Love is necessary for both friendship and family, friendship is a natural result of love and is necessary for family, and family thrives on friendship and love. They're all aspects of the same thing. You may as well try to remove one of the Fire Triangle and claim that you can still choose to have the fire.
People in this damaged culture have forgotten what these things are and what they are *for*. Love, Friendship, Family... You cannot choose to give up one without losing the other two and much, much more.
- Current Mood: contemplative
There are lists being pulled together to help focus the boycott efforts. One is here. But near the top is a more compete list that also offers a boilerplate script you can use to contact the individual companies you will be boycotting, to let them know your opinion and that you will not support their company unless they rethink their position. And there even is an app to help you identify the companies and their products.
So whether you favor a total boycott or a targeted boycott, you can participate and you can tailor your level of participation. We have the tools, the will and the strength to take a stand.
Note: the Business Software Alliance that represents a large number of software and hardware companies (Dell, Apple, Intuit, Adobe) withdrew its support in November, so keep in mind that the Google list is in process of being updated.
edited to add: name of the targeted campaign, along with a link to the Android app.
- Current Mood: cheerful
Baltimore County is considering a "gender identity anti-discrimination bill" that would allow cross-dressers or gender-confused individuals to use bathroom and shower facilities of the opposite sex. Council member Tom Quirk's Human Relations Bill 3-12 would legally protect cross-dressing, says Dr. Ruth Jacobs of Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG).
"It opens up the bathrooms to men who may be just cross-dressers, who may be a pedophile who uses the law to nefarious advantage," Dr. Jacobs explains. "It's a very dangerous bill."
The measure would allow a man wearing female attire to use public women's facilities -- dressing rooms in clothing stores, for example -- even if he is attracted to women. Since another nearby county, Montgomery County, passed the ordinance, many women and children are now fearful of using such facilities.
"In this law, you're afraid to complain because [you think] Oh my goodness -- maybe I'll be considered a bigot. But, of course it could be somebody who's trying to rape me," the CRG president notes. "And in Montgomery County, since they've passed the bill, they've had four rapes in women's bathrooms. So it really demonstrates how dangerous a bathroom can be."
(Bold faced part is mine.)
Note that the problem here is the same problem that it's always been, the same complaint we've always made. The people who scare us aren't the men who wish they were women. It's the men who realize that they can gain access to vulnerable women in a state of undress by pretending.
Oh, by the way, for those of you who have been following and would like to know... It is confirmed that my third baby (20wks pregnant) is a boy!
- Current Mood: ditzy
- Current Mood: awake
But among the first issues to arise on Saturday was whether Manning's sexual orientation is relevant to the case against him. His attorneys maintained that his status as a homosexual in the military before the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.
The defense revealed that Manning had written to one of his supervisors in Baghdad before his arrest, saying he was suffering from gender-identity disorder. He included a picture of himself dressed as a woman and talked about how it was affecting his ability to do his job and even think clearly.
Maj. Matthew Kemkes, one of Manning's lawyers, asked Special Agent Toni Graham, an Army criminal investigator, whether she had talked to people who believed Manning was gay or found evidence among his belongings relating to gender-identity disorder. The condition often is described as a mental diagnosis in which people believe they were born the wrong sex.
My comment: If I were in the gay activist crowd, I'd be fighting strongly against this defense. It will, if successful, establish a precedent that gays cannot be trusted because their 'condition' leads to sufficient mental and emotional problems that they should be denied access to sensitive material.
It could really change the decisions made as the military struggles with the implementation of DADT. Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, NoForn, and Gay...
A young woman was fired from the Macy's San Antonio Rivercenter department store in Texas for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male.
Less than 1% of the population are transgender *or* transsexual (which this fellow apparently was not).
4.6% of men admitted, themselves, in a study, that they had raped a woman. This has got to be the *minimum* percentage of predators in the population.
Bonus question: What is the difference in appearance between a transgender and a man wearing makeup and women's clothing in order to gain access to a place where women feel safe in a state of undress?
I've heard mace is too weak to be effective against a predator, ladies. If you want to try on clothing at Macy's I recommend you bring bear spray.
What got me, though, this time, was one of the comments:
"But gay's should be allowed civil unions that give them the same rights and financial considerations as heteros. Just think how much fun the Schiavo case would have been if it was Michelle instead of Michael. Think Delay and the far right would have cared if that were the case? Sorry, sometimes I just can't resist."
Resist what? The answer is obvious. Of course they would have cared, and they would have made their case all the stronger for it.
Terry Schavio was starved to death on the orders of her husband, even though her family was willing to continue taking care of her. If her husband had been her "wife", then the cry would have been even stronger to declare her family, willing to save her life, above her gay partner, who not only would not have marriage or civil union rights in Florida, but is obviously willing to let her die so that "Michelle" can go make out with "her" new girlfriend.
We will never be able to have a dialogue, never mind a compromise, as long as the Other Side keeps advancing the notion that the desire to see marriage remain between a man and a woman somehow magically compels people to be willing to destroy any law, abandon any principle, and ignore any demand of decency for no other reason than to see one more gay person dead.
- Current Mood: annoyed
WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau reports there are 131,729 same-sex couples in the U.S. who say they're married — the first-ever government count of this kind.
The 2010 results show that about 20 percent of the estimated 646,464 gay couples in the country checked off "husband" or "wife" boxes on their census forms.
The census tally of gay married couples is higher than the actual number of legal marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships in the U.S. Gay marriage is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia, and one Census Bureau consultant put the number of legally recognized partnerships at 100,000.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.
Thought #1: So many of these couples decided to lie on a Federal document. Isn't there a law against that?
Thought #2: Since DOMA, aren't *none* of these couples legally married on the Federal level, and isn't the Census Bureau federal?
Thought #3: I know that the Census people basically sent the message to gay couples to feel free to list their relationship as a 'marriage' if they want to regardless of legal status, thus making thoughts 1 and 2 somewhat moot. That being said, isn't 20% an awful small number for a group of people who, according to the activists, are a monolithic band strongly desiring marriage?
Especially considering that, though only 48% of U.S. households are now made up of married couples, 4% of U.S. households are cohabiting couples?
That would suggest that, if my math is right, 20% of gay couples claim to be married when there is nothing to stop them from making the claim, and 93% of heterosexual couples are actually legally married in a system in which they must actually undergo a legal process to make the same claim.
Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe (pluhf), says GOP candidates share the goal of loosening restrictions on Wall Street bankers and giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. He says all of the benefits going to the rich would be paid for by seniors and the middle class.
They're demonstrably wrong.
We know that one problem in our country that we all agree is a problem (though we may disagree on cause) is that a disproportionate number of blacks end up in jail when compared with their population. Pretend for a moment that it's this bad: Blacks make up 10% of the general population, and 70% of the jailed population.
Now pretend that someone puts a policy into place. If you're Liberal, imagine that it's free education for every child. If you're Conservative, imagine that it's a welfare reform that brings fathers back into their lives. Either way. Five years pass, and now Blacks make up, let's say, 12% of the general population and 55% of the jailed population.
Who among us would dare to proclaim that all the benefits going to blacks are being paid for by whites and Hispanics?
And yet Obama's group has the gall to try to convince us that taking a little less away from the rich is *the same* as having money taken from the middle class and given to the rich! Let me explain this to you, once and for all, nice and simple. First off, every time the rich have had their taxes lowered, they have wound up paying a higher percentage of the nation's tax, because they make money with money... and the more they keep, the more they have to be taxed on next time. But irregardless of that:
The rich don't get welfare. They don't get food stamps. They don't get heating assistance. They don't get Medicaid. So let's assume that the Democrats don't let the Republicans get spending under control and the Republicans succeed in lowering taxes on the rich, and let's say that this results in the middle class having a rise in taxes. MONEY IS NOT BEING TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVEN TO THE RICH.
MONEY IS TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVEN TO THE POOR.
And that's the way it's been.
During an exclusive interview with Newsmax in Stockholm, Rahman Haj Ahmadi said his group, the Free Life Party of Kurdistan, commonly known as PJAK, had advance warning that Iran’s forces planned to attack its bases in the Qandil Mountains along Iraq’s northeastern border with Iran. So PJAK developed guerilla tactics to ambush the attacking forces and drive them back across the border into Iran.
Over the next 10 days, the battle moved back into Iran, where PJAK forces attacked IRGC garrisons and flying roadblocks that Iranian troops had set up to harass Kurdish villagers and press them into military service against the guerillas.
“In one attack against an IRGC roadblock, one of our female commanders single-handedly killed 15 of their troops. This is a huge shift in the Islamic world. Not only do we treat women as equals, but they are heroes,” Ahmadi said with pride.
“Iran’s goal is to drive PJAK out of Qandil and replace us with Ansar al Islam, al-Qaida, and Hezbollah,” Ahmadi said. “If Qandil falls, the Kurdish Regional Government [in Iraq] will come under Iranian control. Then Iran will control both the Shia and the Kurdish populations in Iraq.
“I fear the United States is not aware of how great a danger this is, not just for Iraq, but for U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia,” he added.
Of course, Obama's rhetoric cynically turns things upside down.
Congress consists of a do-something House of Representatives, run by Republicans, and a do-nothing Senate controlled by Obama's very own Democrats. Obama evidently believes that if he can keep spouting clever lies and distortions, no one will call him on it. Well, it's time to do so.
The 112th Congress has been characterized by a very active legislative pace in the Republican House, featuring the passage of many measures designed to revive America's exhausted economy.
The Democratic Senate, meanwhile, is a much lazier place where far less gets done, and House Republicans' measures go to die.
The figures bear this out, beyond debate.
Through Sept. 15, the Republican House this year has been in session for 120 days. In contrast, the Democratic Senate through the same date was in session only 115 days.
In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as different as Times Square and the Everglades.
Through Sept. 15, the GOP House had voted 711 times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the Democratic Senate placed only 137 recorded votes. So, the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose sloth dooms the nation actually are five times more energetic than their indolent counterparts in the Democratic Senate.