But what a cutie he is!
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
My grandson
Of course, far be it for me to NOT show you a picture of my grandson -- I've not seen him physically since he was 3 weeks old, and yesterday was his second birthday.
But what a cutie he is!
But what a cutie he is!
There's a lot going on with marriage equality these days. Some good things, some bad things. I'd like to think that even the bad things eventually will lead to good.
Of course, the topic of discussion this week has been the ruling down in NYC by NY County Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan where she opined that, while she agreed with Elliot Spitzer's informal opinion that "...both the inclusion of gender-specific terms in multiple sections of the DRL [Domestic Relations Law], and the historical context in which the DRL was enacted, indicate that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage" the US Supreme Court has ruled, or, "...made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right..." Further, she further writes that "Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right to privacy, extend to protect marriage." She also cites the Loving decision, where Judge Skinner said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." I think this is important because many of the religious fundies and/or neocons constantly assert that marriage is not a "right," per se and, with that in mind, denying marriage to same-sex couples doesn't deny any rights. This is a very important step that needs to be taken before we can ever hope to realize our dreams. We need to establish marriage as a right.
Then she takes it a step further. She actually waded into the conservative argument that the laws don't bar anyone from entering into a civil marriage. This is an argument that is encountered time and time again that, as the laws exist, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. However, she doesn't stop the argument there, she presses on with the second part of this argument which is the right to choose who you marry. She cites the Goodridge v MA decision which stated, in part, "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..."
In order to legally (and constitutionally) prevent two people from marrying, the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The state offered two reasons: a) supporting the "traditional" definition (institution) of marriage and b) saving us from ourselves so that we won't have problems in other jurisdictions which won't recognize the unions. According to cases cited, the NY courts as well as the USSC have both made it clear that tradition can't be a reason to deny rights to people. She writes "It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse." The state apparently further argued that marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation and has been since the book of Genesis. The court observes that "...it is indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children." She goes on to say that, while the state beautifully stated the huge role that marriage plays in the lives of people, they were unable to define how that role would be harmed by the marriage of same-sex couples OR how the marriages of opposite gendered couples would be harmed by the marriages of same-sex couples.
Addressing the claim that they're "saving homosexuals" from legal difficulties in other states, the court first stated that, while they may be prevented from marrying, same sex couples will still cohabitate and have children either biologically or through adoption. The court then stated that "It would be 'irrational and perverse' (Carey v. Population Services Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy uner the laws of New York, on the grounds that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States." She ruled that this claimed state interest was irrational and a "grave disservice" to residents of NY state. The state also argued that the purpose of the federal welfare program (and its reform) was to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and to foster conditions where children were raised in two parent families. I was grinning when I read the judge's comments regarding this -- "As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children."
She also addressed the argument of "traditional marriage" that is so often seen and heard -- that same-sex marriage would change "traditional marriage." She correctly points out that history has shown that "...marriage is not a stagnant institution." She notes that prior to the 19th century, marriage was synonymous with "coverture," that is, that once married, the husband and wife become one person under law and that, for all intents and purposes, the woman gives up her identity and has no legal standing. What I didn't see was the argument that sometimes marriage was a business deal, whereby a man bartered his daughter for a dowry or for other personal gain -- a practice no longer seen or even allowed in this country. Men also had universal rights over his wife's body, back in those days -- not so now.
"Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one. Defendant has articulated no such legitimate state purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling state interest in such a bar." Judge Ling-Cohan ruled, unequivocally, that the NY DRL (Domestic Relations Law) violates due process of rights under the NY Constitution.
It was further argued by the state that if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, it should be through the legislature, not through the courts. The court notes that this argument was also used to argue to the Supreme Court that the ban on interracial marriages should be a states issue and that the Supreme Court should not rule on the unconstitutionality of the issue.
Her ruling, in a nutshell, is that the DRL should be rewritten to replace the words “husband, wife, bride and groom, his and her” with the word “spouse” and that this word be applied equally to men and women.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further
ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘bride,’ as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,’ and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex; it is further
ORDERED that implementation of this order is stayed forthwith, to and including 30 days from service of a copy with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office and serve a copy upon defendant, with notice of entry, within 10 days.”
Of course, just hours after the release of this ruling, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that he'll be appealing this ruling, because "...it's the right thing to do." He cited the couples in SF that had their marriages "snatched away" because they weren't legal. Apples and oranges because SF had no ruling allowing those marriages. Bloomberg's a politician -- a Republican who, along with all the other conservatives, wants to save the GLBT community from heartache and pain by continuing the discrimination.
As I read this ruling, I think about my own case and how this ruling can (and likely will) affect the outcome of it. I know that the lawyers were electrified with this ruling, and are busily discussing it and what it means – what parts of it they can use for our case. What bothers me is that there are too many judges sitting on the benches today that don’t rule based on law but, rather, their own sense of morality or, in some instances, straight down the party line. NYC is a “liberal” sort of town while here where I live, there’s a prevailing conservative tone. The county legislature is predominantly conservative and not receptive in any way, shape or form, to anything other than the rendering of lip service to same-sex unions.
I think it’s easy to hang onto those words that you want to see in a ruling of this nature, but I do find this ruling heartening and I find myself hopeful that it is yet another cornerstone in the foundation of equality that will be built here in this state – and that this state becomes a foundation stone for the nation.
Finally, for those of you out there who won’t dare allow yourself to hope – let go, let yourself hope. Hope is a beautiful, shining light that adds to our sense of purpose every single day – to deny that light is to live in the shadows of fear, doubt, and self-pity.
Dare to dream – but keep it real!
Of course, the topic of discussion this week has been the ruling down in NYC by NY County Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan where she opined that, while she agreed with Elliot Spitzer's informal opinion that "...both the inclusion of gender-specific terms in multiple sections of the DRL [Domestic Relations Law], and the historical context in which the DRL was enacted, indicate that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage" the US Supreme Court has ruled, or, "...made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right..." Further, she further writes that "Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right to privacy, extend to protect marriage." She also cites the Loving decision, where Judge Skinner said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." I think this is important because many of the religious fundies and/or neocons constantly assert that marriage is not a "right," per se and, with that in mind, denying marriage to same-sex couples doesn't deny any rights. This is a very important step that needs to be taken before we can ever hope to realize our dreams. We need to establish marriage as a right.
Then she takes it a step further. She actually waded into the conservative argument that the laws don't bar anyone from entering into a civil marriage. This is an argument that is encountered time and time again that, as the laws exist, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. However, she doesn't stop the argument there, she presses on with the second part of this argument which is the right to choose who you marry. She cites the Goodridge v MA decision which stated, in part, "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..."
In order to legally (and constitutionally) prevent two people from marrying, the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The state offered two reasons: a) supporting the "traditional" definition (institution) of marriage and b) saving us from ourselves so that we won't have problems in other jurisdictions which won't recognize the unions. According to cases cited, the NY courts as well as the USSC have both made it clear that tradition can't be a reason to deny rights to people. She writes "It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse." The state apparently further argued that marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation and has been since the book of Genesis. The court observes that "...it is indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children." She goes on to say that, while the state beautifully stated the huge role that marriage plays in the lives of people, they were unable to define how that role would be harmed by the marriage of same-sex couples OR how the marriages of opposite gendered couples would be harmed by the marriages of same-sex couples.
Addressing the claim that they're "saving homosexuals" from legal difficulties in other states, the court first stated that, while they may be prevented from marrying, same sex couples will still cohabitate and have children either biologically or through adoption. The court then stated that "It would be 'irrational and perverse' (Carey v. Population Services Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy uner the laws of New York, on the grounds that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States." She ruled that this claimed state interest was irrational and a "grave disservice" to residents of NY state. The state also argued that the purpose of the federal welfare program (and its reform) was to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and to foster conditions where children were raised in two parent families. I was grinning when I read the judge's comments regarding this -- "As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children."
She also addressed the argument of "traditional marriage" that is so often seen and heard -- that same-sex marriage would change "traditional marriage." She correctly points out that history has shown that "...marriage is not a stagnant institution." She notes that prior to the 19th century, marriage was synonymous with "coverture," that is, that once married, the husband and wife become one person under law and that, for all intents and purposes, the woman gives up her identity and has no legal standing. What I didn't see was the argument that sometimes marriage was a business deal, whereby a man bartered his daughter for a dowry or for other personal gain -- a practice no longer seen or even allowed in this country. Men also had universal rights over his wife's body, back in those days -- not so now.
"Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one. Defendant has articulated no such legitimate state purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling state interest in such a bar." Judge Ling-Cohan ruled, unequivocally, that the NY DRL (Domestic Relations Law) violates due process of rights under the NY Constitution.
It was further argued by the state that if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, it should be through the legislature, not through the courts. The court notes that this argument was also used to argue to the Supreme Court that the ban on interracial marriages should be a states issue and that the Supreme Court should not rule on the unconstitutionality of the issue.
Her ruling, in a nutshell, is that the DRL should be rewritten to replace the words “husband, wife, bride and groom, his and her” with the word “spouse” and that this word be applied equally to men and women.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further
ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘bride,’ as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,’ and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex; it is further
ORDERED that implementation of this order is stayed forthwith, to and including 30 days from service of a copy with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office and serve a copy upon defendant, with notice of entry, within 10 days.”
Of course, just hours after the release of this ruling, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that he'll be appealing this ruling, because "...it's the right thing to do." He cited the couples in SF that had their marriages "snatched away" because they weren't legal. Apples and oranges because SF had no ruling allowing those marriages. Bloomberg's a politician -- a Republican who, along with all the other conservatives, wants to save the GLBT community from heartache and pain by continuing the discrimination.
As I read this ruling, I think about my own case and how this ruling can (and likely will) affect the outcome of it. I know that the lawyers were electrified with this ruling, and are busily discussing it and what it means – what parts of it they can use for our case. What bothers me is that there are too many judges sitting on the benches today that don’t rule based on law but, rather, their own sense of morality or, in some instances, straight down the party line. NYC is a “liberal” sort of town while here where I live, there’s a prevailing conservative tone. The county legislature is predominantly conservative and not receptive in any way, shape or form, to anything other than the rendering of lip service to same-sex unions.
I think it’s easy to hang onto those words that you want to see in a ruling of this nature, but I do find this ruling heartening and I find myself hopeful that it is yet another cornerstone in the foundation of equality that will be built here in this state – and that this state becomes a foundation stone for the nation.
Finally, for those of you out there who won’t dare allow yourself to hope – let go, let yourself hope. Hope is a beautiful, shining light that adds to our sense of purpose every single day – to deny that light is to live in the shadows of fear, doubt, and self-pity.
Dare to dream – but keep it real!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
I'd like to share something
OK so, a discussion group I belong to had a post from a member that contained a newsletter excerpt from the oh-so-wise *gag* Gary Bauer where, like your typical neocon, he completely distorts, rewords, and lies about Sen. Ted Kennedy's speech recently. In part, it reads:
Hope Or Despair?
Today brought some good news from Iraq – the capture of two more of terrorist thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's top aides. No doubt the arrest earlier this week of the man in charge of car bombings produced intelligence information that led to these arrests. Meanwhile, Iraqis all over the world, including here in the United States, started voting today.
The "main event" in Iraq itself is on Sunday. All Americans can feel a sense of pride in the knowledge that our young men and women in uniform have sacrificed greatly in order to secure liberty for the Iraqi people.
But here in the United States, the Senate's biggest "naysayer,"Senator Ted Kennedy, chose yesterday to deliver a major foreign policy speech in which he called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Kennedy said U.S. troops, who he claimed to support, "are fanning the flames ofconflict." He added, "the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation."
Perhaps Senator Kennedy can explain to us why, if he is correct, thugs like Zarqawi are killing other Iraqis as often as they attack U.S. soldiers. The fact is that the violence in Iraq is a struggle over the future of theMiddle East with profound implications for the future of our children too.
Will the region be controlled by bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the Baathists of Syria and the mullahs of Iran? Or can freedom take root and bring this breeding ground of Islamofascism and terrorism into the civilized world?
Once again, Senator Kennedy has embraced defeat and despair at the very moment when hope and strength are needed most. I still remember another Kennedy standing on the steps of the Capitol andspeaking these memorable words: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Of course, being the person that *I* am, I refuted, point by point, the stupidity of statements like "why are they targeting civilians," etc? Frankly, I get so sick of people perpetuating this type of crap -- they perpetuate it because they're on some "Christian" mailing list and they BELIEVE this type of propaganda. Often I lose patience but there's one member of this discussion group who always seems to stay logical, rational, and right on. With her permission, I'd like to share a response of hers - it's long but SO worth the read! Thanks to michiaj.
Here is some of what your post made me think about. First, about people like Gary Bauer...I don't consider him a "true" conservative. I see him as a pharisee or a saducee...a legalist who believes that his way is the only way...that is not a conservative or American value. Conservative American values have always been that we each have a right to believe, worship, and live in freedom. Not freedom according to Gary Bauer, but in our own true pursuit of liberty, justice, and happiness. If Gary, (and others) were true conservatives, they would still have and express strong religious beliefs, but they would fight to the death for yours and my freedom to believe, worship and live according to our own beliefs. They don't...they fight tooth and nail to enforce their beliefs on us.That violates a true conservative principal.
Second, I don't think we can even say, "Well, we don't agree on everything but I still think he is a good man with good intentions." Lies are lies. Misleading is misleading. Lying to people, blatantly, misquoting, misrepresenting other people is dishonest...so it isn't just a matter of "disagreeing." It is blatant attempts to manipulate huge numbers of people from behind a pulpit. When you do so deliberately (and they cannot say it isn't deliberate---he had a copy of the speech, they twist numbers and studies long after the authors of those studies have come out and TOLD them they are misrepresenting them and not being honest about them) then you lose the right to say "I meant well...."
If we look at even just this most recent example of this report or article that he sent out in which he so blatantly misquoted and misrepresented the facts, we have to ask: "Why???" If he cannot support his beliefs without resorting to lies, then are his beliefs defensible? That's the problem when you start stretching and manipulating the truth--the very fact that you had to resort to such methods indicates there is a weakness in your argument.
As far as 9/11...the vote...all of that...I believe that the propaganda machines have done a very good job of creating this idea that anyone who believes Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq didn't care about 9/11, or has forgotten it, or that they don't want terrorists defeated. It is so way off base I almost don't know where to begin.
I remember 9/11. It happened the day before I was supposed to give my partner her 40th birthday party. She begged me to cancel it and I did. We watched the television for hours and we wept profusely. Every time I heard one of the recorded calls from people in the towers telling loved ones goodbye...my heart was ripped from my chest. I literally was watching when the second plane hit the other tower. I think we all walked around numb with pain and shock...I don't think cutting off one of our own limbs would have produced more numbness...more shock.
After 9/11 the entire world gathered around us...the entire world was ready to stand with us and go after terrorists. The entire world was sick of the violence and sick of terrorists. I believe we did the right thing going into Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden...and then something happened...the focus started to change. Instead of doing all the things Bush said we would in Afghanistan--rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals...we started like little boys playing with firecrackers looking for something new to blow up. We fulfilled less than 10% of the rebuilding we promised (to this day)...and we started pouring money into a war in Iraq...and at first they tried to connect that war in Iraq with 9/11...over and over the connection was made--then later "We never said that..."
Don't you find it just a little bit odd that even though Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld all now say "We never said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida" that you yourself still see a connection there? It is because it was a very carefully and very cunningly crafted idea planted in the hearts and minds of the American people...so they would support a war in Iraq...
But then they said, "Weapons of mass destruction..." Over and over they said it, and over and over they emphasized "We KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT there are weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam is planning on using them..." They ignored the inspectors, they ignored even American CIA agents and reports who kept sending memos up the line refuting their "intelligence." In fact, the guy who put the line BACK into Bush's speech about Hussein obtaining uranium from Nigeria after a CIA fact checker took it OUT of the speech because he said they already KNEW IT WAS FALSE INFORMATION--the guy who put it BACK IN got promoted!!?
Then it became, well we went in to "liberate" the people. Great, I am all for helping others to have freedom and liberty, especially if they are being killed by the thousands...except the mass graves were NOT being filled currently...the mass executions took place back when the US was sending Rumsfeld to shake hands with Hussein (the Reagan administration) and back when Bush senior was allowing biological samples like smallpox and anthrax to be SOLD TO IRAQ. Hussein murdered tens of thousands of Kurdish people, men, women, children, using biological weapons in the 80's!!! We never heard about it back then...partly because WE SOLD THEM the makings!! By the time we went into Iraq there were no more mass executions. The torture and prisons? Well we replaced their gaurds with ours. Because the Bush administration developed a policy of "sweeps" in which they picked up men, women, and children, literally off the street and put them in jail for interrogation. Our new Attorney General, as White House Council, wrote a memo that was passed down the line of command that said, "Geneva Convention laws are not applicable" and paved the way for methods of torture and humiliation that Americans should be incredibly ashamed of....all used on the same people we were "liberating."
In the meantime, even though we have captured 3/4 of the people said to "lead" Al Quaida, world wide intelligence shows that Al Quaida has quadrupled in numbers...they are four times as strong as they were before 9/11. Why the explosion in numbers? Because the Arab countries that grieved with us, stood with us, after 9/11 now believe that Bush has used this as an excuse to build an American empire...because Arab countries that believed we truly did want to bring freedom to Iraqi's now believe that the elections are a ruse, and that we will still put our "puppets" in place...like we put Hussein in place (something Americans forget--we helped him get into power, and we remained an ally right through his mass murders...)
In Iraq itself, when we first went in, the insurgents were small, isolated...but as the stories of torture have come out, as they have seen more and more of their children lying in hospitals, more and more of them have started to believe what the insurgents have told them--that Americans are there to protect oil interests and to create a puppet government.
So why did they vote in spite of the dangers? Because it is their only hope. Even if they think it is rigged, the only hope is to go and vote so that you can stand up and say, this is how I voted if you believe the Americans rigged it. They still hold onto hope that somehow freedom will come, but if you are listening to them, one of those freedoms they long for is FROM Americans.
The administration wants you and me and everyone to believe that they are the guys in the white hats who stand for freedom and liberty—even while they sit at home attacking my family. Even while they literally lie and bully in our own country.
Again, I have to ask...if their aims and their goals and their execution of their tasks are innocent and pure, why do they have to lie all the time? Why force government employees to put out reports without numbers, or with false numbers? Why promote people who give you BAD information deliberately (when it is removed for inaccuracy and then you put it right back in, it is deliberate) and fire people who say "No that isn't right"...? If you have to do so many bad things to accomplish your goals, can the goals be better than the means of achieving them?
We MUST get away from this entrenched idea that if people don't support Bush's errors, lies, ineptitude, that they didn't care about 9/11 or terrorism. Of course we all care about and remember them. We want to deal with them in ways that do not create MORE Of them.
I'll tell you what would have struck the greatest blow to terrorism and al Qaeda and would have encouraged democracy more than anything Bush has done--if we had done exactly what we had said we would in Afghanistan. If we had focused all our efforts right there...get Bin Laden, and while we were looking for him, poured even 1/10th of the money we have poured into Iraq on building schools and hospitals, kept a peacekeeping force there that would actually protect the girls' schools (the majority of women there still cannot go to school because when they do they are killed...), made Afghanistan a shining example of how we want to help people...then we would have taken away the recruiting tools of Al Quaida.
Want to know how they recruit? They show pictures of children with half their bodies blown away by "Shock and Awe." They show our telecasts where we oohed and ahhhed over our own powerfulness, and then they show the children hit by those bombs...they show videos of Bush saying we would rebuild Afganistan, and make it better, freer, then they show how most of the country still doesn't have usable roads, schools, or hospitals...and that all of our forces are stationed along the oil pipeline...
They do the same things that AFA, FOF, CWA do: they use religious doctrine, and they lie, and they point to one group of people who are out to destroy them (except for Al quaida, they use "Americans" in place of "gays") and they lie and they twist the truth and they scare parents and teens by saying, "if you don't help us stop them, they will destroy your family, your country."
Why does a sixteen year old boy strap explosives to his chest and walk into a crowd and detonate it? Hate? There is some hate there, yes, but it is hate born of something...what is the birthplace of that hate? Bush says it is hate of our freedoms...think about it. Is that deep enough? Really? "I hate the fact that your women can drive to the store without a male so I will blow myself up and die?" No...they are told, shown, that Americans are coming to kill your brothers and sisters and mother and father...they want all of us dead...see how they drop bombs on civilians? See how they arrest hundreds and torture them in Hussein's prisons? If you do not help us, they will come for YOUR family. Help us, sacrifice your life, and protect your family, your religion.
What Bush's policies and actions and even words "Bring it on!!" has done is to make it so they don't even have to work hard to come up with their propaganda...
Whew!! Sorry it is so long...but I wanted to explain all of why the whole "Well, we may not be entirely honest, but we are pure" ideas don't work...they don't work when you are a religious leader using dishonest means to express your faith, and they don't work when you are a world leader who says they are spreading freedom and liberty yet you do and say the opposite...
I hope that, after reading this, you said "WOW" too, like I did.
Hope Or Despair?
Today brought some good news from Iraq – the capture of two more of terrorist thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's top aides. No doubt the arrest earlier this week of the man in charge of car bombings produced intelligence information that led to these arrests. Meanwhile, Iraqis all over the world, including here in the United States, started voting today.
The "main event" in Iraq itself is on Sunday. All Americans can feel a sense of pride in the knowledge that our young men and women in uniform have sacrificed greatly in order to secure liberty for the Iraqi people.
But here in the United States, the Senate's biggest "naysayer,"Senator Ted Kennedy, chose yesterday to deliver a major foreign policy speech in which he called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Kennedy said U.S. troops, who he claimed to support, "are fanning the flames ofconflict." He added, "the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation."
Perhaps Senator Kennedy can explain to us why, if he is correct, thugs like Zarqawi are killing other Iraqis as often as they attack U.S. soldiers. The fact is that the violence in Iraq is a struggle over the future of theMiddle East with profound implications for the future of our children too.
Will the region be controlled by bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the Baathists of Syria and the mullahs of Iran? Or can freedom take root and bring this breeding ground of Islamofascism and terrorism into the civilized world?
Once again, Senator Kennedy has embraced defeat and despair at the very moment when hope and strength are needed most. I still remember another Kennedy standing on the steps of the Capitol andspeaking these memorable words: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Of course, being the person that *I* am, I refuted, point by point, the stupidity of statements like "why are they targeting civilians," etc? Frankly, I get so sick of people perpetuating this type of crap -- they perpetuate it because they're on some "Christian" mailing list and they BELIEVE this type of propaganda. Often I lose patience but there's one member of this discussion group who always seems to stay logical, rational, and right on. With her permission, I'd like to share a response of hers - it's long but SO worth the read! Thanks to michiaj.
Here is some of what your post made me think about. First, about people like Gary Bauer...I don't consider him a "true" conservative. I see him as a pharisee or a saducee...a legalist who believes that his way is the only way...that is not a conservative or American value. Conservative American values have always been that we each have a right to believe, worship, and live in freedom. Not freedom according to Gary Bauer, but in our own true pursuit of liberty, justice, and happiness. If Gary, (and others) were true conservatives, they would still have and express strong religious beliefs, but they would fight to the death for yours and my freedom to believe, worship and live according to our own beliefs. They don't...they fight tooth and nail to enforce their beliefs on us.That violates a true conservative principal.
Second, I don't think we can even say, "Well, we don't agree on everything but I still think he is a good man with good intentions." Lies are lies. Misleading is misleading. Lying to people, blatantly, misquoting, misrepresenting other people is dishonest...so it isn't just a matter of "disagreeing." It is blatant attempts to manipulate huge numbers of people from behind a pulpit. When you do so deliberately (and they cannot say it isn't deliberate---he had a copy of the speech, they twist numbers and studies long after the authors of those studies have come out and TOLD them they are misrepresenting them and not being honest about them) then you lose the right to say "I meant well...."
If we look at even just this most recent example of this report or article that he sent out in which he so blatantly misquoted and misrepresented the facts, we have to ask: "Why???" If he cannot support his beliefs without resorting to lies, then are his beliefs defensible? That's the problem when you start stretching and manipulating the truth--the very fact that you had to resort to such methods indicates there is a weakness in your argument.
As far as 9/11...the vote...all of that...I believe that the propaganda machines have done a very good job of creating this idea that anyone who believes Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq didn't care about 9/11, or has forgotten it, or that they don't want terrorists defeated. It is so way off base I almost don't know where to begin.
I remember 9/11. It happened the day before I was supposed to give my partner her 40th birthday party. She begged me to cancel it and I did. We watched the television for hours and we wept profusely. Every time I heard one of the recorded calls from people in the towers telling loved ones goodbye...my heart was ripped from my chest. I literally was watching when the second plane hit the other tower. I think we all walked around numb with pain and shock...I don't think cutting off one of our own limbs would have produced more numbness...more shock.
After 9/11 the entire world gathered around us...the entire world was ready to stand with us and go after terrorists. The entire world was sick of the violence and sick of terrorists. I believe we did the right thing going into Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden...and then something happened...the focus started to change. Instead of doing all the things Bush said we would in Afghanistan--rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals...we started like little boys playing with firecrackers looking for something new to blow up. We fulfilled less than 10% of the rebuilding we promised (to this day)...and we started pouring money into a war in Iraq...and at first they tried to connect that war in Iraq with 9/11...over and over the connection was made--then later "We never said that..."
Don't you find it just a little bit odd that even though Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld all now say "We never said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida" that you yourself still see a connection there? It is because it was a very carefully and very cunningly crafted idea planted in the hearts and minds of the American people...so they would support a war in Iraq...
But then they said, "Weapons of mass destruction..." Over and over they said it, and over and over they emphasized "We KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT there are weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam is planning on using them..." They ignored the inspectors, they ignored even American CIA agents and reports who kept sending memos up the line refuting their "intelligence." In fact, the guy who put the line BACK into Bush's speech about Hussein obtaining uranium from Nigeria after a CIA fact checker took it OUT of the speech because he said they already KNEW IT WAS FALSE INFORMATION--the guy who put it BACK IN got promoted!!?
Then it became, well we went in to "liberate" the people. Great, I am all for helping others to have freedom and liberty, especially if they are being killed by the thousands...except the mass graves were NOT being filled currently...the mass executions took place back when the US was sending Rumsfeld to shake hands with Hussein (the Reagan administration) and back when Bush senior was allowing biological samples like smallpox and anthrax to be SOLD TO IRAQ. Hussein murdered tens of thousands of Kurdish people, men, women, children, using biological weapons in the 80's!!! We never heard about it back then...partly because WE SOLD THEM the makings!! By the time we went into Iraq there were no more mass executions. The torture and prisons? Well we replaced their gaurds with ours. Because the Bush administration developed a policy of "sweeps" in which they picked up men, women, and children, literally off the street and put them in jail for interrogation. Our new Attorney General, as White House Council, wrote a memo that was passed down the line of command that said, "Geneva Convention laws are not applicable" and paved the way for methods of torture and humiliation that Americans should be incredibly ashamed of....all used on the same people we were "liberating."
In the meantime, even though we have captured 3/4 of the people said to "lead" Al Quaida, world wide intelligence shows that Al Quaida has quadrupled in numbers...they are four times as strong as they were before 9/11. Why the explosion in numbers? Because the Arab countries that grieved with us, stood with us, after 9/11 now believe that Bush has used this as an excuse to build an American empire...because Arab countries that believed we truly did want to bring freedom to Iraqi's now believe that the elections are a ruse, and that we will still put our "puppets" in place...like we put Hussein in place (something Americans forget--we helped him get into power, and we remained an ally right through his mass murders...)
In Iraq itself, when we first went in, the insurgents were small, isolated...but as the stories of torture have come out, as they have seen more and more of their children lying in hospitals, more and more of them have started to believe what the insurgents have told them--that Americans are there to protect oil interests and to create a puppet government.
So why did they vote in spite of the dangers? Because it is their only hope. Even if they think it is rigged, the only hope is to go and vote so that you can stand up and say, this is how I voted if you believe the Americans rigged it. They still hold onto hope that somehow freedom will come, but if you are listening to them, one of those freedoms they long for is FROM Americans.
The administration wants you and me and everyone to believe that they are the guys in the white hats who stand for freedom and liberty—even while they sit at home attacking my family. Even while they literally lie and bully in our own country.
Again, I have to ask...if their aims and their goals and their execution of their tasks are innocent and pure, why do they have to lie all the time? Why force government employees to put out reports without numbers, or with false numbers? Why promote people who give you BAD information deliberately (when it is removed for inaccuracy and then you put it right back in, it is deliberate) and fire people who say "No that isn't right"...? If you have to do so many bad things to accomplish your goals, can the goals be better than the means of achieving them?
We MUST get away from this entrenched idea that if people don't support Bush's errors, lies, ineptitude, that they didn't care about 9/11 or terrorism. Of course we all care about and remember them. We want to deal with them in ways that do not create MORE Of them.
I'll tell you what would have struck the greatest blow to terrorism and al Qaeda and would have encouraged democracy more than anything Bush has done--if we had done exactly what we had said we would in Afghanistan. If we had focused all our efforts right there...get Bin Laden, and while we were looking for him, poured even 1/10th of the money we have poured into Iraq on building schools and hospitals, kept a peacekeeping force there that would actually protect the girls' schools (the majority of women there still cannot go to school because when they do they are killed...), made Afghanistan a shining example of how we want to help people...then we would have taken away the recruiting tools of Al Quaida.
Want to know how they recruit? They show pictures of children with half their bodies blown away by "Shock and Awe." They show our telecasts where we oohed and ahhhed over our own powerfulness, and then they show the children hit by those bombs...they show videos of Bush saying we would rebuild Afganistan, and make it better, freer, then they show how most of the country still doesn't have usable roads, schools, or hospitals...and that all of our forces are stationed along the oil pipeline...
They do the same things that AFA, FOF, CWA do: they use religious doctrine, and they lie, and they point to one group of people who are out to destroy them (except for Al quaida, they use "Americans" in place of "gays") and they lie and they twist the truth and they scare parents and teens by saying, "if you don't help us stop them, they will destroy your family, your country."
Why does a sixteen year old boy strap explosives to his chest and walk into a crowd and detonate it? Hate? There is some hate there, yes, but it is hate born of something...what is the birthplace of that hate? Bush says it is hate of our freedoms...think about it. Is that deep enough? Really? "I hate the fact that your women can drive to the store without a male so I will blow myself up and die?" No...they are told, shown, that Americans are coming to kill your brothers and sisters and mother and father...they want all of us dead...see how they drop bombs on civilians? See how they arrest hundreds and torture them in Hussein's prisons? If you do not help us, they will come for YOUR family. Help us, sacrifice your life, and protect your family, your religion.
What Bush's policies and actions and even words "Bring it on!!" has done is to make it so they don't even have to work hard to come up with their propaganda...
Whew!! Sorry it is so long...but I wanted to explain all of why the whole "Well, we may not be entirely honest, but we are pure" ideas don't work...they don't work when you are a religious leader using dishonest means to express your faith, and they don't work when you are a world leader who says they are spreading freedom and liberty yet you do and say the opposite...
I hope that, after reading this, you said "WOW" too, like I did.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Words of Wisdom
I'd like to share a quote I saw on another web site today:
"Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians." -- Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.
Has anyone ever gotten a real answer to the question "How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten, devalue, undermine or otherwise harm the institution of marriage?"
We see all sorts of rhetoric regarding "protecting the children" from gay marriage, but isn't marriage how we protect those children?
I saw one member of Congress (or the Senate?) a few months ago commenting that, if we allowed gay marriage, more children would be born out of wedlock. HUH? I couldn't figure out the logic in that statement. If gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, then these children would not be born out of wedlock. By denying these marriages, those same children will be born out of wedlock and, denying those marriages won't prevent those children from being born anyway.
I find it pitiful that these homophobes would hide behind children -- but then again, they use "protect the children" for the emotional effect it produces, not as a matter of any real logic or rationalization.
"It's not natural" is another one of my favorite arguments. Says who? Throughout the world, homosexuality has been found in almost every living species. While the argument can be made that these are unintelligent animals without the ability to reason, it is exactly that which defeats the argument that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it?
"These people just want to indoctrinate more children into the homosexual lifestyle." Then who indoctrinated us? Our straight parents?
"These people want to redefine marriage -- they want to re-shape the tradition of marriage, something that has been defined throughout the history of man." If marriage had not been redefined, women would still be sold as chattel for a large dowery by their fathers. If marriage had not been redefined, marriages would still be "arranged" and would not be based on mutual love and respect for each other -- it'd still be a business deal based on what's best for the larger family. If marriage had not been redefined, mothers would still be in the home, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while their husbands earned the only paycheck to come into the house. They would also be subject to whatever abuse their husbands heaped upon them. If marriage were to be exactly as it originated, there would be a requirement that the wife be a virgin, or face cruel penalties.
Don't tell me that we want to "redefine" marriage -- the heterosexuals have done that throughout history in order to adapt to the times, cultures, and societal needs. Why else would it be easy to get married in a marriage-mill chapel in Las Vegas, or get a "quickie divorce" in Mexico? Why else would there be "no fault, no contest" divorces where it allows the couple to just give up on the marriage and walk away?
And what about the Gen-X'ers who now have the term "starter marriage" to describe a first marriage where they "learn" about marriage and, if it doesn't work out, they walk away?
"Marriage and family experts — psychologists, sociologists, lawyers and clergy — are beginning to look at these brief young unions, seeing in their implications a barometer of society's attitudes about marriage and divorce. Some say starter marriages signal the need for more premarital counseling."—Deborah Schupack, "'Starter' Marriages: So Early, So Brief," The New York Times, July 7, 1994
Doesn't this redefine marriage? How does two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fighting tooth and nail to make that commitment, redefine the essence of marriage? Isn't this exactly what marriage is all about? Love, respect, commitment, walking through the fires of hell for the sake of the relationship?
Then there's the "If homosexuals get married, they'll do it just for kicks and there will be more divorces for them." Just for kicks...you mean like Brittany Spears? You mean like a lot of heterosexual couples who get married for all the wrong reasons? This "We'll save them from themselves" mentality makes me want to vomit sometimes.
Do people really believe this drivel, or are they just parrotting what they hear on the television from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart?
And let's talk about these two guys here for a minute.
Jerry Falwell attacked a children's television character (Tinky Winkie) claiming that it was a symbol for homosexuality with his purple color, triangle head, and purse. In the first place, the Teletubbies are basically genderless. So how do we know it's improper for one or any of them to carry a purse? Secondly, the triangle doesn't have to represent anything, especially when another character has a circle on its head, and another has what appears to be a lightning bolt on its head. Should we infer, per Mr. Falwell, that the lightning bold signifies the darkness of Satan? Should we infer that the circle looks more like a bulls-eye to advocate less restrictive laws on gun control? Doesn't this guy have anything better to do than to attack children's television programming?
Jimmy Swaggart really messed up when he said, in front of a live audience on a program televised throughout the country, "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died." It's bad enough that Jimmy Swaggart, with that one statement, advocated violence against gays just for a LOOK and THEN HE'D LIE TO GOD ABOUT IT, but what I found more disturbing was that the audience applauded him. He later apologized, but hasn't that damage already been done? And this from a confessed pornography addict and patron of prostitutes? This from a man who is rumored to have had extramarital affairs? This from the man who described the prophet Muhammad as a pervert" and a "sex deviant?"
Why is it that these so-called "Men of God" use lies, deceit, and hatred to convince people that homosexuality is wrong? Most likely because they can't justify it in any other way -- they're not content to teach their followers to read the Bible, and pray for understanding of what the Bible means. No, they have to take it a step further and incite violence against gays, tell people that the gay community is after their children [“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildrenand turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club] and to make people AFRAID of homosexuals -- fear is the most powerful motivator known to man and you can't tell me that these men who claim to speak the word of God don't know this and use it to promote and spin their own personal brand of hate.
I'm often reminded of a line from the movie "Oh God!" Paul Sorvino plays the Reverend Willie Williams, a Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart sort of minister who is suing Jerry Landers (played by John Denver) for libel and slander after Landers, in front of a television audience, branded Williams a fraud after having conversed with God concerning the reverend. Jerry tells the minister "God says that you claim to be spreading God's words, but the problem is, you ran out of Gods words a long time ago" (not an exact quote).
I think these televangelists and the Pope have long since run out of God's words, too. They use their power and position to strike fear in the hearts of the faithful, and teach hate, intolerance, and prejudice -- values which directly contradict those taught in the Bible.
Perhaps these guys need to open their Bibles and read them for a change?
"Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians." -- Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.
Has anyone ever gotten a real answer to the question "How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten, devalue, undermine or otherwise harm the institution of marriage?"
We see all sorts of rhetoric regarding "protecting the children" from gay marriage, but isn't marriage how we protect those children?
I saw one member of Congress (or the Senate?) a few months ago commenting that, if we allowed gay marriage, more children would be born out of wedlock. HUH? I couldn't figure out the logic in that statement. If gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, then these children would not be born out of wedlock. By denying these marriages, those same children will be born out of wedlock and, denying those marriages won't prevent those children from being born anyway.
I find it pitiful that these homophobes would hide behind children -- but then again, they use "protect the children" for the emotional effect it produces, not as a matter of any real logic or rationalization.
"It's not natural" is another one of my favorite arguments. Says who? Throughout the world, homosexuality has been found in almost every living species. While the argument can be made that these are unintelligent animals without the ability to reason, it is exactly that which defeats the argument that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it?
"These people just want to indoctrinate more children into the homosexual lifestyle." Then who indoctrinated us? Our straight parents?
"These people want to redefine marriage -- they want to re-shape the tradition of marriage, something that has been defined throughout the history of man." If marriage had not been redefined, women would still be sold as chattel for a large dowery by their fathers. If marriage had not been redefined, marriages would still be "arranged" and would not be based on mutual love and respect for each other -- it'd still be a business deal based on what's best for the larger family. If marriage had not been redefined, mothers would still be in the home, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while their husbands earned the only paycheck to come into the house. They would also be subject to whatever abuse their husbands heaped upon them. If marriage were to be exactly as it originated, there would be a requirement that the wife be a virgin, or face cruel penalties.
Don't tell me that we want to "redefine" marriage -- the heterosexuals have done that throughout history in order to adapt to the times, cultures, and societal needs. Why else would it be easy to get married in a marriage-mill chapel in Las Vegas, or get a "quickie divorce" in Mexico? Why else would there be "no fault, no contest" divorces where it allows the couple to just give up on the marriage and walk away?
And what about the Gen-X'ers who now have the term "starter marriage" to describe a first marriage where they "learn" about marriage and, if it doesn't work out, they walk away?
"Marriage and family experts — psychologists, sociologists, lawyers and clergy — are beginning to look at these brief young unions, seeing in their implications a barometer of society's attitudes about marriage and divorce. Some say starter marriages signal the need for more premarital counseling."—Deborah Schupack, "'Starter' Marriages: So Early, So Brief," The New York Times, July 7, 1994
Doesn't this redefine marriage? How does two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fighting tooth and nail to make that commitment, redefine the essence of marriage? Isn't this exactly what marriage is all about? Love, respect, commitment, walking through the fires of hell for the sake of the relationship?
Then there's the "If homosexuals get married, they'll do it just for kicks and there will be more divorces for them." Just for kicks...you mean like Brittany Spears? You mean like a lot of heterosexual couples who get married for all the wrong reasons? This "We'll save them from themselves" mentality makes me want to vomit sometimes.
Do people really believe this drivel, or are they just parrotting what they hear on the television from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart?
And let's talk about these two guys here for a minute.
Jerry Falwell attacked a children's television character (Tinky Winkie) claiming that it was a symbol for homosexuality with his purple color, triangle head, and purse. In the first place, the Teletubbies are basically genderless. So how do we know it's improper for one or any of them to carry a purse? Secondly, the triangle doesn't have to represent anything, especially when another character has a circle on its head, and another has what appears to be a lightning bolt on its head. Should we infer, per Mr. Falwell, that the lightning bold signifies the darkness of Satan? Should we infer that the circle looks more like a bulls-eye to advocate less restrictive laws on gun control? Doesn't this guy have anything better to do than to attack children's television programming?
Jimmy Swaggart really messed up when he said, in front of a live audience on a program televised throughout the country, "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died." It's bad enough that Jimmy Swaggart, with that one statement, advocated violence against gays just for a LOOK and THEN HE'D LIE TO GOD ABOUT IT, but what I found more disturbing was that the audience applauded him. He later apologized, but hasn't that damage already been done? And this from a confessed pornography addict and patron of prostitutes? This from a man who is rumored to have had extramarital affairs? This from the man who described the prophet Muhammad as a pervert" and a "sex deviant?"
Why is it that these so-called "Men of God" use lies, deceit, and hatred to convince people that homosexuality is wrong? Most likely because they can't justify it in any other way -- they're not content to teach their followers to read the Bible, and pray for understanding of what the Bible means. No, they have to take it a step further and incite violence against gays, tell people that the gay community is after their children [“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildrenand turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club] and to make people AFRAID of homosexuals -- fear is the most powerful motivator known to man and you can't tell me that these men who claim to speak the word of God don't know this and use it to promote and spin their own personal brand of hate.
I'm often reminded of a line from the movie "Oh God!" Paul Sorvino plays the Reverend Willie Williams, a Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart sort of minister who is suing Jerry Landers (played by John Denver) for libel and slander after Landers, in front of a television audience, branded Williams a fraud after having conversed with God concerning the reverend. Jerry tells the minister "God says that you claim to be spreading God's words, but the problem is, you ran out of Gods words a long time ago" (not an exact quote).
I think these televangelists and the Pope have long since run out of God's words, too. They use their power and position to strike fear in the hearts of the faithful, and teach hate, intolerance, and prejudice -- values which directly contradict those taught in the Bible.
Perhaps these guys need to open their Bibles and read them for a change?
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Our gas grill -- after the storm!
As you can see, we got quite the storm! The state police are asking people to stay off the roads until they can get them cleared. One highway was closed because it snowed so hard even the plows couldn't get through.
It's beautiful outside -- just damn glad I don't have to drive to work in the stuff! :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)