'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)
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
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.
-->
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.
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?
-->
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?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Adventure week in review
Been away from these here parts for a week 'cuz, well, of love. Love for me has a face and body and a name, even: Ryan. He's shy and dear and one of the most eager people I've met in my whole life. He brought a fruit basket with multi-colored bells from his grandmother filled with oranges, plums, pears and a few bags of microwave popcorn...mmm!
Just about every night, we'd go walking to the Texaco station a little ways down or the circle K, much further down to buy food and drinks. It's interesting, the culture there. Just people passing through usually not buying much. This one lady at the Texaco register said I was "real pretty" or something like that. I very seldom get compliments of any kind on my looks but she probably thought I was simply cute, like a teenage girl.
We also went out to eat, just the two of us, a few times. Ryan was really concerned if I was enjoying my food and myself. He really need not have worried. I was having a wonderful time simply because he was there.
We saw a movie, went to the mall and dollar store, made a Lowe's visit, tried (unsuccessfully) to fly a kite, read to each other, and just cuddled. All and all, it was a divine week, and gone too quickly. I had fun teaching Ryan a few poker games; he'll make a good player. Not to mention the sweet photos he took (see a prime example below).
What else am I forgetting to mention? Oh, yeah, I finally got to see the movie The Pianist with him. It's the only Roman Polanski film I remember seeing. It's epic, beginning in 1939 Poland, just as the Nazis really started to take over. Warsaw had something like close to 400,000 Jews living in it, so it's little wonder why Hitler chose to invade it. Few movies know the art of using almost pure tension as this one did. It's quite mocking to say, but this main character had it fairly easy compared to even just the rest of his family. He was well liked and had connections and a mysterious sort of charm that I guess only a professional piano player possesses. He made it alive and played in concerts and on radio again. This movie really makes me want to pick up a copy of the autobiography on which it is based. Now I know why Adrian Brody was holding up an Oscar in 2003.
So, busy, busy, fun, fun fun week filled with lots of love, passion and adventure--just the way I LIKE IT!
Thank you, Ryan, my love!
Just about every night, we'd go walking to the Texaco station a little ways down or the circle K, much further down to buy food and drinks. It's interesting, the culture there. Just people passing through usually not buying much. This one lady at the Texaco register said I was "real pretty" or something like that. I very seldom get compliments of any kind on my looks but she probably thought I was simply cute, like a teenage girl.
We also went out to eat, just the two of us, a few times. Ryan was really concerned if I was enjoying my food and myself. He really need not have worried. I was having a wonderful time simply because he was there.
We saw a movie, went to the mall and dollar store, made a Lowe's visit, tried (unsuccessfully) to fly a kite, read to each other, and just cuddled. All and all, it was a divine week, and gone too quickly. I had fun teaching Ryan a few poker games; he'll make a good player. Not to mention the sweet photos he took (see a prime example below).
What else am I forgetting to mention? Oh, yeah, I finally got to see the movie The Pianist with him. It's the only Roman Polanski film I remember seeing. It's epic, beginning in 1939 Poland, just as the Nazis really started to take over. Warsaw had something like close to 400,000 Jews living in it, so it's little wonder why Hitler chose to invade it. Few movies know the art of using almost pure tension as this one did. It's quite mocking to say, but this main character had it fairly easy compared to even just the rest of his family. He was well liked and had connections and a mysterious sort of charm that I guess only a professional piano player possesses. He made it alive and played in concerts and on radio again. This movie really makes me want to pick up a copy of the autobiography on which it is based. Now I know why Adrian Brody was holding up an Oscar in 2003.
So, busy, busy, fun, fun fun week filled with lots of love, passion and adventure--just the way I LIKE IT!
Thank you, Ryan, my love!
Emotional Hearing On Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Amendment
Emotional Hearing On Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Amendmentby The Associated Press
March 28, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A legislative panel heard arguments Tuesday over a measure intended to strengthen an existing ban on same-sex marriages, two weeks after it narrowly endorsed the measure.
The proposed amendment to the state constitution would prohibit state, local and county governments from legally recognizing the unions of unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples. The amendment would also define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.
The House State Government Committee approved it March 14 in a 15-13 vote, sending it to the House of Representatives. The committee held a public hearing on the measure Tuesday at the behest of one of its members.
The House is expected to take up the bill April 4, a vote that would be the first step in a complex amendment process, said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Sam Smith. A similar bill is awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Nineteen states have adopted constitutional definitions of marriage.
Supporters of an amendment in Pennsylvania consider it a safeguard against possible lawsuits that might seek to overturn the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans legal recognition of same-sex unions. Forty-one states have laws similar to that law.
"It is inevitable that our laws will be challenged in the future," said Maura Quinlan, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the lobbying group for the state's Catholic churches. "We would be foolhardy to wait for an adverse decision."
In January, a Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old Maryland state law against gay marriage, declaring it violates that state's constitutional guarantee of equal rights. The judge immediately stayed the order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court.
"The courts have engaged in policymaking, overruling the explicit statutes enacted by duly elected state legislatures, and ignoring the overwhelming sentiment of the public," said Michael Geer, president of the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Advocates for gays and lesbians, domestic-violence victims, and children argued that the amendment would prevent same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples from adopting or seeking protection-from-abuse orders. They also said it would discourage employers from offering domestic-partner benefits.
"You're telling some citizens of our commonwealth that they are not equals, that they are not going to be able to have the same rights, the same responsibilities or the same benefits as other people and that you don't care," said Stacy Sobel, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia.
Frank Cervone of Philadelphia's Support Center for Child Advocates told the committee adoptions by same-sex couple are becoming increasingly common.
"It's not a social experiment. It's a social reality," he said.
Constitutional amendments must pass the General Assembly in each of two successive two-year sessions, then win voter approval in a statewide referendum; the earliest that could happen is 2007.
The committee passed the bill two weeks ago after a motion to delay a vote until after a public hearing failed. Rep. Paul Clymer, the committee's chairman, held the hearing at the request of the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Babette Josephs, who opposes the bill.
Josephs, D-Philadelphia, said she would like to have additional hearings on the proposal.
"The voters should not be kept in ignorance," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006
-------------
Okay, for those of you who don't know, recently, within the last few weeks, the Penn state voted on a Marriage Law restricting legal unions to "a man and a woman" (rolls eyes) and it won, 15-13. Geez, that's like a football score! The homophobics won by kicking two measly field goals in Overtime. And can't you hear all of 'em say, "Well, ha, ha, God was on our side!" No, God was not on your side, MONEY and the insane rich voters were--the top 1%! This "law" will be overturned someday--and hopefully someday soon!
March 28, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A legislative panel heard arguments Tuesday over a measure intended to strengthen an existing ban on same-sex marriages, two weeks after it narrowly endorsed the measure.
The proposed amendment to the state constitution would prohibit state, local and county governments from legally recognizing the unions of unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples. The amendment would also define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.
The House State Government Committee approved it March 14 in a 15-13 vote, sending it to the House of Representatives. The committee held a public hearing on the measure Tuesday at the behest of one of its members.
The House is expected to take up the bill April 4, a vote that would be the first step in a complex amendment process, said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Sam Smith. A similar bill is awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Nineteen states have adopted constitutional definitions of marriage.
Supporters of an amendment in Pennsylvania consider it a safeguard against possible lawsuits that might seek to overturn the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans legal recognition of same-sex unions. Forty-one states have laws similar to that law.
"It is inevitable that our laws will be challenged in the future," said Maura Quinlan, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the lobbying group for the state's Catholic churches. "We would be foolhardy to wait for an adverse decision."
In January, a Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old Maryland state law against gay marriage, declaring it violates that state's constitutional guarantee of equal rights. The judge immediately stayed the order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court.
"The courts have engaged in policymaking, overruling the explicit statutes enacted by duly elected state legislatures, and ignoring the overwhelming sentiment of the public," said Michael Geer, president of the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Advocates for gays and lesbians, domestic-violence victims, and children argued that the amendment would prevent same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples from adopting or seeking protection-from-abuse orders. They also said it would discourage employers from offering domestic-partner benefits.
"You're telling some citizens of our commonwealth that they are not equals, that they are not going to be able to have the same rights, the same responsibilities or the same benefits as other people and that you don't care," said Stacy Sobel, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia.
Frank Cervone of Philadelphia's Support Center for Child Advocates told the committee adoptions by same-sex couple are becoming increasingly common.
"It's not a social experiment. It's a social reality," he said.
Constitutional amendments must pass the General Assembly in each of two successive two-year sessions, then win voter approval in a statewide referendum; the earliest that could happen is 2007.
The committee passed the bill two weeks ago after a motion to delay a vote until after a public hearing failed. Rep. Paul Clymer, the committee's chairman, held the hearing at the request of the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Babette Josephs, who opposes the bill.
Josephs, D-Philadelphia, said she would like to have additional hearings on the proposal.
"The voters should not be kept in ignorance," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006
-------------
Okay, for those of you who don't know, recently, within the last few weeks, the Penn state voted on a Marriage Law restricting legal unions to "a man and a woman" (rolls eyes) and it won, 15-13. Geez, that's like a football score! The homophobics won by kicking two measly field goals in Overtime. And can't you hear all of 'em say, "Well, ha, ha, God was on our side!" No, God was not on your side, MONEY and the insane rich voters were--the top 1%! This "law" will be overturned someday--and hopefully someday soon!
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Meant with love, but opened a Pandora's box...
Eric,
For all the positive you brought to me in this life, I never meant to turn it upsidedown for your remaining family. How ignorant I am! Even in death, you continue to give to me, which proves that death isn't what most people think or say it is. No matter how bad it gets tomorrow with mom and all, it doesn't matter. I have learned from this. Mom says so too.
I never meant this. This whole thing is a learning experience for me. I hope that your loved ones forgive mom and me. I know you yourself wouldn't want this to happen. I'll pray for their forgiveness tonight and all day tomorrow.
I don't remember you ever getting cross with me even when I faultered somehow in your class (ex: talked too much when you were talking, blew a line)...you were just too sweet to me. I'm so afraid I bismirched your memory. That was NOT my intention. I really don't care what happened or what you did in private--you're still an angel to me!
Of all the bad things I've done thusfar, this has to rank up there! Only, I truly didn't know it was bad! Shows you how dumb I am! God, I just hope your family pardons us! Be with my mom tommorow, okay? She's gonna need you and your grace! This is all my fault! It's horrible enough that you're gone!
I really don't blame your fam if they detest me. Though it will bother me, you can never be taken from me because you live inside my memory. I know you still must love me even though I'm dumb. Stupidity can be forgiven, right? Well, some stupidity, anyway. You DO still love me, don't you? Why do I even ask that? I know the answer to that question.
I miss you as always and ever!
-L.G., S.B.
For all the positive you brought to me in this life, I never meant to turn it upsidedown for your remaining family. How ignorant I am! Even in death, you continue to give to me, which proves that death isn't what most people think or say it is. No matter how bad it gets tomorrow with mom and all, it doesn't matter. I have learned from this. Mom says so too.
I never meant this. This whole thing is a learning experience for me. I hope that your loved ones forgive mom and me. I know you yourself wouldn't want this to happen. I'll pray for their forgiveness tonight and all day tomorrow.
I don't remember you ever getting cross with me even when I faultered somehow in your class (ex: talked too much when you were talking, blew a line)...you were just too sweet to me. I'm so afraid I bismirched your memory. That was NOT my intention. I really don't care what happened or what you did in private--you're still an angel to me!
Of all the bad things I've done thusfar, this has to rank up there! Only, I truly didn't know it was bad! Shows you how dumb I am! God, I just hope your family pardons us! Be with my mom tommorow, okay? She's gonna need you and your grace! This is all my fault! It's horrible enough that you're gone!
I really don't blame your fam if they detest me. Though it will bother me, you can never be taken from me because you live inside my memory. I know you still must love me even though I'm dumb. Stupidity can be forgiven, right? Well, some stupidity, anyway. You DO still love me, don't you? Why do I even ask that? I know the answer to that question.
I miss you as always and ever!
-L.G., S.B.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Group to rally against marriage amendment bill
By Dave Pidgeon, Intelligencer Journal Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Mar 14, 2006 8:15 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - More than a dozen people from Mountville-based Vision of Hope Metropolitan Community Church will attend a rally today at the state Capitol opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The Rev. Deborah Coggins, pastor of Vision of Hope, said the proposed amendment -- which would change the state constitution by defining marriage as between "one man and one woman" -- discriminates against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.
"There's no evidence at all to indicate that giving marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples would hurt heterosexual marriage in any way, shape or form," she said.
Coggins said the Vision of Hope contingent will try to meet with three Lancaster County legislators to express opposition to the amendment.
The lawmakers are state Rep. Scott Boyd, a Lampeter Republican who is the amendment's prime sponsor, and Republican co-sponsors state Reps. Katie True and Gibson C. Armstrong.
Lancaster County's four other Republican House delegates also support the measure.
Armstrong said Monday he is willing to meet with the Vision of Hope group.
" ... In every state that has put this amendment up, it has passed," he said. "What this is about is stopping judicial tyranny."
Supporters say the amendment would strengthen an 11-year-old state law defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman against legal attack.
A judge in Maryland earlier this year struck down a similar law in that state. That decision prompted Pennsylvania legislators to support an amendment here.
"Why should a judge be willing to set aside 5,000 years of recorded history?" Armstrong said. "Every civilization we know of has been based on the traditional family."
But Coggin wonders: What is traditional?
"In marriages up until the latter part of the 20th century, women were still considered property," she said. Are amendment supporters "talking about the traditional marriage in the Bible, where men had more than one wife?"
The earliest the amendment could take effect is late 2007.
The House and Senate would have to approve identical language in consecutive sessions before the proposed amendment could be put before voters as a referendum.
If voters approve the measure, the constitution would be changed.
Supporters say voters, not judges, should be the ones to define marriage. They also claim a heterosexual marriage is better for children than nontraditional unions.
Opponents have said the amendment could jeopardize health care benefits and hospital-visitation rights for domestic partners.
"Gays and lesbians -- we pay our taxes," Coggin said. "We contribute to our community. We pay our bills. ... Why shouldn't we receive the same rights as other people?"
The Philadelphia-based Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights is coordinating the rally, which will begin at 2 p.m. in the Capitol Rotunda.
Dave Pidgeon's e-mail address is dpidgeon@lnpnews.com.
------------
Sad, folks, really sad. Why is this even an issue? We have health care and the economy to worry about! Let these people marry if they want to!
My nurse, Chris, said she doesn't have any sympathy for AIDS paitents as many of them are gay. Well, I don't pity AIDS paitents, either. Pity isn't what they need--it's care and help. I really feel sorry for people that cannot get past their own narrow views and see the big picture: we're all human and we have rights...yes, even the right to hate, even though we must do so quietly. But it is infinitely better to love all, even your so called "enemies". It is easier to take the easy way out than to question the norm--to dare question those who hold office or any powerful positions. Most, if called upon, will take the easy way out, but it is the few that do not who bring about the most orginality in life and the best of changes in this world. Someday, humanity will overcome this and shine. I hope to be a part of that process even if it is in a small way.
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Mar 14, 2006 8:15 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - More than a dozen people from Mountville-based Vision of Hope Metropolitan Community Church will attend a rally today at the state Capitol opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The Rev. Deborah Coggins, pastor of Vision of Hope, said the proposed amendment -- which would change the state constitution by defining marriage as between "one man and one woman" -- discriminates against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.
"There's no evidence at all to indicate that giving marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples would hurt heterosexual marriage in any way, shape or form," she said.
Coggins said the Vision of Hope contingent will try to meet with three Lancaster County legislators to express opposition to the amendment.
The lawmakers are state Rep. Scott Boyd, a Lampeter Republican who is the amendment's prime sponsor, and Republican co-sponsors state Reps. Katie True and Gibson C. Armstrong.
Lancaster County's four other Republican House delegates also support the measure.
Armstrong said Monday he is willing to meet with the Vision of Hope group.
" ... In every state that has put this amendment up, it has passed," he said. "What this is about is stopping judicial tyranny."
Supporters say the amendment would strengthen an 11-year-old state law defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman against legal attack.
A judge in Maryland earlier this year struck down a similar law in that state. That decision prompted Pennsylvania legislators to support an amendment here.
"Why should a judge be willing to set aside 5,000 years of recorded history?" Armstrong said. "Every civilization we know of has been based on the traditional family."
But Coggin wonders: What is traditional?
"In marriages up until the latter part of the 20th century, women were still considered property," she said. Are amendment supporters "talking about the traditional marriage in the Bible, where men had more than one wife?"
The earliest the amendment could take effect is late 2007.
The House and Senate would have to approve identical language in consecutive sessions before the proposed amendment could be put before voters as a referendum.
If voters approve the measure, the constitution would be changed.
Supporters say voters, not judges, should be the ones to define marriage. They also claim a heterosexual marriage is better for children than nontraditional unions.
Opponents have said the amendment could jeopardize health care benefits and hospital-visitation rights for domestic partners.
"Gays and lesbians -- we pay our taxes," Coggin said. "We contribute to our community. We pay our bills. ... Why shouldn't we receive the same rights as other people?"
The Philadelphia-based Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights is coordinating the rally, which will begin at 2 p.m. in the Capitol Rotunda.
Dave Pidgeon's e-mail address is dpidgeon@lnpnews.com.
------------
Sad, folks, really sad. Why is this even an issue? We have health care and the economy to worry about! Let these people marry if they want to!
My nurse, Chris, said she doesn't have any sympathy for AIDS paitents as many of them are gay. Well, I don't pity AIDS paitents, either. Pity isn't what they need--it's care and help. I really feel sorry for people that cannot get past their own narrow views and see the big picture: we're all human and we have rights...yes, even the right to hate, even though we must do so quietly. But it is infinitely better to love all, even your so called "enemies". It is easier to take the easy way out than to question the norm--to dare question those who hold office or any powerful positions. Most, if called upon, will take the easy way out, but it is the few that do not who bring about the most orginality in life and the best of changes in this world. Someday, humanity will overcome this and shine. I hope to be a part of that process even if it is in a small way.
"Some things are worth dying for!"
The following is an excerpt from an essay by Brad J. Kallenberg:
In April of 1992, Kristen French, a 15 year-old girl was kidnapped and held as a
sex slave in suburban Ontario. For two days she was raped and threatened with
death. Surprisingly, on the third day she grew defiant, refusing to perform a
particular sexual act even after she was shown pre-recorded videotape of her
predecessor, Leslie, being strangled by her captors with an electrical cord.
(Leslie's corpse was sawn into 10 pieces before disposal.) A record of Kristen's
suffering was preserved on video tape too. Of interest is Kristen's dying claim:
"Some things are worth dying for."2
Kristen's story strikes me as a pointed example of the sort of suffering
Some have offered as the basis for an evidential argument from evil. For
example, William Rowe captures the heart of the argument in proposition P: "No
good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in
permitting E1 and E2." Yet I think Kristen's tragedy is more troubling than that
of E1, the case of the fawn languishing for days horribly and alone in the forest
before succumbing to third degree forest fire burns, because I do not know what
it means to say that animals are conscious of their pain. Kristen's case seems also
more pointed than E2, the case of the rape, beating and death of a five year-old,
since 5 year-olds lack conceptual skills to fully cognize the evils of rape much
less the sense that death is impending.
Given that her story epitomizes gratuitous evil, there is something
unnerving about Kristen's assertion that some things are worth dying for. Taken
at face value, Kristen claims to know of a good causally connected to some evil,
namely, death-by-rapist, that makes the evil of some value, "worth it" in her
words. Granted, she may have had a privative rather than a substantive good in
mind (viz., the cessation of rape). Still, her story is reminiscent of others who
insisted that some things are worth dying for. For example, at the turn of the 20th
century, a 12 year-old peasant girl named Maria Goretti was killed for refusing
sex with the son of a tenant farmer with whom Maria's family shared cramped
living quarters.3 By all accounts Maria wasn't very bright, but she had been
catechized and faced her assailant with resolution: "No, it's a sin! God does not
want it." (Incidentally, her words are known to us today because the 18 year-old
would-be rapist, Alessandro Serenelli, recorded them. Serenelli was haunted by
the image of Maria who, as she lay dying, spoke words of forgiveness to him.
Serenelli not only confessed, while in prison he repented, and much later lived
out his days working in a monastery garden.)
----------
Granted, what is considered "good" is not absolute. It varies from individual to individual. And what is "worth" an entire life does, too. Kristen and Maria, in the face of death, held on to their character and principal to the last stroke of their short lives choosing death over life...but it meant a life of pain if they were to somehow survive and go on living. To give into their agressors meant to forsake their souls, so they'd rather die then give up their spirit and moral values. It is a brave thing to do in the darkest hour: to die for the sake of all spirit and life itself. Even in the face of death and fear, their are champions who triumph over it. Their bodies may be gone, but their spirit cannot decay and is not limited to the prison of their violated flesh.
In April of 1992, Kristen French, a 15 year-old girl was kidnapped and held as a
sex slave in suburban Ontario. For two days she was raped and threatened with
death. Surprisingly, on the third day she grew defiant, refusing to perform a
particular sexual act even after she was shown pre-recorded videotape of her
predecessor, Leslie, being strangled by her captors with an electrical cord.
(Leslie's corpse was sawn into 10 pieces before disposal.) A record of Kristen's
suffering was preserved on video tape too. Of interest is Kristen's dying claim:
"Some things are worth dying for."2
Kristen's story strikes me as a pointed example of the sort of suffering
Some have offered as the basis for an evidential argument from evil. For
example, William Rowe captures the heart of the argument in proposition P: "No
good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in
permitting E1 and E2." Yet I think Kristen's tragedy is more troubling than that
of E1, the case of the fawn languishing for days horribly and alone in the forest
before succumbing to third degree forest fire burns, because I do not know what
it means to say that animals are conscious of their pain. Kristen's case seems also
more pointed than E2, the case of the rape, beating and death of a five year-old,
since 5 year-olds lack conceptual skills to fully cognize the evils of rape much
less the sense that death is impending.
Given that her story epitomizes gratuitous evil, there is something
unnerving about Kristen's assertion that some things are worth dying for. Taken
at face value, Kristen claims to know of a good causally connected to some evil,
namely, death-by-rapist, that makes the evil of some value, "worth it" in her
words. Granted, she may have had a privative rather than a substantive good in
mind (viz., the cessation of rape). Still, her story is reminiscent of others who
insisted that some things are worth dying for. For example, at the turn of the 20th
century, a 12 year-old peasant girl named Maria Goretti was killed for refusing
sex with the son of a tenant farmer with whom Maria's family shared cramped
living quarters.3 By all accounts Maria wasn't very bright, but she had been
catechized and faced her assailant with resolution: "No, it's a sin! God does not
want it." (Incidentally, her words are known to us today because the 18 year-old
would-be rapist, Alessandro Serenelli, recorded them. Serenelli was haunted by
the image of Maria who, as she lay dying, spoke words of forgiveness to him.
Serenelli not only confessed, while in prison he repented, and much later lived
out his days working in a monastery garden.)
----------
Granted, what is considered "good" is not absolute. It varies from individual to individual. And what is "worth" an entire life does, too. Kristen and Maria, in the face of death, held on to their character and principal to the last stroke of their short lives choosing death over life...but it meant a life of pain if they were to somehow survive and go on living. To give into their agressors meant to forsake their souls, so they'd rather die then give up their spirit and moral values. It is a brave thing to do in the darkest hour: to die for the sake of all spirit and life itself. Even in the face of death and fear, their are champions who triumph over it. Their bodies may be gone, but their spirit cannot decay and is not limited to the prison of their violated flesh.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Don't sue me, Professor Andy!
But I just thought your blog post was so brilliant that I had to repost it here in my OWN blog (remember, these are Andrew Lamers' words, not mine):
I was just thinking...
(Warning: My Christian friends should skip this post. You'll want to save my soul or perform an exorcism on me, neither of which will help in the slightest.)
A friend of mine is SO proud because her daughter is going on a mission to China, sponsored by a local church here. The goal of her daughter's mission, she tells me, is to do good deeds and bring the word of Christ to rural parts of China.
"Don't these people already have a religion?" I asked.
"Yes," she laughed. "But they're Buddhists! That's not even a real religion. They need to know Jesus as their personal savior so they can enter the kingdom of heaven."
-- Last warning to my Christian friends! Continue at your own peril! --
If you know me, you know where I'm going with this. I looked at my friend and said "And you see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make these people convert?"
"No! Are you kidding? These people need to be saved!"
I took a deep breath. Obviously, self-control didn't win, because I finally said to her "Wouldn't you find it just a little offensive if Buddhist temples in China started sending Buddhist missionaries to Arkansas or New Mexico to try to 'save' poor, misguided Christians from their foolish, made-up belief in Jesus? And if these Buddhists insisted that the only way you could enjoy a blissful afterlife was to embrace Buddha as your lord and personal savior, wouldn't that be morally repugnant to you?"
She stopped smiling. "But they're WRONG."
Yes, I kept my mouth shut, but I started thinking "That's what most religious people believe about members of any other religion: they're the ones who got it right, and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. Therefore, they get to go to heaven and everyone else gets to burn in hell."
I also started thinking about why I like Buddhists so much. Here are a few examples:
When was the last time a Buddhist showed up at your door trying to get you to attend his temple, or wanting to testify to you about his faith in Buddha? Probably never.
Has a Buddhist ever tried to shove a copy of the Tao Te Ching into your hands as you walked by? Probably not.
When's the last time you heard something on the news about Buddhists blowing up buildings or marketplaces to punish the infidels who don't believe in Buddhism, or in the right kind of Buddhism? Go ahead, do some research on Google. Get back to me when you find something.
Tell me the last time Buddhists ever declared a war on a non-Buddhist country to try to force that country to become Buddhists? Or the last time a Buddhist nation declared a war and proudly shouted "Buddha is on our side!"
Do governments in Buddhist countries describe themselves as "Fair and Buddhist nations, founded on the basic truths of Buddhism"? Do they insist that the parables of Lao-Tzu, Mo-Tzu, or Han-Fe-Tzu be published in courthouses and in schools?
Do Buddhists put stickers on their cars saying "What Would Buddha Do?", or "Buddhists aren't perfect -- just forgiven!" or "Let Go and Let Buddha"?
This is what I'm trying to say: there's something very, very admirable about a religion that doesn't feel a maniacal need to go out shove its beliefs into the hearts and minds of others. About a religion that believes that building temples is enough, and if anybody truly wants to know more, they'll walk inside. About a religion that believes that other religions are perfectly suitable ways for people to deal with life, and that converting others is neither mandatory nor desirable!
Anyway, there's my rant. Pray for my soul if you must.
Oh, and Buddha go with you.
I was just thinking...
(Warning: My Christian friends should skip this post. You'll want to save my soul or perform an exorcism on me, neither of which will help in the slightest.)
A friend of mine is SO proud because her daughter is going on a mission to China, sponsored by a local church here. The goal of her daughter's mission, she tells me, is to do good deeds and bring the word of Christ to rural parts of China.
"Don't these people already have a religion?" I asked.
"Yes," she laughed. "But they're Buddhists! That's not even a real religion. They need to know Jesus as their personal savior so they can enter the kingdom of heaven."
-- Last warning to my Christian friends! Continue at your own peril! --
If you know me, you know where I'm going with this. I looked at my friend and said "And you see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make these people convert?"
"No! Are you kidding? These people need to be saved!"
I took a deep breath. Obviously, self-control didn't win, because I finally said to her "Wouldn't you find it just a little offensive if Buddhist temples in China started sending Buddhist missionaries to Arkansas or New Mexico to try to 'save' poor, misguided Christians from their foolish, made-up belief in Jesus? And if these Buddhists insisted that the only way you could enjoy a blissful afterlife was to embrace Buddha as your lord and personal savior, wouldn't that be morally repugnant to you?"
She stopped smiling. "But they're WRONG."
Yes, I kept my mouth shut, but I started thinking "That's what most religious people believe about members of any other religion: they're the ones who got it right, and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. Therefore, they get to go to heaven and everyone else gets to burn in hell."
I also started thinking about why I like Buddhists so much. Here are a few examples:
When was the last time a Buddhist showed up at your door trying to get you to attend his temple, or wanting to testify to you about his faith in Buddha? Probably never.
Has a Buddhist ever tried to shove a copy of the Tao Te Ching into your hands as you walked by? Probably not.
When's the last time you heard something on the news about Buddhists blowing up buildings or marketplaces to punish the infidels who don't believe in Buddhism, or in the right kind of Buddhism? Go ahead, do some research on Google. Get back to me when you find something.
Tell me the last time Buddhists ever declared a war on a non-Buddhist country to try to force that country to become Buddhists? Or the last time a Buddhist nation declared a war and proudly shouted "Buddha is on our side!"
Do governments in Buddhist countries describe themselves as "Fair and Buddhist nations, founded on the basic truths of Buddhism"? Do they insist that the parables of Lao-Tzu, Mo-Tzu, or Han-Fe-Tzu be published in courthouses and in schools?
Do Buddhists put stickers on their cars saying "What Would Buddha Do?", or "Buddhists aren't perfect -- just forgiven!" or "Let Go and Let Buddha"?
This is what I'm trying to say: there's something very, very admirable about a religion that doesn't feel a maniacal need to go out shove its beliefs into the hearts and minds of others. About a religion that believes that building temples is enough, and if anybody truly wants to know more, they'll walk inside. About a religion that believes that other religions are perfectly suitable ways for people to deal with life, and that converting others is neither mandatory nor desirable!
Anyway, there's my rant. Pray for my soul if you must.
Oh, and Buddha go with you.
My sister and I in 1988. I'm 6 here, I think, so Chloe would've been 4 or 5. I'm on the left, she's on the right. We are in our "Spring time dresses". I brought my bunny, she brought her chick! :-D
Posted by Picasa
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Dearest Eric
Dearest Eric
I won’t even try to wear a mask now in this letter. Again, today, the sheer anguish is almost more than I can bear. I want to scream…I want to rip something irreplaceable apart, like all those damned pictures of me as a baby and small child. Sometimes, I just want to give up and say you were wrong about me—I have no talent, no “magic” in me as you once so beautifully put it.
I’m having a hard time completing my thoughts here. Your passing is the perfect excuse to be depressed and to stay that way. I’m reminded of Ordinary People—the film, since I have yet to read the book. You are the perfect Buck and I a perfect Conrad here. Where I was sure you would hold on, you let go, and where I was sure I would fall, I still hung on somehow by chance or a miracle.
And the world around me, like the world around Conrad, doesn’t seem to understand how much he hurts and struggles inside to still exist and function in the ordinary world that is far less than forgiving. Why do I feel anger towards you? I know it isn’t right to blame you for dying, but you are, hard though it is to admit, responsible for your death. And I am choosing to grieve like this.
How difficult even the simplest task is: eating, waking up, breathing. How I hated the world for a time because it seemed that it did not even slow down to acknowledge your death as a real loss—how dare the world keep going?! A man, a sweet, kind, gentle man…of laughter, and magic…is GONE! Nothing can ever bring him back! But it mattered not—death is an every day occurrence, like the sun rising and setting.
I wish I could say that though you are gone away I still felt you as much as I did in your actual presence. I wish I could say that it was getting easier now that more months have gone by; indeed, it’s just the opposite—the longer time ticks away between your half-life and sudden death, the worse it becomes, the more worried I’ll start to forget things I once could clearly recall—like the sound of your distinctive voice and laugh, or the way your face became so animated when you talked.
Your voice: mmmm…it was deep, but not base deep. It would become very southern sometimes, but without the twang so many are accustomed to hearing. It was easy on the ear to listen to…not a tone one could grow tired of hearing at length. You were an actor, after all. Shh! Listen, he speaks! Did you hear him?
You never used your voice to your advantage…only for ours, the students. Very seldom were you ever angry, for you had the most marvelous intuitive understanding of children and the novice performer. And if disagreements were had, you’d settle them in unorthodox ways that were compromise. It seemed you never took the easy way out of sticky situations which showed unusual depth of courage in you.
Remember that morning you asked me how my weekend was?
I replied, “Not very good.”
“Why?” you wondered.
“Well, Mr. Bailey, I guess because I didn’t make it a good weekend,” I answered after thinking about it.
“I have more respect for you now,” you said in turn, behind me, just in my ear, in your voice made gentle.
Here, again, I suppose, I’m making this a “sad” day and not a “happy” one full of smiles and light heartedness that you so often saw when I was in your class. But certainly you knew that even “squirrel-baits” had there blue periods.
People often will brush aside a terrible death by saying, “Well, he/she is in a better place now.” I don’t believe this is always the case. In fact, I have imagined you very bored in Heaven, if it is so perfect the way everyone says it is. If you are in Heaven, I hope you aren’t bored. I suppose even in Heaven, angels have “sad” days where they miss their former lives and people they love on Earth. Do you ever get sad still? Do you ever miss me?
What is dying like and death? I dearly hope and pray that you were not in pain while you were dying and just couldn’t breathe anymore…(sigh) Or, even if you were, the pain was slight, dull, or brief until the end. You must’ve been scared and lonely when you realized you were no longer inside the body you were so used to. I know I would’ve been. It’s childish on my part, I know, but if I could’ve, I’d have given you my teddy dad gave me at like 3 weeks old just so you wouldn’t be so lonely and scared and that everything for you would be all right soon enough.
I wonder if in Heaven…one has to learn to move about again, how to hear and see again. Is it very different than Earth? Do you talk differently now? I’m sure you see things so differently now away from earthly worries and thoughts and cares.
What’s God like, now that you know him? I sort of envy you now, because you met celebrities from all over the world and even did scenes with them, like Gary Oldman, and now, you’ve met and know God—the ultimate celebrity! I bet you even have his autograph displayed proudly on your mantle or on a bedside table.
I have a feeling you met my friends the England kids because you, after all, knew both me and Chloe, so that’s how you probably found each other. Did they tell you “embarrassing” stories when I was 5 and 6? I would bet that they were thrilled to know I came out of my shell thanks to you.
And, now that you are with your little boy again, what’s he like? Wonderful, I’m sure, and the image of you, as are Taylor and Jordan.
This letter has no definite or real ending; it’s ongoing and therapeutic for me. As I know plain as day you cannot for the most obvious reasons answer this letter in the conventional hand written or typed way, that’s okay. I really don’t need your answers because I pretty much know how you’d reply anyway: some would come very straight-edged and be matter-of-fact, some would be silly and loopy just to yank my chain and make me laugh, and others would be mysterious and have two or more possible meanings.
To know you was to love you, to find joy in the tiniest of things and places and the worst of circumstances. To love you was an honor and great peace for me and for all others, I’m quite sure. To love you was to be content and love is forever.
I thank you for loving me. The very least thing I can do is to go on loving you the remainder of my earthly days which I can more than promise you I will do.
Lots of LOVE,
Celia Foster, aka “little girl” aka “squirrel-bait”
I won’t even try to wear a mask now in this letter. Again, today, the sheer anguish is almost more than I can bear. I want to scream…I want to rip something irreplaceable apart, like all those damned pictures of me as a baby and small child. Sometimes, I just want to give up and say you were wrong about me—I have no talent, no “magic” in me as you once so beautifully put it.
I’m having a hard time completing my thoughts here. Your passing is the perfect excuse to be depressed and to stay that way. I’m reminded of Ordinary People—the film, since I have yet to read the book. You are the perfect Buck and I a perfect Conrad here. Where I was sure you would hold on, you let go, and where I was sure I would fall, I still hung on somehow by chance or a miracle.
And the world around me, like the world around Conrad, doesn’t seem to understand how much he hurts and struggles inside to still exist and function in the ordinary world that is far less than forgiving. Why do I feel anger towards you? I know it isn’t right to blame you for dying, but you are, hard though it is to admit, responsible for your death. And I am choosing to grieve like this.
How difficult even the simplest task is: eating, waking up, breathing. How I hated the world for a time because it seemed that it did not even slow down to acknowledge your death as a real loss—how dare the world keep going?! A man, a sweet, kind, gentle man…of laughter, and magic…is GONE! Nothing can ever bring him back! But it mattered not—death is an every day occurrence, like the sun rising and setting.
I wish I could say that though you are gone away I still felt you as much as I did in your actual presence. I wish I could say that it was getting easier now that more months have gone by; indeed, it’s just the opposite—the longer time ticks away between your half-life and sudden death, the worse it becomes, the more worried I’ll start to forget things I once could clearly recall—like the sound of your distinctive voice and laugh, or the way your face became so animated when you talked.
Your voice: mmmm…it was deep, but not base deep. It would become very southern sometimes, but without the twang so many are accustomed to hearing. It was easy on the ear to listen to…not a tone one could grow tired of hearing at length. You were an actor, after all. Shh! Listen, he speaks! Did you hear him?
You never used your voice to your advantage…only for ours, the students. Very seldom were you ever angry, for you had the most marvelous intuitive understanding of children and the novice performer. And if disagreements were had, you’d settle them in unorthodox ways that were compromise. It seemed you never took the easy way out of sticky situations which showed unusual depth of courage in you.
Remember that morning you asked me how my weekend was?
I replied, “Not very good.”
“Why?” you wondered.
“Well, Mr. Bailey, I guess because I didn’t make it a good weekend,” I answered after thinking about it.
“I have more respect for you now,” you said in turn, behind me, just in my ear, in your voice made gentle.
Here, again, I suppose, I’m making this a “sad” day and not a “happy” one full of smiles and light heartedness that you so often saw when I was in your class. But certainly you knew that even “squirrel-baits” had there blue periods.
People often will brush aside a terrible death by saying, “Well, he/she is in a better place now.” I don’t believe this is always the case. In fact, I have imagined you very bored in Heaven, if it is so perfect the way everyone says it is. If you are in Heaven, I hope you aren’t bored. I suppose even in Heaven, angels have “sad” days where they miss their former lives and people they love on Earth. Do you ever get sad still? Do you ever miss me?
What is dying like and death? I dearly hope and pray that you were not in pain while you were dying and just couldn’t breathe anymore…(sigh) Or, even if you were, the pain was slight, dull, or brief until the end. You must’ve been scared and lonely when you realized you were no longer inside the body you were so used to. I know I would’ve been. It’s childish on my part, I know, but if I could’ve, I’d have given you my teddy dad gave me at like 3 weeks old just so you wouldn’t be so lonely and scared and that everything for you would be all right soon enough.
I wonder if in Heaven…one has to learn to move about again, how to hear and see again. Is it very different than Earth? Do you talk differently now? I’m sure you see things so differently now away from earthly worries and thoughts and cares.
What’s God like, now that you know him? I sort of envy you now, because you met celebrities from all over the world and even did scenes with them, like Gary Oldman, and now, you’ve met and know God—the ultimate celebrity! I bet you even have his autograph displayed proudly on your mantle or on a bedside table.
I have a feeling you met my friends the England kids because you, after all, knew both me and Chloe, so that’s how you probably found each other. Did they tell you “embarrassing” stories when I was 5 and 6? I would bet that they were thrilled to know I came out of my shell thanks to you.
And, now that you are with your little boy again, what’s he like? Wonderful, I’m sure, and the image of you, as are Taylor and Jordan.
This letter has no definite or real ending; it’s ongoing and therapeutic for me. As I know plain as day you cannot for the most obvious reasons answer this letter in the conventional hand written or typed way, that’s okay. I really don’t need your answers because I pretty much know how you’d reply anyway: some would come very straight-edged and be matter-of-fact, some would be silly and loopy just to yank my chain and make me laugh, and others would be mysterious and have two or more possible meanings.
To know you was to love you, to find joy in the tiniest of things and places and the worst of circumstances. To love you was an honor and great peace for me and for all others, I’m quite sure. To love you was to be content and love is forever.
I thank you for loving me. The very least thing I can do is to go on loving you the remainder of my earthly days which I can more than promise you I will do.
Lots of LOVE,
Celia Foster, aka “little girl” aka “squirrel-bait”
Friday, March 03, 2006
Quote of the moment...
If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Woody Allen
US movie actor, comedian, & director (1935 - )
Woody Allen
US movie actor, comedian, & director (1935 - )
Sunday, February 19, 2006
On the Gentleness Test I scored...
| Gentle and sweet So, it looks like you're 72% as gentle as possible. You show 91% humility and 57% ability of making people feel good. On a test variable that means nothing yet, you scored 93%. |
| Good for you! You're a gentle person who would take on some embarassment before you would hurt someone else's feelings. People should generally feel comfortable relying on you, as you are unlikely to hurt people or make them uncomfortable. You're really good at doing this, and you're willing to look bad so others can feel good. You rock! :) |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The GENTLENESS Test written by kp0041 on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test |
Okay, I'm not gay.
| Maybe a tomboy Congratulations! You scored 0! |
| You might like sports and wear jeans but you are certainly no lesbian. |
 |
My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The The am I gay (female) Test written by rainsigma on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test |
Monday, February 06, 2006
According to a website, this is who I was in my last human life. Not bad at all--I absolutely love the part about magic being all around me in my past and present life! :-D
Posted by Picasa
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
