Pointing perfectly dirty fingers
The message was simple and clear
I'll get you you'll be mine, still lingers
Beautiful and flawless unlike other mingers
Its rotted smells and stinging smiles
Pointing perfectly dirty fingers
Unmovable weight and nasty zingers
Penetrating breath in my ear
I'll get you you'll be mine, still lingers
Perched on my dresser like a sexual swinger
Laughing at the teenaged prize
Pointing a perfectly dirty finger
Unexpecting Angelic gunslingers
Its dark revelation confluent and pure
I'll get you you'll be mine, still lingers
Forty years later I'm a dead ringer
The message is simple and clear
Pointing perfectly dirty fingers
I got you you're now mine, still lingers
.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Poems: FAG & LESBIAN
Face down in the snow dying
At peace knowing
God wants him, at least
Looking for tolerance
Expecting bigotry
Spritual isolation
Banished by a quorum walking
Inside a holy square
And yet she remains
Needing only God's approval
Friday, October 23, 2009
H.R. 2647 Hate Crime Bill?
"My client admits he beat that young man almost to death; but he did it because he was gay, not because he was a Mormon. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you can't vote to punish him as you would if he beat him because he was Mormon."
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act to enforce stiffer penalties for Hate Crimes. But, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world with a lot of people who are full of hate, anger, and ignorance. And every day babies are born to parents who will teach them to grow up hating anyone different than themselves and being angry because no one else will do anything about it.
I'm hearing a lot of angry people talking about the "Hate Crime Bill" that Congress passed yesterday and that the President will certainly sign. Two points have been brought up: Why do we need to create more protected classes? and, Why did they "hide" it in another bill?
There are two important issues. The first is we need protected classes because we don't live in a world where everyone abides by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If people were tolerant of each other, we wouldn't need any protected classes at all.
Now, let's examine the "hiding" of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act in the National Defense Authorization Act.
The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2010 military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities for the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pay and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand current receipt of military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes.
Here is how the Utah politicians voted:
Senator Bennett voted no,
Senator Hatch did not vote,
Congressman Chaffetz voted no,
Congressman Matheson voted yes,
Congressman Bishop voted no.
Before the vote, I wrote to both the Senator's and asked why they opposed H.R. 2647. They both responded in writing:
Senator Bennett stated he opposed the Bill because of the Matthew Shepard Act was included. He wrote that the current laws were working well, so why create new ones.
Senator Hatch stated he opposes any law that creates protected classes. He wrote that by creating protected classes, we are only creating more hate. So I asked him if he would then support legislation to remove other protected classes such as race and religion. He refused to answer. I don't disagree with his not wanting to create protected classes...hell, I'd love to live in a world where we didn't need them! But now, at a time when Hatch is under a lot of scrutiny, he doesn't vote on this issue even though he is in Washington and could have voted.
So both Utah Senators and two of the Utah Congressmen did not vote on the National Defense budget because of their feelings towards gays?
One can not "blame" the Democratic party for hiding this Act in H.R. 2647. This Act has been voted on 5 times, and each time it has been included in a military bill. In 2007, it was included in the Defense Authorization Bill, which was passed by the Senate, which was not controlled by the Democrats at the time. The Act was dropped after President Bush stated he would veto the bill.
In fact, H. R. 2647 has a number of Acts included with it, to include: The Part-Time Reemployment of Annuitants Act of 2009, sponsored by Republican Susan Collins and The Victims of Iranian Censorship Act, co-sponsored by Republican John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others. Neither of these Acts have anything to do with the military budget, but I don't hear Congressmen Chaffetz and Bishop citing these Acts as reasons for voting "no" to the bill. But, both Congressmen cited the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act as the reason they opposed the Bill.
I have to wonder... if it weren't for the gays, what would the religious conservatives be spending their energy and money on?
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act to enforce stiffer penalties for Hate Crimes. But, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world with a lot of people who are full of hate, anger, and ignorance. And every day babies are born to parents who will teach them to grow up hating anyone different than themselves and being angry because no one else will do anything about it.
I'm hearing a lot of angry people talking about the "Hate Crime Bill" that Congress passed yesterday and that the President will certainly sign. Two points have been brought up: Why do we need to create more protected classes? and, Why did they "hide" it in another bill?
There are two important issues. The first is we need protected classes because we don't live in a world where everyone abides by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If people were tolerant of each other, we wouldn't need any protected classes at all.
Now, let's examine the "hiding" of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act in the National Defense Authorization Act.
The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2010 military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities for the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pay and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand current receipt of military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes.
Here is how the Utah politicians voted:
Senator Bennett voted no,
Senator Hatch did not vote,
Congressman Chaffetz voted no,
Congressman Matheson voted yes,
Congressman Bishop voted no.
Before the vote, I wrote to both the Senator's and asked why they opposed H.R. 2647. They both responded in writing:
Senator Bennett stated he opposed the Bill because of the Matthew Shepard Act was included. He wrote that the current laws were working well, so why create new ones.
Senator Hatch stated he opposes any law that creates protected classes. He wrote that by creating protected classes, we are only creating more hate. So I asked him if he would then support legislation to remove other protected classes such as race and religion. He refused to answer. I don't disagree with his not wanting to create protected classes...hell, I'd love to live in a world where we didn't need them! But now, at a time when Hatch is under a lot of scrutiny, he doesn't vote on this issue even though he is in Washington and could have voted.
So both Utah Senators and two of the Utah Congressmen did not vote on the National Defense budget because of their feelings towards gays?
One can not "blame" the Democratic party for hiding this Act in H.R. 2647. This Act has been voted on 5 times, and each time it has been included in a military bill. In 2007, it was included in the Defense Authorization Bill, which was passed by the Senate, which was not controlled by the Democrats at the time. The Act was dropped after President Bush stated he would veto the bill.
In fact, H. R. 2647 has a number of Acts included with it, to include: The Part-Time Reemployment of Annuitants Act of 2009, sponsored by Republican Susan Collins and The Victims of Iranian Censorship Act, co-sponsored by Republican John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others. Neither of these Acts have anything to do with the military budget, but I don't hear Congressmen Chaffetz and Bishop citing these Acts as reasons for voting "no" to the bill. But, both Congressmen cited the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act as the reason they opposed the Bill.
I have to wonder... if it weren't for the gays, what would the religious conservatives be spending their energy and money on?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Are President & First Lady Obama victims of Racism?
Is President & First Lady Obama a victim of racism?
One could certainly make an argument for it.
First off, let me say that I personally think every person on Earth is a racist. BUT, I believe there is a complete spectrum of racism. To the far left of the spectrum are the people who understand that racism exists but they have such an evolved self-awareness that they are innately incapable of allowing any personal and/or professional decisions be influenced by any bias. To the far right are the people who are acutely aware of every difference in every individual and purposefully make all personal and/or professional decision based on their selective prejudice. And in between the two extremes are all the rest of the people who consciencelessly, or subconsciencelessly, allow some decisions to become effected by some bias.
I saw a headline in the last day or two which read , "From Slavery to the White House: The first lady's complex roots." I shook my head in dismay. The article was nothing interesting or dynamic. There was a 6 year old slave girl torn from her family. Raped as a young teenager and produced a child; thus began the road to the White House. I found the article distasteful and unnecessary.
Every other President and First Lady have been presented with their genealogy. Michelle Obama was presented with her "slave roots". Why haven't we read any articles about any modern day President's ancestry involved in the slave trade? Could it be that they were white and the slave trade is viewed from a totally different perspective because of that?
With 2 President Bush's, we didn't see articles about their "Nazi roots". It is a documented fact that the Bush fortune was made by doing business with the Nazis. Their money was even frozen by the government for profiting from selling wares to the Nazi Army. But I never heard Rush Limbaugh mention that little fact. No, but Rush has spent plenty of air time discussing how President Obama won the Nobel Prize for "emasculating America".
Our President has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why can't we be proud as a nation for it? Instead, scores of Americans are trashing him and the Nobel Prize Committee. I saw an on-line poll that showed 62% (212,675 votes) thought "No, he has no significant accomplishments." People seem to be freaked out that he was nominated just 2 weeks after he took over the Oval Office. Well, they way I see it is that long before he took the Oath of Office, Obama's influence reached the world. At a time when people in this Country, and the world, needed it, Obama provided a calm, rationale, attitude towards some very terrifying circumstances. Obama has done more to improve the U.S. standing in the world in 8 months than in 8 years under President Bush. The United States hasn't been "emasculated" by any standards; we have begun regaining our leadership role in the world.
There are plenty of people in this Country that believe China, Iran, North Korea and a cast of other countries should be pressured into playing nice with the rest of the world. But when it comes to the United States, they believe we should thumb our noses at anyone who insinuates we should fall in line with everyone else...they think everyone else should be falling in line with us. That is a very arrogant and hypocritical attitude. If we expect other Countries to cooperate within the world, then we'd better be leading by example.
Why are people all of the sudden afraid of this man? Fear...that's what it boils down to. The sale of guns and ammo have skyrocketed since his election. What are they afraid of? and why?
Of all of the things Michelle Obama has accomplished in her life, I think journalists can find something more interesting to write about; or should every Black American that ever accomplishes something great expect to read about their "slave roots" on the front page?
One could certainly make an argument for it.
First off, let me say that I personally think every person on Earth is a racist. BUT, I believe there is a complete spectrum of racism. To the far left of the spectrum are the people who understand that racism exists but they have such an evolved self-awareness that they are innately incapable of allowing any personal and/or professional decisions be influenced by any bias. To the far right are the people who are acutely aware of every difference in every individual and purposefully make all personal and/or professional decision based on their selective prejudice. And in between the two extremes are all the rest of the people who consciencelessly, or subconsciencelessly, allow some decisions to become effected by some bias.
I saw a headline in the last day or two which read , "From Slavery to the White House: The first lady's complex roots." I shook my head in dismay. The article was nothing interesting or dynamic. There was a 6 year old slave girl torn from her family. Raped as a young teenager and produced a child; thus began the road to the White House. I found the article distasteful and unnecessary.
Every other President and First Lady have been presented with their genealogy. Michelle Obama was presented with her "slave roots". Why haven't we read any articles about any modern day President's ancestry involved in the slave trade? Could it be that they were white and the slave trade is viewed from a totally different perspective because of that?
With 2 President Bush's, we didn't see articles about their "Nazi roots". It is a documented fact that the Bush fortune was made by doing business with the Nazis. Their money was even frozen by the government for profiting from selling wares to the Nazi Army. But I never heard Rush Limbaugh mention that little fact. No, but Rush has spent plenty of air time discussing how President Obama won the Nobel Prize for "emasculating America".
Our President has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why can't we be proud as a nation for it? Instead, scores of Americans are trashing him and the Nobel Prize Committee. I saw an on-line poll that showed 62% (212,675 votes) thought "No, he has no significant accomplishments." People seem to be freaked out that he was nominated just 2 weeks after he took over the Oval Office. Well, they way I see it is that long before he took the Oath of Office, Obama's influence reached the world. At a time when people in this Country, and the world, needed it, Obama provided a calm, rationale, attitude towards some very terrifying circumstances. Obama has done more to improve the U.S. standing in the world in 8 months than in 8 years under President Bush. The United States hasn't been "emasculated" by any standards; we have begun regaining our leadership role in the world.
There are plenty of people in this Country that believe China, Iran, North Korea and a cast of other countries should be pressured into playing nice with the rest of the world. But when it comes to the United States, they believe we should thumb our noses at anyone who insinuates we should fall in line with everyone else...they think everyone else should be falling in line with us. That is a very arrogant and hypocritical attitude. If we expect other Countries to cooperate within the world, then we'd better be leading by example.
Why are people all of the sudden afraid of this man? Fear...that's what it boils down to. The sale of guns and ammo have skyrocketed since his election. What are they afraid of? and why?
Of all of the things Michelle Obama has accomplished in her life, I think journalists can find something more interesting to write about; or should every Black American that ever accomplishes something great expect to read about their "slave roots" on the front page?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Who Should Be Allowed To Have Children?
Society argues that gay couples and single people should not be allowed to adopt children.
Instead, I think they should be debating who should be allowed to have children at all...
Reginald Davis. An 18 year old Arkansas man raped and beat his 8 day old daughter. I can not think of a punishment severe enough for this person.
Some would argue that he might be mentally ill. I say if he's mentally stable enough to be allowed to father a child, he's mentally stable enough to be held accountable. I do not believe mental illness should be allowed to be a defense in these cases. You will never convince me that this person did not know there would be consequences for his actions.
Currently, in a lot of states, there are laws that prevent gay couples from adopting children. The most notable is Florida. Two gay men have fostered numerous children who are HIV positive. These guys foster the children and give them a loving, comfortable, happy family until the children die. Then, they pay for a dignified, genuine, and beautiful funeral. But, they are not legally allowed to adopt the children. The state of Florida considers these guys good enough to be financially responsible for these children, but not emotionally fit to be their fathers...because they are gay.
There is not one state in this Country that restricts sex offenders from having children. Pedophiles can reproduce their own victims. Even after they are released from jail or prison, the sex offender can legally become a father or mother, whichever the case may be. In fact, the sex offender can get married while in prison, and, in fact, some prisons allow conjugal visits. So in theory, the sex offender can produce another victim while serving time for his/her current crime.
When all is said and done, Reginald Davis will most likely have another baby. How insane is that?
Instead, I think they should be debating who should be allowed to have children at all...
Reginald Davis. An 18 year old Arkansas man raped and beat his 8 day old daughter. I can not think of a punishment severe enough for this person.
Some would argue that he might be mentally ill. I say if he's mentally stable enough to be allowed to father a child, he's mentally stable enough to be held accountable. I do not believe mental illness should be allowed to be a defense in these cases. You will never convince me that this person did not know there would be consequences for his actions.
Currently, in a lot of states, there are laws that prevent gay couples from adopting children. The most notable is Florida. Two gay men have fostered numerous children who are HIV positive. These guys foster the children and give them a loving, comfortable, happy family until the children die. Then, they pay for a dignified, genuine, and beautiful funeral. But, they are not legally allowed to adopt the children. The state of Florida considers these guys good enough to be financially responsible for these children, but not emotionally fit to be their fathers...because they are gay.
There is not one state in this Country that restricts sex offenders from having children. Pedophiles can reproduce their own victims. Even after they are released from jail or prison, the sex offender can legally become a father or mother, whichever the case may be. In fact, the sex offender can get married while in prison, and, in fact, some prisons allow conjugal visits. So in theory, the sex offender can produce another victim while serving time for his/her current crime.
When all is said and done, Reginald Davis will most likely have another baby. How insane is that?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Re-Writing the Bible...Again
Have you heard the joke about Andrew Schlafly, son of Phylis (1970's Stop Equal Rights Amendment movement), who decided he was going to organize a conservative movement, which would re-write the bible? Well, then you haven't heard about the Conservative Bible Project by the group known as Conservapedia.
Conservapedia has already begun re-writing the King James Version of the bible. They are removing liberal interpretations and replacing them with their own, more conservative verses.
"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations" according to the organizations web page.
The organization plans on removing several teachings of Jesus. The famous "Forgive them Father" quote "should not appear in a conservative bible" Conservapidia claims. Other targeted lesson of Christ include "turn the other cheek" and Jesus' distain of profiteering. The organization also claims the bible reads to Socialistic and plans on toning it down.
(I guess I could rant on about their obvious objections to Jesus' distain for profiteering and moving from a socialistic tone to a capitalistic one. I mean after all, they want their followers to give them money...obviously they need to write bible verses promoting Capitalistic profiteering!)
Now, I can't be the only person who has a problem with this, can I?
How are members of the flock (sheep) supposed to believe the bible is the word of God when it is re-written every time an organization doesn't think it fits their believes. Aren't we supposed to mold our beliefs to those of God...not the other way around?
Am I supposed to believe that this is the first time the bible has been re-written? How many Kings and how many Heads of Churches have re-written doctrine to fit their personal life-style or for the manipulation of their followers?
How dare any man who believes he has the right, or the authority, to alter the Word of God. Any such man should be stripped of all his wealth, and his worldly possessions, and be forced to live a life serving others...but then we'd just be creating additional religious leaders.
I know human-beings well enough to know that inevitablly the masses will eventually read this bible, will believe it to be the true Word of God, live it, and pray to it. And they will be quick about judging others by it.
I find it very ironic that if you look Conservapedia's web page, their introduction has in big, bold letters, "The truth shall set you free."
Conservapedia has already begun re-writing the King James Version of the bible. They are removing liberal interpretations and replacing them with their own, more conservative verses.
"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations" according to the organizations web page.
The organization plans on removing several teachings of Jesus. The famous "Forgive them Father" quote "should not appear in a conservative bible" Conservapidia claims. Other targeted lesson of Christ include "turn the other cheek" and Jesus' distain of profiteering. The organization also claims the bible reads to Socialistic and plans on toning it down.
(I guess I could rant on about their obvious objections to Jesus' distain for profiteering and moving from a socialistic tone to a capitalistic one. I mean after all, they want their followers to give them money...obviously they need to write bible verses promoting Capitalistic profiteering!)
Now, I can't be the only person who has a problem with this, can I?
How are members of the flock (sheep) supposed to believe the bible is the word of God when it is re-written every time an organization doesn't think it fits their believes. Aren't we supposed to mold our beliefs to those of God...not the other way around?
Am I supposed to believe that this is the first time the bible has been re-written? How many Kings and how many Heads of Churches have re-written doctrine to fit their personal life-style or for the manipulation of their followers?
How dare any man who believes he has the right, or the authority, to alter the Word of God. Any such man should be stripped of all his wealth, and his worldly possessions, and be forced to live a life serving others...but then we'd just be creating additional religious leaders.
I know human-beings well enough to know that inevitablly the masses will eventually read this bible, will believe it to be the true Word of God, live it, and pray to it. And they will be quick about judging others by it.
I find it very ironic that if you look Conservapedia's web page, their introduction has in big, bold letters, "The truth shall set you free."
Monday, October 5, 2009
Welcome to My Opinion
This is my first attempt at blogging, so forgive me if I appear to be a bit uncertain. I'm not certain if anyone will read my blog, but that really isn't the reason I'm writing it. I intend to use it to express my frustration towards the sheep of the world. I don't necessarily intend to be gentle, or kind, or polite; but I do hope to be enlightening, honest, accurate, and blunt.
I'm going to go have dinner and then I'll begin...
I'm going to go have dinner and then I'll begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
