Current Events of note:


Rumsfeld departure shakes Bush administration
By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

President and Defence Secretary: parting company
The resignation of the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shows how much the Bush administration is in disarray about Iraq.
The president made it quite clear at a news conference after the election that he had decided beforehand that a "fresh perspective" was needed at the Pentagon.
This means that, win or lose the election, Mr Bush had decided that things were going badly enough to remove one of the architects of the war.
In fact, when Mr Bush told reporters last week that Mr Rumsfeld would be staying on, he had already spoken to Mr Rumsfeld about leaving. He said to the news conference that "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee."
Whether Robert Gates, an ex CIA director, is the kind of man to provide much of a fresh perspective remains to be seen. Until now he has always been an establishment figure. But he seems to be about to be one of the pegs on which new hopes will be hung.
Significant moment
The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is a major moment in the history of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld felt himself to be the right man, in the right place, at the right time
Profile: Dinald Rumsfeld
In pictures: Rumsfeld's career His resignation is a sign and an admission that the policy in Iraq has not worked, so far.
Apart from Vice-President Dick Cheney and President Bush himself, there was nobody who symbolised the administration's determination to wage the war on terror and to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction," he announced of the Iraqis at one stage. "We don't need any debate about it." His confidence and brusque dismissal of dissent was typical. For some, it amounted to arrogance.
Ambitions
Rumsfeld brought to the Pentagon years of ambition to stir up a department he had run as a much younger man under President Ford.
The recent book about the administration at war by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, State of Denial, tells of the blizzard of handwritten memos known as "snowflakes" with which he bombarded his officials.
He was determined to break what he saw as the old guard and to get control of policy himself, which he felt was too much in the hands of the generals and admirals.
He wanted a slimmer, more mobile military, one more capable of waging war on international terrorists and governments that supported them and less concentrated on the massive weapons systems that were being developed as if the Cold War had not ended.
Donald Rumsfeld felt himself to be the right man, in the right place, at the right time.
His direct, irascible, sometimes even folksy style appealed to many when things were going well. His famous dictum about there being "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", made pre-Iraq, was seen as quirky and "Rummy" at his most idiosyncratic.
In a resignation appearance with President Bush and his own successor in the Oval Office, Mr Rumsfeld referred. almost as if he had not been appreciated, to "this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century... It is not well known, it was not well understood, it is complex for people to comprehend."
Downfall
However the very confidence that allowed him to make his mark on the Pentagon also led to his downfall.
It became overconfidence.
He ignored warnings that his reliance on hard-hitting, relatively small units would win the ground war in Iraq but would not win a guerrilla war.
Like most US policymakers, he simply did not believe that Iraqis would not welcome the invaders and take care of events for themselves from then on.
He was not a man of patience and did not in the end have the necessary patience for a long drawn out counter insurgency war. Nor did he show the flexibility of tactics needed to demonstrate to his commander-in-chief that he was going to deliver the victory the president believes is so necessary.
He had to go, whatever the results of the elections.
Note created November 8, 2006BBC NEWS Americas Rumsfeld departure shakes Bush administration - news.bbc.co.uk/...
EditDelete
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-09T205310Z_01_N09270468_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-GAYS.xml&src=rss
Battle over gay marriage deepens
Thu Nov 9, 2006 2:54pm ET
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - Hundreds of protesters carrying placards, chanting slogans and singing rallied outside the Massachusetts statehouse on Thursday as lawmakers debated a state constitutional amendment that would give voters power to ban gay marriage.
Protesters on both sides of the debate gathered outside the gold-domed statehouse, with some waving signs reading "Let The People Vote." Gay rights activists sang songs and chanted slogans.
The latest developments in the divisive state-by-state battle over homosexual unions came two days after seven states voted to limit marriage to a man and a woman in ballot initiatives, effectively banning gay marriage.
Note created November 9, 2006
EditDelete
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Maha Nidal's voice is tinged with bitterness and sorrow as she looks around the campus courtyard at her fellow students milling around. The sight is a blend of Iraq's various religious sects --some girls in headscarves, others looking like they walked out of the pages of a fashion magazine.
"The future? The future is a dream. We only live in the now. There is no future," the 21-year-old student says.
This university, with its sprawling green campus, once was abuzz with activity. Now it is covered in the layer of grime and dust that seems to blanket all of Baghdad.
Like most of the students at Baghdad University, Maha lives in fear. But now, after the mass kidnapping at the Ministry of Higher Education this week, she lives not only in fear of the violence, but in fear of losing the one thing that will determine her future -- her education. (Watch Maha describe the lack of hope Iraqi students have -- 2:17 )
When she heard that the education ministry was thinking of shutting down the university, her world -- already shattered -- crumbled.
"You can't imagine what we felt, I saw our future destroyed," she says. "How do you know that a future of a country ... has been destroyed? It's when there is no justice, no security, and no education, if you reach the stage of no studies and no education. And when you lose that, that's it, the people are finished.
"There is no future."
With frustration reverberating in her voice, her cousin, 19-year-old Afraa adds, "Each day it just gets worse. Like last year we had maybe 50 percent hope, but now nothing, it's zero percent. There is nothing that is happening that makes us think, yes, they [the government] are doing something."
The two girls live in the same home now. Afraa's family fled sectarian violence in a violent western Baghdad neighborhood and moved in with Maha's family. The two girls are like many here, hungry for an education, showing up each day despite the risks and their families' protests, and hoping that their classes will be in session.
Maha, in her headscarf, is the more conservative of the two, but the more talkative. She says that sometimes she is simply just overcome with anger.
"I want to continue on to get my masters," she says. "I have good grades; I am in the top 10 of my class, but now what am I supposed to do?"
The university is all that these girls and others have left. The streets outside are petrifying. They don't go out, even the simplest thing like walking in the street, grabbing a cup of coffee with friends, shopping, the things that most university students do without a thought in other parts of the world, are impossible here.
Their world is one of gunfire, explosions, concertina wire, blast walls and uncertainty.
"We don't know if we will be alive the next minute," Maha says.
The university, even after the mass kidnapping, provides little in terms of actual security. Most of the guards are students themselves. The ministry and the university have asked the government for additional security, but the girls have no delusions that their government is going to come through for them.
"They can't do anything," Afraa says. "Because if they could, they would have done it from the start. But they are too obsessed with themselves."
Maha is harsher.
"They say that they can't provide security for teachers and students," she laments. "Well then, how is it that they can provide security for themselves? They each have hundreds of guards surrounding them."
One does not have to look further than the empty hallways and deserted classrooms to see the toll that the violence is taking on Iraq's educated moderate minds. The students say that on a good day, 40 percent of their classmates show up. More often than not, their professors are not around. Most of the senior professors have fled the country or have been killed.
"The head of my department was killed last year," Maha says. "Gunmen came to his house and killed him. And that was hard for us. He was like one of the students; he kept us strong."
He also gave her hope.
Many of the students here are aware that extremist elements want to divide Iraqi society and drive out secular moderates.
"This is what they want -- the gunmen, the terrorists, any force right now with its hands in destruction wants this -- no education," Maha says. "No learning, no future, for ignorance to rule so that they can have control."
The impact of the academic destruction, as one Iraqi education official put it, could kill this struggling nation.
Note created November 16, 2006Iraqi students fear death of education system - CNN.com - www.cnn.com/...
EditDelete
Most Recent Casualties
Theater: All Iraq Afghanistan
11/9
11/9
11/9
11/9
11/7
11/7
11/6
11/6
11/6
11/6
11/5
11/5
11/4
11/4
11/4
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/1
11/1
11/1
10/31
10/31
10/31
10/31
10/31
10/30
10/30
10/30
10/30
10/29
10/28
10/27
10/27
10/26
10/25
10/25
10/25
10/25
10/25
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/23
10/22
10/22
10/22
10/22
10/22
10/21
10/21
10/21
10/21
10/21
10/21
10/20
10/19
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/17
10/17
10/17
10/17
10/17
10/17
10/17
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/15
10/14
10/14
10/14
10/14
10/14
10/14
10/13
10/13
10/13
10/13
10/12
10/11
10/11
10/11
10/11

The numbers do add up

The numbers do add up
The attempts to rubbish the Lancet study on the massive Iraqi death toll are devious hack-work.
Daniel Davies

Articles
Latest
Show all
Profile

All Daniel Davies articles
About Webfeeds October 12, 2006 02:00 PM | Printable version

As Richard Horton's post says, the latest Johns Hopkins University study of mortality in Iraq, published in the Lancet is horrible news. When the previous study was published, a horrendous chorus of hacks sprung up and suddenly discovered a new-found expertise in epidemiological statistics.

Tim Lambert, the Australian science-blogger, and I ended up spending a lot of time and energy fighting on the online front of this Campaign For Real Statistics, and so it is with heavy heart that I see that President Bush - who is probably a better statistician that many of his online supporters as he has at least been to business school - has already expressed an uninformed opinion on the matter.

There will be a concerted attempt to persuade people that the statistical issues involved in this study are difficult. They aren't. The correct way to think about this is as follows:

First, don't concentrate on the number 600,000 (or 655,000, depending on where you read). This is a point estimate of the number of excess Iraqi deaths - it's basically equal to the change in the death rate since the invasion, multiplied by the population of Iraq, multiplied by three-and-a-quarter years. Point estimates are almost never the important results of statistical studies and I wish the statistics profession would stop printing them as headlines.

The question that this study was set up to answer was: as a result of the invasion, have things got better or worse in Iraq? And if they have got worse, have they got a little bit worse or a lot worse. Point estimates are only interesting in so far as they demonstrate or dramatise the answer to this question.

The results speak for themselves. There was a sample of 12,801 individuals in 1,849 households, in 47 geographical locations. That is a big sample, not a small one. The opinion polls from Mori and such which measure political support use a sample size of about 2,000 individuals, and they have a margin of error of +/- 3%. If Margaret Beckett looks at the Labour party's rating in the polls, she presumably considers this to be reasonably reliable, so she should not contribute to public ignorance by allowing her department to disparage "small samples extrapolated to the whole country". The Iraq Body Count website and the Iraqi government statistics are not better measures than the survey results, because one of the things we know about war zones is that casualties are under-reported, usually by a factor of more than five.

And the results were shocking. In the 18 months before the invasion, the sample reported 82 deaths, two of them from violence. In the 39 months since the invasion, the sample households had seen 547 deaths, 300 of them from violence. The death rate expressed as deaths per 1,000 per year had gone up from 5.5 to 13.3.

Talk of confidence intervals becomes frankly irrelevant at this point. If you want to pick a figure for the precise number of excess deaths, then (1.33% - 0.55%) x 26,000,000 x 3.25 = 659,000 is as good as any, multiplying out the difference between the death rates by the population of Iraq and the time since the invasion. But we're interested in the qualitative conclusion here.

That qualitative conclusion is this: things have got worse, and they have got a lot worse, not a little bit worse. Whatever detailed criticisms one might make of the methodology of the study (and I have searched assiduously for the last two years, with the assistance of a lot of partisans of the Iraq war who have tried to pick holes in the study, and not found any), the numbers are too big. If you go out and ask 12,000 people whether a family member has died and get reports of 300 deaths from violence, then that is not consistent with there being only 60,000 deaths from violence in a country of 26 million. It is not even nearly consistent.

This is the question to always keep at the front of your mind when arguments are being slung around (and it is the general question one should always be thinking of when people talk statistics). How Would One Get This Sample, If The Facts Were Not This Way? There is really only one answer - that the study was fraudulent.[1] It really could not have happened by chance. If a Mori poll puts the Labour party on 40% support, then we know that there is some inaccuracy in the poll, but we also know that there is basically zero chance that the true level of support is 2% or 96%, and for the Lancet survey to have delivered the results it did if the true body count is 60,000 would be about as improbable as this. Anyone who wants to dispute the important conclusion of the study has to be prepared to accuse the authors of fraud, and presumably to accept the legal consequences of doing so.

So what? This is always the other line from the people who want to ignore this study. Even if we accept that the invasion has been a disaster (in the strictest sense, the doubling of the civilian death-rate is usually taken to constitute a humanitarian crisis) for the Iraqi people, what should we do differently? The majority of the deaths by violence are a result of action by the insurgents, so we can't just pull the troops home. Isn't this kind of study just "picking over the rubble", to quote the Euston Manifesto and a distraction from the real debate about humanitarian intervention?

Well, there is something that we can do. We can ensure that the people responsible for this outrage suffer the consequences of their actions. A particularly disgusting theme of some right-wing American critics of the study as been to impugn it by talking about it being "conveniently" released before the November congressional elections. As if a war that doubled the death rate in Iraq was not the sort of thing that ought to be a political issue. Nobody is doing anything about this disaster, and nobody will do until people start suffering some kind of consequences for their actions (for example, no British politician, soldier or spy has lost his job over the handling of the Iraq war and no senior member of the Bush administration either).

There has to be some accountability here. It is not good enough for the pro-intervention community to shrug their shoulders and say that the fatalities caused by the insurgents are not our fault and not part of the moral calculus. I would surely like to see the insurgents in the ICC on war crimes charges, but the Nuremberg convention was also correct to say that aggression was "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". The people who started this war of aggression need to face up to the fact, and that is a political issue.

[1] In the context of the 2004 study, I was prepared to countenance another explanation: that the Iraqis were lying and systematically exaggerating the number of deaths. But in the 2006 study, death certificates were checked and found in 92% of cases.
--------------------------------
Okay, so I am not a statistition here, but when 92% of it checks out, I'm a believer. You always have to have a margin of error. I really am in utter disbelief that people ARE debating this because this is a DEATH TOLL, not some philosophy or ideaology. Politics aside, these people are DEAD. And what is the explaination? The war on terror? Iraqi freedom and democracy? This could go on for another decade. Numbers do lie, but to lie about the dead--who would be so devious? And the exchange rate of human bodies--a few thousand US soldiers compared to hundreds of thousands of Iraqies--that blows my mind. Historically, when U.S. soldiers and citizens die, the country blamed for it suffers tenfold. Remember Japan? Yes, it is true that "our" men and women are dying over there, but what about Iraq? What about the civilians who have nothing to do with "terrorism"? What do the dead and injured have to do with political affiliations? This is not political. This is the truth...and it hurts, doesn't it?

Steve, it's not goodbye, it's just see you later!

ENFP

You Are An ENFP

The Inspirer You love being around people, and you are deeply committed to your friends. You are also unconventional, irreverant, and unimpressed by authority and rules. Incredibly perceptive, you can usually sense if someone has hidden motives. You use lots of colorful language and expressions. You're qutie the storyteller! You would make an excellent entrepreneur, politician, or journalist.

What's Your Personality Type?

Edited George W. Bush speech

Bill O'Reilly SLANDERS Senator Joe Biden- Al Franken Exposes

Bill will never learn.

My eyes reveal...

Your eyes say you're Naturally Stunning


What Do Your Eyes Reveal?

Brought to you by Tickle

My soul looks like...

What Your Soul Really Looks Like

You are quite expressive and thoughtful. You see the world in a way that others are blind to. You are a grounded person, but you also leave room for imagination and dreams. You feet may be on the ground, but you're head is in the clouds. You believe that people see you as larger than life and important. While this is true, they also think you're a bit full of yourself. Your near future is a lot like the present, and as far as you're concerned, that's a very good thing. For you, falling in love is all about flirting and feeling playful. You couldn't fall in love with someone who took life too seriously.

Inside the Room of Your Soul

My brain's pattern.

Your Brain's Pattern

Your mind is a multi dimensional wonderland, with many layers.You're the type that always has multiple streams of though going.And you can keep these thoughts going at any time.You're very likely to be engaged in deep thought - and deep conversation.

What Pattern Is Your Brain?

Poor Pope John Paul II...

What blogthings.com thinks I think of my friends...

Compassion.

Cute image, huh? It's name is compassion.

Carebear

Funny comic. Poor Kermit! :-(
Posted by Picasa

Good recent political cartoon.
Posted by Picasa

You are White Chocolate

You have a strong feminine side with a good bit of innocence thrown in.Whether your girlish ways are an act or not, men like to take care of you.You are an understated beauty, and your power is often underestimated!

What Kind of Chocolate Are You?

Cool, I like lilies anyway! They are May's flower and I was born in May! Hey, that rhymed! :-D
Posted by Picasa

So, I'm like...loving a good friend. I hope that's not a Bert and Ernie "Sesame Street" type love! :-p
Posted by Picasa

What type of girlfriend am I?

You are a Great Girlfriend

When it comes to your guy, you're very thoughtfulBut you also haven't stopped thinking of yourselfYou're the perfect blend of independent and caringYou're a total catch - make sure your guy knows it too!

Are You a Good Girlfriend?

I'm this type of flirt...

You Are a Coy Flirt!

You're not so much a flirt as the type of girl who draws flirts inWhile you look like you're just relaxing, secretly you've got your game onA little look here, a little wink there... you give men the encouragement they craveAnd in return, they flirt up a storm with you - while you just sit and smile

What Kind of Flirt Are You?

Your Dream Engagement Ring Has a Heart Diamond!

You wear your heart on your sleeve, so of course you should also wear it on your ring. A heart diamond is the perfect choice for highlighting your passionate disposition. Only a true romantic can get away with wearing this ring. Luckily, that's you. And only a true romantic can give you this ring, so make sure you find him...!

What's Your Dream Engagement Ring?

I'm such a girl!

You Are Girly Sexy

You're a youthful spirit, and your energy is infectious.Men love your innocence and lack of emotional baggage.You make every kiss seem like the first and every moment magical.How could any guy in his right mind resist that?

What Kind of Sexy Are You?

Breaking her silence (Gay)Mary Cheney denounces anti-gay amendment, but critics say it’s too little too late

FEATURE/PROFILES
Breaking her silence (Gay)Mary Cheney denounces anti-gay amendment, but critics say it’s too little too late
By KATHERINE VOLIN Thursday, May 11, 2006
Mary Cheney broke her long record of silence on gay issues this week with a PR blitz that would make Tom Cruise proud.
After years of criticism from activists who said Vice President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter should have lobbied publicly for gay rights instead of working for the Bush-Cheney campaigns, the woman who once preferred to fly under the radar was suddenly everywhere, from "Primetime Live" to "Larry King" to the Washington Post. It was an unlikely week in the spotlight for a woman normally found behind the scenes.
During her father’s tenure in office, Mary Cheney has resisted sharing her opinions on gay marriage, gay adoption or other gay issues, even as her father’s boss spoke out against gay civil rights.
"She has been put in a unique place to make more difference than all of us can make combined," gay activist John Aravosis told the Blade in 2004. "With power comes responsibility."
Tired of what he saw as Mary Cheney’s irresponsibility, Aravosis launched a website, DearMary.com, in February of 2004 that challenged Cheney on her silence regarding Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
At the time, Cheney was serving as the re-election campaign director for her father. The site generated thousands of letters to Cheney asking for her to speak out against the anti-gay rhetoric of the Bush campaign. Characteristically, Cheney issued no response.
IN A REVERSAL of that silence, Cheney, 37, has written a book titled, "Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life," that was published on May 9 by Threshold Editions whose editor in chief is Mary Matalin, a noted gay-friendly Republican politico and Cheney adviser. Matalin did not respond to a request for comment about the book. Cheney reportedly received a $1 million advance for her story.
The book focuses primarily on Mary Cheney’s political experiences, but includes her story of coming out to her parents and the revelation that President Bush once offered her the chance to issue a public statement in response to the administration’s amendment effort. She declined the opportunity.
When she appeared on ABC’s "Primetime Live" on May 4, Cheney said she was conflicted about maintaining her position on the 2004 campaign and decided not to attend the State of the Union address in which President Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
"I didn’t want to be there," Cheney told Diane Sawyer. "No one banned me from being there, but I didn’t want to stand up and cheer."
Cheney also said that most of her disagreements over the political stances of her father and President Bush were held in private.
"The president knows that I disagree with him," Cheney said. "Can you be too respectful of the leader of the free world? Can you be too respectful of the president of the United States?" she said later when Sawyer questioned whether she held back too much.
REACTION TO MARY Cheney’s decision to come out publicly with her views on gay marriage were mixed.
"It’s extremely disappointing that she did not use the opportunity that the president gave her … to make a statement against the administration’s policy on same-sex marriage and the marriage amendment," says Pam Spaulding, a lesbian activist who writes a political blog at www.pamspaulding.com. "That is the one thing you walk away from that confirms her cowardice."
Spaulding says that Cheney’s missed opportunity to speak out against the constitutional amendment may have cost gays and lesbians marriage rights at the state level.
"How many lives could have been changed for ordinary gays and lesbians if she would have said something during the campaign," Spaulding says. "From the time she was working on her father’s campaign until now, how many marriage amendments were on the ballot? She chose silence."
Candice Gingrich, senior youth outreach manager for the Human Rights Campaign and the lesbian half-sister of former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, took a very different path when her brother was in office than the one chosen by Mary Cheney.
"I knew if there was this opportunity to talk about issues that I cared deeply about and have people listen, that I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I hadn’t taken that opportunity," Gingrich says.
She added that she didn’t believe sharing her opinion publicly was disrespectful to her half brother.
"I couldn’t believe that he would ever begrudge me for taking a stance in what I believed in, even if it was completely opposite of what he said," Gingrich says.
Although Gingrich made very different choices than Mary Cheney, she says that Cheney needed to speak out in her own time.
"I’m grateful that she’s speaking out now," Gingrich says. "I know that she feels very strongly about the marriage issue and having a voice like hers now a month out before the Senate debate on the marriage amendment is important."
PATRICK GUERRIERO, PRESIDENT of gay political group the Log Cabin Republicans, agrees that Cheney’s timing shows a critical shift in conservative thinking on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I think we’re seeing a growing sentiment that there are a lot of good Republicans, good conservatives, who think we should not be playing politics with the American Constitution," Guerriero says.
Guerriero also says the "Primetime Live" interview showed that Cheney’s decision not to share her political viewpoints was a difficult choice for her.
"A lot of folks were quite harsh and scrutinized Mary Cheney during that whole period and I think many of us were unaware of the kind of conversations she had and her reflections on leaving the campaign and it showed someone who was trying to find a balance between family and politics and personal integrity," Guerriero says.
DURING HER "PRIMETIME LIVE" interview, Cheney said that it was hard for her to see her father take positions with which she disagreed. "Dinnertime can always be an adventure at the Cheney house," she said. "But those are always private discussions."
Kenji Yoshinio, a gay law professor at Yale University, wrote a book on the sociological notion of "covering," which occurs when one "downplays a stigmatized identity to help other people ignore it." In the preface of his book, "Covering: the Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights," he mentions Cheney as someone who downplayed her sexual orientation.
"My intuition is that she may be covering," Yoshino says, noting that Cheney is often shown without her partner, Heather Poe, at public events. "There’s a particular pressure for people in the public eye to background the negative aspects of their identity and foreground the positive aspects."
Gingrich agrees that the pressure can be intense.
"I think that what we saw with the ‘Where’s Mary?’ campaign is there’s sometimes more pressure put on the queer relatives," Gingrich says.

Mary Cheney timeline
1969: Mary Cheney is born.
1991: Graduates from Colorado College.
1993: Works in promotions for the Colorado Rockies baseball team
.2000: Leaves Coors, where she worked as a liaison to the gay and lesbian community to repair the rift between gays and the brewery, to work on her father’s campaign.
2002: Earns a graduate business degree from the University of Denver and serves on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition.
July 2003: Becomes director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney
2004 presidential re-election campaign.
Feb. 2004: DearMary.com, a website that featured Mary Cheney’s face on a milk carton with the slogan "Where’s Mary," is launched.Aug.
2004: Alan Keyes calls Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist."
Oct. 2004: John Kerry and John Edwards both mention Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation in the presidential and vice-presidential debates. Lynne Cheney admonishes them later in a speech, and Bush’s polls spike in what was termed the "Mary Cheney bounce."Nov. 2004: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are elected to a second term.
May 2006: Mary Cheney appears on "Primetime Live" to promote her new book: "Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life."
--------
Oh, Mary, my dear, why were you born to a republican mother and father? God truly does have a weird sense of humor, doesn't he?

My dearest Eric

My dearest Eric,

It’s just I again. Same old same old. I have many longings that are no longer possible on this earth. If I could only see you again…talk to you. Anything! I know you don’t want me to be this sad. What happened to you once you passed? Where did you go? As you can tell, this letter is very unorganized. I just miss you. I want this pain to stop. I want to heal. It’s weird. I mean, I know you were just a man as mortal as everyone else, but I never thought you’d die. Funny, isn’t it? I guess I’m still a child in that regard always thinking death is only reserved for the old and sick. No, death is random. Death never cares. It simply does what it has to do and no more. You were in pain. You couldn’t breathe anymore. Death must have known and acted out of mercy to halt your suffering. And then there was no more pain…physically. But the price of dying is expensive, indeed. It left a bitter debt. No more father, no more friend, no more son, brother, cousin, uncle, teacher…no more Eric. You never struck me as one to fear death though. You seemed to fear nothing when it came to life. I don’t think you were ever afraid to die. It was sort of a show to you. Death seemed to be just another part of that show. I think if you were to tell me about your experience with death, you’d just laugh and say, “Oh, he’s all talk! It’s no big deal!”

I just hope you aren’t lonely. It seems like you wouldn’t be with your first born there and your dad and all who have gone before you. Nah, you’re not lonely. I hope wherever you are, it’s fun and you’re there with souls you love. I want that so much for you.

My last memory of you is a powerful one: you were there on the DHS sidewalk, worried about my journey home by myself in my power chair.

“E-mail me when you get home,” you told me.

So I did. And you were relieved.

I wish that you could e-mail me from Heaven or wherever to tell me you’re all right. That way, I’d know for sure you’re safe. I wish I stayed in touch with you more often before you passed. Nothing can be done about that now. All I can do is talk to you and hope somehow you can hear me. Somehow, maybe somehow, you are reading all these letters I’ve written for you. I hope you know. Do you ever miss me? I know that sounds so selfish, but do you? Do you still think about me and remember our times together laughing and being stupid in class or on stage or in your office? It was always you I came to see after graduation. I guess I was afraid you’d forget me somehow with new students coming into your life. Silly me, the worry wart. I know you’d never forget me just as I haven’t forgotten you. Actually, the main reason I’d come see you was just to be in your company—just to be with you. I think you knew that.

It turns out that you touched a lot of lives. You saved a lot of lives and souls. So why should my story be so special? It’s average. You helped a girl from age 15-17 believe in herself again when the world she knew fell apart on her. It’s wonderful to know when everything else fails you and lets you down, there are still things you can believe in—things like love, and friendship, talent, and yourself. And so it turns out I was only one of hundreds of young lives you saved. How typical of you. You were magic and you are still very much so.

I worry about forgetting things so much. Silly little stuff like what you wore everyday coming into class. For some reason, I remember you vividly dressed from head to toe in black—black shirt, black pants, black belt, black shoes. You looked apt in black. How you moved—the way you walked. You could change it up in a heartbeat at your will as part of our lesson or just to make us laugh. I saw you dance, and beautifully I might add on that October night during Java Café.

You’re infectious and highly contagious. I remember so well your loud laugh when you let it free…how no one could resist joining in with it. Oh, God! I’ve seen you stressed and upset, too and that always made me want to hug you and help you out. Your smile, your dark, bright eyes. Your wild, short, Harry Potterequse dark hair. Your beautiful hands, always wide and open. I never once saw you really close them. You always seemed ready to help with them or use them in a helpful way whether it was to gesture or to push me in my chair, to touch my shoulder. They were always open. Hands that do. They did more than decorate you.

Oh, if I could just remember all the silly things you said:

“Stupid people should not breed!”

“Don’t you hate it when you’re WRONG?! Ha, ha—Celia jumped!”

‘Jeff, wake up—you’re drooling, man!”

“Ya’ll, isn’t it SO COOL I left my TV down here?!”

“I love you, little girl!”

“Love ya, mean it—DON’T DO DRUGS!”

“Oh, you are in SO MUCH TROUBLE, little squirrel bait!”

“What, Celia? Did you say ‘research’?”

“Celia’s my piece of trash!”

Oh, good times! I never wanted them to end. In my own naivety, I never thought they really would. I’m just dumb. There are only so many words to say I love and miss you and language can never express them to my satisfaction but I know that you know this already. Except for death, nothing has taken you from me. Do you hear that, death? Do you hear that, Baileys? Nothing either one of you has done or will do has taken or will take Eric from me. As long as I remember, he is with me. And I remember so much. Not everything, though I wish it were possible, but enough to keep him alive forever.

If love indeed is real and it does indeed last forever then there are no real goodbyes. There are only “I’ll be here waiting for you”s.

I remember, Eric. I remember what I have to do now: live. You helped teach me this.

I’ll stop for now.

Love to you always and always,

S.B., L.G.

This is my love aura according to the same site. Cool, huh?
Posted by Picasa

Standing up for immigration reform

Standing up for immigration reform
In struggling for a way to move forward on the issue of immigrant rights, the African-American community should reflect on the compassionate words of civil rights pioneer Bayard Rustin, who was both black and gay
By the Reverend Irene Monroe

An Advocate.com exclusive posted, April 24, 2006


As the country now finds itself in a battle over immigration reform, one particular disenfranchised community—African-Americans—has displayed troubling feelings on the issue, ranging from a disquieting silence to unabashed xenophobia. And although the struggles of being black, immigrant, and LGBT are not mutually exclusive, many African-American organizations and individuals, however, have veered off the road on this issue.
For example, where the NAACP has been outspoken in their advocacy for immigrant rights, the National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which aided in spearheading the civil rights movement of the 1960s, have not.
And while the Book of Leviticus is continuously misused by black ministers in their attacks on LGBT people, one passage illustrates how clerics should employ the text to guide them on the issue of immigration rights: “Don’t mistreat any foreigners who live in your land. Instead, treat them as well as you treat citizens and love them as much as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners in a strange land.”
The struggle for liberation is mired when any activist ignores the interconnections between citizenship status, LGBT rights, and the rights of immigrants, as Jasmyne A. Cannick did in a column published earlier this month on Advocate.com entitled “Gays First, Then Illegals.” In it, she wrote, ”Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the gay civil rights movement, which has not yet been resolved.… I didn’t break the law to come into this country. The country broke the law by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen, and I find it hard as a black lesbian to jump on the immigration reform bandwagon when my own bandwagon hasn’t even left the barn.”
If the African-American community is looking at how to move forward on the issue of immigration rights, let us remember Bayard Rustin.
While Rustin is most noted as the strategist and chief architect of the 1963 March on Washington that catapulted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King onto the world stage, he also played a key role in helping King develop the strategy of nonviolence in the Montgomery bus boycott (1955-1956), which successfully dismantled the long-standing Jim Crow ordinance of segregated seating on public transportation in Alabama.
Rustin was not a one-issue man, because as the quintessential outsider—a black man, a Quaker, a one-time pacifist, a political dissident, and a gay man—he connected to the plight of all disenfranchised people around the world. And if he were among us today, Rustin would no doubt be in the forefront of tearing down the borders of HIV/AIDS.
During his lifetime, he did, however, tear down many borders—and one was speaking out against prohibiting immigrants displaced by the Vietnam War from entering the U.S.
In collecting signatures from prominent black leaders in support of Vietnamese immigrants, Rustin wrote a New York Times op-ed published on March 19, 1979, entitled, “Black Americans Urge Admission of the Indo-Chinese Refugees.” In it he stated, “If our government lacks compassion for these dispossessed human beings, it is difficult to believe that the same government can have much compassion for America’s black minority, or for America’s poor.”
Like Rustin, I too stand up for immigration reform. My hair-braider, for one, was trained in the Ivory Coast as a nurse and her husband was trained as a computer scientist, but they take menial jobs here in Boston to feed their baby.
And I stand up for immigration reform because the issue is about a friend—a student at the University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica—who was recently gang-raped because she is a lesbian. She tells me that the day before the incident one of the assailants read an article from the March 29 issue of the Jamaica Gleaner that stated, “If Jamaica is a Christian county and calls itself a Christian country, then gay and lesbian lifestyles must be deemed absolutely immoral and unacceptable.”
And I stand up for immigration reform because it is about AIDS and the current ban prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the country.
Rustin teaches us that we pay the debt of justice we owe to immigrants and all marginalized people everywhere through our individual and collective acts of humanity in making a more democratic society.
The African-American community, the LGBT community, and indeed, all Americans should heed Rustin’s teachings as the country moves forward on immigration rights.

My aura test results according to auraphto.com. Yep, that's me in a nutshell! :-)
Posted by Picasa

Live action Simpons opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brh6KRvQHBc

The 100 unsexiest men in the world

The 100 unsexiest men in the world
Who would Scarlett least like to be with?By: BILL JENSEN & RYAN STEWART
4/18/2006 6:34:51 PM
Welcome to the first installment of ThePhoenix.com's 100 Unsexiest Men in the World. After pouring through thousands of photographs, millions of frames of movies and TV shows, the staff at thephoenix.com has compiled a list of the least sexy males on the planet.
1. Gilbert Gottfried: Rumor has it that Gilbert is the heir apparent to Uncle Milty when it comes to what he's packing, but that still can't save him. The parrot-voiced, pickled-face comic is to sexy what Kryptonite is to Superman.
2. Randy Johnson: If he couldn't throw a ball 100 miles per hour, Johnson would be wearing a wife beater and getting hauled into a squad car on Cops. Could you imagine the nights when he pitched to Otis Nixon?
3. Roger Ebert: Yes, he lost all that weight. Yes, you still wouldn't fuck him.
4. Dr. Phil: Being a know-it-all is never sexy. Being a know-it-all who is also a bald-headed prick is downright horrid.
ADVERTISEMENT
DisplayAds ("Middle", "", "");

5. Alan Colmes: Not really fair, since he's got to sit next to brown shirt-stud Hannity each night. But Colmes - lazy eye, unkept hair, droopy features - has a face made for radio. Pirate radio. Garr!!
6. Chad Kroeger: It's not just the massive head, weird face, and bad hair. It's also the fact that he's in Nickelback, the worst band since the dawn of music.
7. Mike Mills: You'd want to talk music with the bassist from REM. Sleep with? Not unless you're trying to get to Pete Buck.
8. Osama Bin Laden: Power is sexy (notice how Dick Cheney isn't on the list). But a 6'5", no-vertical-leap mass murdering douche bag is not getting any style points.
9. Jay Leno: "It would be like having sex with a banana, but not in a good way," was what one of our staffers remarked about the fruit-headed comic.
10. Don Imus: "It would be like having sex with an old leather bag, but not in a good way," was what the same staffer remarked about the bag of skin and bones.
11. Michael Jackson: What happens when an ugly JC Penny manequin has sex with Pogo, the clown identity of serial killer John Wayne Gacy.
12. Wallace Shawn: Even if you're attracted to his rounded dome, how can anyone get past that nasally lisp?
13. Mike D. of the Beastie Boys: We hate to do this. But the sickly looking Beastie "did it like this, did it like that, did it with a wiffle ball bat . . . because no one would want to get within three feet of him naked.
14. Richard Simmons: Words don't do it justice.
15. Jon Lovitz: Bald, annoying, unfunny, and hair in the all the wrong places. For all we know, he was running through the cast of League of Their Own. But we doubt it.
16. Carrot Top: Sheer obnoxiousness necessitates his placement on this list.
17. Jerry Seinfeld: This is for everyone who has ever yelled at the TV when Jerry brought home another model on Seinfeld.
18. Malcolm Gladwell: The Tipping Point.
19. Chevy Chase: He got unfunny with age. Then he got ugly.
20. Raffi: Maybe it's his proffession. But no one surveyed, man or woman, could think of any situation in which they would bed down with him.
21. Ron Howard: He was cute as Opie, passable as Richie, but now as Ron Howard, he's just plain weird-looking. Especially with a beard.
22. Clint Howard: Ron's younger, balder, and weirder-looking brother. Yes, weirder looking than Ron Howard.
23. Bill Gates: To quote Dana Carvey: "Gates apparently made a deal with the devil: 'You can have $60 billion, but you have to go through life looking like a turtle.'"
24. Paul Shaffer: The bic'd look does not work for everyone, plus he makes all those crazy faces while he plays.
25. Axl Rose: I mean . . . did you see the 2003 VMAs?
26. Tim Burton: He's got the Robert Smith hair coupled with a mighty hunch. Yet he's dating Helena Bonham Carter.
27. Edward James Olmos: Remember season one of South Park? When Kenny was a zombie, everyone assumed it was an Edward James Olmos costume. Wonder why.
28. Gerard Way (from My Chemical Romance): Luckiest dude since Ringo. Or at the very least, since D12.
29. Don Zimmer: The gerbil's got a massive, ivory-white noggin' that never did much thinking to begin with. Ask any Red Sox fan over 35.
30. Tony Kornheiser: Yes, calling sportswriters unattractive is like shooting fish in a barrel. But come on, he looks like your uncle.
31. Chris Kattan
32. Otis Nixon
33. Julian Tavarez
34. Christopher Lloyd
35. Willie McGee
36. Pat Cummings
3 7. Scottie Pippen
38. Larry David
39. Michael Moore
40. Al Franken: Too arrogant
41. Paris Latsis: Maybe not the worst-looking guy in the world, but, well, think about who was there first.
42. Rush Limbaugh: No doubt he will claim his placement on this list as a result of a media bias and not the fact that he's just butt-ugly
43. David Gest
44. Garey Busey: Those teeth would give anyone nightmares.
45. Nick Nolte: Busey's oddball partner in crime, but at least he had a career once.
46. Leif Garrett
47. Andy Dick: It's a trap!
48. Scott Stapp
49. Lyle Lovett
50. Ric Ocasek: Yes, we know who his wife is. And no, we don't care.
51. Bill Wyman
52. Danny DeVito
53. Peter Jackson
54. Drew Carey
55. Newt Gingrich
56. Rob Schneider
57. Ed O'Neil: We love ya, Ed, but sorry. There was a reason you never waited on any really hot girls at that shoe store.
58. Bill O'Reilly
59. Clay Aiken: This feels like a cheap shot, but even leaving aside the rumors about his personal life, he still looks like someone's bratty little brother.
60. Joe Lieberman
61. Jim Gaffigan: Pasty, goofy-looking comedians abound on this list.
62. Bill Maher: . . . Especially ones with poodle hair.
63. John Popper
64. Dennis Miller
65. John Madden: Those massive hands seem more frightening than anything. Boom!
66. Robert Englund: Seriously, try lying in bed next to him without thinking about Freddy Krueger.
67. Robert Patrick: Seriously, try lying in bed next to him without thinking about the T-1000
68. John Ashcroft
69. Joe Gannascolli
70. Kevin James: His TV marriage to Leah Remini on King of Queens is less believable than anything on Lost.
71. George Steinbrenner: Come on, we live in Boston, you knew it was coming.
72. Grady Little: Come on, we live in Boston, you knew it was coming.
73. Harvey Pekar
74. DJ Qualls: What's he weigh, like, 70 pounds? How much of that is grease?
75. Joey Buttafuoco
76. Garry Shandling
77. Meat Loaf Aday
78. Joe Walsh
79. Tom from Myspace: As a friend of mine said, why does he have to be everyone's friend? Isn't that a little needy? Not hot at all.
80. Art Garfunkel
81. Brian Posehn
82. Howie Mandel
83. Barry Bonds €“ If what his mistress told the authors of Game of Shadows is true, then no, you don't want any part of that
84. Dick Vitale €“ Call it a hunch, but we have a feeling that sex with Dickie V. would be anything but "awesome, baby."
85. Richie "La Bamba" Rosenberg
86. Jeff Van Gundy
87. Jimmy Johnson: It's the hair
88. John Clayton: How is this ESPN's top football guy?
89. Don Vito: I suppose we were never really supposed to know what Bam Margera's uncle looks like, but since we do, he has to be included.
90. Lemmy Kilmister: Sadly, the ravages of time have not been kind to him.
91. Hideki Matsui
91. Jose Canseco: "Every time I have tried to help a woman, I've been incarcerated," he famously said on The Surreal Life. You old charmer, you.
92. Bill Parcells: Especially when you see the photos of him in shorts at training camp
93. Ric Flair: To be the man €“ WOO! €“ you got to . . . do something about those man boobs!
94. Ralph NaderÂ
95. Dennis Kucinich: Something about those progressives.
96. Horatio Sanz: Laughing at your own jokes is not sexy
97. Dom DeLuise
98. Emeril Lagasse
99. Kevin Federline: Mooching hicks aren't so hot these days.
100.Brad Pitt: He may look good, but if the rumors about his hygiene and BO issues are true, then he's probably not worth it.
mep1='&article=7852&author=BILL JENSEN & RYAN STEWART';

---------------
Is it just me, or do they attack too many liberal democrats on this unsexy list with Lieberman, Moore, Franken (Franken is "too arrogant") and Kucinich? Oh, that's right, it's me! :-D

For some, E.T. stands for extreme terror

For some, E.T. stands for extreme terror

By Holly Miyasaki is a reporter with the Penticton Western
NewApr 23 2006

My biggest fear is a friendly alien from the 1980s.When Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial was released in 1982 I was not yet born, but I was around when it was on VHS.My parents, thinking it would be a nice family night to eat pizza and watch this terrifying film, rented it.

My first glimpse of the small, oblong-headed, long-fingered beast drove a stake of fear into my soul that still lingers today.As the events of young Drew Barrymore, that monstrous alien with his glowing heart and her co-stars unfolded on the television screen, I tried to hide my face, but my mom thought I was being silly and told me to stop.I can’t remember if I endured the whole film — I must have blocked out the memory — but whatever I did see had an everlasting effect on me.That night I cried, threw up and had a nightmare; my parents must have felt so guilty. I can still remember that dream as clear as if it happened last night — it wasn’t even that scary, but I’ll never forget it. E.T. had me pinned down and was sitting on my chest. All around us were multi-coloured bunnies hopping around. That was the extent of it.

After that night I couldn’t allow my hands or feet to hang off the bed because I was worried E.T. would be hiding under my bed and grab me.I looked up some pictures of E.T. on the Internet while writing this column and just seeing him again sent chills down my spine that I still can’t shake. I’m not kidding.

When my sister got an E.T. doll for her birthday we had to get rid of it because it frightened me to have it in the house.When we went to Universal Studios I couldn’t go near the E.T. bicycle attraction.If I was planning to have a scary movie night E.T. would definitely be on the list.

And don’t think I’m alone in my fear. I have met quite a few others in my generation that were frightened by this blood-curdling film. I’m thinking what was so scary about it was it was our first exposure to aliens and the thought of life outside planet Earth. Children shouldn’t be exposed to that!I know, I know. The movie was supposed to be a touching portrayal of family, friendship and ... making friends with petrifying little creatures from outer space. Today, I’m pretty sure I could take E.T. I’m not tall, but I’m quick and can scream really loud. Although if I was actually confronted with him I would probably freeze like a deer in the headlights and be at his mercy.I just hope they don’t make that sequel to the movie. I heard Spielberg was thinking about it.Whether there’s a critically acclaimed addition to E.T. or not, I don’t plan on seeing it again or ever making any children I might one day have watch it. By the way, I still make sure my hands and feet don’t hang over the edge of the bed when I go to sleep at night.

-------

What the duce?! Lady, what movie were you watching? This flick wasn't supposed to be 'Signs'! Geez, this woman was probably afraid of the Easter Bunny, baby chicks and white, fluffy clouds!

"I’m thinking what was so scary about it was it was our first exposure to aliens and the thought of life outside planet Earth. Children shouldn’t be exposed to that!"

And what sort of movies do you suppose they should be exposed to? White bread, vanillia, Bing Crosby, flag waving, ultra conservative, let's-never-look-beyond-our-own-backyard-to-dream movies? That only leaves movies made before 1946! Some film library!

Hey, kids--don't go watching movies at Holly Miyasaki's house! She's no fun!

Geez, I'm my mother...

What Completely and Utterly Random Object Are You? AAAE Accreditation Module You are an AAAE accreditation preparation handbook. Wow, you're one ambitious (and ambiguous) soul. We admire your dedication to work, but you might consider getting out more often.

Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

Tennessee hints at what's to come on adoption front

Tennessee hints at what's to come on adoption front
By Lisa Keen
Originally printed 4/20/2006 (Issue 1416 - Between The Lines News)
Before Scott Hines and his partner Jon Hines adopted nine-year-old Louis, the young boy was being given 13 pills a day to control behavior problems. He had been abused by his biological parents and the foster care system in Tennessee.
"Louis was angry, and rightfully so," said Scott Hines, in a statement to reporters prior to a Tennessee legislative hearing on gay adoptions this month. "No one else wanted Louis and, without an adoptive home, he would have been sentenced to a life of neglect and heart break."
Scott and Jon Hines felt they had the parenting skills to help Louis, so they adopted him.
Scott Hines' relatives have now asked the couple to adopt another child, a girl, born to a drug-addicted relative of Scott's. But Tennessee legislators are considering bills to ban such adoptions.
The legislature considered such bills before and they have failed. But this year, the strategy of gay civil rights opponents has changed. Instead of introducing explicitly anti-gay bills concerning adoption, foster care, and guardianship, the legislators have introduced "stealth" bills, says Chris Sanders, a spokesperson for Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide LGBT organization.
The bills this year, he said, are worded such that they appear on the surface to be addressing some general matter of the state code concerning adoption, guardianship, and foster care.
"But when they think no one is watching," said Sanders, "they want to amend the bills in committee to ban adoption by gays and lesbians."
For example, one bill, introduced by State Rep. Paul Stanley, said Sanders, purports to address issues concerning information sharing rights of permanent guardians.
"Our concern is not with the bill as filed," said Sanders, "but it opens up a section of the Tennessee code related to guardianship and all kinds of things can happen in committee."
Plus, Paul Stanley was a sponsor of one of the explicitly anti-gay bills last year, noted Sanders.
Sanders acknowledged that it was hard, at first, to get the LGBT community's sense of urgency up around the bills.
"You say, 'Tennessee code' and people's eyes glaze over," he said. But two things helped: One, the organization has a professional lobbyist watching for potentially dangerous legislation, and two, one of the state legislators ignited a political bonfire.
Republican State Rep. Debra Maggart told a constituent that research shows that "most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children."
The comment was made in an e-mail response to a constituent in February who asked her to oppose the bills.
While she acknowledged in her e-mail that "emotional dysfunction can be found in heterosexual couples homes," Maggart, who is herself divorced, claimed to "have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have in some instances adopted them in order to have unfretted access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse."
"Some of the evidence we were presented," said Maggart, "showed that lesbian and gay couples have a higher rate of breaking up than heterosexual coupes as well as higher rates of promiscuity outside of their relationships."
The e-mail got out to the media, and when it did, said Sanders, "we didn't have to go through a long explanation about opening up the Tennessee code."
"When Maggart made her comment," said Sanders, "it became very clear there was a threat. The threat became palpable. It electrified the GLBT community in Tennessee."
Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride, points to statements from numerous professional organizations supporting the adoption of children by gay couples.
The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement in 2002 saying that "a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence" that children with same-sex parents "can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual."
Numerous other professional organizations have made similar declarations, including the North American Council on Adoptable Children, which says, "Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents."
Currently, only one state (Florida) bans gay couples from adopting. Twenty-five states allow gay couples to co-adopt children. (A judge in Michigan ruled in 2002 that adoptions by gay couples could no longer be allowed due to a state law which stipulates that only married couples and single individuals can adopt.)
In other recent adoption news:
* An Indiana appeals court ruled April 14 that a county court judge could not overturn the adoption of an infant because the adopting couple was gay.
* A Missouri circuit court ruled in February that the state's denial of a foster care application by a lesbian amounted to "unreasonable" discrimination.
* Massachusetts's Department of Early Education has said it will not take action to stop Catholic adoption agencies from barring gay couples from adoptions. The state's human rights law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Republican Governor Mitt Romney is seeking passage of a bill that would allow some groups to discriminate against gays by saying that equal treatment of gays violates their religious beliefs.

Marriage equality threatened in Canada

Marriage equality threatened in Canada
By Lisa Keen
Originally printed 4/20/2006 (Issue 1416 - Between The Lines News)
Same-sex marriages have been legal in parts of Canada for almost five years now. But if the country's new conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has his way, they won't be available for much longer.
It was probably a financial scandal and not his party's support for same-sex marriage that caused former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to lose his seat to Harper. The Conservative Party leader who defeated Martin by a narrow margin three months ago used his opposition to same-sex marriage as a campaign issue during the fall election.
This month, as the new parliament convened, Harper told reporters he intends to follow through on his promise to overturn the Civil Marriage Act, shepherded through the parliament last summer by the Liberal Party.
It was not the Civil Marriage Act that made same-sex marriages legal throughout Canada. Most provinces began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after courts ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violated the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The first province to issue licenses was Ontario, which spans the Great Lakes region and attracts numerous visitors from the United States. Toronto, the first city in Ontario to issue licenses, issued 3,194 licenses to same-sex couples between June 10, 2003 and April 4, 2006. Thirty-eight percent of those licenses were issued to gay couples from the United States.
USA Today reported in February that the number of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in Toronto was up - from 60 in January 2005 to 90 in January 2006. But that does not necessarily reflect a surge in couples seeking licenses because of the Conservative Party victory in January. The average number of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Toronto since 2003 has been about 94 per month; between January and April of 2006, it has been about 75 per month.
According to Canadians for Equal Marriage, in order for the parliament to overturn the Civil Marriage Act, it must first vote on whether to revisit the same-sex marriage legislation currently in force. Should that resolution pass, it can then take up a bill to repeal the legislation.
But gay civil rights supporters are hopeful that, even if parliament repeals the law, Canadian courts will again rule that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the country's constitution.
With the passage of the Civil Marriage Act last July, Canada became the fourth nation to legalize same-sex marriages - behind The Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), and Spain (June 2005).
Even as the bill passed last summer, Conservative leader Harper said he would seek to overturn the law, should his Conservative Party win control of the parliament. Harper also promised, however, that, should the parliament reverse itself, his administration would continue to honor marriages already licensed. And according to CBC News, Harper does support civil unions for same-sex couples.
Harper has indicated he will call on parliament to vote on a resolution to take up the same-sex marriage issue this year - probably this fall, according to various news reports. A national poll by The Environics Group, a market and social values research company, asked Canadians in late January whether they wanted the newly elected Conservative Party government to bring up the same-sex marriage issue in parliament. Of the 2,034 polled, 66 percent said "No," 30 percent said "Yes," and four percent were undecided.

'Brokeback Mountain' banned in anti-gay move

'Brokeback Mountain' banned in anti-gay moveThu Apr 6, 2006 2:53 PM ET
By John Marquis
NASSAU, Bahamas (Reuters) - The Bahamas has banned the gay cowboy movie "Brokeback Mountain," triggering a new controversy over the island chain's reputation for homophobia.
Gay rights groups and other critics called on the Plays and Films Control Board to think again, so far to no avail.
"I cannot understand denying people the right to make their own choices," said theater director Phillip Burrows.
The award-winning 2005 film about two cowboys who fall in love got the thumbs-down from the control board after a request for it to be banned from the Bahamas Christian Council, which has been involved in previous anti-gay action.
The ban does not come as a surprise to Bahamians.
Last September, Miss Teen Bahamas was stripped of her title after she admitted to being a lesbian.
Four years ago, employees walked off the job at an isolated resort cay in the Bahamas after a shipload of gays arrived. The disgusted workers described carnal scenes on the beach as "like Sodom and Gomorrah" and refused to work until they had gone.
In 2004, Christian groups led a protest against the Norwegian Dawn cruise ship, which had docked with 1,600 gay passengers.
Rallied by the Save the Bahamas Initiative, which maintains that family values are undermined by gay couples, hundreds of demonstrators waved banners saying, "If you're gay, stay away," and "Even animals have more sense than homosexuals."
The 2004 protest did not repeat the violence of 1998, when lesbian couples were chased off Bay Street, Nassau's main shopping thoroughfare, by furious protesters and the mooring ropes of a visiting gay cruise ship were tossed into the sea.
In its 2005 Country Report, the State Department criticized the Bahamas government for actively promoting opposition to homosexuality.
"Although homosexual relations between consenting adults are legal, there was no legislation to address the human rights concerns of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals or trans-gendered persons," said the report, released last month.
A gay rights organization, the Rainbow Alliance, has called for tolerance and last year opened an office in Nassau.
"We hope this will become a center for social change," said member Helen Klonaris.

--------------

So, uh, let , me get this straight...you can have a gay time in the Bahamas and take as many drinks and do as many drugs as you want to...but you just can't BE gay YOURSELF...oh, NOW that makes sense! Let's just ban all movies with "gay" themes...um, let see, My Best Friend's Wedding, Philedelphia, every musical ever made and every movie with Judy Garland in it! (rolls eyes) Boycott the Bahamas for your next vacation--we have enough anti-human being problems here at home!

>>"Even animals have more sense than homosexuals."

WHAT?! Animals cannot love and live the way people can, and homosexuals are people. They're saying that gays are lower than animals...so does that make them on the same level as viruses, bacteria and scum? Being gay isn't a disease anymore than Cerebral Palsy is a disease--both are equally as contagious. There's NOTHING worse than people with social diseases that they CHOOSE to have, like these folks in the Bahamas. Ranting anymore about this will just waste my time...(sigh)

Spooky resemblence, huh???
Posted by Picasa

The 'Sleeping Giant' Awakens (Again)

The 'Sleeping Giant' Awakens (Again)
-->
Eastern Group Publications, Opinion, Jorge Mariscal, Apr 04, 2006

In the 1950s, when anthropologists referred to Mexican Americans as the sleeping giant and the media stereotype of choice was a man sleeping under a cactus, the thought that Latinos in the United States might organize to demand equal opportunity seemed far-fetched. One noted social scientist wrote: “The masses of Mexican Americans in the large cities of the Southwest are politically inert. The very model of Mexican leadership has been the 'quiet fighter' who does not create any public difficulties.” It was not until Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and California farm workers burst into the national consciousness in 1966 that pundits began to detect a major tremor in the political landscape. In 1968 in Los Angeles, Chicano high school students demonstrated for educational reform, a movement captured in the new HBO film “Walkout!” In 1970, Chicanos and Chicanas organized major rallies against the U.S. war in Southeast Asia. What we now call the Chicano Movement was a grass-roots mobilization composed of diverse organizations and agendas. It gave a generation of Mexican Americans a new identity premised upon cultural pride, a thirst for justice, and an insistence that U.S. democracy deliver on its promises. The recent demonstrations in support of humane immigration reform that does not exploit hard-working families dwarf the demonstrations of the Chicano Movement era--4, 000 in Dallas, 5,000 in San Francisco, 20,000 in Phoenix, 50,000 in Detroit, 50,000 in Denver, 300,000 in Chicago, and more than 500,000 in Los Angeles. In Atlanta, an estimated 80,000 Latinos protested by not going to work. On Atlanta streets, marchers carried signs that read “Nosotros también tenemos un sueño” (“We too have a dream”). Dr. King and Cesar Chavez would have been proud. Whereas the movement of the Vietnam War era was limited to young Mexican Americans in the Southwest, today's movement includes people of every age with a variety of connections to the immigrant experience and with origins in many different Spanish-speaking countries. Marching side by side with the thousands of legal immigrants who arrived in the decade of the 1990s (more than any previous decade in U.S. history) were those whose parents or grandparents came to this country years ago. Newly arrived Salvadorans, fifth-generation Chicanas with family members who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq, and everyone in between said in one voice “We will not be criminalized; we will not be intimidated.” The shockwaves of these massive demonstrations will be dramatic. Like the aftermath of California's Proposition 187 in 1994 that would have removed the social safety net for undocumented workers, we can expect that the new mobilizations will produce a huge spike in Latino voter registration. As it did in the 1960s, the “sleeping giant” has once again risen from its slumber. Comedian Carlos Mencia finds it amusing to drop epithets like “beaner” and “wetback.” In the politically correct 1990s, we might have chastised him for being too ignorant to realize what a far greater comedian named Richard Pryor learned on his first trip to Africa. “I didn't see any n*****s there,” Pryor said.

This week, immigrants, their children, the grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants, and those with Spanish surnames who trace their roots to the Southwest before there was a United States took to the streets to demand dignity and respect. Someone tell Carlos Mencia, the Minutemen, and Senators Sensenbrenner and Frist that there was not a single beaner or wetback among them. Jorge Mariscal is Director of the Chicano/Latino/a Arts and Humanities Program at the University of California, San Diego.

----
I'm part "them", you know. Whatever happens to them will also affect what will happen to my family in some way. Even a the highest king has the lowly peasent blood in his veins.

A Nation That Demands Unkindness

Something to really think about here...

A Nation That Demands Unkindness
-->
La Prensa San Diego, Commentary, Pedro Celis, Apr 03, 2006
REDMOND, Wash. – “Once we secure our borders and the American people are confident that we have control of the south, in particular, I believe that we will be able to have a rational national debate about what to do with the 8 million to 10 million souls [undocumented immigrants] that are here,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) recently, while explaining his opposition to the guest worker program proposal endorsed by President Bush.Yet Congressman Pence voted in favor of a law (HR 4437), approved last December by the House of Representatives, that turns those 10 million souls into criminals. It turns illegal presence in this country from a civil violation into a federal crime — subject to an entirely different kind of policing and punishable by much stiffer penalties. Those 10 million people would:

• Be declared felons, barred from ever being eligible to become legal immigrants.

• Even their children would be declared felons, subject to jail time and subsequent deportation

• Any person or any organization who “assists” an individual without documentation “to reside in or remain” in the United States knowingly or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status would be liable for criminal penalties and five years in prison.

• Church personnel who provide shelter or other basic needs assistance to an undocumented individual would also be liable.

• Property used in this act would be subject to seizure and forfeiture.Hence, all manner of people would become criminally liable and subject to fines, property forfeiture and imprisonment: the daycare provider who cares for her neighbor’s children; the landscaper who gives a ride to his co-worker; the church program volunteer who teaches English as a second language. In essence, being a Good Samaritan could land you in jail.

State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. State and local governments that refuse to participate would be subject to the loss of federal funding. Millions of people would now be abused and taken advantage of with the knowledge that they could not avail themselves to any of the protections offered by our laws.All of this in the name of national security.It is naïve to argue that this bill would increase our security while leaving the question of “what to do with the 8 or 10 millions souls” for a subsequent rational national debate.The provisions in this bill that deal with these souls are mean-spirited and vindictive. Turning all these individuals, who are part and parcel of our communities, into criminals is detrimental to our own security.Not that enforcement or legality are unimportant. But we need to replace illegal immigration with increased legal immigration. We need to provide avenues for honest, hard-working individuals to come or remain in our country in a way that satisfies our national security and our economic self-interest.Whoever thinks that passing a law like HR 4437 will solve our illegal immigration problem is sticking his head in the sand. It will not make these 10 million souls disappear.There is a better way to get control of our borders. A way that recognizes both the importance of enforcing the rule of law and the contributions that immigrants bring to our society and economy. That is the comprehensive immigration reform approach being discussed now in the Senate.Under the leadership of Senator Allen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been crafting a more realistic legislation that will send to the full Senate this week. That legislation addresses some of the most glaring deficiencies of HR 4437.

Namely:

• It provides avenues to increase legal immigration.

• It deals more realistically with the 10 million undocumented souls by allowing them to register, receive background checks, and work while they apply for permanent legal immigration. It does so in a way that rejects amnesty, where someone who has violated the law would have an advantage in the process of becoming a legal immigrant over someone who did not.

• It removes most of the criminalization provisions against Good Samaritans.We agree with President Bush statement at the most recent state of the union that: “Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy.

Our Nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty … allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally … and reduces smuggling and crime at the border.”Dr. Pedro Celis is a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington and the National Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.

Secure Gay Rights Before Extending Rights of the Undocumented

Secure Gay Rights Before Extending Rights of the Undocumented
-->
New America Media, Commentary, Jasmyne Cannick, Apr 04, 2006
Editor's Note: When American citizens, particularly lesbians and gays, haven't received their full civil rights, why is Congress considering extending more rights to illegal immigrants? Jasmyne Cannick is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jasmynecannick.com.LOS ANGELES--Immigration reform is an important issue, but it's not the next civil rights movement. We haven't even finished with our current civil rights movement.Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, "There is no moving to the front of the line."Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the gay civil rights movement. Discrimination and unequal treatment of gay Americans has not yet been resolved.I recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. However, I didn't break the law to come into this country. The country has broken its own laws by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen. I find it hard as a black lesbian to jump on the immigration reform bandwagon when my own bandwagon hasn't even left the barn.Legal American citizens continue to be denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, while their families are deprived of access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.If we're going to hold 24-hour Senate sessions using taxpayer dollars, let those sessions be used to come up with a comprehensive plan that allows America's same-gender loving stakeholders to have the opportunity to have the right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency, or the right to receive family-related Social Security benefits.But immigration reform dominates in Washington. President Bush wants a comprehensive guest worker program for undocumented laborers.With all due respect, Mr. President, there should be no guest worker program until we ensure that all lesbian and gay American citizens have the right to take up to 12 weeks of leave to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner, and the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.Both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from requiring that guest workers leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired. The congressmen wanted to keep immigrant families from being separated.Well, what about making sure that the children of same-sex couples are protected and not separated from the parent they know and love in the event of an untimely death? Same-sex couples make commitments and form families just like heterosexual couples, and they need the same protections.Lesbians and gays are not second-class citizens. Our issues should not get bumped to the back of the line in favor of extending rights to people who have entered this country illegally.Author and poet Audre Lorde once said, "I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood."While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don't want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. Immigrants aren't the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.

-------
Point well taken. My sweet grandparents were illegal immigrants until 1968. They crossed the Mexico/Texas border unlawfully all the time before then. They were children of simple farmers and ranchers, raised especially hard in sometimes unspeakable conditions in 1930's-1940's Mexico, a nation that at the time resembled 1900's America.

What does this mean for immigrants and gays? Their plights can no longer be simply ignored. But the hard truth is that immigrants will surely be dealt with much sooner than gays. The government does not want to deal with something as difficult to call as those with "diviant sexual preferences". It isn't clear cut. Gays are hard to tell apart from straights. Perhaps this is why they are viewed as difficult to deal with and why they are "easy targets" for hatred. It's easy to shun something that isn't clear cut or absolute, something that isn't black and white or "pure". As much as humanity loves to think of themselves as belonging to one race or religion or ethnicity, no one is pure anything. Nothing really separates us from anyone else in the human race. Sure, there is skin color, language, political beliefs, etc., but all attempt in their own way some kind of peace and harmony. In the end, are we really so different that we cannot give our fellow man his most basic right to live as he chooses? As long as he does not harm anyone or himself, he should have this. Why must it be always fought for, to be delcared something that these people were already born as: human beings?