, a belief that is held by most "educatated" people in the Western world? Or is it just plain beneficial for all of humankind to question this inherent by-product of patriarchy?

Another internet search of "Great Books" led me to this website: "From the ancient classics to the masterpieces of the 20th century, the Great Books are all the introduction you’ll ever need to the ideas, stories, and discoveries that have shaped modern civilization."

That's right folks, these books have shaped modern civilization as we all know it! And guess what? The list starts in the year 1790 BCE with Hammurabi, and the first female author isn't present until nearly 4 thousand years later when the famous, mostly self-educated, recluse Emily Bronte was born in 1818. Yet, even after she wrote her books, many claimed that her brother Branwell wrote her books instead.

From then on, women make up a few more, mere pinpoint specks in the "shaping our entire civilization" mural that consists of mostly white male authors.

I strongly suspect that the only way, in fact, to get a list of great, influential books written by women--and there are plenty--would be to visit a feminist website, or to take (as was my one "feminist" class in undergrad) a Women & Literature class in school.

For anyone to claim that the effects of learning about male-only authors continuously throughout school have no resounding effects on what females accomplish is naive, at best. Deliberately ignorant at worst.

Further, to sue a school for its curriculum that includes women, as well as men, in its anthropological history is just plain selfish.

And like so many other feminists have decried, "isn't every other course in school a course in men's studies?" It certainly appears to be the case. These are courses that every student is required to take in order to graduate.

Students are never forced to become women's studies minors (as a major isn't offered at the school, check their website) in order to get a degree or graduate.

Yes, in spite of women's suffrage in the past century, and Babo's (and more accurately Christina Hoff Sommers') so-called "equity feminists" of the 1st wave of feminism, women's studies is still a very necessary vocation. Especially considering that despite women gaining the right to vote, more reproductive rights, the rights to themselves (meaning rape laws are no longer property crimes against the man who owns the woman), most students get through their schooling without ever being taught about influential women, why women were excluded from political offices until the 20th century in most countries, or women's literature. They are still learning that the single most important people in western civilization are white men. And after that, and in other cultures, the most important people are just men. Of any color.

As someone on the Feminism 101 blog states, throughout every story, fable, cartoon, movie, novel, poem, epic, etc. men are written as the active protagonist. The hero. Women only ever serve as their decorations, prizes, or damsels in distress that need rescued. (random shoutout to the Buffy series and creator Joss Whedon for being an exception).

Basically, to think all of those social, political, moral wrongs have been rectified by so-called equity feminists in a couple decades; so much so that men are now being harmed is the biggest lie that anti-feminists like Hollander are trying to tell themselves. And worse, now one is clogging the court system and wasting other people's time.

The AAUW (American Association of University Women) responds appropriately to Hoff Sommers' claims that "gender equity" feminists are "stealing feminism" and "harming young boys:"

Unfortunately, Who Stole Feminism? is not about making positive societal change or changing behavior to create a more equitable society for women and girls. Rather, AAUW perceives the book to be an attack on scholars, women's organizations, and higher education. Contrary to what Sommers contends, there is nothing in any of our research about terms she uses--domination, subjugation, victimization, or oppression. Anyone who has read The AAUW Report will know that none of this is in our research. Ours is not a radical agenda despite Sommers' characterization of AAUW. We are about positive societal change. What does Sommers have to offer women and girls of America? Our research looks for solutions and is based on facts, not anecdotes or soundbites. The important thing to remember is that this debate is not about AAUW; it's about the children in this country. What is important is that our daughters and sons reach their full potential.

In that sense, and given the history of the treatment of women, is wanting the best for both sexes, not just males, really a bad thing?

The Washington Post agreed:

"In the end, Sommers fails to prove either claim in the title of her book. She does not show that there is a "war against boys." All she can show is that feminists are attacking her "boys-will-be-boys" concept of boyhood, just as she attacks their more flexible notion. The difference between attacking a concept and attacking millions of real children is both enormous and patently obvious. Sommers's title, then, is not just wrong but inexcusably misleading. For the claim in her subtitle that 'misguided feminism is harming our young men,' she does not present a shred of credible supporting evidence but rather advances her position by assertion and abstract argumentation. ...Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic. Sommers focuses less on boys than on the feminists and cultural liberals against whom she has a long-standing animus. As a society, we sorely need a discussion of boyhood that is thoughtful and searching. This intemperate book is a hindrance to such conversation."

(both of these extended quotes are in wikipedia article on Sommers Hoff)

I am assuming that Babo probably cut and pasted his arguments from Sommers' book. In that case, it is clear to me why he can't back up any of his arguments with any solid facts. Instead, blindly believing, as many do, in an ideology that suits his male privileged needs the best.

It is my sincere belief that patriarchy, not feminism, is responsible for most male grievances these days. If they spent more time advocating for men in that respect, they would probably get a lot further than Hollander ever will. But, that is an entirely different topic, and one that perhaps would be best addressed by men.

On a sidenote, check out Hollander's myspace page.

Great Gay News!

2008-08-22T12:12:00.004-05:00

How about some positive gay news, and a break from insane homobigots?

Here it is:

The Coquille Indian Tribe, of Oregon, has decided to recognize same-sex marriages.

Even though the state passed an amendment to it's Constitution in 2004 banning gay marriages, the Tribe is a federally-recognized sovereign nation, thus not bound by Oregon's Constitution.

Perhaps those who base their arguments against gay marriage on the grounds of a "perverse" or alleged "unhealthy lifestyle" could take lesson from the Chief of the Coquilles, who says, "For our tribe, we want people to walk in the shoes of other people and learn to respect differences. Through that, we think we build a stronger community,"

But if those opposed to gay rights on those grounds knew anything about empathy, we wouldn't be having this insane argument today.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

It's been a while! How about some more insane homobigot comments?

2008-08-20T11:50:00.007-05:00

Professor Mike S. Adams, relatively unknown author of "Feminists Say The Darndest Things" recently wrote a piece titled "Fat Lesbians on Crack."

What lesbians have to do with obesity or drug use, he leaves that up to his faithful readers to discern.

Oh wait, I get it. He's just taking a cheap shot at lesbians everywhere by calling them fat and on crack.

How typical of one whose argument doesn't have much else to stand on. Call them names instead!

Not that he really ever gets to a point, much less an argument, in this article.

He mostly just blathers in the typical hetero-male-that-is-insecure-because-lesbians-do-it-better speak, which is mostly just propaganda and scare tactics to help sway the echo chamber that is the religious right in this country.

The background of the story is that a *gasp* lezzzzbian came in for counseling, and the counselor refused to see the woman because homosexuality is against her religion. The woman allegedly asked for a new counselor and within 10 minutes was allowed to see a non-prejudiced counselor.

Where did this happen? No one knows.

When? Not one date is provided by Adams.

Actually, did this really happen? We don't know!

Adams never provides a link to any real news source. This could be hypothetical, this could be a real story.

Or, for all we know, he could have pulled it from the lapel of the classy little gay man suit he's wearing.

But I get it. The hypothetical (?) he poses merely serves as yet another fundamentalist scare tactic about The Gay Agenda taking over the Universe.

In Adams' eyes, homosexual and feminist rights present The Classic, Ever-Pressing (non)Issue of the oppressed becoming the opressor.

But let's talk about this in real terms.

Is it ethical for a counselor to refuse to treat a client based on her sexuality?

Christian blogger Shawn McEvoy says no, at least in the context of doctors and medical care.

While blogging about CA's recent decision stating doctor's can not refuse medical treatment to gays and lesbians, even when doing so goes against their religious beliefs, McEvoy gives his opinion.

In his words,

"'Thank God,' I said to myself. Goodness, a lesbian is still a woman, and still has reproductive capabilities, does she not? If I refuse to treat her, am I doing more damage to the body of Christ and the gospel message, and completely missing a chance to treat her with love and kindness, vs. refusing on the grounds that society apparently will crumble if one more child is raised in a non-traditional family?"

First off, I just want to give McEvoy the props he deserves for his compassionate response above. Of the thousands of so-called Christians I have seen argue against rights and equal treatment for gays and lesbians, this is one of the first times I have ever seen on a fundamentalist Christian website a compassionate, empathetic reaction towards gays and lesbians.

Secondly, my opinion as a health-care provider. My main priorities in my profession is to do no harm to patients, and only work to better their health.

Do some of the patients I see have lifestyles and do things with which I personally disagree? Do they go against my personal morals and spirituality? Hell yes.

But as a health-care provider, I am there to treat an individual for specific health needs. Not society as a whole. Let's leave that up to the democratic process, shall we?

Does it sometimes piss me off on a personal level? Yes. But I would never be so self-righteous that I would refuse to treat someone based on something my religion disagrees with. The two are separate, for good reason. If someone is so deeply religious that they are not able to care for those that their profession asks that they care for, perhaps they should consider another calling. Priesthood? Missionary work? Private school teacher?

Anyway, here is a sampling of comments from Adams' article from some other "Christian" folk:

Ken, in North Carolina, wrote:

"You see, Homosexuality is a perversion, a twisted thing, a biological wrong behavior. It can be corrected, but the addict must realize the error in this behavior. There is room at the cross for even you, Will. You can find your way back. What you are doing is wrong, and cannot be proven right no matter how many black robed nutcases you can get to say it is right. It is a biological and medical abberation. Continuing to practice this abberation will only result in your paying a huge pain price someday. Not to mention the cost of your soul."

That's not all folks! Ken posted immediately after his comment above to say,

"I saw a picture on Yahoo of Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, Portia. You know, I know they are not that old. I think DeGeneres is only in her early 40's, and Portia is probably about the same. Yet, the lifestyle is getting them obviously. They are both wrinkled and drawn. I was thinking they looked pretty fair for a couple in their late 50's. I mean DeGeneres looked older than even I, who understands the damage Homosexuality does to the human body (and soul)."

Jim, in VA states,
"Subject: Baby Deserves a Father
What we are missing here are the consequences of lesbians and insemination. The baby never knows its FATHER. Two women do not a father make. That is pure evil."

DanS in CO prophecizes,

"Supremacy of the Lowest Denominator"
"I’m not claiming that the gay rights movement has taken over the country."

You don't have to, it's self-evident. It is the public school principle of the "supremacy of the lowest common denominator" which has empowered homosexuals. See http://withChrist.org/SLCD.htm

Being under "God wrath," (Rom. 1:18) they are mentally haunted and tormented. Their effort to find psychological relief is a socio-political agenda to eliminate Christians (first by incarceration, then death if necessary) and Christianity from the face of the earth. Sound extreme? You're not paying attention.

Tolerance of and civil rights for the sodomite lifestyle will never be adequate to assuage their psychological torment, which they attribute solely to Christianity.

Sorry folks, but this situation is not going to have a pretty ending."

Eeeeep!! Armageddon!

And, there actually were some rational people on the site, too:

Shells, from IL said
"Subject: Joycey
Counselors are trained to be empathetic and non judgemental. There is a way to move the lesbian to a new counselor without making it seem judgemental. It is not lying.

People go to suicide for counselors. Would she turn them away? I don't think she would. So it's more the act of homosexuality that impales her ability to be empathetic and non judgemental. That's not good.

Counselors are meant to listen, to empathize, to help, to offer advice and if necessary if the problems are too deep, to refer.

They are entitled to their beliefs, such as, we don't believe in child molestation, we don't believe the color red means to kill us and we don't believe in marrying our pets, but if a person seeks help for these matters, and your job is counselor, you counsel."

True that, sister.

Swampfox from SC said,

"Subject: The counselor
The Christian counselor thought that this was the time and the place to espouse her religious beliefs on homosexuality? She should have deftly referred the young woman to someone else without the judgmental remark. But, then the Christian Counselor says that her religion doesn't allow her to lie. Then Adams's column says that being lesbian is an unhealthy lifestyle. This whole issue is getting tiresome. I don't know what is the cause of my homosexuality might be. I did not choose it. But, I have to live with it. For once I would pray that Mr. Adams would try to walk in my shoes just once.

And, I will add that I hope that the Christian counselor gets a better job somewhere else that is more suitable to her beliefs and Christian lifestyle."

I agree. Since when is being a lesbian considered to be unhealthy, by any medical standards?

Just a thought.

Anyway, an easy google search of Professor Mike S. Adams shows that he is profoundly not respected or admired by most people he encounters on the internet.

I sure hope my friend Fannie decides to put this dude in her Asinine for Attention archives.

Bush Administration Threatens Access to Pill

2008-07-31T18:33:00.004-05:00

Per the Washington Post, "A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights."

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan, or entity that does not want to accomodate employees who opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their convictions, including administering/providing IUDs, birth control pills, and Plan B (the emergency contraceptive).

The draft is, of course and predictably, applauded by conservatives everywhere.

Meanwhile, those of us in the real world (family planning clinics, women's rights activists, most health-care professionals) acknowledge that such broad ideological language would only create more overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.

For example, imagine an interviewee for a job at a pharmacy or Planned Parenthood. Imagine she is secretly an ideologue on a mission. And that mission is to pose as a women's rights advocate, when secretly she wants to accept the job, only so she can refuse to offer services like legal abortions or IUD insertions. Now that company is faced with either retaining that employee or losing all its federal funding.

And I can't even imagine a kick in the ovaries that a rape victim being denied Plan B by an ideologue conservative pharmacist must feel like.

All I'm saying is that a group of clueless-to-the-real-world conservative groups and politicians have no place creating laws that affect an already underserved REAL group of people--women who access clinics that rely on federal funding--in real ways.

Basically, are religious fundamentalists entitled to tell all these women how they can and can not use their bodies for their own family planning? Are we really going to turn into that kind of a country? Where our health-care and our health-care professionals are forced into accepting extreme religious fundamentalism that is detrimental to the majority of its people.

Instead of protecting these extreme fundamentalists, it should be a illegal for them as health-care professionals, to block or prevent access to legal birth control or abortion methods.

I will be praying to the Goddess tonight that this proposal is thrown in the toilet and shat on by the DHS.

OneNewsNow whines about Prop 8's re-wording as "biased"

2008-07-29T21:39:00.005-05:00

Does anyone else think that is a little hypocritical?

Jeff Johnson, of Don Wildmon's OneNewsNow reports:

"The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment 'to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.' The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose 'several tens of millions of dollars' if the measure is passed."

Johnson goes on to quote attorney Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, who states that this language will likely cost "their" side (however it be defined) votes in the election.

Johnson states, "The attorney explains that although the change can be appealed, there is little chance such an appeal against the obviously biased language of the new ballot title and description would be successful."

Um... errr...

Coming from a website that calls the entire gay population "homosexual activists," repeatedly misinterprets scientific research to discredit gay people, and engages in otherwise shoddy, dishonest journalism, the only thing I find "biased" is Johnson's reporting.

In fact, it's kind of the epitome of irony to claim "bias" for calling a proposed amendment to prevent same-sex couples from marrying...well, uh...an amendment to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

In other news, I find it extremely disturbing that OneNewsNow, in an article discussing the Tennessee Church Shooting victims, also felt the need to mention, "The Unitarian Universalist church advocates women's rights and gay rights and has provided sanctuary for political refugees."

To be fair, they followed the sentence with "It also has fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site."

Yet, I am not giving the author of that article any credit. By choosing to state that the church endorses women's rights, gay rights, and political refugees (which are the antithesis of extremely conservative, fundamentalist groups like the AFA and its members), they are letting their readers know what they really think of the shootings. And I am positive that the Unitarian Universalist Church's acceptance of women and gays makes the shootings and murders more acceptable in the eyes of the AFA and its members.

I'm just sayin'. One wacko conservative already muderered people. How much more reckless journalism are Christian fundamentalists going to engage in before even more innocent lives are lost as a result of scapegoating "The Liberal" or the "The Gays?"

Don Wildmon ("a-der")

"AFA Members are so smart! S-M-R-T!"

2008-07-25T11:06:00.007-05:00

I know several blogs have already posted similar hilarious comments from the Boycott McDonald's website.

But some of them are just too funny to let go without me making fun of personally. I have not added the "[sic]" notation in any of these comments, as that would just be distracting to the reader, given the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that you are about to read.

For example [emphasis added when bold, my comments follow, in italics]:

"We love your fries, but we will not compromise truth. You have taken money that our family, and millions of others, have contributed to the success of the McDonald's Corp. and chosen to use it for an agenda that defies the foundation of our nation, the family, as created by a man and woman. Perhaps you should spend more time sitting at the tables in the play yards of the thousands of McD's restaurants around the country. We will only be missing the fries, but your corporation has lost something much greater, respect and truth."

"I will take me 10 great grand children to Wendys BurgerKing or some other place. YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN!" [err... "game?" Did I miss something?]

"It was bad enough having to keep my Spanish to English dictionary handy every time I pulled up to your drive-thru window (to the tune of about $1,000 per year). But this is the final straw (and I guess the final Big Mac) for me. Your blatant disregard for the strongly held moral values most Americans hold dear has cost you my business. Yes, Wendy's, I will have a Frosty with that." [Because it wouldn't be a conservative, "Christian" attack on Teh Gay Agenda if a little racism weren't thrown in for good measure}

"No more McDonald's for us - zip, zero, nada. You have taken the wrong side of this issue. We are not the haters here. The homosexuals are the intolerant ones. It's their way or the highway." [You're right. Homasekshuls have had it sooo easy for the past couple centuries. You poor, oppressed, heterosexual Christians finally deserve a break.]

"My family has supported your business for well over 25 years. We have been loyal customers eating at your establishments 4 times/week. It pains me to say, but, I now will take my business and hard-earned money elsewhere. As much as we have enjoyed the food over the years, we will not continue to do so because of your close-minded leadership. We are amazed that your leadership is taking this stand. Such ashame. You will be losing nothing just to be neutral on same sex marriages. Now you WILL lose.... customers. The loss of revenue is completely YOUR choice." [I'm sure they are on the brink of bankruptcy at this very moment!]

"Being for traditional marriage is not hatred. Warning others of dangers is not hatred either. Homosexuals are still at higher risk of AIDS. We that have lost loved ones to AIDS don't want others to go through it." [Yet another Concerned Voice for the public health of our nation's homosexuals. Hang on, I will give you the phone number to your local AIDS organization so you can volunteer your time there. Or better yet, I will give you information on helping your local black women, as they now represent 8 of 10 new HIV cases in the U.S.]

"As long as McDonald's keeps supporting same sex marriage my family will NO longer be eating there. Please Do consider others Faith and our children. It is Very wrong to be supporting gays, it even says so in the Bible. I feel that you are so wrong about supporting gays, mabey you should pick up your Bible and READ it!!!" [According to my femi-nazi-lezbo-wicca koran of mormon, sapphic desires and actions are perfectly normal and natural. "Mabey" you should stick that book in your back pocket.]

"McDonald's targets 2 year old children to blackmail their parents into bringing them to McDonald's, & has helped to undermine & destroy the family by turning meal time into "play time." Now "IT" wants to foist a "gay" time on all Americans. This is beyond "hatred." This is arrogance & contempt for even basic human dignity. No McBuggers for me." [seriously?! "McBuggers?" LOL]

"We have generally chosen McDonald's. We now will simply make another choice. There are other options. We cannot support a company with an agenda." [good luck with that]

"McDs was once a great resturant, but once my family of 5 found out about your support for the homosexual agenda we have decided to no longer patrone with your facitities. We hope you change your minds on this issue, but until then my entire family of over 200 will no longer be a patron at any Mcdonalds or any other place that supports agendas as this. Sorry." [200? and I thought the Duggers were bad]

"My family will no longer support a company whose policies are in direct opposition to our moral values. The militant homosexual movement is a threat to national security and my family. I will oppose it and all who support it." [I'm picturing armies of gay men and lesbians in berets and fatigues marching in front of the McDonald's in my neighborhood]

"My boycott of McDonald's just cost your company at least $300 dollars a month...and that's just what my family spent there. That does not include all of our friends and family that I've told who were equally outraged at your support of the NGLCC. Did I mention the roughly $300 a month over the last 5 years or so? Add that up if you will." [call me crazy, but is it really 'family-friendly' to force feed your children $300/month worth of McDonald's?]

"McDonald's (as well as any other "business" that will not stay neutral on any "cultural" issue) will not get my "business" ...they need to stick to ..."business". On the "cultural" issue of homosexuality, the reason I oppose it is not because I "hate" anyone...it is because I have come to know God personally through His word. I have come to learn that, just as a parent loves their child too much to let them do something that will destroy their (or anyone else's)lives, so does God. He loves each of us and desires that we come to know the truth ...so that we won't hurt ourselves or others...so we can be set free." [I know when I talk to God, he says that he "saves." He means that he shops at Wal-Mart.]

"I will never, ever, visit a McDonald's in lieu of these developments." [man, "these developments" must be an awesome place.]

"When I travel I look for a McDonalds for breakfast now I'll go to Bojangles" [A-wha?!?]

Okay folks, that's it for now. Expect some more fun in the next edition of ""AFA Members are so smart! S-M-R-T!"

AFA Alert [insert 1950s Commie bomb warning sound here]

2008-07-24T14:35:00.003-05:00

Don Wildmon and his little group, the AFA, are getting desperate, it appears.

I have received 6 "AFA Action Alerts" since 7/11/08.

Among the headlines from our cookoo conservative cohorts:

*McDonald's: those opposing ssm are motivated by hate (a-der. good luck in your boycott of McDonald's, by the way.)

*Will You Pray for China During the Olympics? (which is really a ploy to get you to buy a "free" Olympic "prayer band.")

*Liberals block effort to help solve energy crisis (because the AFA is, like, SOOO environmentally aware now)

*Tear Apart the “Theory” of Evolution And Win Every Debate, Every Time…

For those curious, the article begins like this:

"Dear Friend,

I’m fed up with Darwin…

When evolution supporters tried to make me feel foolish for believing in God, I decided to do something about it.

Evolution is not proven fact. Every one of their claims can be torn to shreds. All you need are the missing pieces. Today, I’ll show you what they are.

Within minutes, you’ll:

• Quickly take down self-righteous atheists…

• Easily and accurately defend God’s role as our Creator…

• Send hardened skeptics into a state of confusion…

• Expose the “theory” of evolution and leave scientists with their mouths hanging open…

My name is Jeffrey Howard. If you ever challenged someone on evolution, I have great news.

By the time you read to the end of this letter, you’ll have everything you need to take on the skeptics and win. You’ll never be at a loss for words. The whole evolution debate will be right in your pocket.

Use it anytime, anywhere… It’s much easier than you think. Once you get the real story, it takes less than 5 minutes!"

And guess what? If you fork over your credit card number, he will be more than happy to share it all with you.

And that's not all! You will also get 4 "free reports" on "natural and inexpensive remedies for ADHD" AND "the names and exact doses of the nutrients that power up the part of your eye responsible for seeing vivid colors and sharp lines"
AND "5 simple nutrients that can protect your memory, burn through “brain fog” and help you think more clearly" AND "The 7 Nutritional Supplements that REALLY Work…" in slowing down your aging process!!

All of this by clicking on the link to provide your credit card information for these "FREE" reports.

Good times.

And here I thought the AFA was focused on anti-gay propaganda!

Man, it sure is expensive to be focused on the American Family these days.

Who supports Prop 8 in CA?

2008-07-16T20:53:00.003-05:00

Pam Spaulding has an excellent post on just this topic over at Pam's House Blend.

Anyone interested should check it out, as well as the links she provides to the CA Secretary of State's Office.

David Benkof is right about this much, the information is no doubt out there on the internets for we marriage equality supporters to find. I'm off to do some research of my own and will post back with more information as my time and schedule allows.

More denialism and fear-mongering from vaccine-o-phobes

2008-07-10T15:02:00.004-05:00

The following article appeared on Judicial Watch's website on June 30, 2008.

The article, from this website that claims it is interested in "promoting the integrity, transparency, and accountability in government, politics, and the law," is basically yet another conservative watchdog group's attempt to discredit the HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

It states, "Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a report based on new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. The adverse reactions include 10 deaths since September, 2007."

First, saying that Judical Watch "uncovered" these reported adverse effects is extremely misleading. Saying something is "uncovered" implies that it was hidden from public view, and implies that the government and/or pharmaceutical companies are trying to hide something. As Judicial Watch states, all VAERS records are provided to the public openly.

The more I read conservative "reports" and "news articles," the more convinced I become that they are the biggest paranoid conspiracy theorists out there.

To be clear, as part of the mandated Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS) that pharmaceutical companies are required to participate in, any and all reactions, illnesses, and deaths that occur within a specified time frame of receiving the vaccine should be reported and investigated. These deaths can include, for example, a girl who receives Gardasil, and one week later dies in a car accident. Because she died within a week of getting the injection, it must be investigated as a potential adverse effect of the vaccine. Same goes, for example, for a girl who received Gardasil, fell off her bike, and is now in a coma in the hospital.

For example, in its article, Judicial Watch lists as one example of an adverse effect:

"Information has been received from a physician concerning a female patient who on an unknown date was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil. Subsequently, the patient experienced a coma and is now paralyzed. At the time of this report, the patient's outcome was unknown. VAERS ID: 303188-1"

Um. I am truly saddened to hear about anyone in a coma. Yet, I cringe at the words "...who on an unknown date was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil."

Like, how long ago did she receive Gardasil? And how much longer "subsequently" did she experience a coma? And what, exactly, happened to her in the meantime? When I was a toddler, I was given my childhood vaccines before kindergarten. Subsequently, I became a lesbian.

I'm sorry, but leaving out important details like dates, something I learned in Journalism 101 is THE single most important factor in telling an accurate, true, unbiased story is shoddy journalism at best. At worst, it is deliberate dishonesty. I haven't ever been to Judical Watch before, so I have no idea what kind of reputation it has among reputable news sources. But I am starting to place it in the dishonest propaganda category like AFA, FAF, and David Benkof.

As the VAERS website clearly states in its FAQ section, "The fact that an adverse event occurred following immunization is not conclusive evidence that the event was caused by a vaccine. Factors such as medical history and other medications given near the time of the vaccination must be examined to determine if they could have caused the adverse event. It is important to remember that many adverse events reported to VAERS may not be caused by vaccines."

As for the fainting and/or seizure episodes the Judicial Watch article discusses, let's consider this: a girl comes into the doctor's office who doesn't eat breakfast that morning (being a typical teenager), thus she already has low blood sugar, and then has a vasovagal response to the injection and faints. Most times, reactions like this are more so a result of hypoglycemia and anxiety/fear of needles (because the same thing happens during blood draws), than from whatever is in the actual vaccine.

Anyway, I have never seen more public outcry against a vaccine than this one. Sure, the vaccine denialists are out there, and have been since before Gardasil. But never have conservatives been so outspoken about vaccines until Gardasil. (and so willing to misrepresent the truth and the statistics). Coincidentally, it is one vaccine that deals with women and sexuality. Hmm...

The amount of hate some people carry is just sad. To supporters of Gardasil, let's all work together to fight unfair misconceptions and lies about the vaccine.

Making your grandparents proud

2008-07-01T13:57:00.009-05:00

This past weekend was Gay Pride, which to my friends and me, means giant parties for lesbians and gay men, beer, bands, food, and fun. It also means the Pride Parade. So, on Sunday morning, I showered away my hangover, drank a beer, and headed to Boystown for the party with my girlfriend and best friend.

An hour later, as per the usual late "gay time," we arrived to the geographic place where the parade ended, and saw that first rainbow flag rounding the bend. We made it just in time to see the parade, which we watched in time for me to hear from an ex, for my girlfriend to run into an ex, and my best friend to hear from her ex and her ex's new girlfriend, and the girl my friend had been "talking to," but who was now back with her ex, but not having sex with (because they "love each other, they just aren't in love anymore.") Such is life in the lesbian world. Lol. We are all connected to Melissa Etheridge, Jodie Foster, Portia, and Jennifer Beals by, like, 3 degrees.

Okay... so maybe not Jennifer Beals...but we can all wish, can't we?

Anyway, the point of this, because I don't often like to delve into my personal life on my blog (because there are some truly sick people out there in cyberspace), was to post the following photograph, which I took on Sunday at the parade:

Bear in mind that the Chicago Gay Pride parade was attended by an estimated 450,000 spectators this year.

Also bear in mind that, of the 450,000 people, this picture shows those who were protestors of the event (maybe 10-15 people, tops).

So, you can imagine the public mockery they made of themselves, standing there like perfect little hateful, bigoted charicatures. A tiny group of about 10 people, donning sandwich boards, megaphones, and stereotypical, by-now-meaningless bible quotes telling each person as they walked past, that they are "going to hell."

At one point, the man with the megaphone in my picture above stated, "You must make your grandmother proud" to a gay man who was proudly showing off his rainbow-colored necklace to the protestors.

Honestly, I am sure he does. At least more so than the bigot brigade that was on (such small) display.

If the sole "vice" those protestors were judging this man on is that he is gay, then he already is light-years ahead of the monsters behind the sandwich boards and megaphones.

If his "vice," is that he--on the day of the year that a gay couple can walk down the streets of Chicago holding hands like their straight counterparts with no fear of violence or catcalls--stood up a little bit to a hateful group of tormentors, then he is eons ahead of the bigots hiding behind the police like cowards.

And that, I know, would make any grandmother proud.

Happy Pride Weekend!

2008-06-28T09:48:00.006-05:00

In light of it being June 28, the anniversary of the beginning of the Stonewall Riots, let's take a moment to thank and remember some of our predecessors in the LGBT rights movement:

Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society in 1950, the first gay rights organization in the U.S.

Richard Leitsch, who became president of the New York chapter of the Mattachine Society around 1965, for his bravery in protesting the NYC police department's entrapment of gay men and raids on "gay" bars (any establishment knowingly serving three or more homosexuals at once).

The transwomen of the Compton Cafteria Riot, in 1966.

Heterosexual folk singer, Dave van Ronk, who was walking through the area the night of the Stonewall Riots, grabbed by police, taken into the Stonewall Inn and beaten. Thank you for making a strong case for the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime legislation, showing that gay people aren't the only unnecessary victims of violence against gay people.

The 2000 so-called "butch" women and "effeminate" men who stood up to the 400 officers that night.

I hope everyone has a safe and happy pride this year!

From the Office of the National Nurse Intitiative

2008-06-23T11:50:00.002-05:00

[Editor's note: Because I believe in this initiative, and because those involved contacted me, I have agreed to post official information regarding the Office of the National Nurse Initiative in an article today. Thank you.]

Nurses United Behind Office of the National Nurse Initiative
http://nationalnurse.org

For nearly three years a grassroots campaign has been underway to establish an Office of the National Nurse. The National Nurse will:
· Serve as a prominent nurse icon for prevention.

· Complement the work of the US Surgeon General.

· Strengthen preparedness and prevention within the MRC units.

· Guide nurses to promote prevention in their local communities.

· Generate interest in nursing careers and other health professions.

* Strengthen partnerships among existing national, state, and local public health services.

Opportunities for change in healthcare are becoming a political reality. Creating the Office of the National Nurse, will uniquely position nursing to promote prevention, the prominent cornerstone for healthcare reform in the platforms of the Presidential candidates. As reports continue to be published about the demise of our healthcare system, we believe the nursing profession has the expertise, the skills and the commitment needed to shift the tide towards prevention and begin to improve our nation's health.

The nearly 3 million nurses in this nation cross all our cultural communities, and annual Gallop polls show nurses are repeatedly "the most trusted profession." With Congressional sanction of a National Nurse leader, the existing nurse workforce, including students and retirees, can effectivly begin shifting our nation to a culture of prevention and reducing the health disparities found in many racial and ethnic communities.

To create the Office of the National Nurse, it is recommended Congress strengthen the position of the existing Chief Nurse Officer (CNO) of the USPHS, making it more visible and aligned with the Office of the Surgeon General. This will avoid creating a new entity, replication of existing services, and will not require new funding. Providing the CNO with the unique title of National Nurse will assure the prominence and public recognition needed to promote prevention at the national level. Also, the National Nurse would accurately portray nursing leadership (as opposed to media portrayals) and will enhance public awareness of the varied roles nurses play to protect public health.

As a visible professional spokesperson, the National Nurse will be a valuable beacon for recruitment and will promote volunteerism of nurses and other health professionals within existing frameworks such as local Medical Reserve Corps. Presently, about 30,000 nurses serve in the MRC, a mere 1% of the nurse workforce. "MRC units are community-based and function locally to organize and utilize volunteers who want to donate their time and expertise to prepare for and respond to emergencies and promote healthy living throughout the year. MRC volunteers supplement existing emergency and public health resources." Retrieved on November 2, 2007 from http://medicalreservecorps.gov/About

We are amazed at the amount of grassroots support the Office of the National Nurse proposal is receiving from nurses on the frontlines, members of the public, and members of Congress. A complete list of endorsers can be found at http://nationalnurse.org/endorsements.shtml

To get involved:

1. Visit http://nationalnurse.org/takeAction.shtml for links on ways to contact your Representatives or Senators.

2. Contact Teri to sign up for email newsletter updates and forward these to your family, friends, and peers.

3. Ask organizations you are a member of to endorse the Office of the National Nurse initiative.

4. Write a letter of support to the Presidential candidate you are supporting and urge him to put language about the Office of the National Nurse proposal into their platform statement on nursing/healthcare.

5. Purchase a button or a bumpersticker at http://www.cafepress.com/nationalnurse

6. Make a donation to the National Nursing Network Organization. We are a non-profit organization, but are not tax exempt; therefore contributions are not tax deductible.

Let the People Vote? Okay!

2008-06-12T19:31:00.002-05:00

In case people were worried that there are "activist" judges and governors out there, that isn't really true.

New York Voters backed their Governer 53-40% on his decision to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state.

Breakdown of the stats:

Democrats approved the measure 64-30%
Independents: 56-37%
Republicans opposed it: 57-37%

Fun with Fitz

2008-06-11T11:29:00.014-05:00

I recently ventured, as I sometimes do, over to the Opine Editorials to post a comment or two on some particularily distasteful topics they pretend to know about. As per usual, the mass assault and misdirection towards me started the minute I entered the room, as they practically foam at the mouth for anyone besides themselves to enter the homophobic (yet strangely homoerotic) confines of their little echo chamber.

It began like it always begins when a pro marriage equality commenter ventures to their chamber.

Someone posts a comment defending gay people and marriage equality against their baseless accusations and illogic, and the gang bang of malaprops, new definitions, propaganda, and cut-and-paste answers from other homophobic websites starts. All whilst screeching and complaining that no one has yet addressed their brand of "logic."

Chairm and R.K. were the first to appear this time, blathering their typical "wise-old-yoda-master" spiels, "teaching" John Hosty-Grinnell and myself their lies and "lessons" of logic, reason, and analogy. Renee soon joined in with her "scientific" obsession with coitus and "biology." As if maybe for once we will change our minds about the entire issue if she preaches about oxytocin and orgasm just a little bit more.

And then, in jumps Fitz. The "hero" to his fellow circle-jerkers, now that The Condescending Authoritarian (Professor Alexander T. Riley) Culturologist has left the building.

I'm sure it is only a matter of time, really, until Senora Solano stops writing her next Concerned Woman for America speech and teaching her little thespians long enough to go on a new tirade about the religious evils and anal perversions of which is the epicenter of her life. 3-2-1...

But I digress. This article is about Fitz, the 38 year-old lawyer from Detroit, who is "discerning a call to the priesthood (& considering the Jesuit order).." Goddess help us all. He is obviously a very religious man. His public profile states, "I believe in the primacy of culture, (When I’m not espousing the primacy of Christ & his Church)." Yet like most self-ascribed "religious" folks, the ones who feel the need to shout it from their rooftops (or their cyber rooftops) are usally among the most judgmental, condemning, least tolerant, and most arrogant.

Not only does this fellow usually display deeply paranoid anti-communist and anti-feminist rantings, his articles go beyond any semblance of being able to be understsood. In short, while we all make the occasional typo, he has a remarkable tendency to, in nearly every piece of writing, mix up his homonyms and mis-use apostrophes as though he completely missed a few key classes in grammar school as a kid. Like so many things the Opiners touch on the internet, an article or comment thread quickly turns into a hot mess whenever Fitz is involved.

In fact, if I were him, I wouldn't be so quick to continuously start sentences with "as an attorney..." Because every time he writes a comment or article, I become a little more convinced that he got his law degree from the inside of a crackerjack box.

Who else would title an article "You'll know them by their Tactic's," and go on to say, "It called deviousness or subterfuge." Um... a-wha? I have no idea a.) what his paranoid mind is referring to, and b.) what he is talking about, since per usual, his article is completely incomprehensible. Perhaps, "as an attorney," he should venture to this website before publishing poorly written and hardly proof-read articles. It is obvious he relies a little too much on his, perhaps self-thought, special status as an attorney, to make up for his lack of command of the English language and writing ability. Something that, one would think, would be greatly valued "as an attorney."

The purpose of this critique serves a greater purpose than poking fun at Fitz, however. It also demonstrates how completely out of touch with reality the Opiners are if they believe that Fitz's writings demonstrate anything close to intelligible, reasoned, or comprehensible arguments.

Hold on to your hats and glasses folks, for here is a compilation of my favorite Fitzisms:

Responding to one pro-gay commenter about something that isn't really important as Fitz's comment is utterly indecipherable, he states with no further explanation: "Chiefly individual adult want over the common good and the good of children." Erm. Okay. Since I don't know any intelligent person who could counter such an "argument" I suppose you win, Fitz.

And for homonym fun with Fitz, embedded within the very same comment as above, here are a couple of his usual mix ups (I have faith in my readership to know that the [sic]'s are unnecessary): "Of coarse I have found no better concise statement for this view than the following..." and "You can lead a hoarse to water but you can’t make him drink." So true. However, I must admit that that last statement gave me the surely unintended image of a feverish man stubbornly refusing a glass of water in a nurse's outstretched hand, which now that I think about it, sort of works. I guess some concepts aren't lost in translation.

Observe this latest comment, as well. I WAS going to give it a good 'ol college try. Yet, try as I might, I could not decipher the point(s)? he was trying to make. He says:

"The needs of society's [sic] change all the time. It is exatly [sic] those amendments that prove my point. There [sic] existance [sic] is the mechanism a free people exercise when they deem it neccesary to exert a fundemntal [sic] right into the constitution.

If African Americans [sic] fought a civil war and have three amendments, or consider the 19th Amendment [sic] . (That comes after the 14th) It took a generation of women to convince men to give them the right to vote.

Why should your cause supersede democracy?"

Um. After sifting through all that garbage, I am not really sure what he said, or even intended to say. So honestly, Fitz, I can not answer your question. I guess that means you win, again. Also note his proud display of his knowledge of the fact that 19 comes after 14, numerically. Given the amount of mistakes he has already made, even I was rooting for him to get that one right.

Sometimes, because of their deceptive, misleading, or irrelevant articles and comments, I am not quite sure if the Opiners are computers or humans. Like those Magic 8-Ball toys, you can ask them an endless number of questions and present them with numerous different arguments, but they will always reply with the same 6 carbon-copied answers.

Opine Editorials, will your website ever be credible, honest, or respectful of human dignity?

"Outlook not so good."

So that is why, after a handful of comments, I usually retreat back to the confines of my own blog. Or to other, more respectful blogs. Not because I'm being beaten by their "superb logic or reasoning skills." Rather, it is no great feat to "win" an argument with them.

Or, to borrow from the Adam Sandler movie, "Billy Madison," I fear each time a person enters their website, they all become a bit stupider for having read any of what they have to say.

I will sit and patiently wait...

2008-06-07T15:09:00.003-05:00

For California to break off of North America and sink into the Pacific Ocean on June 17th when gay couples start getting legally married.

Hopefully, Ben Affleck will arrive in the nick of time to save us from Armageddon.

The problem with claiming not to be bigoted...

2008-06-06T12:06:00.013-05:00

The thing about bigotry is, if you have say, "I'm not a bigot, but [insert negative statement about out-group or minority]" you usually are a bigot.

You know. Kind of like when someone says, "No offense, but your ass looks huge in those pants." Yeah. It's along those lines.

Often in encounters with internet personas, bloggers claim their opposition to gay marriage, or any pro-gay measures is out of necessity, to protect some inherent (the buzz word is "natural") family form. For they are not bigots. They are religious people who love the sinner and hate the sin. They claim to care about "The Family" conveniently forgetting that often, families are not all biologically related. Anything "less than" a biological mother-father-child unit is unacceptable and evil. But I digress, that is not the point of this article.

The thing about opposition to a group, especially homosexuals, is that it unnecessarily harms groups of people who are innocent. Or at least innocent of any wrongdoing based on the trait or characteristic that they are being judged on. Simply by virtue of their same-sex relationships, they are enemies of America, evil, unnatural, perverted, vile, and more.

While it is true that gay people can be bad people, just like straight people, it is not BECAUSE they are gay that makes them bad. It is not a reason to discriminate, and it is especially not a reason to devote one's life to the abolition of rights and protections for gay people.

Bigotry is the "intolerance "of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from one's own."

While one can (claim to) be against things like gay marriage on grounds that are not rooted in bigotry (though I can't think of any), many anti-gay bloggers/activists/protestors claim that even if their views are bigoted, it does not negate the unbigoted views so their views are correct, as well.

Further, try as they might to rationalize their anti-gay stances, the truth of their bigotry often eventually slips out to stand on its own two feet. Hmm, for a blog (like the one that is linked to several times in this article) that is concerned with "Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity, Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy" [sic] they sure talk a lot about anal sex in between cheap shots at same-sex couples and families.

So, while claiming to "defend marriage," most "pro-family" groups are actually more concerned with deconstructing same-sex relationships and their families.

That is the problem with bigotry. No one willingly admits to being a bigot. They will often go to great lengths to mask their intolerance under the guise of something "noble" like families or children. To an untrained or uneducated reader, this can appear righteous. Who wouldn't, after all, want to help save families or children?

The blog above recently posted an article complimenting a religious website's piece on gay marriage. An author named "R.R. Reno" over at First Things: The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, wrote it, titled "Personal Freedom Without Liberty."

Similar to every other anti-gay piece written, it blathers on about the special union of a man and woman as a religious, natural spectacle:

"In other words, in the old system, the state presumed the existence of a substantive, natural reality that required legal adumbration: the union of a man and a woman, and the children resulting from their sexual relations. Now the Canadian government sees that it must intervene and redefine marriage and parenthood in order to give fixed legal standing to otherwise fluid and uncertain social relations. When the gay friend donates his sperm to the surrogate mother hired by a lesbian couple, the resulting “family” is a purely legal construct, one that requires the power of state to enforce contracts and attach children to adoptive parents."

Yes. All while claiming that their opposition to gay marriage is not (because they said so!!!) rooted in bigotry.

It gets better. This (surprise) Catholic blog goes on to say:

"Edmund Burke saw that revolution motivated by the unattainable ideal of equality would destroy the deep, pre-political social mores that restrain the will, including the political will; and this restraint is essential for the preservation of liberty. Our contemporary cult of tolerance differs from older fantasies of equality, but the notion that we can accommodate everybody’s desires is just as unrealistic."

Though we are never really told why. But I suppose if it comes from a religious reference, it is true.

And, predictably, the piece ends with a trusty ole appeal to tradition. (When the state can rise up to redefine marriage, then the counterweight of tradition is diminished, the political instruments of power are emboldened, and our collective liberty is at peril.)

Yawn.

Instead of laying down solid evidence and/or reasoning, the article makes bold claims and generalizations of "liberals," "conservatives," and "progressives." Not only that it speaks of limiting liberties in order to preserve our "collective liberties." Something every conscientous conservative should supposedly do. What one can read between the lines is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that is an appeal to tradition.

Zzzzzz.

A long time ago, I discussed each major argument a bigot will use. Read it here, if you wish.

A long time ago, I also discussed why homosexual unions are not, in fact, unnatural (as this article claims) and should be legally protected and recognized.

While I can respect a so-called philosopher if he or she has solid reasoning to back up his/her claims, this piece stands alone as a propaganda appeal to its own conservative, religious echo chamber. A piece that many anti-gay people will praise, not because of its (lack of) quality, but more so because it preaches an unspoken bigotry against gay people.

And that is what truly speaks to the heart of of every gay marriage opponent.

Blogging for LGBT families day!

2008-06-02T20:30:00.020-05:00

Shoutout to Fannie's Room for bringing this day to my attention.

Along the same vein, I would like to blog about my family. This is the way I will show that my family, though different from a fundamentalist family or a mother-father-child unit, is still a family.

While some anti-gay characters often claim that gay people are merely "playing house," I believe that my life, career, and relationship are actually very real. Their prejudices, far from their hypothetical situations they present on a daily basis, affect my life in far greater ways than theirs are affected by my choices and way of life. Yet, they insist upon intrusion into a private sphere. They insist on judgment, call gay people horrible names, accuse them of worse, yet their "knowledge" of gays and lesbians is built on the lies of their religions, their own families, their prejudiced worldviews, and their own sexual insecurities. The more they spout their ignorance, the more I become convinced that they do not actually know (m)any gay people at all.

Here is an extra special glimpse into my family life. Decide for yourself whether it's "real" or not. ;-)

First, my dogs. Well, okay, the fat one is my girlfriend's dog. Pugs are weird. But I do love the thing. The black and white one is mine. I don't think they care that they have two mommies. Sometimes, they don't even notice. Honestly, they are just concerned about eating, pooping, peeing, playing with toys, barking at every little noise, and going on walks:

In order to support any future fake family or children that I have while "playing house," I will need to increase my income (all monopoly money, of course). I am well on my way, as I reach the half-way mark of a two-year post-master's program. This quarter has been particularily busy, as I am enrolled in 3 classes and working more than full time. Here are the books that make up some of my classes:

Sometimes we gays get romantic. Sometimes we like to give each other roses, just like straight couples, in order to show each other that we are in love. This a rose I gave my girlfriend this weekend:

Okay, this is just weird. And cute. But I won this giant dog at a festival this weekend, playing (surprise) a basketball game. We lesbians are good at sports.

When not recruiting gays and lesbians, advancing the homosexualist agenda, and destroying heterosexual marriages, my girlfriend and I like to work on puzzles, play Rock Band, and go running with our i-pods.

This is one of many pics from my recent vacation to Puerto Rico. My girlfriend and I had a wonderful vacation.

And finally, because she always has to have the last word, white-black dog says, if you mess with her family, you mess with her. And trust me, that is no laughing matter.

The Homobigot Hypocrisies #1

2008-05-28T22:14:00.002-05:00

In my frequent internet encounters and perusings of other blogs, I often come into contact with anti-gay bloggers/commenters/personas/charicatures.

While on one hand denouncing everything pro-gay (be it hate crime legislation or marriage equality, for example), they often at the same time hold gay people/couples to higher standards than they would ever hold themselves and exhibit the very characteristics they abhor and critique about gay people or gay rights supporters. Psychologists may call it "projection." I, however, am not a psychologist. Therefore I will call them hypocrites.

Thus, welcome to installment #1 of Homobigot Hypocrisies.

Exhibit #1

Observe specimen A, On Lawn, a regular character of an anti-gay blog, when he says this:

"Moral law being taught the experience of their own actions, they are held accountable to know for themselves what brings happiness or sorrow. Nature is not merciful to ignorance, whether through naivety or even the intellectual arrogance of "how things really should be". [emphasis added, discussing the CA judges use of "emotion" in their decision striking down the anti gay marriage ban]

Yet, observe how On Lawn deigns to know the "true" purpose of childbirth and marriage:

"Marriage equality means, in part for men, supporting women through their truly unique challenges. And then each gender supporting each other in raising the children."

Oh, is this the reason he is against gay marriage? A-wha? Because men are men and women are women, they should support each other in marriage, and gay people shouldn't get married. That's his argument here. While I don't think anyone would disagree with one gender supporting the other in marriage, can the same not be said for same-sex couples? The arrogance with which he continuously connects irrelevant sidebar articles to his ever-increasingly pathetic arguments is a bit hypocritical.

In other news, Concerned Woman for America, Jose Solano apparently believes he should also start an aptly-named group of like-bodied men, perhaps titled Concerned Little Men for America. Maybe one day, he will fight for equal rights for short men alongside his valiant battle in obtaining equal rights for heterosexuals and Christians...(and women, of course).

Whines Jose about discrimination against short men, "Where the height discrimination is truly strongest is in employment. In the US you will rarely find a short man in an executive positive. If you do he must be quite an extraordinary individual."

Hmm...Because if a short man does not succeed, it is due to no other shortcomings than his small stature... Nice try, Jose.

They are a very deep bunch over there... deep in their own pile of cow sh*t.

The CA case: A true lesson in respect for human dignity

2008-05-16T14:07:00.004-05:00

I think we all have read the numerous news and blog articles about this case by now.

Let's take a moment to focus on some of the Court's rationale in striking down the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage in CA:

"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized familes, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect." [emphasis added]

The CA Supreme Court has truly embodied respect for human dignity in this historic case.

Thank you.

Also of note:

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same sex couple access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couple of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite sex couples."

The Court goes on to say that the children/familes of same-sex couples will also suffer "appreciable harm" by denying the couples access to the "familiar and highly-favored designation of marriage." And this denial of the designation casts doubt over whether a same-sex couple could ever enjoy "equal dignity" with opposite-sex couples.

I have seen numerous personal blogs (ahem, we all know who some of them are, but I refuse to post links to them here anymore) re-defining words like "equality" and "discrimination" and most notably "human dignity" and "respect." But such propaganda tactics only work within their meager following. They should be ashamed. They will be defeated. This landmark case proves that.

As most pro-marriage equality supporters have been saying throughout this struggle, the tide is turning, and bigotry never wins in the long run.

Lesbians of Lesbos, oh my...

2008-04-30T11:47:00.004-05:00

Three Lesbians (residents of the Greek island, not women-loving-women) have taken to court the gay organization, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece. The three Lesbians claim that the organization "'insults the identity' of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians."

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

Lesbos, the birthplace of the anciet poet Sappho, is a widely popular destination spot among gay women.

I would be interested to see what anti-gay groups have to say about this.

2008-04-25T12:02:00.001-05:00

http://fallacyfindings.blogspot.com/2008/03/help-celebrate-keep-bigots-home-day.html

Back from vacation, and I've been tagged...

2008-04-10T18:39:00.002-05:00

By Fannie's Room, who by the way has posted an excellent article on Title IX.

Here are the rules of the tag game:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 (or more) pages.

Glass's Office Gynecology, Fifth Edition

2. Open the book to page 123 and find the 5th sentence.

"Imaging is most useful when an intrauterine pregnancy is seen, thus making the existence of an ectopic pregnancy unlikely."

3. Post the next 3 sentences.

"Using transvaginal sonography, the most reliable predictor of an ectopic pregnancy is the failure to visualize an intrauterine pregnancy at the appropriate gestational age and/or beta-hCG level. Do not rely on seeing an ectopic pregnancy to establish the diagnosis. Findings that may suggest the presence of an extrauterine pregnancy are an endometrial thickness of greater than 10mm and uterine area greater than 20cm squared but no intrauterine pregnancy."

Hmm, good to know.

But honestly, in a book about gynecology, the possibilities for something more exciting that ectopic pregnancy diagnosis were virtually endless. Maybe next time.

Vacation

2008-04-01T21:04:00.003-05:00

I will be taking a week break from the blogosphere due to a much-needed vacation.

SO enjoy yourselves while I'm away... I'll be at the beach, or the pool, or the bar... sipping drinks and enjoying my time away from work and school.

Gender roles, schmender roles...

2008-03-31T13:01:00.005-05:00

Or so would say Thomas Beatie, a transgendered man who is carrying a baby for himself and his female partner, who is unable to conceive children.

The full story was originally published in the LGBT magazine, The Advocate.

Beatie used anonymous frozen sperm, and he and his partner inseminated at home. They are expecting a daughter on July 3, 2008. The couple decided Beatie would carry their child because Beatie's partner had to have a hysterectomy due to severe endometriosis.

This story, I'm sure which has caused huge amounts of outrage and backlash by transphobic people, is full of legal, ethical, medical, and moral issues.

If this story is legit (he is scheduled to make a public announcement tomorrow on April Fool's Day), Beatie will become possibly the first father to ever bear his own child.

The gender-bending at work here is nearly mind-numbing. In other words, can those who oppose two biological women as parents on the basis of "needing a male and female role model" oppose this couple?

Is gender behavior so set in stone by biology that this child will not have a father figure and a mother figure? (as a healthcare professional who works with a large portion of transgendered people, who has been fooled several times, I can assure you that most of you would not even know if you were talking to a transman).

Since the focus of most opposition to same-sex parenting lies in the fact that these children are denied their natural father by two lesbian mothers, are Beatie and his wife an acceptable alternative?

Let's take a gander at some of Britain's right-wingers:

quite outrageous really
pauls patter 26 Mar 2008 09:10

"To quote a well known comedienne, "Ooh, it makes me so angry I could go....... tut!"
It is a poor reflection on our society, that this 'Brave New World' rewards perversion, rather than promoting heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family."

Birth
Ricks Rants 26 Mar 2008 09:31

"will be like squeezing toothpaste from a tube.

A shocking story and it shows we have gone too far."

abelian 26 Mar 2008 10:08

"The fact that she/he/it still has a womb should remind her/him that she/he will always remain woman no matter what she does... it is all in the chromosomes and no amount of tinkering can change that"

This poor child..
The Locksmith 26 Mar 2008 10:45

"..will grow up with a perverted and contorted view of life and the world around it.

If these people want to ruin their own lives then so be it, but to ruin the life of an innocent child should be a criminal act and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves."

*end of quotes*

Mkay, so they aren't much different from U.S. conservatives.

Oh wait, I missed one more. A view that I think a lot of transphobic people share:

This is insane
Dr Finlays Casebook 26 Mar 2008 15:45

"My opinion of "transgender" people is that they are nutcases that society, science and the medical profession are pandering too by inventing procedures to allow them to "change sex". They always use the excuse that they feel like a man/woman trapped in the opposite sex's body. How do they know what it feels like to be the opposite sex, are they just going by what is written and shown to be the stereotypical images used by the media. If people are gay or lesbian that is up to them but to have people who I honestly believe are insane given rights and anti discrimination laws is itself insanse and I don't really think that I would feel happy or safe having to work with someone who has mental issues as bad as this. I was reading about the magazine that originally carried this story, it is a magazine for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Don't gays and lesbians feel a bit patronised by having all of these groups lumped together in one journal."

I see the same types of arguments coming up against gay people all the time. How do people know they are gay? There is no way to refute this because it is all based on individual perception and experience. There is no way to counter this without saying, "It's just something I've felt my entire life." We hear stories of little boys dressing as girls from the time they were able to choose what they wore.

For gender identity and sexual attraction, it IS often unexplainable. It IS often just a feeling, albeit one that is wrapped around so many other social situations that we can not escape it. The same way heterosexuals are "just attracted to the opposite sex," so are gay people "just attracted to the same sex." I guess without a sense of empathy or compassion, it is impossible for opponents of GLBT persons to get. If science could prove a "gay gene" or what part of the brain makes people heterosexual or gay or bisexual, perhaps some of our opponents would lighten up. Perhaps if science could prove what makes certain individuals transgender, they would feel a little more compassion for them in world that has often treated them THE MOST harshly of any "outcast" group.

Yet, we should not need science to prove that being gay or transgender (because I have no problem "lumping" transgender persons into the GLB category) is not simply a lifestyle choice. People are. They always have been. So the argument goes, why would anyone choose to live a life that society is so strongly against?

And so what if their child has some confusion initially about how she was conceived? I would bank on the fact that millions of children of heterosexuals also have to wonder who their true parents are. If Beatie's daughter has a loving, happy home, who is anyone else to say that her parents do not have the right to conceive her? Heterosexuals consistently bring children into this world that they have no intention of raising or loving, at alarmingly high rates.

Yet, gays and lesbians (and now transgendered people) are held to stricter, arbitrary standards of morality that heterosexuals are not. And, even further than that, they are simulatenously blamed for the problem of unwed mothers and banned from helping to prevent it. Convenenient dichotomy for the mega-churches.

Anyway, if this story is indeed true, then I wish Beatie and his wife the best with their family. If this turns out to be an April Fool's Day hoax, I applaud them for making everyone stop to think about the true meaning of "gender roles" and the "need" for them in society.

(Thanks for sending me this article, John!)

A different Castro champions gay rights in Cuba

2008-03-27T15:34:00.004-05:00

As unlikely as it sounds, the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro, Mariela Castro is championing the most liberal gay and transgender rights law in Latin America (in all of America?).

Does anyone else think she is kinda foxy?

Vaccines and health care, in general

2008-03-25T16:55:00.004-05:00

I recently ventured back to Vox Popoli's blog, where an article/rant on the Evils of vaccines, which I knew would garner much fan-fare from his all-too-eager-to-please-the-master-Vox crowd, caught my attention.

Spoiled trust fund baby, Vox Popoli, rants a predictable conservative, religious diatribe on the evils of vaccinations.

In his typically hateful anti-female rhetoric, Popoli writes a response to Megan McArdle's article "More parents forgoing vaccinations." In her article, McArdle discusses the public health dangers that ride along with parents' refusals to vaccinate their children (which was based on a New York Times article about the same topic.

Popoli states at one point, in typical misinformed, unresearched fashion (in regards to McArdle):

"But your health isn't at risk if you've been vaccinated, right? What a loathsomely liberal fascist little cow! I truly don't know understand why Instapundit likes McArdle so much, she never writes anything even remotely intelligent and regularly coughs up hairballs of asininity like this. If the vaccine industry wasn't hiding so much information about the children being harmed by vaccines, if Congress wasn't indemnifying both the industry and the medical personnel who inject vaccines into non-consenting children, if millions of dollars weren't being paid out by VAERS, if there weren't very good medical reasons to avoid going along with the insane U.S. vaccination schedule, she still wouldn't have a point."

Note to Self #1: Self, if your "argument" isn't strong enough or backed up by any scientific sources, it is acceptable to call your opponent a "liberal fascist little cow" to try to prove your point.

Observe Popoli again doing this in Example #2:

"And there is no more evidence that vaccines are safe than there is that they cause autism, since the vaccine industry has resolutely resisted proper double-blind scientific studies into the safety of its products in favor of population surveys and metastudies of those surveys.

Don't get me wrong, vaccines aren't inherently bad. A limited and voluntary schedule of individual doses at a somewhat older age, spread out over time, is a perfectly reasonable program... in fact, that's how most adults over thirty today were vaccinated. But pumping infants full of toxins that have never been tested in combination with each other, 19 shots in the first six months, isn't just asking for trouble, it's demanding it."

I guess, once again, we should just take this Mensa member's word for it, regardless of the fact that he has no public health, medical, or scientific training or education. Or perhaps the fact that he is a man, and believes himself to be all-knowing, we should just take his word for it.

Bringing us to Note to Self #2: if your argument still isn't strong enough, it's acceptable to fall back on the trusty ole' "she's a woman, I'm a man, hear me roar" argument.

Anyway, the point of my article is not to debate the merits of vaccination programs. But, for the record, I think the benefits of requiring vaccinations for most vaccine-preventable diseases are in the best interests of public health. For libertarian-minded folks (as some of those who frequent Popoli's blog) this breaches their interest for society free from government control. A couple of them had decent points, for example a commenter named Bethyada:

"Beelzebub, I am very pro vaccination (though the US schedule sounds a little excessive). Yes the benefits for many (not necessarily all) vaccines are a group benefit. So what? You can't force law abiding citizens to place into their persons something just because you see the benefit.

Don't you see how draconian your position is? I would rather live with much more risk and less security and have my freedom. How much is life worth living as a slave to the well intentioned?

bethyada, do this because it is in your best interest even though you don't agree with me and it is best for the society.

You don't care for me other than how my cog best fits into your machine."

(I agree to disagree based on my own knowledge of public health and vaccines, but I can see his/her point from a libertarian ideology)

I will not, however, engage in the debate with obsessed uber-parents who are extremely misinformed on the topic and convinced that their primary care providers and their vaccines caused the slightest imperfection to their precious, previously perfect little Lambs of God. And luckily, in my job (public health for adults), I never have to.

Observe many of the comments over at Popoli's blog:

"For the children who are affected negatively by vaccines, it is definitely not in their best interest to have been vaccinated.

Obviously, the State is willing to take the risk of sacrificing some individuals. As usual, the risk for the individual is catastophic, while the risk to the State is negligible."

.
zeno | 03.25.08 - 7:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kids need to eat more dirt!
Rory | 03.25.08 - 7:22 am | #

I ate dirt when I was a toddler. I got sick every April and September.

...But it turns out that those months were the blooming seasons for the hedge in our backyard, to which I'm allergic. If my mom had paid a little more attention, I would have been VERY healthy.

Instead, my parents assumed that I was a "sickly child," and I got every shot known to man--which also made me sickly.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 03.25.08 - 7:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STDs are a real current public health crisis. Perhaps chastity belts for the unlicensed?

Should people who engage in medically risky behavior be in the public venues?

If Abagail Adams saw today in 1776, she wouldn't write about the lack of women's representation as a glaring omission, but as the blessing of God's providence.

Men too can be stupid, but most don't insist on parading it in public.
tz | 03.25.08 - 8:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's the big deal with a few hundred or a few thousand kids being born autistic in a country of 300 million?
Eddie

So what's the big deal about a few thousand people getting (fill in disease here) from not getting vaccinated?

So what's the big deal about a few thousand people (out of a country of 300 million) getting killed from being in Iraq?

Something about having to break a few eggs.....

And the "big deal" is that the incidence rate of autism has risen exponentially over the past 10-15 years, indicating a direct cause-effect relationship.
Inquiring Minds | 03.25.08 - 9:23 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well more droolie kids give them liberal douches more opportunity to show just how compassionate they is by having the police state stick a gun in my face and ask for some more "contributions" for "public health issues".
Michael Maier | 03.25.08 - 9:42 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...At the "two week check-up" (check-up for whom, exactly?) that same doctor informed us that she had a batch of "shots" ready for our two-week-old child and intended to administer a battery of vaccinations. I politely refused. She politely refused to accept my refusal.

I got less polite. And so did she.

I said, "You told us that you would support our decisions on these matters. That's why we chose you as our pediatrician!"

To which she replied, "It is your choice. But I never said I would support your decision. If you refuse these mandatory vaccinations, I can no longer be your pediatrician."

I calmly said, "Please hand me my child." When the child was in my arms, I said, "You can no longer be our pediatrician. It has nothing to do with mandatory anything. It's because you're a liar and a shill."...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*end of comments*

It is sometimes frustrating to talk to people when it comes to their own health, and it is usually futile when it comes to talking to them about their children's health. The best we can do, as medical providers, is to give them current guidelines and practice current standards of care, and be up-to-date on the current research in our fields. But usually, people will follow where their prejudices lead. The mistrust and misunderstanding of the health care system and providers is so great in this country that it makes it difficult to establish a rapport between patients and providers.

I'm going to take a leap here and say that most health-care providers have a genuine interest in helping people be healthier and remain illness-free, or at least enhance quality of lives for their patients. Yet, those in private practices rely on money from insurance companies to turn a profit in their businesses, all while paying malpractice insurance with annual premiums that are sometimes in the six-figure range. In such a litigous society (especially one that makes it so easy to sue doctors and nurses for malpractice), they are bound by fears of losing their licenses, incomes, and means of support for themselves and their families.

Most medical practitioners maintain their practices under the current standards of care for their profession. If those standards (the CDC is the gold standard for immunizations, for example) are not met, then a patient may have a legal case against the provider for not following the currently accepted standard of care. The CDC's immunization schedule is the one that Vox Popoli and other, more adamant vaccine denialists disagree with. For medical providers this is often a no-win situation. Patients like the commenters on Popoli's blog are probably the same ones who would bitch and moan if there were a new epidemic of polio or measles and their children weren't vaccinated for them. They would probably then sue the medical providers for NOT mandating the vaccines.

I think further education is necessary. There are many, many misconceptions on the dangers of vaccines. (the autism/vaccine "link," expect an article on that topic later)

Doctors and nurse practitioners, while often accused of "playing God" in a negative way, are at the same time held up to those God-like expectations by their patients when they are sick. It is a double-standard that we have to accept. Patients expect their medical providers to know immediately what is wrong with them with often vague symptoms and tens of thousands of illnesses to choose from. If we get it wrong, they threaten a lawsuit, and at the very least, they leave the practice as patients.

From my perspective, the one thing I would ask from my patients, is to expect your medical provider to stay up-to-date on the latest professionally-accepted research and standards of care, and to remember that healthcare is a cooperative process. We will usually give you as many options as possible under the current standards of care. Most of us are no more trying to "play God," than we are genuinely concerned for your health, AND trying to avoid any potential lawsuits from an over-litigous society. Don't start your visit with your health-care provider on the defensive before you give them a fair chance. Don't go into the visit with a chip on your shoulder, because you will already alienate yourself from your provider, who would probably like to work WITH you to a better health outcome. While many aspects of health-care in the U.S. suck, don't take it out on your doctors and nurses. We are usually here to help.

The Gender Genie says... I am a male

2008-03-21T12:06:00.003-05:00

I stumbled upon this tool today. It is based on an article and test from New York Times Magazine written about a team of Israeli scientists who developed an algorothm that predicts with 80% accuracy the author of an article's gender.

For fun, I entered a couple of my recent blog articles (with quotes attributed to other people taken out):

The reason for the HPV vaccine... received a Female Score: 437
and Male Score: 1029

Help Celebrate "Keep the Bigots Home Day!" received Female Score: 303
and Male Score: 558

Even Concerned Woman for America, Jose Solano, discusses bigotry within the homosexualist agenda received a Female Score: 114
Male Score: 256

Now, let's take a look at the scores of some other people, shall we (again, with quotes attributed to other people taken out)?

Fannie is also apparently a male. With a Female Score: 745 and
Male Score: 936 in one of her recent articles.

Marty, the self-ascribed "ruthless, couthless, and toothless" homobigot over at Opine Editorials is our first case study.
I entered this passage written by him. What did the gender genie predict? Yep, female. (Female Score: 73 Male Score: 48)

I was really hoping blogger Vox Day would come up as "female," especially when I entered his latest article in the gender genie. Alas, no such luck. He received a solidly macho Female Score: 870 to am Male Score: 1762.

Anyway, I do think it's interesting, that of all the anti-feminist males I've argued with the past year on my blog, they all accuse me of "female whining" or "grunting" or femi-nazi speak when in fact, I probably sound no more feminine than they do. It's a testament of their own inability to effectively counter my arguments (and other women's arguments) with anything of substance, so they take an easy out and resort to stereotypical criticisms of women.

Makes me wonder that if I were a man, would they accuse me of the same things? I'm sure that answer is no.

Concerned Woman for America, Jose Solano, discusses bigotry within the homosexualist agenda

2008-03-20T21:34:00.003-05:00

Yes, folks, she's at it again. Concerned Woman for America, Jose Solano, discusses the bigotry that exists within the homosexual community.

In her short but sweet commentary on the depravity of The Homosexual, Mrs. (or is it Ms.?) discusses how, in fact, it is the homosexualist that is the bigot. Shedding her unique insight on the perversity of anal sex and other "depraved homosexual practices," she discusses how they defame and ad hom attack their opponents. It, according to this Concerned Woman, has been very effective in striking fear "in many an honest civil rights leader who has struggled against real bigotry."

She goes on:

"The ongoing denigration of the supporters of family and marriage has also had the adverse effect of desensitizing a great many in society to the actual perversity of the obscene behaviors of homosexuals, causing people to imagine that anal intercourse and other bizarre homosexual practices could in any way be salutary and normal for human beings. This mentality is being transmitted to our children in our schools and through the media. We must resist by every legally and lovingly possible means."

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Senora. As we work together tirelessly to end the bigotry that exists within the homosexualists agenda, I can only hope that you continue your dedicated work within the CWA community.

From one Concerned Woman to another, I salute you again, sister.

I'll end with a couple good quotes I found today:

"You could move." ~Abigail Van Buren, "Dear Abby," in response to a reader who complained that a gay couple was moving in across the street and wanted to know what he could do to improve the quality of the neighborhood

"War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?" ~The Value of Families

"The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt." ~Dennis Miller

"Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich were shaking hands congratulating themselves on the introduction of an antigay bill in Congress. If it passes, they won't be able to shake hands, because it will then be illegal for a prick to touch an asshole." ~Judy Carter

"People who can't think of anything else but whether the person you love is indented or convex should be doomed not to think of anything else but that, and so miss the other ninety-five percent of life." ~Robert Towne

"Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another." ~Homer

"Men weary as much of not doing the things they want to do as of doing the things they do not want to do." ~Eric Hoffer

"The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity." ~Thomas Szasz

Chicago Bishop pleads for gay Iranian's life

2008-03-19T11:53:00.004-05:00

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a man of the Catholic Church, who has taken one significant step towards social justice. One step of many that he has taken throughout his career in the Catholic Church, I might add. If you browse his web-page you will see editorials, all directed towards social justice issues. Kudos to this man for taking brave steps in the face of direct opposition from many others within his Church.

Bishop James Alan Wilkowski, Evangelical Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of the Northwest, has written a letter to the British Consulate in Chicago, the Honorable James Clark asking that they not deport gay Iranian Mehdi Kazemi. Kazemi faces likely torture and/or execution if he is deported to Iran, based solely on his sexual orientation.

Perhaps this is what the Iranian president meant when he said that Iran doesn't have gay people?

Britain has routinely hid behind the stance that gay Iranians are safe in Iran as long as they are "discrete" when deciding to deport a gay person back to Iran.

For a little background on why Kazemi is in such grave danger, I took this excerpt from the "Save Madhi Kazemi" website:

Seyed Madhi Kazemi was born in Tehran and is not yet 20. On September 15th, 2005 he set off for the United Kingdom after applying for a student visa. At first he lived with his uncle in London and attended an English course. In November 2005 he moved to Brighton where he enrolled at the Embassy CES College of Hove. He renewed his student visa to November 2006, with the intention of returning to his family in Iran once the course was over.

Madhi loved a boy back in Iran called Parham, with whom he had shared a secret relationship since the age of 15. Madhi and Parham regularly wrote to each other via e-mail until December 2005, when Parham suddenly stopped writing. In late March 2006, Madhi’s uncle informed him that his father had found out about his homosexuality and his relationship with Parham: the boy had been arrested by the Iranian authorities after being caught with a peer and accused of “lavat” (sodomy).

During the interrogation he was forced to give the names of all the boys he had had relations with, including Madhi himself. Madhi’s father had then received a visit from the Tehran Police, with an arrest warrant for his son as they wanted to put him on trial. In late April, Madhi’s uncle told him Parham had been put to death.

For more on the Kazemi's story, please read from the website.

Bishop Wilkowski is not only religious, but he is Christian and spiritual. Yes, a rare combination. And he is a man who supports the proper, respectful treatment of everyone. Instead of using his religion to maintain the male power hiearchy that already exists within Catholicism, and instead of using religion to admonish homosexuals or any other out-group, he chooses to live by the motto that God's love (if you believe in it) is unconditional. It is not subject to sexual orientation, to maleness, to femaleness, to race, to anything.

If there exists a God, he does not discriminate based on the (usually) arbitrary whims of privileged (usually) white males. That is something we all could be reminded of more. Thank you, Bishop Wilkowski.

And don't be scared to write to your local British Consulate asking that Kazemi not be deported back to Iran. As one writer put it, telling gays they won't be killed so long as they don't publicly acknowledge their gayness is akin to telling Anne Frank she won't be killed so long as she stays in her attic.

Sweet baby jesus, what's gayer than gay?

2008-03-12T22:23:00.004-05:00

Blogger Vox Day's band of followers.

I stumbled upon this gem yesterday, sent to me by a friend. I honestly didn't know if Day is serious in his anti-women articles, or if he is a parody of a woman-hater just trying to get attention or to make money. People can resort to pathetic means when trying to gain fame, or infamy.

The article he writes here, in the ever-neutral, ever-reliable news source World Net Daily "A Free Press for a Free People," Day discusses "The real assault on science."

This self-ascribed "...member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA..." (not that anyone knows what those acronyms stand for) writes about how the principle of "female equalitarianism" (ie-the belief that men and women are equal)is the single biggest threat to "Western Civilization" and to science. After the predictable woman-hating rants against Title IX, atheism (because how does one uphold his male-on-top status without the misuse of religion?), and "womyn's" studies (his spelling) he actually gets to the point of his article, which is not at all related to the former topics: that women are good at education, just not the application of it in the real world. And this failure in ability to apply themselves is going to lead to the destruction of science as we know it.

He matter-of-factly states "Of course, this will sound to equalitarians and their sympathizers like nothing more than male whining, but it's nothing of the sort. Because they are the intellectual driving force of humanity, men will be fine..."

Oh, it gets better.

He continues, "It is written that 'women ruin everything'; having destroyed the liberal arts, the classics and the pseudo-sciences, it is now abundantly clear that the more rigorous sciences are next on the equalitarians' destructive agenda."

Of course, we don't know where "it" is written. Or who said that "women ruin everything," but I suppose we should just take this Mensa member's word for it. After all, a wise man once said, "Wherever you go, there you are."

Instead of getting angry (because really, how could one take this article seriously?), I went to his blog to figure out if this was just a parody of a typical woman hater. To see if the guy was actually serious when he wrote this article about applied science that doesn't actually apply any science.

Yep, he was serious.

I left a comment on his blog calling him a tool for this, and the rash of his fellow circle-jerk members were quick to defend him and to tell me to "take it up the ass" with their (obviously) large penises, and to whip out my "womyn's studies" book.

Yawn.

A group of men who hate woman predictably stereotyping someone who opposes their views as a "womyn's studies" major or something. Because how could a woman possibly be offended without having a college degree in feminism? Not any women of theirs, who are surely cutting their pieces of steak for them at the kitchen table as we read this.

One can't blame them. It is true. Okay, kind of. On the way to my graduate degree and then my successful career in the applied sciences, I did take a women and lit class once in undergrad to fulfill gen. ed requirements. Maybe that's what they were referring to?

But I guess my success is due more to some kind of gender affirmative action, than any true ability on my part?

After all, Mr. Day said that "womyn" are bad at science, it must be true. Don't believe him? Ask his fans. They will back up his article with "scientific" facts of their own. I mean... they are coming from men. It must be true.

What is the saddest thing of all, though, is that I think most of these guys really believe what they write. They whine when people stereotype them as having tiny dicks, or being secretly gay, or as hating women. I don't give a rat's ass about any of that. (being a lesbian, I really don't care about penis size, after all).

What I do care about is that he has this many fans who only perpetuate the hatred of women. Don't like his style of "cruel humor?" You must be a radical atheist fascist feminist lesbian. Nothing good ever comes from hate speech. To me, it just looks like a pathetic attempt to gain fans by being completely radical in anti-women speech, and knowing full-well that there are men who will eat it up.

That is fucking pathetic. Enjoy your homo circle-jerk while it lasts, fellas. You are in a minority now that is getting smaller by the day.

The reason for the HPV vaccine...

2008-03-12T13:21:00.002-05:00

The CDC announced yesterday at it's annual conference (in Chicago this year!) that 1 in 4 teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

The most common STD among teenage girls being Human Papilloma Virus, or HPV, the disease that can cause cervical cancer in women and can cause penile or anal cancer in men. The second-most common STD in teenage girls is chlamydia.

"The study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan is an analysis of nationally representative data on 838 girls aged 14 to 19 who took part in a 2003-04 government health survey. Teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and genital herpes, 2 percent."

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that “the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.”

It's sad that in a country led by social conservatives who are trying to teach the world that sex is immoral and wrong, one quarter of our teenaged girls have STDs. The topic is so hush-hush in many circles, that I fear our teens aren't getting accurate information when it comes to safe(r)-sex and STD transmission, including their risk factors.

It's sad that in a country led by, and continuously threatened by, the religious and conservative right, more money is spent on scientifically disproven "abstinence-only" sex education programs, and NONE is allowed be spent on the scientifically proven #1 way to reduce new HIV cases: needle-exchange programs.

All because a greedy "pastor" or "church-leader" and the legislators who are funded by them, realize he or she can make millions off of other's ignorance, or by inciting fear into the "good" God-fearing people of this country, who want nothing more than an authority figure to tell them they are better than someone else.

Sadly, because our country is still very Puritanical, girls and boys alike are being harmed in ways that could be prevented by a simple vaccine, and with a little education.

Instead, corporation-like mega-churches that provide millions in funding to lawmakers and our administration, decide for the rest of us which actions are to be condemned and punished, and which ones--regardless of the cost to public health and health disparities in minority groups--will be rewarded. It is a system that continues to do more harm than good, regardless of the will of the people they supposedly represent. Regardless of the research that proves their harm.

And regardless of the research that shows the benefits to things like sex-education programs, STD education, drug awareness, and--yes--even needle-exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C.

It's sad that instead of realizing that not everyone is lucky enough to fit a cookie-cutter white, middle-America, Christian, heterosexual image, conservatives are too busy condemning the "morally wrong" instead of offering any real solutions to the very real problems the rest of us face.

Problems they also face, but usually don't want to admit.

My solutions to the STD problem?

-Increase funding for sex-education programs in public schools, which would include a discussion on safer sex, abstinence, and STDs.
-Throw out the ineffective abstinence-only programs in public schools
-Place additional funding for programs and sex ed in schools were there are large percentages of racial minorities, especially black children.
-Require/allow-for confidential STD testing for teens, to ensure their parents can't get their results without written authorization
-Mandate that the children attending public schools (boys and girls) be vaccinated for HPV, the way many other vaccines are mandated.
-Allow exceptions to the vaccine mandate based on religious or personal beliefs the way it is allowed for other vaccines.

I know these are simple solutions. But the game of political football isn't simple. I don't expect much from our government lately.

PS- I am realllly jealous that due to work obligations I didn't get to attend the CDC conference. It's never in Chicago. Humph.

Open Letter to Fitz

2008-03-07T16:31:00.005-06:00

Fitz,
having read your latest article at Opine, I have a few comments and questions. Let's start with this:

What is your solution to the problem of the "selfishness" of gay people?

Do you propose that gays not be allowed to have children?

Do you propose that they not be able to legally be in relationships with each other, since they are so selfish?

Do you deny, like others on your blog, that gay people even exist?

Do you think that heterosexuals who get married in "shotgun" types of weddings only to divorce shortly after having children are "selfish" as well?

Or do you hold gay and lesbian relationships to higher standards than heterosexual relationships?

Are you only opposed to marriage equality insofar as "the children" are involved?

Because so far, all I've seen you do is bitch and moan about how selfish they are, and cheer on every anti-gay victory that passes, and vow to only vote for candidates based on their "SS'M'" (as you call it) stance as if that one thing is the basis of every choice you will ever make.

Get a life, man.

Even gay people don't care about marriage equality that much.

Instead, why don't you for once offer real, workable solutions or stop bitching?

Answer this simple question, and we will proceed from there.

What is an acceptable life for gays and lesbians to lead, in your eyes, Fitz?

Simple question. Should be a simple answer. Or what's the matter, haven't thought about that? Well give it a minute or two, and then come up with your answer.

I'm doing this as an exercise in empathy. I want Fitz to answer these questions to see his real views on gay people. You see, the Opiners all claim to not hate gay people, yet all they ever do is complain about the trouble we cause, and our lack of morals, and our excess of selfishness.

We'll see.

Toodles,
Jane.

Help Celebrate "Keep the Bigots Home Day!"

2008-03-06T14:01:00.005-06:00

Imagine a world with no bigots.

A country with no little bigot-spawn spewing forth their biblical curses and rants towards gay people, or people without faith, or people of a different faith.

Imagine a classroom where all children feel loved, regardless of their differences.

Imagine a school that teaches acceptance and love for all. A school without bigot-brigades, self-righteous hypocrites, or "religious" leaders attempt to censor the words of teachers.

Imagine a time when there are no fundamentalist religious congregations and ~~CEOs~~ "pastors" trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.

Sounds nice, right?

Well, that can become reality for just one day if you participate in "Keep the Bigots Home Day" on April 25.

To see what the world would be like without any nut-wing homobigots, encourage all the homobigots you know to keep their children home from school that day.

You see, April 25 is also "Day of Silence," the largest student-led action towards creating safer schools for all regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

By the way, this year's Day of Silence is in honor of Lawrence King, the student who was murdered at his California school on February 12 because of his sexual orientation and gender expression.

In response to the mass acceptance that "Day of Silence" has received across the nation, the AFA is honoring "Keep the Bigots Home Day" and encouraging all its members to keep their children home from school.

In an email I received today, Don Wildmon (Founder and Chairman of the AFA) states:

"DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). DOS leads the students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate. Students are taught that homosexuality is a worthy lifestyle, homosexuality has few or no risks, and individuals are born homosexual and cannot change. Those who oppose such teaching are characterized as ignorant and hateful bigots."

And, on the AFA website, it states:

"...AFA is joining other family-oriented groups in urging parents to keep their children at home that day if their local school is participating in the DOS project. By remaining silent, the intent of the pro-homosexual students is to disrupt the classes while promoting the homosexual lifestyle."

LOL.

Excuse me?

LOL.

"By remaining silent, the intent of the pro-homosexual students is to disrupt the classes..." [emphasis added]

Sometimes I don't know whether the AFA is serious in their anti-homosexuality, or if they are a mockery of real fundamentalists. Either way, don't forget to encourage your local homobigots to keep their children at home for a day!

Oh, and in case any of you have any questions about "Keep the Bigots Home Day," you can click on this convenient list of FAQs, created by the AFA.

On Second Thought...What's Better Than Winning a Gold in the Special Olympics?

2008-03-05T15:13:00.003-06:00

Not being retarded.

I had written about half an article in response to Fitz' gem, and this other gem that Opine Editorials linked to on their blog.

Instead, I thought, why do I want to reply again and again and again to their boring-ass cut-n-pasted justifications of bigotry?

After all, I could win a gold medal in their game of Special Olympics.

But in the end, it will still be the Special Olympics.

Don't EVEN talk to me until I've had my coffee...an excellent un-PC blog

2008-03-04T16:01:00.004-06:00

I was perusing a friend's blog, and came across this one, entitled "Stuff White People Like."

Hilarious.

My favorite article so far is the first one ("#1 Coffee"), because it is SO true.

The best observation?

"White people all need Starbucks, Second Cup or Coffee Bean. They are also fond of saying 'you do NOT want to see me before I get my morning coffee.'"

As a fellow white person, I love a good cup of coffee in the morning. But it has always been a pet peeve of mine when people say that...what is even more annoying is when the speaker at a business meaning or a professor at a lecture messes up or stutters, and then says, "Sorry... haven't had my morning coffee yet," to which the audience all laughs understandingly...making them all part of one giant ball of uber-yuppie-very-important-coffee-drinking-member-of-society-ness. And if you don't laugh, you obviously aren't cool or important enough to NEED your morning coffee like the rest of the civilized world.

I always just want to say, "Hardy-fuckin-har, you're so funny, you can't function without your morning cup o' joe, because you're so important?"

Anyway...I may be a liberal, but I love me some un-political-correctness once in a while.

Payday lenders and Conservative Christians: A Surprising Correlation

2008-03-03T12:07:00.002-06:00

In a paper to be published this spring in the Catholic University Law Review, professor Christopher Peterson and Steven Graves find a surprising correlation between the geographic density of payday lenders and the political clout of conservative Christians.

Payday lenders have been gaining notoriety among consumer advocates for being predatory towards desperate, lower-income consumers. They offer small-ish loans to people in need of a quick fix for money. The catch? The exorbitant interest rates that are racked up as a result, which often leaves people in debt for much longer than they bargained for, or with loans that they are never able to repay.

Peterson and Graves essentially mapped out the densities of payday lenders and started to find that the regions with the highest densities were the Bible Belt and the Mormon mountain West. They also created a map indexing the political power of conservative Christian Americans. What they found was a strong correlation between the two.

Of course, the researchers note in a caveat that correlation is NOT the same as causation. They are not blaming the rise in payday/predatory lending on Christian conservatives. They are, however, noting that in regions where politically powerful (rich) conservative Christians exist, there are disproportionate numbers of payday lenders.

AND, given the Biblical condemnation of usury, it seems that there should be aggressive regulation and less demand for payday loans in such states where biblical literalists are rampant. Instead, the opposite is the reality. The state laws in these states are actually more permissive of this type of lending than in more socially liberal states. Throughout the Bible Belt and Mormon mountain West, there is relatively little regulation on this type of lending at all, which is clearly a causal factor.

But the authors must ask, "why?"

They offer their own hypothesis: that starting in the 1980s and 1990s powerful/rich social conservatives began to align themselves with Wall-Street business that were also socially conservative, which has been an effective way for them to push their pet agenda issues (abortion, "some sorts of family questions," and gun rights) in their states. The one roadblock to this political alliance has been consumer protection law and limits on usurious lending. As the alliance between the two factions have grown, the laws limiting predatory lending has fallen to the waste-side.

Another important note is that even compared to other issues that one would think should be stronger in correlation (poverty levels, race, income), the correlation between conservative Christian political power and payday lenders is the strongest.

Reading the comments section was an interesting mix of outraged sheeple and the non-surpised social liberals.

Among other comments: "It seems obvious to me. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Mormons oft times refer to their parishioners as their flock, and where their are more sheep, more sheep are slaughtered. Perhaps less time studying the Bible, and more time studying math might move these enclaves forward in time?

When a culture is rooted in financial exploitation by charlatan preachers for generations, is it any wonder these fools can be manipulated by charlatan bankers?"

and

"Posted By: isaidit @ 02/26/2008 3:54:48 PM
Comment: The Christian faith, as it is practiced today in the U.S., is as harmful to the common man as the pagan societies it saved him from 2000 years ago. The Christian right has aligned itself with the most extreme and harshest of libertarian republicans, and then breaks with them on the issues of drugs and doctor assisted suicide, which one can't be blamed for choosing after a lifetime of being exploited and strangled by big business, only to be faced with staggering healthcare costs in the end. I understand this may not be real Christianity, but it rules the day in this country, and encourages those of us who should fight the plutocrat menace to wait and hope for them take their foot off our cllective[sic] necks instead."

Basically, I am being convinced a bit more every day that the "Christian conservative/social conservative movement" is rooted less in true friendliness, concern, love-they-neighbor, caring, compassion, empathy, and other "Jesus-like" qualities and values, and MUCH more in the power of exploitation for monetary gain.

The Red Herring of "Abandonment"

2008-02-28T19:02:00.005-06:00

A common ploy of anti-marriage equality folks is to say something along the lines of "But same-sex parenting requires some sort of sperm or egg abandonment or relinquishment by a biological parent, thus the child suffers psychological harm at being abandoned by a biological parent."

And that is their basis for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to get married and/or the right to have children.

Over at Opine Editorials, I have engaged in a dialogue on this very topic:.

I asked Renee the following questions:

"SO what do you suggest, Renee? What is YOUR solution to this problem of "abandonment?"

Do you propose that only married, heterosexual couples be allowed to have children?

And what should happen to them if they divorce post-procreation? Should they then be arrested? Should the children be taken away from them? Should they be forced to stay married?

Do you propose that gays and lesbians not be legally allowed to have children? How do you reconcile that with people's freedom to live their lives in ways that make them happy?

And how do you reconcile the fact that a child *may* feel a sense of abandonment because they came from a sperm donor, but may also at the same time live a completely happy fulfilled life with its two same-gender parents who raised him or her? There are worse ways to grow up than having two loving parents who happen to be of the same gender.

All of this is asked in all seriousness.

Because, like or not (and I know you don't) the world and its people will never obey your strict demands. Gays and lesbians will always exist, and they will keep having children. Heterosexual couples will still get divorced. And single mothers will still raise children by themselves.

Instead of complaining about all the problems gay people cause and how awful it is to be raised by a single or divorced mother, why don't you talk solutions, for once?"

Fitz, thus far, has been the only one to answer:

"Yes people are very selfish.

I think we can do alot[sic] to reduce divorce.

Single mothers usually dont get pregnant attentionally[sic].

But these selfish gay people who intentionally bring children into the world only to deny them their mother or father.

Well - No need to actively encourage & subsidize this selfish behavior.

I think we will start by defending marriages [sic] very definition."

Sweet Baby Jessica, I forgot about the "gay-people-as-selfish" argument.

Perhaps he hasn't ready the studies that the rest of the civilized and professional world has read (showing that gay parents cause no harm to children, and that children of gay parents do not suffer from any more harmful pyschological effects than children of straight parents). Or perhaps he has read them, and he is in blatant denial of them, because he is already too deep in his own bigotry to turn back now.

I'll end with this one quote, because I think a lot of the anti-SSM crowd by now is just stubbornly clinging to the supposed superiority of their own flawed moral system despite all evidence that they are wrong:

“Pride attaches undue importance to the superiority of one's status in the eyes of others; And shame is fear of humiliation at one's inferior status in the estimation of others. When one sets his heart on being highly esteemed, and achieves such rating, then he is automatically involved in fear of losing his status.”--Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism.

Real world benefits of civil marriage and the research that proves it #2: It's Better for The Children

2008-02-27T19:10:00.001-06:00

Welcome to Round Two of my series, showing scientific evidence of the real world benefits to marriage and losses that acrue from lack of marriage as an option to gay couples. Let the fun begin!

Again, as with my first article, I challenge any anti-gay or anti-marriage equality opponents to rebuke the article.

Random, irrelevant cites to other websites and personal attacks will not be tolerated, please and thank you.

The next article in this series is titled "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children." It is an analysis examining the effects of marriage laws on the legal, financial, and psychosocial health of children.

In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics (official professional organization for pediatricians, "Dedicated to the health of all children") commissioned the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, the Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care; the Committee on Adolescence, the Committee on State Government Affairs, the Committee on Federal Government Affairs, and the Section on Adoption and Foster Care to develop an analysis examining the effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership statutes and amendments on the legal, financial, and psychosocial health and well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian.

As the article states:

"In developing this analysis, the involved committees and section held before them the AAP's core philosophy—that the family is the principal caregiver and the center of strength and support for children. Together with this philosophy, contributors recognized the reality that our gay and lesbian patients grow up to be gay and lesbian adults. Because many pediatricians are fortunate to care for 2 or more generations of a family, we are likely to encounter and remain involved with our patients, regardless of sexual orientation, as they mature and mark the milestones of establishing a committed partnership with another adult, deciding to raise a family, and entrusting the health and well-being of their own children to us." [emphasis added]

This analysis explores the admittedly unique and complex challenges that same-gender couples and their children face as a result of public policy that excludes them from civil marriage.

For clarity, the report first defines all of its important terms.

For example, it makes the distinction between civil and religious marriage.

Civil marriage being "a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners."

Religious marriage being "a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage."

Religious marriages, of course, vary by religion. Further, state and federal regulations have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

This effectively clears the path of any room for debate and opposition to civil marriage between same-gender partners on the basis of religion.

The article also notes the mistake that many who oppose marriage equality make: "Because clergy in the United States are vested with the authority of the government for purposes of civil marriage, many people are not aware of the distinction between civil and religious marriage and assume that the 2 are inextricably linked." (when, in fact, civil marriages take place all the time without the involvment of any religious head or authority figure). This article ONLY discusses civil marriages, leaving religious marriage issues to those religions and religious individuals.

Background Demographics

Specific Census 2000 findings include:

Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.

Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.

Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.

Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).

Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.

Eight percent of same-gender parents are raising children with special health care needs, compared with 8.3% of heterosexual unmarried parents and 5.8% of heterosexual married parents.

Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration. [emphasis added]

As one can see, gay people are everywhere in this country. Many people who oppose marriage equality think they don't know gay people. Or they think the laws do not affect real people. They do. Every day and everywhere.

For a chart listing the comparison of Civil Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws, go here.

As the article notes:

"With the exception of the states and jurisdiction mentioned in Table 1 and a small number of counties and municipalities, same-gender couples and their children are not afforded legal recognition or protection under the law. In fact, public-policy makers at all levels of government have moved to enact legislation to prohibit any type of legal recognition of same-gender partnerships and parenting. In addition, state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-gender civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership have established de facto blanket prohibitions on prospective legislation favorable to same-gender couples and their children, thereby restricting their access to the political process itself."

Instead of discussing the legal and financial effects such laws have on same-gender couples, as the article does, I will focus instead on health and psychosocial effects. For legal info please read the article.

So, let's talk psychosocial effects of being gay in the first place.

The AAP states "As children, many gay and lesbian persons experience considerable isolation, peer rejection, ridicule, harassment, and/or depression at some time. At least 47% of gay and lesbian teens have seriously considered suicide, and 36% have actually attempted suicide. They may experience rejection by their families, homelessness, maltreatment in school, and violence. As adults, gay and lesbian people continue to experience social marginalization, discrimination, and hate-crime violence.

...The lack of societal tolerance, acceptance, and support that gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and their children experience can and does affect their psychosocial and physical health and safety."

So, there you have it. Gays and lesbians suffer from psychosocial and physical health effects, not because they are inherently wrong/immoral, but because they live in a society that largely and historically has been very intolerant towards them. It's a vicious cycle. Fannie wrote an excellent article last week about apologies due to the African-American community for slavery by all of us. She discussed why and how black people are still suffering from those effects, and how white people don't want to admit it, "because I never owned any slaves." Perhaps an official apology to the GLBT community is also in store from the men and women who created the myth of gay people as wrong/abberant/immoral/etc.

Not only do gay and lesbians suffer from such hatred, their children are often victims. For example, children whose parents are the same gender may face marginalization at school or friends' houses by children and adults who do not approve of same-sex relationships or gay parenting. Children who experience this type of harrassment may not know the appropriate avenues (or have any avenues available in the first place) for seeking support when they face such obstacles from their peers or peers' parents.

Psychosocial Characteristics of Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Children

Most discriminatory practices are based on the assumption that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual parents in ways that are detrimental to the health and well-being of their children. In reality, few differences have been found in the past 3 decades in the research area of gay parenting. In fact, lesbian mothers have been found to be more concerned with finding male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers. Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices. And lesbian mothers fall within the same ranges of psychological functioning on interviews AND psychological assessments as heterosexual mothers.

Empirical evidence reveals that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their parental roles as heterosexual fathers. And, "Gay fathers have been described to adhere to strict disciplinary guidelines, to place an emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be involved in their children's activities. Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers."

As far as the children are concerned, most children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers have experienced the divorce and subsequent relationships of one or both of the biological parents. Therefore, their psychological development must be understood in that context. What is also important is whether they are then raised by 1 or 2 biological parents and whether one or both parents has introduced a step-parent into the picture.

What is interesting in this article, is the only negative difference children of lesbian mothers had growing up is more reported teasing from childhood peers than that of divorced heterosexual mothers. In other words, the negative effect is not intrinsic within the lesbian mothers' roles as mothers. It is an extrinsic difference stemming from society's own intolerance of gays and lesbians.

In general, however, children of gay and lesbian parents have been found to have normal relationships with childhood peers and to maintain appropriate relationships for their developmental levels. Actually, children growing up with gay and lesbian parents have been found to be more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing towards younger children; while children of heterosexual parents have been found (by parents and teachers) to be more bossy, domineering, and negative.

Children of lesbian parents in particular saw themselves as "more lovable," and were seen by parents and teachers as more affectionate, responsive, and protective of younger children, when compared to children of heterosexual parents.

Recent publications from 2 population-based studies lends further evidence that children's well-being is not threatened as a result of growing up with lesbian parents. As the AAP notes, "The importance of these studies is that the research was planned and conducted by people who had no particular interest or investment in research regarding same-gender parents." [see original article for these studies, which were published in the journals Developmental Psychology and Child Development] Both of the studies mentioned used sample sizes of 14,000 and 12,000, respectively.

While the enactment of civil marriage in MA has just now opened the door to researching how exactly this affects gay and lesbian relationships and their children, current research is already showing that civil marriage as an option for gay and lesbian couples "may strengthen ties between partners, their children, and their extended families."

Not bad for people who are supposedly "anti-family," huh?

The AAP closes the article with the following statement, which represents the ideal with which they conduct their research and professional practices:

"In all its work, the AAP is committed to calling attention to the inextricable link between the health and well-being of all children, the support and encouragement of all parents, and the protection of strong family relationships."

Further, it states:

"Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Legal recognition of a spouse can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents.

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families."

I am positive that if any anti-gay person tries to refute this article, it will be on their usual grounds:

"Well, there is a known liberal bias in academia/medicine/research"

I really urge them to try a different route. I fail to see where the American Academy of Pediatrics, has any concern or "hidden agenda" other than the health of children.

I do, however, have serious doubts about where anti-gay people/blogs/organizations have (mis)placed their concerns and agendas.

Happy Valentine's Day!

2008-02-14T19:22:00.002-06:00

May you all enjoy your day, whether single or taken.

More real articles to come soon.

Happy Freedom to Marry Day!

2008-02-12T17:25:00.000-06:00

For an excellent article on Freedom to Marry Day, and marriage equality, in general, go here.

As Evan Wolfson puts it best:

"As Americans across the country celebrate Freedom to Marry Day today, seizing the opportunity to have conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers about the importance of ending same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage, hopefully they'll talk a lot about gay couples and why marriage matters -- without saying "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage." Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives."

Let's take this day to tell someone why freedom to marry is important for everyone!

Real world benefits of legal marriage and the research that proves it #1

2008-02-07T19:11:00.000-06:00

This will be the first in a series of articles, similar to Fannie's Room's "Benefits of Marriage" series, where I discuss the real-world benefits of a legal marital relationship in the context of scientific research.

In this series, I will pick studies from a number of professional and/or scholarly journals, and discuss their findings. They will all deal with same-sex relationships as compared to heterosexual relationships in some way. This is important because most of the research that anti-gay websites and groups (mis)use to promote their anti-gay agendas usually don't even have same-sex relationships or gay people as the test subjects.

When anti-gay websites and groups discuss gay parenting and its evils, I have yet to see them use any reputable studies that involve gay parents.

When anti-gay websites and groups discuss the pitfalls of gay marriage, they have yet to display any evidence that anyone or any society will be hurt when gays are allowed to marry. They expect their pessimistic predictions to stand on their own (broken) feet.

Here, I will discuss current research that explicitly includes gay people, gay parents, or gay relationships as compared to heterosexual relationships. Further, I will discuss why and how these findings prove that same-sex couples are missing out on the pursuit of happiness that opposite-sex couples have and (often) take for granted.

Let's begin, shall we?

The first study in this series is from a 2005 issue of The Journal of Family Communication. It was conducted by Stephen M. Haas (University of Cincinnati) and Laura Stafford (The Ohio State University), and is titled, "Maintenance Behaviors in Same-Sex and Marital Relationships: A Matched Sample Comparison."

The purpose of the study was an "attempt to explore relationship maintenance behaviors of on-going same-sex relationships through direct comparison with those used in heterosexual marriages" (p. 43).

For some background, the concept of "relationship maintenance" in romantic relationships has been gaining increased attention for about the past 15 years. The existing research has delved into the strategies and behaviors that romantic partners use in sustaining intimate relationships. For purposes of this article, I will use the same defintion of "relationship maintenance" that the co-authors in the study use: using communicative strategies and behaviors to prevent relationship dissolution through "parties' efforts to sustain a dynamic equilibrium in their relationship defintion and satisfaction levels as they cope with the ebb and flow of everyday relating" (Baxter & Dindia, 1990, p. 188).

What is also important is that the researchers specifically make note of the unique place in everyone's lives that romantic relationships play. While distractors and anti-gay opponents often denouce gay couples as mere "friendships" (not to take away from any friendships per se out there) or the lack of procreative abilities of gay couples, most researchers in every discipline recognize the truly unique functions and roles of romantic relationships.

For example, several studies in the field of communication alone have shown that romantic relationships fulfill several needs that other "confiding" relationships--such as with a parent, sibling, or friend--do not. In other words, these other "confiding relationships," though important in their own rights, can not and do not compensate for the "confiding intimacy" of a romantic relationship (for all the studies cited, and there are many, please see original article). Among other needs that romantic relationships fulfill are are love, affection, intimacy, sexual activity, and social support.

The authors acknowledge that the existing research has focused almost exclusively on white, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Therefore, research involving racial minorities, different income levels/socio-economic status, and sexual orientation is lacking. Haas and Stafford, as a result of this, are exploring the relationship maintenance behaviors in same-sex couples as compared to opposite-sex couples in an attempt to begin to make up for the lack of diverse research.

Or, as they explain:

This study seeks to extend our understanding of relationship maintenance behaviors by explicitly comparing the strategies and behaviors reported in ongoing, same-sex relationships to those reported in ongoing heterosexual married relationships. Directly compared similarities or differences between these two groups have the potential (a) to increase our understanding of maintenance strategies and behaviors used in the understudied population of gay and lesbian relationships and (b) to move beyond using marital couples as a standard, in favor of studies that directly compare relational maintenance behaviors across couple types (p. 44). [emphasis added]

I'll discuss why the emphasis was added to the above paragraph when I discuss the findings, which relate to the real-world benefits of marriage, and how not being able to get married affects real people in real ways.

While gay couples are understudied when compared to heterosexual married and dating couples, studies dating back to 1983 and beyond have found that people enter into same-sex relationships for the same reasons they enter into opposite-sex relationships: to establish long-term, committed, and satisfying relationships for love, affection, and companionship. [again, see original study for sources cited]

Method

Open-ended questionnaire responses were solicited from a convenience sample of 30 individuals involved in ongoing, committed gay or lesbian relationships (15 men and 15 women). Participants were chosen through a community-based network sampling technique, and they all described themselves as being "committed" when given the options of "dating," "seriously dating," or "committed." In order to directly compare same-sex with opposite-sex maintenance behaviors, 30 married individuals were then chosen from participants in a larger study regarding maintenance behaviors. The heterosexual individuals were matched the gay and lesbian individuals as closely as possible based on the following characteristics: biological sex, age, education level, and length of relationship.

The average age of the gay and lesbians was 34 years 3 months, and the average age of the heterosexuals was 34 years 5 months. The average length of relationships for both groups was 5 years 4 months (range 1 year to 10 years 3 months). The gay and lesbian group's education level was relatively highly educated (50% obtaining graduate level degree), and the heterosexual cohort matched this education level.

The first portion of the questionnaire asked for demographic information. The second portion consisted of an open-ended question concerning maintenance behavior use ("Please offer examples of behaviors (positive and/or negative) that you have used to maintain your relationship. This was followed by a question to probe "routine" behaviors. Participants were then asked to answer these same two questions regarding their partner's maintenance behaviors.

Results

After all the responses were examined for goodness of fit, duplicate answers (by the same participant) thrown out, remaining answers coded into the chosen behavior categories (Stafford and Canary's typology from 1991), content analysis was performed and the responses were ranked for each of the two groups (gay/lesbian commited couples and heterosexual married couples) based on prevalence.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that individuals in same-sex and heteresexual relationships would report similar behaviors in maintaining their ongoing relationships. Overall, the findings supported this hypothesis. The typological behaviors reported in the original typography from Dainton and Stafford's heterosexual studies were reported by the gay and lesbian couples in this study.

But is anyone really surprised?

Our opponents like to compare the gay or lesbian romantic relationship to a "friendship," when in reality they must know that the relationships are much more analogous to the heterosexual romantic relationship. But they will do anything to make gay people and their relationships appear "less real" or "less than."

Now, on to the discussion and interpretation of the results.

The following is a list of most prevalent relationship maintenance behaviors of opposite-sex couples compared to same-sex couples:

Top 5 relationship maintenance behaviors in opposite-sex couples:
1. Shared tasks (83.3%) [eg-making dinner/paying bills together]
2. Proactive prosocial behaviors (66.7%) [eg-"I use humor"]
3. Favors/gifts (60%) tied with comfort/support measures (60%)
4. Self-disclosure (53.5%) [eg-"she is always completely honest with me."]
5. Affection (50%) [eg-displays of fondness or sexual intimacy]

Top 5 relationship maintenance behaviors in same-sex couples:
1. Shared tasks (73.3%)
2. Meta-relational communication (53.3%) [discuss the relationship]
3. Joint activities (50.0%) [spending time with each other]
4. Reactive prosocial behaviors (46.6%) [eg-"I'm willing to change things that bother her."]
5. Overt expressions (43.3%) [eg-"I tell her I love her."] tied with Empathic behaviors (43.3%) [eg-"We respect each other's differences."]

Discussion

So, what are some implications of this study? First, the authors fully admit that there are limitations to the study, the small sample size being the most obvious one. It is difficult, as in most research involving gay people, to find willing participants from any marginalized or stigmatized group of society. It is even more difficult to recruit a subgroup of said marginalized group of society. That being said, the open-ended nature of the methodology provided a broader means for participants to provide insight into their maintenance behaviors.

I would like to focus on the differences this study found between the maintenance behaviors of the two groups. While both groups overall used similar behaviors, the frequency of of some versus others is evidence of some important differences.

For example the second-most common relationship maintenance behaviors in the heterosexual couples was "proactive prosocial behaviors" (like gift-giving), while the second-most common in the gay and lesbian couples was "meta-relational communication" (eg- discussing the actual relationship). This finding may indicate an important focus in same-sex relationships.

Whereas heterosexual couples have legal status and documentation to reflect their commmited, long-term relationships, gay and lesbian couples only have the emotional commitment. As Haas and Stafford note, "the focus on meta-relational communication...may be a reflection of lacking a legal bond to hold the relationship together...It appears to some degree that heterosexual married couples may take for granted that they are bound together through legal marriage, whereas gays and lesbians must frequently 'take the pulse' of the relationship to assess its status."

In many ways, it seems that committed gay and lesbian couples, no matter how long they have been together, often do not get past a "dating" mentality. Without a legally recognized step up on the relationship hierarchy, it opens the door for many gays and lesbians to walk out on a relationship much easier than heterosexual people. If people are against gay marriage on the grounds that "gays are promiscuous and don't want to get married anyway," then why not at least give them a chance to prove it? Without a legal option for marriage, yes, I imagine more gays and lesbians will be more "promiscuous" than heterosexual people.

That's not to mention the emotional security and stability that legal marriage provides to people.

But wait, I forgot. Conservatives don't care about emotions. It's all about procreation and coitus and "natural families." Oh. And The Children.

Another interesting finding, speaking of qualitative differences, is the fact that heterosexual couples are able to focus on positive things (proactive prosocial) like giving gifts and using humor more frequently, while the gay and lesbian couples were assessing the relationship status at nearly the same frequencies.

I suppose it is easier to focus on the little pleasantries in your relationship when you have a legal commitment to your committed partner.

In all, this study suggests that there are, in fact, qualitative differences in relationship maintenance behaviors between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that married heterosexual couples take for granted.

Cite for Article:

Haas, S.M. & Stafford, L. (2005). Maintenance behaviors in same-sex and marital relationships: A matched sample comparison. The Journal of Family Communication,5(1), 43-60.

The phun photobucket game...(a break from all the seriousness)

2008-01-29T23:26:00.000-06:00

Answer the questions below
-Take each answer and type it into Photobucket.com
-Take a picture from the first page of results copy the html code.
-You cant copy the persons answers who posted this before you!

1. What is your hair color? blonde

2. Favorite place to travel to? provincetown

3. Favorite place to be? blogging

4. Favorite object? my toaster oven collection

5. Favorite Food? chips and guacamole

6. Favorite Animal? dogs

7. Favorite Color? rainbow

8. The town you were born in? Isle of Lesbos

9. Town you live in? Chicago

10. Pets name? cutey

11. Favorite Drink? hot tea

12. Nick Names? shrill feminist

13. Middle name? your mom

14. Last name? Know

Phags for Phelps: Not so ridiculous after all

2008-01-25T10:18:00.000-06:00

What is the best way to get more people to join the fight for tolerance?

According to "Out" magazine author Josh Kilmer-Purcell, that would be by giving free publicity to The Phelps clan. He has created the "Phags for Phelps" movement as a means of getting more people to side with the GLBT community.

Or, as he explains it "Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church family just might be the most important GLBT activists since Stonewall. Why? Quite simply, because they give homophobes a bad name. Unlike stealth homophobes, the Phelps clan don't hide their repugnance under a bushel. Every time they appear on the nation's television screens, they show millions of Americans just how ugly unadulterated bigotry is."

I have to admit, he has a great point. Unlike some of our other anti-gay opponents, who make obtuse declarations and rationalizations and justifications for their intolerance, the Phelpses are loud and proud bigots.

By showing America just how ugly hate looks at its very worst, the Phelps AND Kilmer-Purcell are most likely encouraging the apathetic "fence-sitters" to support gays and lesbians.

Even Nate Phelps, the estranged son of Freddie Phelps admits it, "I have always contended that what my father is doing has been more helpful than hurtful to the GLBT cause. I have also been outspoken about the hypocrisy displayed by people only showing outrage for funeral protests when it's directed toward a group other than gays... I'd much prefer to have the in your face, truthful hatred of my family toward gays than the equivocating, hair-splitting justifications of so many in the mainstream who mask their prejudice with cute little sayings like "love the sinner, hate the sin" while they behave with hatred and prejudice by even defining it as sin." [emphasis added]

Kilmer-Purcell also says, "Shirley [Phelps] believes that God Hates Me, and that's Fine By Me. She isn't gonna hurt me, trick me into thinking she's 'tolerant,' or...and this is important...make me believe in the same thing she does. She's just telling me what she believes to be the truth, and making jokes about cooking chickens who've become pets.

I believe that Americans hate hate. And the more Shirley and her gospel of homophobic hate are exposed, the more friends GLBT Americans make. I want Shirley's message out there, and so does she. For different reasons. But it just might be the strangest win-win situation I've ever been a part of."

Right on, Josh. I am with you 100%.

Has America learned from its past? Modern-day "McCarthywasms"

2008-01-24T16:36:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in my previous article, Fitz has likened same-sex marriage proponents to terrorists that we are currently fighting* in the war.

Among Fitz' quotes, present and past:
"I found the specter of a man who spends half his time fighting America’s enemies within & the other half fighting Americas enemies abroad to be truly inspirational!"

and

"I think I understand your point. Free speech is very American.

(I can catalogue for you the momentous violations of free speech that results from the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" a under GLBT "rights" generally)

My point was not to call you un-American because you exercise free speech.

My point: and this explanation, is to say; that advocating for same-sex "marriage" (as well as it implementation) puts American society at risk.

In that sense I stand by my characterization of advocates of same-sex "marriage" to be "enemies of America" inasmuch as ss"m" threatens the social fabric of...well....America."

and

"I’m glad you caught that On Lawn. Very informative conversation concerning the mindset of the far left.
I knew that my “enemy within” comment was a bit incendiary. It seemed a nice fit rhetorically given the substance of Mr. French’s advocacy along with his service in Iraq.

Its not a term I employ on a regular basis to describe our adversaries. However it is a term I think is accurate in describing the entire leftist gender warriors especially in our universities."

and

"...The better Question (is)

Question: IS Jane Know a Neo-Marxist??
Answer: Yes, How can you tell? Why she seriously quotes roundly discredited works like the 1950’s The Authoritarian Personality Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik & other infamous Marxists of the Frankfort School.

This all makes perfect since off [sic] coarse [sic] – this would explain the hostility to traditional families (also a prime source of the “Authoritarian Personality”) and the “obsession” with feminism and queer theory- fields replete with Marxists and locked into Hegelian master slave dialectics.

I have never seen a soviet show trial of a dissident academic held on a blog before….

Nice Job!!!"

and

"...And what does she try to tar Cultulogist[sic] with?

Being an “authoritarian personality”..

She brought that up in this very post (extensively)
Unless your[sic] totaly[sic] ignorant of the origins of your own thought.

I say my red baiting stands on its own.

Thanks"

and

"An “accurate depiction” originated and propagated by Frankfurt school Marxists."

and

"All I’m saying is that my worldview is philosophically under girded by Christianity and western civilization norms.
While you and your movement owes much more to Marxist radicalism & subversion."

Yes, Fitzy is really a simple mind. Part of me pities him. But just a small part. You see, people like Fitz have the potential to be dangerous. He advocates against same-sex marriage, on the grounds that...well... what exactly ARE his grounds?

It's very difficult to sift through the "Well, you're a Marxist, feminist, radical, gender-warrior, etc." name-calling to decipher just what his arguments against same-sex marriage are in the first place.

You will note in past dealings with him through my archives and those of Opine that he merely expects those accusations to stand on their own feet. Perhaps Fitz is practicing a form of denialism? As discussed over in Fannie's Room, denialism is "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."

Note the following quotes I was able to find that have been credited to Joe McCarthy:

"I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five (people) that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department”

and

"McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled."

and

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity."

Sound familiar? In fact, one could argue that nearly all of the Opiners have used nearly all of these tactics in their blog. As well as sites like LifeSite (fake experts and illogical assertions) and the AFA (homosexual conspiracy theories).

Is there an overlap between denialism and McCarthyist sympathizers? I would love to to delve into that idea one day.

But I digress. Fitz frequently uses McCarthyist tactics in his blog posts.

What is McCarthyism?

Merriam-Webster defines it as: "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges."

In light of the McCarthy-esque tactics of Fitz at Opine Editorials, I have decided to approach them in the manner that proved to be successful in his era: exposing their tactics and calling them out. Fitz is the epitome of McCarthyism.

They at Opine have likened themselves to Watchmen on the Walls, blasted J.K. Rowling for making a gay character in the Harry Potter series, misused health and epidemiological statistics to oppose gay sex, and last but not least, have accused most of their female and/or educated opponents of being part of the vast left-wing, "gender-warrior conspiracy."

Fitz' constant use of demagoguery is evidence enough of his lack of any kind of rational argument.

On March 9, 1954, Journalist Edward R. Murrow attacked McCarthy's tactics in an episode of "See It Now." In this episode, Murrow stated this about McCarthy:

"His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men." [emphasis added]

So much so did McCarthy's tactics eventually sway public opinion against himself, that President Eisenhower began referring to his school of thought as "McCarthywasm."

As the public tide shifts towards mass acceptance of LGBT persons and legal recognition of same-sex couples, I am sure that we will soon be saying the same thing about the likes of our opponents. They are/were modern-day "McCarthywasms."

Note that I write this article not on the expectation that simply calling Fitz a "McCarthyist" will stand on its own to discredit him, but for readers to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence I have provided. This article is a comparison of tactics of two people, with quotes and evidence from their own writings. It is abundantly clear nearly every time Fitz engages in argumentation that he ends up resorting to this sort of demagoguery. If and when he is ready for any real debate on the topic of same-sex marriage, I am ready. If he would like to continue the name-calling, scare-tactics, conspiracy-theories, and the like, then he will likely get nowhere in his fight.

I'll leave Fitz and readers with this final quote:

"Men who have in the past done effective work exposing [Communists] in this country have, by reckless talk and questionable methods, made themselves the issue rather than the cause they believe in so deeply."--Richard Nixon, March 1954 (as instructed by President Dwight Eisenhower)

I wonder if Fitz will have any solid anti-SSM arguments once he realizes his McCarthyist accusations aren't worth their weight in деньги.

*An interesting and relevant article about the alleged "War On Terror" can be found here.

"Enemies" of America: Opine is at it again.

2008-01-21T12:25:00.000-06:00

I woke up this morning to a text message from a good friend, informing me that the wonderful Pam's House Blend referenced me in an article on Saturday. Once I put aside my giddiness at having been mentioned by Pam, I actually read the article. She discusses a recent Opine Editorials article that suggests LGBT people in America are actually enemies of the country, similar to terrorists.

Predictably, the Opiners' arguments center around the fact that LGBT citizens are out to "destroy the foundations of this country" (ie-Family), and this is similar to the way Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists are out to destroy the foundations of our country.

The article cites David French, a Reservist fighting in Iraq and senior counsel for the "Alliance Defense Fund." Seriously.

Yes, I also had never heard of this "Defense Fund." In essence, it describes itself as "...a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation."

And that capitalized "T" in "truth" is all I needed to see to realize that this is a Christian fundamentalist organization (read: anti-gay). Because anytime someone or something claims to know absolute Truth with a capital T, the warning bells and whistles go off. Oh, that and the picture of the Holy Bible right under their logo.

I've said it before but, similar to when Opine compared themselves to Watchmen on the Walls, they REALLY should check their sources and make sure they aren't citing thinly-veiled hate groups or fundie groups that are only going to further discredit their arguments. How embarrassing for them. Especially since Fitz titled his article "Inspirational."

He ends his short little article with this sentence:

"I found the specter of a man who spends half his time fighting America’s enemies within & the other half fighting Americas enemies abroad to be truly inspirational!"

What, exactly, Fitz is "inspirational" about a group that devotes all of its energies and resources to spreading hate in the name of Jesus and the Holy Bible, something of which He surely would not have approved?

Here are some "choice" quotes by other commenters.

hazumu said:
"...America is built on the metaphor of 'Family'. Thus, that which mocks the moral wholesomeness of the family which is the bedrock of America's moral superiority is an EMEMY of America."

The always ignorant Jose Solano:

"It must be understood that to ennoble acts of moral turpitude, to teach children that it is right and good to engage in perverse sexual activities, to deliberately subject children to fatherless or motherless homes to be raised by people who wish to corrupt the meaning of marriage is a terrible, even criminal activity in a rational society, as it indeed corrupts the morals of children and society. Homosexuals do not wish to see this because it goes contrary to their desires, their urges which they do not wish to control. Rather than control their perverse urges, their concupiscence, they would like everyone to affirm and bless them by awarding them marriage privileges and benefits."

And the hateful Marty, per his usual:

"It appears to me that the vast majority of LGBT folks have a selfish and single-minded "what's in it for me" attitude towards the +/- 5% of LGBT folks who are actiist and actively working to undermine the family, religion, and the institution of marriage."

Yes, folks, it seems Opine brought its very best out for this article. To once again prove just how ignorant, hateful, and bigoted they really are.

Congrats, fellas. You proved me right, again.

In honor of his day of rememberance, I will close with these quotes, by Martin Luther King, Jr:

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- "Strength to Love," 1963.

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. -- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963.

and, just because: "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." -- "Why We Can't Wait," 1964.

Do-Over: Man who refused to answer SSM question apologizes for being an "instrument of bigotry and prejudice"

2008-01-10T18:47:00.000-06:00

In a surprising turn of events, a man who who filed a $9.75 dollar federal lawsuit for failing the MA Bar Exam has issued a public apology for being an "instrument of bigotry and prejudice."

Stephen Dunne, an Irish immigrant, failed to answer a MA Bar Exam question regarding the rights of two married lesbians, their property, and their children issued a January 3 email to Bay Windows, a weekly Boston GLBT-oriented newspaper. In the letter he stated that his lawsuit "regrettably perpetuated intolerance and animosity towards my fellow Americans."

Dunne was denied his law license for scoring a 268.86 on his Bar Exam, which requires at least a 270. Dunne said his score was hurt because he refused to answer the question, which at the time he believed legitimized gay and lesbian marriages, which were contrary to his moral beliefs. He believed the question was used as a mechanism to screen applicants according to their political ideologies.

His lawsuit also called into question the constitutionality of the 2003 decision to recognize same sex marriages in MA.

Dunne states, "Christ said 'Love all, serve all,' " he said. "It was a message of inclusion rather than exclusion."

"After speaking with numerous members of the gay community, including my own friends, I began to empathize with their denial of basic human rights and how they feel discriminated against," Stephen Dunne said Thursday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Just a little bit to think about... I wonder how many other people will make similar journeys in the next few years.