D/DC on MySpace
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
For those who are considering Ron Paul, Please see this information.
If you are, Here are some links to information that you might not have yet, re: Ron Paul:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. Supports DADT (heterosexist). Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. No federal funding of abortion, and 'pro-life'. Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
- Opposes citizenship track for undocumented immigrants.
- Supports revising the Constitution to revoke the citizenship of infants born in the United States to undocumented parents.
- Opposes Roe v. Wade.
- Was one of only 33 members of Congress to vote against renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.
- Believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty."
- Opposes all federal affirmative action programs.
4. White Civil Rights : The Website for Europeans and Americans Wherever They May Live
5. The Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
6. Ron Paul Votes *Against* Re-Opening Civil Rights Era Hate Crime Cases
Yesterday the House passed landmark civil rights legislation, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, by a vote of 422-2. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), would re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, focusing on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970.
The two votes against? Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland and that darling of people who aren't paying close enough attention to reality, Ron Paul.
7. Ron Paul Talks About Current Affairs, Like the Civil War
Dr. Ron Paul recently appeared on "The Bill Maher" show to announce that the civil war was a "mistake," and to ask about global warming, "But what are you going to do about the volcanoes?" We've got a clip from the show right here. (VIDEO)
8. Gun Rights vs. Centralization by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban...
10. Tell me who you're friends are, I'll tell you who YOU are.
11. Ron Paul Mixes Up Embryos and Property Rights
Ron Paul has a beautiful way of illustrating the fundamental absurdity underneath libertarian political philosophy. He makes outlandish claims about the foundations of American liberty. Those claims are easily exposed by just a quick look at the Constitution. However, Ron Paul supporters don't seem to care about that. It seems that Ron Paul is counting on the support of Americans who won't bother to read the Constitution, or to otherwise check the statements of political leaders.
I've already written about how Ron Paul plays loose with the facts when he claims that "Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society" (see here) and that "The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty." (see here). It's when these two claims are considered together that the full scale of Ron Paul's absurdity becomes clear.
If, as Ron Paul claims, property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society, and if there is a right of zygotes, embryos and fetuses to live that is at the heart of American liberty, how do these two ideas work together?
How is an embryo's right to life based on property rights? Ron Paul said that all rights are based on property rights, after all, so there must be a connection.
Furthermore, Ron Paul has sponsored bill H.R. 1094, which defines the beginning of life, and the right to life, as at the moment of conception. So, does the fertilized egg cell itself, under Ron Paul's curious philosophy, have a legal right to live because of property rights?
What property rights does the fertilized egg cell have that give it the legal right to be protected from the Morning After Pill, RU486, or similar treatments?...
12. Internet Fascism and the SS of Ron Paul (OPINION)
Come on Ron Paul and your Klan of support; lets go.
13. Ron Paul Also Has Refreshing Views About All Blacks Being Criminals
[From what I've read, Paul later said that he did not write those particular comments - that it was written by another writer for his newsletter in his name. However, given the totality of Paul's views on race and civil rights issues that are not under any dispute, any right-thinking person is still extremely concerned about Paul's views and attitude toward minorities and civil rights issues! - john]
[From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. ]
[And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House.]
15. Guy's blog re: Ron Paul on the Issues
[ On taxes, he subscribes to the failed idea that cutting taxes significantly helps the economy. It has never been proven to work, and in fact, the US treasury department issued a report last year detailing how tax cuts had a negative impact on economic growth. Me, I think taxes can be used to do great things, like providing a social safety net and providing universal health care for starters. From what I can tell, Ron Paul isn't all that enthusiastic about social programs. ]
17. http://groups.myspace.com/ronpaulspointyhood
Given the toatality of Paul's views, you see, if a majority of voters in a particular state will vote to ban all abortion, limit rights for homosexuals, allow pollution to any extreme and relax regulations that protect worker safety and worker's rights - then that's how it should be in that particular state. One might even extend the argument to include a support for slavery in that particular state, and justifiably so based on Paul's statements to date!
If anyone has any links to add to this collection to show the side of Ron Paul that it seemingly overlooked or ignored (lest one were to believe that Paul supporters were either overt or covert racist, sexist, heterosexist people), please add them in comments or send them to me to be edited into this blog.
Comments from all points of view are welcome proveded that civility and respect for all people and all posters is exhibited and observed. If anyone took the time to read this and give these links a look, I sincerely thank you. Peace and Happiness to all.
- john
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Notes on Faggotry and Isaiah Unscripted (He admitted it.)
Please forward far and wide...
WHY ARE FAGGOTS SO AFRAID OF FAGGOTS?:
flaming challenges to masculinity, objectification and the desire to conform
• CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS •
As back rooms are shut down to make way for wedding vows, and gay sexual culture becomes little more than straight-acting dudes hangin' out, where are the possibilities for a defiant faggotry that challenges the assimilationist norms of a world that wants us dead?
Masculine ideals have long reigned supreme in male sexual spaces, from the locker room to the tea room, the bars to the back alleys to the beaches. But is there something more brutal and dehumanizing about the calculated hyperobjectification of the internet? How do we confront the limits of transaction sexuality, where scorn becomes "just a preference," lack of respect is assumed, and lying is a given? How can we create something splendid and intimate from that universe of shaking and moaning and nervous glances turned inward now groaning?
I'm especially interested in essays about community-building experiments, public sexual cultures, faggots not socialized or presenting as male, cruising, HIV, consumerism, transfaggotry, polyamory, feminism, sexual safety and risk-taking, norms for faggots outside of the US, and gender transgression (of course). I'm looking for essays that expose hierarchies of gender, age, race, nationality, class, body type, ability, sexuality and other identity categories instead of imposing fascistic definitions based on beauty myth consumer norms. That's right, honey -- I'm talking about interventions that are dangerous and lovely, just like you.
Mattilda a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore is the editor, most recently, of Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity (Seal/Avalon, 2007) and an expanded second edition of That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation (Soft Skull, forthcoming). Her second novel, So Many Ways to Sleep Badly, will be published by City Lights in 2008. For more on Mattilda, visit www.mattbernsteinsycamore.com.
The basics:
*Submit non-fiction essays of up to 6,000 words. All submissions must be typed and double-spaced, and sent by post (no email submissions, but feel free to contact me with queries, mattilda@sbcglobal.net). Please include a short bio.
*Deadline is November 31, 2007 -- but the sooner, the better.
*Send submissions to:
Mattilda a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore
537 Jones Street, #3152
San Francisco, CA 94102
July 3, 1975 - In a change of policy, the U.S. Civil Service Commission decides to consider applications by lesbians and gay men on a case-by-case basis. Previously, homosexuality was grounds for automatic disqualification.
BTW, Am I the only one who noticed that in the midst of his series of denials, Mr. Washington actually ADMITTED to the offense that he spent the rest of the program, and all of this time prior to the program denying?.....
Apparently Mr. Washington never heard the old adage about what to do when you're in a hole (stop digging!). These are some facts that become obvious from this interview:
1. Mr. Washington's use of the term "faggot" was meant to mean one who is weak, or a 'punk'.
2. Later, Mr. washington explains that the reason the f-word came to his mind at all was because he kind of grew up in a gay community here in New York and...
...And the word was thrown around quite a bit.
3. Mr. Washington repeatedly insists that he did not use the term to refer to TR Knight. He then goes on to admit that he used it to refer to TR Knight, as I illustrated above.
4. Mr. Washington finds it difficult to admit a shortcoming of his own without pointing the finger at someone else in the same breath.
5. Mr. Washington, whether intentionally or not, weaves a web of obfuscation with threads of codependence and mendacity that make it neccessary for one to listen very closely in order to hear all that is actually being said, and decipher what is actually true.
Bottom line - even if Mr. Wasington does believe his own lies and half-truths, he did use the term "faggot" in reference to TR Knight (I'm not your faggot, I'm not TR!).
His references to TR being a bit of a backstabber as per the conversation on the plane may or may not be true, but are of little if any relevance to the important issues here, as it doesn't justify Washington's actions. This half-acceptance of responsibility of his own actions,
[KING: -- "for using a word that's unacceptable in any context or circumstance."
Did you believe that?
WASHINGTON: Well, I have issues with the -- any context or -- or circumstance, because the context in which I used it was saying that I did not use it to attack T.R. With. The question -- ]
combined with his eagerness to point fingers at others in a seemingly childish attempt to change the subject
[KING: Why do you think T.R. took that incident, which you say didn't involve him at all, to come out and to be angry? Well, be angry, maybe, because he might take offense to the use of the word.
WASHINGTON: Absolutely, as he should.
KING: As he should. But you weren't referring to him?
WASHINGTON: Yes. And I told him that that day in Chandra's office.
KING: And what did he say when you said...
WASHINGTON: He just said, "Well, you're trying to" -- I said but remember, you know, the conversation we had on the plane, you know, about you feeling very angry about how certain things were being handled and the way you were being treated. I said you know if anything, the only reason I brought your name into this is because I felt like I was defending you against some bullying.
And even though I was, you know, miscalculating that, that's not where Patrick was coming from because he was responding to something that I said. So we -- it was separate. But I've called him several times and said, look, man, we need to talk about this. I approached him several times and he always said I don't want to talk about. I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about it. That was all through November. But then a call in December started going to Chandra Wilson and her mate -- I mean she's very, very upset that because of the way ABC put out the statement the second time after the Golden Globes, it all looked like I was lying for using the word on October 9, which I never denied. I used it and I take ownership of that but it was never to refer to T.R. Knight. ]
do nothing to raise the esteem of Mr. washington to any objective observer.
He could have had me. Had Mr. Washington simply said: 'I said it. I meant it - it's how I talked. I've learned, I've allowed myself to become educated and enlightened on this issue. I made amends. I should have been forgiven and I should not have been fired.', I would have eventually come to support him - even if it might have taken me a couple days to get there.
A straight man of any color using the term "faggot" in that way is very painful to a faggot like me, especially of my age or older.
But I do believe that I would have come around and I would have supported him. He did do everything they asked of him; he did make amends.
But now his attempts to step away from that amends in some form render me incapable of any type of support for this man beyond the basic wishing him no harm.
What is most saddening and infuriating about this for me is that due to the fact that many black people have a different worldview than that of white people such as myself, that some (perhaps many or most) black people will see this as an issue of racism - in other words see it in a way completely different than I do, and that this fact separates us instead of uniting us.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
