Zombie post: Appealing to reason, driving towards cynicism

AKA If We Sit and Wait for Shit To Happen, It Won't.

Uh, I know for sure this was a Facebook note but I can't recall if it's here too. No matter, I'm expanding on it anyway. I suck with this updating thing lately. My extra special bloggiversary is coming up anyway so I might just refrain from the usual hourly posting. My edits in Italics.

Anyway, so I was wracking my brain with something interesting to talk about, because I know it's my duty to entertain you all. Whether I feel like it or not. And after scrambling to think of something humorous, I failed, got hungry, then as all starving folks do I got desperately serious.

I thought of something my Af.Am [Ed: Yeah African American, I'm lazy as hell] History prof said as we talked about WEB Dubois. You know Dubois as the polar opposite of Booker T Washington and one of the founders of the NAACP. He did a lot of things, but we talked about his philosophy in class for a while and how, at the beginning of his career, rather than the slave "yessa massa" mentality of Washington (I don't hate the man btw, that's just kinda how it is) Dubois tried desperately to appeal to reason.

The moral of his story, really, is you can't appeal to reason and rationality. Ever. Uh-uh. I say this because Dubois eventually said "Fuck some America" and moved away never to return.

Appealing to reason. You know, and this is just my personal philosophy, if we could appeal to reason, frankly we'd never have to. It's like anti-racists declaring "I AM ANTI RACIST!" then they usually do/say something racist. Or saying "sorry" even. If you were, you just wouldn't have to now would you?

Or better yet, as I vaguely got into last week, trying to avoid things that are too conflicty for tastes. Like avoiding the issue of homosexuality because it polarizes too many people. Or matters of church & state. Or racism. If we just ignore then because we can't figure out how to solve them, tell me, is that really being reasonable or just doggedly denialistic? Yeah I said denialistic.

If humans had any reasoning to appeal to, why, just think of it. No more separation of the sexes & races (races, which, don't even actually exist). No more wars. Hell, I think we'd all be at the very least agnostic if that were the case. So think on that. Appealing to reason. If Dubois had been a little less idealistic, he'd have probably realized that slavery & oppression of blacks wouldn't exist if folks had some decent reasoning power. [Ed: I was clearly feeling misanthropic when I wrote this, damn I'm a bitter one.]

Then, you know, he got older and like I said, essentially got tired of being black in America and moved to somewhere in Europe or Africa I believe. As we get older I do think there is a bit of drive towards the schools of cynicism and skepticism. You almost have to, I think, unless you're so stuck in your world view and you just aren't evolving at all, which is bad.

And I'm not talking about "omg I hate the world *starbucks coffee*" modern cynicism, I mean real ass Greek definition. Yeah, different ain't it?

I will say I believe that. I do. I try not to follow too much of a defeatist attitude but I think as we do get older, get away from friends and parents and other influences, as we find ourselves we do grow more towards cynicism. And no I don't mean cynical as in the "i hate everyone" actually that's apathy sense.

Since I'm not feeling nearly as spiteful today I do think it's good to appeal to reason. Sometimes. That just can't be the basis of your struggle because...well, yeah, if we could just appeal to human reasoning you think we'd have nearly the shit that we weigh ourselves down with? It's sad. Folks don't learn. There has to be conflict. I say, and I think I'm quoting someone indirectly but I can't find it, to my friends & other sometimes that people CAN indeed change, but only with time and much force. MUCH force. You have to literally snap the wool from over their eyes and make them SEE, damnit. Not "the light", just anything. That makes me sad but unfortunately it just seems to be a fact of life. It's not that people are slow witted, just slow to change. Evolution takes millions of years for a reason I guess. Silly people.

Hah, I guess what I'm saying is I have no faith because I haven't been given reason to hope. Not a whole lot anyway.

Hey, Tennessee, let's ban adoption for those heathen folk.

Oh goddamnit I hate my state. Why do we do these things? First it was the English Only Amendment (which didn't pass, obviously, so buleria bitches) and now we're ALSO wanting to ban adoption for unmarried couples. Yep, let's join the ranks of Florida and Kentucky and Arizona an'nem.

Check it out though, only unmarried couples are prevented adopting. I mean, do you realize how big a damn group that is? It obviously includes single folks, as in single straight men and women, gays, lesbians, transgender people...pretty much anyone who is not and cannot be married.

AND I DON'T GET THIS. I can almost see a hint of logic behind it if I try. But, so, let's prevent more and more kids from having a decent home because we're only allowing married couples to adopt. Sorry if you're single and you can afford to adopt a child that needs you, married couples only.

Buhhhh?

That frankly makes no sense and we need to tell these...uh...people just that. Tennessee. YOU AREN'T HELPING YOURSELF. It's time to make some new friends and protest this ridiculous mess. Auuugghh.

Oh, here's a Facebook group to join, it has lots of good links and things :D

But...just in case you don't have a Facebook and/or don't feel like joining the group, here's some linkses if you're interested.

To call your local representative: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislators/

and call to Sen. Paul Stanley's office directly: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/members/S31.html

[Ed: I fail at that link thing. Ooops.]

And heeere's what the bill actually says in case, for some reason, you didn't believe me! Let me know if that link doesn't work, someone, it's being kinda faulty for me (popping up then not popping up).

Now that I've said my peace, I'm getting my jotting hand ready! You think he'd be mad if I addressed him as...a...memb--okay you know whose name he has right? I'm horrible.

Libruls vs Conservatives Take 1

I have my own thoughts about this, but my boss/buddy/bro Danz is leaving to go do good, good things in At-lanna (*whiiine*) and he's off doing his rugby thing, I suppose, and I thought I'd give him some pimpitization for his efforts. Today he's going to tell us how he really feels about this Liberal/Conservative spiel.

No. You know what, fuck you, whoever put those up, and fuck anyone who approved those flyers. This is what's wrong with the country. When you create two groups of right and wrong and you call either side Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Communist or Fascist. This is not a Conservative or Liberal issue. This is both sides trying to polarize public opinion by either ignoring or manipulating the meanings of words. Obama is a Communist, Ronald Reagan is the Devil, Bill Ayers is a terrorist, George Bush doesn't care about black people (well, the jury's still out on that one). See how that works? You use connotations, rather than definitions, of words in order to manipulate emotions, not stimulate cognition. And nobody can win an argument with someone who isn't speaking the same language as you. That's how I feel every day.

It's a joke. It's one big joke that's being played on us all. And there's nothing we can do about it, because the second we fall to one side or the other, we're stuck there, and the second we realize that there really are no sides, we're immobilized as well. I mean, I don't know if I can vote on anything. This system of government forces us to choose between two sides and it's unfair to the nation as a whole.

First off, I do not threaten him to post, I coerce. Secondly, I actually do support acts of non violent vandalism against stupid be it left or right leaning.

...unless you're going to vandalize my blog, please don't do that.

In all seriousness I appreciate his taking time out of his busy li--*descends into laughing* um, I appreciate him taking the time to make this post and fight the good fight. Even if his means are a little...questionable.

Conscientious Objection & Atheism

I'm a lot better, thanks. Although last night I did just randomly skin my toe this morning because of the GODDAMN CLOSET.

*nurses it* Okay, I think we're all done with that random slew of emo posts, but I read something interesting this afternoon while I was desperately studying for a class I didn't go to (don't judge me).

I was reading this post from the Friendly Atheist about Agustin Aguayo, an army specialist. Long story short, Aguayo is an an agnostic and decides during his training that he could not kill another human being because it was against his beliefs, so he files as a conscientious objector (which I didn't even realize you could DO anymore).

Except, you know, atheists & agnostics apparently don't have morals (Aguayo says he believes in a "higher power" but doesn't attend any churches) so how can we conscientiously object to anything? Or so a judge felt:

… although Aguayo met many of the requirements of a conscientious objector according to military policy, he failed to meet one important non-official requirement: his belief system wasn’t Christian.

Aguayo wasn’t court-martialed that day. Instead the army told him he was going to Iraq whether he liked it or not — even if he had to be forcefully carried onto the plane. Soon after, Aguayo went AWOL again.

...

PFC Aguayo’s convictions do not appear to be sincerely held… PFC Aguayo did not identify any specific ways he has altered his behavior to accommodate his beliefs. Although practicing a religion is not a requirement for CO approval, PFC Aguayo has not discussed any equally significant source of his beliefs other than he was raised in a kind and respectful family.

So, at the end of the day and going AWOL repeatedly and clearly showing that he DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, the consensus is that you don't go to church, you're non-christian, you don't get to conscientiously object. Which is just WEIRD and wrong for a couple of reasons, 1) it's pretty clear that not everyone in the army is a Christian so why is this even a "non-official" requirement, and 2) why are they trying to force this man to do what he's clearly decided he isn't up for.

Let me explain that second point first. As you guys know I identify as an atheist, but when I was a little one, for some reason I wanted to join the Marines. Really badly. The ceremonial swords looked so awesome and I wanted to feel like I was doing something I suppose. Mind you, back then I dreamed I could have met the weight requirement. But also back when I was fantasizing, if I'm not mistaken there was no war. Sure there was some military shit going down, but I'm pretty sure the major conflicts were over, far as the public knew anyway *side eyes the government* My dad was in the Navy, btw, before he got discharged for having whatever mental problems (thanks for passing those on, damnit).

But yeah, I wanted to be a Marine. I didn't factor in that whole war and killing folks business (or knowing the demon child I was, I probably didn't care). But as I got older--and this wasn't a conscious decision, but you know what? Killing is horrible and war is hell. I would never want to be part of that. And even after identifying as an Atheist, guess what? I still don't want to have to kill anyone. I don't think I could even in self-defense if my life was in danger (well, maybe). As much as I talk about how awesome it would be to burn my AmLit teacher's house down and terrorize his pets, please believe that I don't have it in me to burn his house down with him in it _{knowingly, and maybe I'd feel bad later}. I do not and I will not--it goes against my moral code.

Yes, folks, even without a deity to govern us, most real atheists (by that I mean not your emo Satanist neighbor down the street, we don't associate) still have MORALS and VALUES. I believe that this is just a part of the human experience. Not believing in God and not going to church doesn't make you an immoral or amoral asshole, it makes you godless. If in fact you are an immoral or amoral bastard, you were probably that way anyway regardless of your religious beliefs.

And that's where people get it twisted, that without any sort of moral structure humans would go nuts. And maybe that's true for some of us that claim we'd go on killing sprees if it weren't for Jaysus, but I can almost guarantee you that's not true for the rational 80% of the world, religious or not. It's just stupid. People, I believe, know what's right and what's wrong regardless of religion. We did before organized religion and we would continue to do so without it.

So on to that first point, well that doesn't really need to be explained much more. There's been some ongoing debate about these so-called atheists in foxholes, and atheists & agnostics have made it pretty clear we have no problem joining the army if we think it's right. But also, what about other folks that practice different religions in the army? Uh, Islam? Judaism--well, I guess that'd fall under Judeo-Christian. The point is, it's like they're implying that if you're not Christian you don't have the morals to conscientiously object, which is just silly considering that on the whole religions are actually PEACEFUL (yeah even Islam, I know right). Most of them have SOMETHING to the effect of "don't kill that person" unless you count the extremists that just want to go all hard on everything.

I will mention that there's also a fair debate on the Friendly Atheist post about why did the guy even join the Army if he knew he was just going to conscientiously object, and I honestly don't think that's fair. He'd already done a tour of duty, and even if he hadn't, damnit war is hell. I relate it back to my joining the Marines--I thought it was a special honor, but did I think about having to kill? Of course not, I just wanted to do it. This man isn't 5 or 6 years old, but he clearly joined the Army out of choice then realized that he just couldn't do this. How is this wrong? Would you rather put him out front and make him take other lives--something he doesn't believe in--and fuck his mind up for life? Perhaps he didn't think he was agnostic until he joined the army, we're not all born into non-religious families. As for whether he bit off more than he could chew and he's just chickening out, I say bless him for actually realizing he made a mistake and trying everything he can to get out of there. I don't think it's disrespectful towards the army, he clearly no longer wants to be there, why force him? That's just my outsider's look on it though.

See? Look at that, a big ol' substantial post! I'm so happy *sniff*

Run, don't walk, to the Tell It WOC Speak blog carnvial

Shit, I knew there was something I forgot to shamelessly advertise today.

If, at some point, you've ever thought for a moment that you love me, or at the very least don't hate me a lot, I implore you to drop by and stay a while at Tell It WOC Speak. Created by Renee of Womanist Musings it's a blog carnival featuring writing by women of color and allies.

To better explain, the opening paragraph why not:

Welcome everyone to what I hope will be the first of many blog carnivals dedicated to the voices of women of colour and our allies. In every sphere of life women of colour are marginalized and exploited. Often, when we attempt to engage to change our circumstances we are silenced.

This carnival is our attempt to give voice to our shared issues. We have a strong history of activism and organizing and it is in this vein that we have chosen this space to highlight the various ways we have attempted to carve out a niche in the online world. We shall not be silenced, and our dreams shall be realized. We are women of quality and worth.

I'm so ridiculously happy that this came about and all the topics covered & authors covering them are looking excellent. So let us run, not walk and go get ourselves some of that elusive awareness.

The battle is over, and as usual there are no winners

I told you all a little tale about a woman's family fighting for her right to die. Well, she died.

Italian coma battle woman dies

*Side note: If you don't like that headline I guarantee you I hate it more. Whaaaat?

Eluana Englaro, the Italian woman at the centre of a right-to-die debate, has died, the health minister has said.

Maurizio Sacconi made the announcement in Italy's Senate as politicians were debating a law that would have forced doctors to continue feeding her.

Ms Englaro, 38, had been in a persistent vegetative state since being injured in a car crash in 1992.

Doctors at a private clinic in the northern city of Udine had been withholding her food since Friday.

They had earlier said Ms Englaro might live for another two weeks.

Really, I'm more concerned with the family than these fuckheads fighting over this woman's body, on both sides. I understand that Italy has no euthanasia law (although patients can refuse treatment) so I suppose it had to become somebody's business. I still don't care. I just can't imagine how this family feels, having to watch their daughter for 17 years and, finally knowing that she would never wake again, have to fight tooth and nail to let her go.

In July, a court in Milan ruled that doctors had proved Ms Englaro's coma was irreversible. It also accepted that, before the accident, she had expressed a preference for dying over being kept alive artificially.

Perhaps you don't agree with euthanasia. I don't completely either. And we're fine with that. But you know, sometimes, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you believe in or in this case, don't, but rather, what's right for this woman and her family. I don't believe in suffering and that kind of overrides any personal queasiness I have about euthanasia, added to the fact that it's seriously no one's business but her family's.

And now she has passed on and you can believe this shit is nowhere near over. It will be taken to the streets (well, even more so actually). And that makes me sad and, dare I say, ill inside.

Let's Talk About the DREAM Act

After days and days of peer pressuring Danz to write me a damn entry on the DREAM Act, what do you know, he writes me a damn entry on the DREAM Act. It is truly a must read.

So what is the DREAM Act, aka the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors act? Let me allow my man to explain it to you, so divinely.

First, let me explain the situation of thousands of people living in this country. There are quite literally thousands of people who, each day, have to wonder if they're being investigated or about to be subjected to deportation because either their paperwork was lost during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security or their visa was not renewed by their parents during their course of living here. Now, these people entered as children, lets say one enters at age 7, completely legally. They somehow lose their legal status here, probably by their parents forgetting one of many forms to fill out, or forgetting to notify the government of a change of address, or whatever. Whatever the case may be, the child is not at fault. Now fast-forward to their high school graduation. These children have not been able to legally work because they lack a social security number or resident alien number, and many do not attempt to break the law, beyond the fact that they exist and are in the country technically illegally, and not of their own volition. These people cannot enter college, with the exception of select few places in California where arrangements are made, etc. Still. There are thousands of law-abiding, able, intelligent people in this country who through no fault of their own are here illegally, as defined by US law.

Now, the DREAM Act would enable these people who have slipped through the cracks of US immigration law to gain a conditional status, with a resident alien number and work permit, and require that they either gain a two-year college degree or spend two years in the military within six years, in order to gain complete residential status.

Really the reason I asked him to make a post is because, frankly, he could do it better. It's true. Things like this actually rather make me angry--not the DREAM Act itself, of course, but the opposition to it. I do get super frustrated with America and it's...ways sometimes. We're xenophobic in waves and yet we're the land of the free. We want education to be the utmost importance but we won't give it to the people that need it most. We pass these acts and movements and so on and so forth and often times it all seems for naught. It does get a little hard to be optimistic sometimes...a lot of times. And sadly I like to wallow so much in fighting the opposition that I forget my original point. I do essays like that too, and it works for that but not when you're trying to inspire.

Definitely check that out. And while you're at it, buy us some Jones Soda.

It's Inauguration Day

The rest of that Emily Dickinson poem, I remember it now.

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Cirrcuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightening to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind---

This post has been seeping in a bitter marinade for days. Depending on how you want to view it, it's either going to totally ruin your day or not affect it at all. It's true, I want to be as optimistic as I can about this new presidency. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or Communist--after 8 damn years under Bush I don't know how you can NOT be breathing a sigh of relief. I mean really, I know there are still plenty of people that figure Bush did just fine. Well the rest of us not sipping that lukewarm Kool Aid disagree.

But why does it take so long to write a simple post? Lately I've been trying to be more thoughtful as to how I put myself out there when I talk about politics. I really hate them, but I don't want to come off as completely clueless and ham-fisted, as I'm sure I do occasionally.

But why so long to write this post? What disturbs me so much about writing about Obama? Is it that I want to be negative and can't? I want to be positive and can't? Do I just not know what to say?

I want to show you all a post I read at Professor What If's blog, and in a way it might help to explain why I picked out that Dickinson poem as well.

It--the post--talks about comparisons between Obama & MLK. And I think this is where I and probably a lot of people get hung up on the man and we play that Red Light Green Light game with our support.

Let me tell you folks, Obama is not MLK. I'll also go further and say that if people don't stop comparing the man to Abraham-freaking-Lincoln I may pass out in my own fury. He is NEITHER. For all their ideologies perhaps being the same, for FSM's sake Lincoln had a civil war on his damn hands. He had to deal with the South trying to split off in it's own silly little country, and the nation was traumatized by his assassination--oh wait, is THAT what you're trying to say, that he's likely to get assassinated for ______? America can't let itself have anything!

BARACK OBAMA is his own man, and we should NEVER forget that. He is a politician but he quite clearly has his own thoughts and feelings on how things are and will be run. Lately around the blogosphere--which has been making me slightly depressed, but then again so has the weather, nugh--around the blogosphere I said, I've seen a few too many interest blogs treating the man like he's their puppet.

"Oh I hope he does this. Oh he didn't? Damn I should have supported Hillary!"

It's fine to critique the president, it really is--as we learn in art, how does one improve if one doesn't know what one does wrong? But this is the Red Light Green Light shit without even giving him a chance, without him even OFFICIALLY being President yet, and this is another reason I've had such issues trying to get this post down. I really want to. I'm also really afraid that supporters may get so tangled up in their own hype that nothing he does and nothing he says will ever assuage everyone. And truth be told, when has a president ever pleased everyone in the country? But I just feel like the stakes are higher this time about. I wouldn't know how, I feel like I've been stuck in a time capsule for years and this is more or less "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

_{I'm not sorry for linking to that Who song, you can't make me be! ...I'm sorry.}

So, all this to say what exactly? There have been many cries of "don't believe the hype!" (okay now I am sorry for that) but those little hysterical cries, after descending into whimpers, seemed to me like they were trying so hard to take away the victory from the Dems. Oh he's not black, he's half white (as I've done in the past, really). Oh he's not a citizen. All these petty arguments that made the opposition sound like sore, sore ass losers. And by opposition I mean strictly Republicans, I can't say anything about third party since I was planning to vote for McKinney anyway (I can, however, talk all the shit I want about Ralph Nader).

And I can't really say how many people that supported Obama actually gulped down all that Obamaid and completely forgot in the midst that this is a human being. I also certainly don't want to take anything away.

So I guess in the end, what do I want to convey to you, exactly? Another reason it's been difficult to get this post down. It's been a wonderful rollercoaster ride. Despite my snark I was so amazingly happy when Obama won and I refused to let anyone take that away from me, despite being in an overwhelmingly Republican state. Even if I didn't support him at first and still look at him with a critical eye, I'm not letting anyone waver my support for the man and all I can really hope for, I suppose, is that he makes the right decisions and if he has to piss off or "let down" a few folks along the way, well, damnit I guess that's what will have to happen.

Just try to remember that he is not Lincoln, he is not FDR, and he is not MLK. He is Barack Obama, 44th president of the US. And this wasn't as insanely cynical as I thought it was going to be! It must be the Snow Day the Invisible Pink Unicorn has blessed me with.

Outtakes: I am a JERK for having to look up whether he was about to become the 44th or 45th president. God, kids, learn your damn US history.

English Only Amendment... FIGHT!!

Well, first off you may notice that shit looks different. Again. I can't help it.

Anywho, the battle to pass the English Only amendment is really gaining ground this time around. Let me make a more coherent post about that other than dismissing it as being "silly"...well, it is but being silly doesn't stop something from getting passed. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

First off, I mentioned that this was proposed a few years ago, but was shot down by I think then Mayor Bill Purcell. New mayor Karl Dean also told the proposal to fuck off and has voted against it.

This is the week of early voting, actual voting is January 22.

I should also mention that this isn't for the whole state of Tennessee, it's just for the Nashville/Metro-Davidson County area. Which is actually a large area anyway.

So you may still be wondering what the big deal is. So you wanna pass an English only bill, big damn deal right? Well, no. I like sub-headings, let's do sub-headings.

I. What, exactly, happens if this bill passes?

That is actually the major question and that's what's important. From the information I've gathered, the proposal just wants to cut all that silly non-English communication provided by Metro govt. I'm assuming this means no more bilingual, trilingual, multilingual communication from Metro services. EVERYTHING will be in English. We're even holding up the hand to people who don't speak English. God forbid they want to do business with us or anything. But don't take my word for it (emphasis mine):

“English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.”

II. Okay, I see that bold part. What's your beef?

We live in an English speaking country anyway, theoretically you should already know English. In theory.

Getting aside from the fact that we all know damned good and well that not everyone in this country speaks English, be it well or at all, here's the worst thing about this wonderful "proposal".

The official language of Tennessee?

...IS FUCKING ENGLISH. It's already WRITTEN IN OUR DAMN CONSTITUTION! By now you should be thinking...

III. Okay. ...Wait, what?

That's right, the official language of TN is already English, and here we are trying to make the official language of a CITY...ENGLISH.

And that is exactly where this proposal fails to make any sense at all. How the hell are we trying to amend our Metro Charter so that English is the official language...and it already LEGALLY IS? They obviously either failed a few government classes or just want to save themselves the inconvenience of translating anything--but hold on, translating. Nevermind the fact that I don't think I've seen any of these so called bilingual translations that the city seems to not want to inconvenience itself with anyway. Walk around, everything here is pretty much English anyway unless it's an ethnic-owned place, then it's either in English or in X language, say Spanish. I've seen several car shops owned by Mexicans, their signs are in Spanish. They live in large Spanish neighborhoods, they usually serve Spanish people, many of them probably speak English well enough anyway. What is really the point here.

I don't know what the pro-English only side is arguing, and honestly I'd like to see it. So far I've only heard from the Belmont and Lipscomb crowds (that being all white, rich, privileged private college kids. I know, call me biased, I'm really not sorry). I just hope their argument isn't as damned embarrassing as this proposal.

IV. Alright, what do you think should be done?

I've said it before, but if the state really doesn't want to convenience itself with those wacky non-English speaking folk, then damnit do something about it. Provide more resources to teach them English, don't just look at them and go "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU LALALALA"

That's not fair and that's just ignorant. The other thing would be...to...uh...not pass the bill. So many people are against this it isn't funny and is becoming more embarrassing still. I'm hoping it'll fail and die a quiet death for no one to ever propose it again. Seriously, this is stupid, I think it's stupid.

For me this isn't just a government issue but a people issue as well. How dare we turn away those that don't speak English well, not that we haven't been doing it forever and we're trying to do it still? You know what, in addition to making me pay for my classes by the HOUR (and I'm a full time goddamn student), TN can pretty much go to hell. YES I'm biased and I don't care!

If you're still interested, please try Compassion Politic's article, the analysis on this blog, and even the Anti-English Only Facebook group. This shit spreads way beyond "Hey let's make everything English!" when you realize what "everything" entails.

Uggggh. Boooo, Nashville.

As it turns out, Bush got 10 things right

Well, I just got my ~$1,000 refund check. You may be asking, "Xands how you make that paper? And what time do you get off work?" Well, going to a relatively inexpensive school has its benefits *sews together a money fan*

I'm already forming my shopping list--but alas! I've been schooled by my father to spend my money much more wisely this time, and...well since my birthday isn't until the summer anyway, this shouldn't be too bad.

Anyway, let's get to the good stuff. The Weekly Standard, something I don't think I've ever read until today with good reason, seems to figure that Bush did ten things right during his presidency. I don't know if that's at least ten things or maximum ten things, and I beg to differ muchly either way, but let's save our snickers and laughing and hear what the good people have to say.

Bush's Achievements (I guess.)

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

And Jacob Marley was dead, to begin with.

Since the conservatives apparently hate lists I'm just going to number them out the best of my ability for you. You can pick and choose which ones you have beef with and which ones you'll begrudgingly nod your head on.

1. The Kyoto Protocol and halting "global warming hysteria"
2. Better terrorist interrogation & intelligence gathering tactics = saved Americans
3. Rebuilding Presidential authority
4. Supporting Israel
5. No Child Left Behind (dear fucking FSM who still believes this worked?)
6. Democracy promoted abroad, mission accomplished!
7. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit of 03
8. John Roberts & Sam Alito (eh, begrudging head nod)
9. His widely ignored strengthening of ties with East Asian countries without making China angwwy
10. The Iraq Surge

I thought about calling this Bush's Commandments because Mr Barnes really does make W seem a bit like Moses. And I mean Charlton Heston Moses, partin the Red Sea and shit. It also ends on this questionable note:

How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.

...Okay? If you're wondering "What the hell?" I think dude is trying to get at Truman & Eisenhower being hated on for most of their respective presidencies but now we look at them all rosy and what not. Which...really isn't that true unless you're still taking a high school course. In the big leagues we admit Truman fucked up. Not even going into how they both faced totally different challenges during their terms anyway, saying we'll be looking at Bush like we look at Eisenhower now is...incorrect.

...Actually, you know what, he may be right. Future generations will probably still be scratching their heads going "What?" during their US History Since 1999 class the way your fellow classmates probably tore their hair out trying to remember who came before Johnson. Am I being mean and biased?

To segue into something totally different, after reading this post from The Minority Militant (who is now code 10: pimp down, it seems...you gotta look behind those bushes man) and this post from Pharyngula, I have been blinking incessantly. Eyelids...eyelids. Those flaps of skin that just kind of hang out around your face? Yeah...it's hard to say you DON'T notice them, but as it turns out they're sort of a big deal with some Asians. I had no idea at all. This is why I love y'all, educatin me and what not.

Tell em how you feel!

Okay, Danz finally got his first serious entry down and he lets the world know how he feels about the infamous Bill Ayers speaking at his school.
Or more specifically, how he feels about how OTHER people feel about Bill Ayers speaking at his school.

Yes, THAT Ayers. And my two cents... well. You know, of course, the boy is my buddy and I must support his burgeoning blog every chance I get, but also he does make a fine point about how hysterical people get when things don't go "according to plan" (YES I did just wiggle in a Dark Knight quote). Remember all the shit Obama got for supposedly being "neighbors" with Mr Ayers? And people pitched a bitch? Despite both saying they didn't know each other, folks got all tore up about The Black Messiah of the New Left possibly associating with yet more terrorists.

It's not that Ayers is a great guy and everything, and sure he & the Weathermen did some bad things (that is an understatement, I know). And I have to admit that asking Ayers to speak on educational reform is an odd choice, but you know, let the man speak. Treat him as you would any public speaker, which with all etiquette, I think would be neutrally. No need to go off emailing Michelle Malkin *blink* for real? I know I for one am slightly jealous that so far all we've had is Saul Williams reciting poetry, bad ass as that was. Actually, Ayers wouldn't make it off the bus in TN.

So sigh. Anyway, just throwing that out there...blog bouncing! I'm also pissed that I was interrupted from my viewing of No Country For Old Men so my dad can watch the Baltimore & Tennessee game ~_~ goddamn, you know TN is going to get owned...

Damn this new administration! Yes, already!

Well, before I get started on the ultra depressing infant mortality story, I must share this one. This reminds me of the vitriol my father spewed towards Obama last night while looking at his picture.

...my man called him a "darkie". What?! And you wonder where I get it from!

From here

The New York Times’ Katharine Seelye has is reporting that Rick Warren, the pastor at Saddleback Church, has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremony.

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion.

Oh joy. Goddamnit Obama, what are you allegedly doing? First you decide to take a breather on that Don't Ask Don't Tell thing, your speech writer gropes a Hillary Clinton cut out, and now you want this clown at your inauguration. Why, allegedly, why?! It makes me want to allegedly claw my eyes out. When will the blatant pandering in politics end?

Oh sigh. Perhaps this will all end like Free Willy on inauguration day...you remember the end of Free Willy right, where the whale jumps over the wall and he's free? Yeah, that was the fuzziest moment of my childhood. Maybe Obama will jump over the audience, roundhouse kicking these bad decisions and fucknecks in the process.

The Field Negro does a good look at this...mess as well.

Gay is the new black, haven't you heard?

Okay, I've been reading Renee of Womanist Musings and her great post here about the new cover of The Advocate. The cover declares that gay, it's the new black. I'm assuming by this they don't mean the color, as in "Hey, everyone's wearing it this winter!" but the people, as in Blacks.

The more I think about it the more this irritates the fuck out of me. As I don't say very often I identify as a queer female--or at the very least definitely unstraight--but I'm also black. Among a lot of things.

I just want to know what the fuck "the new black" is supposed to mean. How is gay suddenly the new black? After Prop 8 folks went from blaming the blacks (they constituted 70% of the Yes on Prop 8 vote but they don't even make up that much of the state of California...uhh?) to suddenly trying to appropriate "the struggle" as their own. Like, am I missing several steps here?

The cover declares the gay rights struggle as the last great civil rights struggle. Um, negative. As I see it the gay rights struggle is probably one of the more notable struggles of our times--well, I suppose I should say "currently" actually. But it ain't gonna be the last and I'm going to question "greatest". Because no one else is currently struggling for equal rights or anything. It may not be as profound as say, the 40s & 50s for women and blacks (and everyone else I suppose) right NOW, but that doesn't mean we've all just stopped and said "Equality at last!" and gone back home. The LGBT community isn't out there fighting the big fight.

That's just pretentious, and, I'm gonna say it, silly. I don't want to put down the movement--ever--but there's been some serious missteps going on since the Prop 8 decision. In a way I guess it's like watching someone get sucker-punched and stagger around a bit. You're a little dizzy and disoriented because you probably didn't see that coming. I can definitely understand that but this cover and its implications (and my interpretation) is just driving me up a wall right now.

I think I'm being a little or a lot harsh on this but this is getting on my damn nerves. I've seen some interpretations in defense of comparing the gay rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle, some neutral ones, and some against. I'm not really asking what to believe since I know where I fall. All I want to know, really, is how the hell "gay is the new black" and why no one thought that sentiment might be a little, I dunno, offensive. I am so serious, someone please explain this to me because I've been watching Discovery Military for the past couple of days and obviously not paying attention. If you don't mind that is.

Sigh.

Activism! part 2

So yesterday I introduced you to part of a Facebook note I'd written entitled "It's not about YOU". I figured it would slip under since it was more of a rant than anything encouraging, but it drummed up some interesting responses anyway. And by interesting I mean "No longer friends with".

Juuust kidding.

Anyway, the beginning of the conversation starts like this:

Its most definetly the next great issue our country will face, and sadly marriage laws (as Im sure you know) are delegated to the states, so there's nothing any President can do about it. Damn. This is when we like centralized authority...But also I should like to note that I think New England is just trying to clear its' name from that whole Salem Affair.

That's from my friend PW who's pretty intelligent. For some reason I scoffed at that though, and said:

Even if the president could do anything he's already said he's against gay marriage.

"Next great issue" my ass. Gay marriage didn't just suddenly pop up...and as long as America decides to turn both eyes blind to the rights of others it's not going to go away.

Here's where the fun really begins, with that scoff oddly enough. My brother-in-arms Daniel jumps in and kinda derails and fucks up the duration of the dialogue, not intentionally:

well, the "against gay marriage thing" is not the same as "against giving gay couples equal rights"

You can hear the collective "Rrrriiiight."

Oh isn't it? Please explain to the class Daniel..., I say.

It kind of is the same thing. Marriage gives you legal rights. We are looking (we being me and the gays HAHAH) for legal documentation, not the right to walk down an isle, my other compadre BF says.

Daniel defends himself valiantly and...well, at least he was valiant.

no, i meant that Obama stated that he was against gay "marriage", but that is mainly because there isn't any such thing, as marriage is essentially strictly a religious thing, he does support civil unions, which would give gay couples the same rights as hetero

Okay--wait, what?

So the core of Daniel's argument--mind you he's still responding to my scoff more or less--is that civil unions are the same thing, legally, as marriages, except, as I point out a few times to him over AIM, THEY'RE NOT. Ideally, they would be but if civil unions were totally equal to marriage in every way except religious ceremony, then I don't think there would be such an uproar over "gay marriages" would you?

While Daniel and I are duking it out, Mr Matt chimes in with this enlightened view:

I've recently revised my possition on the whole gay marriage thing(like in the last few days), and i have to say I'm against the idea of govt forced acceptance of it. Before you blow my door down allow me to present why. Marriage IS, under every circumstance, a religous institution, and Thomas Jefferson said that church and state should be seperated. So if a church wants to marry gays, WOOHOO!!!! but if another church down the street doesn't wan to marry gays, then geuss what?.....yup thats right WOOHOO!!!! They have made a decision that was their's to make. I dont think it ignorant for a church to not let gays marry. but i do think it ignorant for the govt to force the churches to let gays marry.

Another collective "...Rrrrriiiiiiggghhhtt...." from the gallery.

He doesn't want the government to force gay marriages on the Church, which is good because the government can't do that anyway. WHAT THE FUCK?

Daniel collects himself and charges back in with one more point:

I think the issue here, the issue being both the greater issue and the issue of nobody understanding what the hell I'm saying, is the word "marriage"
The point is, we want homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples, right? right, so FU to people upset at me for no reason. However this is to be achieved is immaterial at this point. We must do all we can.

Danz, sometimes unfortunately, is like me: he can't let shit go and likes to make really obtuse arguments, in that what he's saying makes sense it just has shit to do with anything. Yes, he really is still refuting my scoff and this conversation has gone on for HOURS at this point. DAMN!

Frankly, I think PW comes in and probably makes the best point about the struggle for gay marriage rights:

...Its not something I can identfiy with because lets just face it strait people will never truly understand. We can sympathize but we don't get it. Its gonna be hard. Don't think it will be easy. It will be so very hard. But we'll see.

So! I think that's probably one of the few...ambiguously successful dialogues I've ever had *blink* I've had them in the past and they're usually fine but I have no earthly idea where this one went to. It's kinda my fault for derailing it so hard with my cynical scoffing, I think I should have stayed out of this one. But I was really bored ;_;

Why Obama stays on my door

So, our door got vandalized.

I figure I'll tell this story and get it over with, and this will hopefully be my last Election Day post since the drama has officially died down (I think).

So my room mate P, the one I hate (yet have started to respect again), is an Obama supporter. In spite of the extreme prejudice & racism on this side of the state (I can't tell you the hateful things I've heard from some McCain supporters) she went with the really tan guy with the funny name.

If anyone recalls correctly, I, on the other hand, said I would not be voting in this election. Yes, yes, I know, the shame. There's actually two reasons now but I won't go into those because it detracts from the story. I was happy when Obama was elected, however, but there were only 3 people in my vastly Republican dorm hall to really celebrate with. And it just got WORSE when I checked Facebook, LJ, and everything else I'm on right now (bout fifty-levin sites).

"He's just going to get assassinated" and "Well now we're a Socialist country" and "God help our country" and "I'm moving to Canada" and all kinds of ignorant shit. It actually made me quite depressed but relieved at the same time to see these people and their true colors in all their hateful glory. As the days go on I think I'm more relieved than sad that I officially know who not to associate with anymore, not just my so-called Republican friends but just these generally myopic, hate-mongering, racist, idiotic fools I used to call "friends" *sigh* And now you see why I don't have any...

But indeed I celebrated with my room mate. I congratulated. And the next day in the paper there was a big, colorful picture on the front page of Obama in front of the flag (during a debate I think) and a large caption declaring, "OBAMA WINS". Me and my room mate, knowing the residents of our hall, smirked at each other and I grabbed a pair of scissors, borrowed some tape, and voila, Barack Obama was part of the newspaper-flower collage on our door. Smack dab in the middle, the title taped separately from the photo.

Well, we both took a bet on how long it would be before some disgruntled soul came by and got mad, and we agreed on 5 hours. Oh, but the young ladies/men here proved us wrong and I bet you it wasn't an hour or two later before we discovered the picture missing but the caption still up. It was ripped up in the lobby before the elevator. We looked at each other and LAUGHED at the sheer ignorance.

We didn't cry foul or racism or anything, we just laughed because we knew it would happen. So I slapped on some post-it notes on the ends of the caption and declared these misguided ones "Ignorant fuckwits" followed by "LOL!" Yeah, it's juvenile but...come on, you take the picture but not the caption? That's like moving the headstones but not the bodies /Poltergeist.

So...I guess an hour or two later, guess what, the caption is gone, sticky notes and all. Oh, but we had reserves. We slapped up another photo I'd printed at the very top of the door (P is much taller than I) and I wrote in the blank space, again, "YOU IGNORANT FUCKWITS! LOL!" and reminded them that "Vandalism is bad you gaiz". And you know what? It's still there! Hmmm.

It's going to stay there and I don't care how many times it gets ripped off, we'll just keep putting up new pictures if we have to. I think the drama really is over, but no one bothered their McCain/Palin posters and pictures depicting Obama as the devil. Why do they get to fuck with our door? No, now is not the time to stand for that. We'll exercise our freedom of speech just as they do, over and over. The election is over and America/the electoral college disagreed with you, is tearing up a photo all your mean little heart can do? I laugh at the superior intellect /Star Trek

Questions for those who voted Yes on Prop 8

And...it so happens to be my 200th post! Yaaay! *noise makers & party hats...but no cake* Sorry there's no cake you gaiz :/

I'd say that I know *I* I don't have any friends that voted Yes on Prop 8, but I also said I didn't associate with ignorant folk. But I do, as it turns out. A lot of 'em. A LOT OF THEM.

I saw this post on the Friendly Atheist and figured it was worth spreading.



It wasn’t just Christians who voted to ban gay marriage in California, but no doubt the measure would’ve failed without their support. Ditto to the Mormons.

There are so many questions I want to ask those people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 and as a result banned gay marriages in California:

* How is your marriage any more secure now that homosexual marriages in your state are broken?

* What do you say to the children of gay parents who question why their mommies or daddies can’t be married?

* Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?

* How does this vote change your life?

* Are you proud of yourself?

* What did you say to your gay friends (if you have any) when you saw them post-election?

* Will your actions bring gay people closer to Christ?

* When gay marriage is finally legalized (it won’t be long), are you going to lie and tell your children your church led the charge for equal rights or will you tell them the truth and say you were the reason for the delay?

* How do you defend your position to your children?

* Are you in favor of lifelong commitments between two people or against it?

* What effect do you think this gay marriage ban will have on gay people? Young people? Non-Christians? Young Christians?

* Is this what Jesus would do?

Also, on the second floor (aka the Boys' Floor) there's a big sign declaring the resident(s) of that room is/are not racist because they voted for McCain they looked at the issues yadda yadda yadda. I wonder who made them feel so compelled to state that...if anyone did. I bet no one asked them. Real anti-racists don't need to explain themselves you guys!

The Obama Presidency, according to James Dobson

Well, not specifically him but rather Focus on Family.

Focus on Family is for the most part, a silly organization. I'm sorry but that's just how I'm looking at it, and I may be looking at it mostly from a negative view but that's what I do. But tell me this isn't...silly.

I've read this on Pharyngula & on the Friendly Atheist, interestingly enough, and now I want the fair readers of my blog to FEEL it, y'own mean? (Try to say that outloud...it'll make more sense).

Here is a letter (pdf file) sent from "the future" from a horrified citizen describing life under Chairman Obama. Please read this and never ask me why I'm not religious.

I'll give them points for creativity--because that really is a fantasy tale and no where near the damn truth--but that's still a double F-F-F-FAIL. You'll notice how much of it seems to fall on Queer Atrocities and the Church is at the sway of the gays. The future IS scary isn't it?

Let's talk about the distractions going on elsewhere

Alright...I'm going to try this political thing, again. I kinda suck when it comes to political matters :P and we know this. But to get you in the mood, let me share with you an old Irish folk tune.

Are we really sure
That a love that lasted for so long
Still endures?
Do I really care?
Hey hey,
Let's talk about the distractions going on elsewhere

I keep hearing footsteps, baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

My mind,
Drifts now and then,
Looking down dark corridors and wonders what might have been
Something's up ahead,
Hey, should I keep this same direction,
Or go back instead?

I keep hearing footsteps baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

Honey, let's stop walking around
When there's love lost to be found
Aah, you know I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Who feels really sure?
Can I really guarantee your happiness shall endure?
Do we really care?
Hey hey,
Let's look at what's been happening and try to be more aware

I keep hearing footsteps baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

Let's stop walking around
Well when there's love, lost to be found
Oh baby, you know, I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Let's stop walking around
Well when there's love, lost to be found
Oh baby, you know, I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Alright, obviously that was the Isley Brothers, "Footsteps In The Dark". Why the hell did I pick this song to open up a political post? This song isn't political at all, it's about a relationship breaking down. And no, I don't intend to twist it to be political to suit my needs because the lyrics are pretty open. No, I chose it because the lyrics have always felt so lost to me. This man has discovered his wife cheating and he's just like, "Well...what's the point in me leaving?" Can he keep her happy? Will they be able to overcome this incident? All these questions. Like I said, I'm not trying to politicize this song, but parts of this song really gets across how I feel about politics and the government sometimes. What can I say? I'm old-skool. So if you think I'm about to ruin your favorite slow-jam...just plug your ears and hum the tune loudly.

First off, I'm a little tired of the election. There, I said it. I'm tired about hearing of the racist attacks from McCain and his crew, I'm tired of Palin, I'm tired of Obama and his ties to socialist parties (yeah that's what I said). Thus my heading you see..."let's look at what's been happening, try to be more aware" (shut up I can sing). I'd rather talk about something else.

I was reading this post on Queers United about Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment aka Prop 2. Well, actually it's a commercial against Prop 2 which seeks to ban...gay marriage. Now, let's all roll our eyes and heave a sigh.

I don't know about you but I've been trying to keep up with these bullshit--er, I mean, these propositions in California, Florida, and I think there's one in Arizona now. California, maybe the most liberal state in our nation (or so we like to fancy them) may be banning gay marriage with Proposition 8. Why? Because...well, opponents of gay marriage feel it's only between a man and a woman. To this I say what-the-fuck-ever because it's 2008 on my calendar and frankly I still don't get how or why anyone would work to stop gays from getting married. As a side note, I've been trying to shed some of my heathen ways and wake up to the fact that it's not just crazy Evangelicals that want gay marriage banned. I do over-generalize a lot when it comes to these matters and I apologize. For me I have to keep reminding myself that there are just people who don't want gay marriage for whatever reason. Hell, there are gays that don't want gay marriage.¹ Questionable...but, it's their choice to oppose. Kinda like it should be...a gay's/lesbian's choice to get...married--hey!

Ahem. Anyway, to me this "traditional" argument of marriage only being between a man and a woman is outdated. What is this "marriage" anyway other than a legal contract between two people for some benefits? I'm not stating that as fact, it's just how I feel on the matter but there is some truth to it. What also hurts my head is the "why can't they be happy with civil unions?" talk. To me civil unions are just...silly. It's like giving you a cookie but not calling it a cookie, but you know damn well it's a fucking cookie. They're just too scared to call it a cookie--er, civil unions and marriages I mean. They're not on the exact level but...come on, they're pretty damn close.

I remember a former acquaintance of mine asking why can't gays just have civil unions and call them a marriage. 15 at the time, it struck me as the most ignorant thing I'd ever heard in 14 or so summers. You don't call a civil union a marriage because it ISN'T a marriage! A marriage is a marriage. Why can't gays have a marriage? I'm no where near convinced yet that a lesbian couple has to take a civil union just because the courts don't want to give them a marriage for whatever reason. Ehhh? Not too sure on that one.

I know I've done all this rambling without much of a point so let me make one. Why am I against Prop 8 in California, even though I'm bout as close to California as I am to Maine? Because I feel marriage should no long be simply defined as between a "man and a woman" thus preventing a whole group of people from partaking in a basic right/privilege (depending on how you look at it). That's just silly. It's really no one else's business who you marry be it male or female and as always, I'm amazed at some people's ability to interfere with someone else's personal life on this matter. Marriage, aside from being this legal contract, is also to me a symbolic representation that you choose to be with this person for the rest of your life (well, with the rising divorce rates, maybe...a few years). Other than the whole legal contract thing, why the hell does the Almighty State Govt need to get in on this? Sign the paper and move on for goodness's sake.

I'm done with California now, let me rage on Florida. I read an article in my Women's Studies class--we get assigned reading--and (un)fortunately my group was to do an article on Gay adoption and why it's so hard. Not sure how recent the article was but I think Florida still pretty much has Gay Adoption on lock. Go on, Florida.

The article discussed how the children of gay parents are harmed by the state's refusal to grant protection to gay couples, that, from what I understood, being the benefits they would receive for being legally married. The article also goes on to list the seminal argument that gays can't have kids because of the "harassment" the children of gay couples will face. This argument totally neglects to mention that kids are just fucking vicious anyway and it's always going to be SOMETHING. This whole ostracizing argument pretty much falls apart in the real world but you'll still see people falling on the same laurels.

And now Florida has this Proposition 2 which is supposedly "protecting marriage" by not including the icky gays...

...and, if you read closer, not many other people. Uhhh, what?

I like this article from KnowMyRights.org which explains a bit how in the eyes of Prop 2, unwed straight couples, gay couples, seniors, domestic partners, anyone who hasn't gone through some kind of complex legal work are...unmarried and thus get no rights. Ehhh? What's really going on, Florida?

Now why am I against Prop 2 despite only having been to Florida once and only having 1 friend there now? Well, I do have something vengeful against Florida but I kinda want to know how this Prop 2 is "protecting" marriage. WHOSE marriage eh?

Now about the Arizona one, which I think is Prop 102...eh, I'm sure whatever it says I'm vehemently against. Like Florida, I have something vengeful against Arizona (and yet, I'd like to live in New Mexico. Why not?)

So enough of my pretending I'm an expert. In the name of equality these propositions and others like them must be stopped. After hearing about Connecticut granting same-sex marriage I'm bout tired of these other fools fucking around with their old concept of marriage. Wake the hell UP, yes?

For actual information and not rambling, try:
http://www.noonprop8.com/
http://www.knowmyrights.org

And...you know, Google & Wikipedia. You can try SayNo2.com but my internet seems to hate it so I don't feel totally comfortable linking back to it...but you can try.

Sigh...I'm done for the night. Shit, it's 3 AM!

_{Note 1: I just randomly found that article Googling, it's kind of old and I just wanted it to make a point.}

I'm so sure, guys

Uh so apparently there's yet another debate tonight *shrug* Obviously, folks, I'm not watching it. Nor did I see the mucho-hyped Palin/Biden debate. To all of these debates I say a drawn-out "Whaaateeeevveeeer."

It's just true. I do, however, usually catch the aftermath--that is, blog opinions, editorials, and just random people on campus. No shit, and I get usually wind up getting all three sides: republican, democrat, and the new category "Um".

Seriously. It's weird just sitting down to eat in the cafeteria and hearing all this political talk around you. One morning I had some gentlemen sit a few chairs away from me and they went on about Obama vs McCain. Surreal right before I hit my Sociology class.

Some people were randomly talking to me about the bailout today. I injected some input into the conversation but lately I've been under a rock and all I know is that it passed and I think it's still re-tart-ed and it won't work like they think it will. My acquaintance is a business major and we joked to him that in after a few more weeks he'll be learning how to "distribute the wealth evenly".

We talk about Ron Paul and the Tina Fey SNL clips. It's really warm conversation *rolls eyes* I was already in a sour mood for most of the week and now I'm just flat out annoyed, even though on the same coin I do like to be at least semi-informed. Sigh.

I heard people running up and down the halls screaming "WE'RE WATCHING THE DEBATE!" I've honestly never seen this kind of excitement. My mom is still bugging me about absentee voting since I won't be in my district come November (and I actually do need to go see about it). I guess we all want something relevant to talk about...

Sorry I'm all over the place with this, I haven't had much of a coherent thought since last week. I really have been in a so-so mood.

The Obama Waffles AKA And you wonder why I'm moving

I grow weary of my state, believe me.

By now you might have heard of this story about Obama on a waffles box. I was going to let this story go. Really, racial attacks on Obama aren't anything new right now.

Until I learned that somehow Franklin, TN is involved with this mess somehow, and y'all know I loves my state. And frankly, I really don't get this...how it's funny, how it's satirical, how it's...even relevant. I mean, waffles? Really. Really?

I posted this on my Livejournal but honestly I'm not up for debate over there these days...or ever again methinks. So, let's you and I take potshots at it together instead, then I'm gonna get a map and figure out what cave in New Mexico is more appealing.

Forum sells 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotype

WASHINGTON — Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.

Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.

And, kinda like the New Yorker cover, the box was meant to be "satirical".


The box was meant as political satire,

See? Even though...uh, it's hardly political.

said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.

Franklin ain't shit, by the way. There's a girl down the hall from me from that region, I had to explain to her what a "minstrel show" was.

And if you ask me what it is so help me god. Y'all gon make me cry.

David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama's policy positions but had not examined them closely.

Of course they didn't. Why should they? I'm sure even they weren't expecting...waffles.

Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

They are going to drive that into the ground aren't they?

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens."

.....now that just doesn't even make sense. Republicans need to go watch some Comedy Central.

The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"

Lawl.

The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The Obama campaign declined to comment.

There's really nothing to say :/

Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table.

"It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer.

Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us, but you think of Newman's Own or Emeril's — there are tons and tons of personality-branded food products on the market. So we've taken that model and, using political satire, have highlighted his policies, his position changes."

Read that paragraph again.

I love how he totally failed to answer the question!

He said, honky, DO YOU FIND THE IMAGE TO BE A RACIAL STEREOTYPE?

not

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IMAGES IN MARKETING?

The socially conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit.

The sorta-implied irony!

Man, this Obama-campaign? Has just brought out all kinds of bizarre forms of racism. And just all kinds of bizarreness. Where were these creative people 4 years ago? 8 years ago? 10 years ago?