September 2004 Archives

   In case you haven't seen the news, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to get a 2/3 majority vote in the House of Representatives which effectively kills the amendment for the year I think. The funniest thing through is the spin the GOP tries to put on things. This time Tom DeLay was in full psychotic state when he said, "I want to remind everyone that this debate is not about gay marriage. It is about marriage. And, protecting that institution." Luckily there was a witty response from Barney Frank who said, "Yeah, and it doesn't rain in Indianapolis." (source) What kind of crack are they on anyway?

   There's been a lot of debate about the debates recently on trustworthy news organizations. You know, The Enquirer, etc. I've even heard CNN yammering on about them. They're so important. Kerry has a tough road ahead. Bush's debate style is casual. Blah blah blah! The debates are nothing more than a Hollywood production. Have you heard/read about the "negotiations" for the two candidates to agree to debates? Something about how long the handshake will last, who the camera can cut to, and the industry standard air temperature. Oh please! Who the hell works in those conditions? When I go to work it's not scripted. Why should it be for them? Why exactly do they get to choose the conditions anyway? We're the people who have to put up with them. We should decide if they have to stand in the shower and answer questions and they should be happy to do so.
   Honestly, I'm going to watch the debates with my sister tomorrow night for basically one reason. Well, maybe two. One is that I'm wondering if Kerry will surprise me and really take Bush to town. The main reason, however, is for entertainment. Either Bush will screw up, make up a word, or one of them will challenge the other to a duel. It's entertainment - that's why the networks are airing it. It really doesn't matter who "wins" the debate, it's who got to the media station first afterwards to squak about it (and they have the distance to the media negotiated as well I hear).
   I'm sad to say that tomorrow night is most likely to be a stand up routine in preparation for the grand popularity contest that we'll call an election. (even though the popular vote may have little to do with it).

   Buck at Postcards from Nowhere posted yesterday about a quote from Barack Obama about gay marriage.

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." (source)

   I'm highly disappointed that someone with such a message of hope at The Democratic National Convention has a biased regard for the equality of gay folks. His statement reveals that either he can't help but let his religious beliefs interfere with the facts of life or that he's a true politician like the rest of them who say whatever will help them retain or get power.
   So like Buck, for all it's worth, I no longer can support Barack Obama.

   My boyfriend mentioned this the other day and now I think it's been ruined. If you've ever tried Diet Coke with Lime (or lemon for that matter) have you ever noticed that as it gets warm it starts to taste like Lemon Pledge? I wonder if it can be used as a cleaning product...

   The other day I went into work early. Not being the morning person that I am (not) I was rather groggy as I went about my business. I was reading something near the break room when I heard the word "faggot." Of course my radar ears perked up hearing this at work. I then listened to the conversation that was going on so I could figure out why the word was mentioned.
   There was something about a guy who was a "faggot" and they were trying to decide which dog he'd like better. They settled on a great dane because it would have a large whatnot. Then there was a discussion about hampsters. From there they went on to speak about a "dyke" they knew who was a real bitch.
   As I was listening to all of this, I felt like I was in a trance. That may have been because it was so early in the morning and I had one eye shut and was dragging my butt behind me. Or it could have been that I'm so unused to hearing such blatantly crass and ignorant conversations at work. I finally brought myself to investigate and walk by to see who it was that was spewing forth such crap. But for some reason I didn't say anything. I have to wonder why.
   I was tired and didn't feel like a confrontation. I had things I needed to get done and was on a schedule. I didn't want them to know that I was listening to them. Excuses. I should have said something right then and there. And now I have this odd sense of guilt that I didn't stand up and say something. I could have approached them as an offended person. I could have approached them as their supervisor. I could have approached them as a raging queen. But I didn't, and I'm not going to dwell on it. I have another plan to deal with the issue anyway.
   For awhile I was rather taken aback by the whole situation. And each time I saw these people throughout the day I felt a mixture of anger and pity. I think it was the pity part that quelled the anger. Besides, I wasn't going to let some ignorant throwbacks ruin my day.

Proctor and Gamble Boycott
   I read about the right-wing boycott of Proctor and Gamble. Well, I suppose they're entitled to boycott just like the gay community does. But in their case, they may find it tough to find cleaning products which may make them smelly. Well, we'll know who they are.

   Some people came over to look at our house this past week. I guess they are building one with a similar floor plan and wanted to see what it would look like. I think we confused them a bit because the woman saw the spare bed and asked which of us lives in the basement.

   How is it that gas prices can be $1.68 one day and $1.99 the next? And why is it that I always forget to tank up when it's cheaper?

   Jimmy Swaggart made some comments earlier in the week about how he'd kill a gay person if they "looked at him like that." What ever. Wasn't he found with a prostitute at one time? He later apologized saying he meant it as a joke. I'm not sure I could see how he'd be joking by saying that, and I for one do not accept his apology.

   The Presidential debates will be starting soon with the first one on Thursday, Sept. 30. I'll be very interested to see how they go. It'll also be interesting to see how the media reacts and who they deem to be the winner. Set your TiVos!

   An article about the Repressive Era in Russia says laws from that time may be returning. Up until 1993 it was illegal to be gay in Russia and was punishable with jail time. Although that law no longer exists, the Russian Orthodox Church is trying to relive old times and have tried to enact several laws that would target queer folks over there. What frightens me about the whole thing, besides my fear for gay folks in Russia, is that after the gay marriage debate is done here the right-wingers will need something else to attack us on.

   I've been thinking for awhile now that there seems to be a serious flaw in our government. It's the fact that government officials can lie through their teeth with no consequence, and sometimes there's no way to determine if the truth has been distorted. I'm not talking about issues of national security. I'm talking about "spin." Aren't you tired of having to read through the lines? It's when a politician is asked a direct question about their position on something, and they answer another question. Or when they quote someone, but take it completely out of context. Or when they use facts to bolster their position when they only let you look at a tiny piece of the pie that says they're wrong. Or when they spout rhetoric that is just simply ignorant and untrue. I've often wondered what it would take to fix this problem.
   Of course we could simply have people in our government who are above telling falsehoods and who are committed to honesty. Perhaps a psychological test is in order. My guess is that over half of America would fail that test - especially if the pharmaceutical companies had anything to do with it. Maybe a truth serum would help. No, drugs aren't the answer. Blackmail? Extortion? Threats? I don't believe in those methods, no matter how effective. So is there a way to influence individuals to remain honest? I don't know the answer to that question. Honestly, I think power corrupts and that's all there is to it. The more power one has, the more likely one is to be corrupted. Throughout history I think this concept has been proven many times. Maybe it's just human nature.
   So what is the alternative? Well, we have the system of checks and balances - or at least that's what civics classes tell us. In theory this works quite well, and it has been beneficial. The executive branch goes nuts, the other branches step in and provide the balance. But it seems to not prevent blatant abuses within the government. Bush wanted faith-based initiatives, but Congress didn't pass them. So he issued executive orders. Congress wants equality for gay folks eliminated so they want to strip the judicial branch from being able to be a check or balance. And this system seems to do little for exposing those who aren't completely honest with the American public, nor does it prevent us from being misled whenever it suits someone's needs.
   Perhaps I am rambling away from my point here. All I want is to know what the truth is without having to sort through bullshit everyday. I want more Americans to have access to that truth so they're not spitting out talking points that make no sense and quoting facts that came out of somebody's ass. I wondered a few times if there should be some new branch of the government that had one function - to ensure that the other branches were speaking the truth. So that no one could misquote others, no one could out right lie, no one could distort facts or history, and spin would become a thing of the past. I imagine this branch of government would be completely non-partisan, would have no power except to expose non-truths, would have no opportunity to make more money through conflicts of interest, and would be held to the highest standards of integrity. Oh, if only that were possible.
   I know that idea, while conceived from a need for something real, is completely fictitious. There is no way to ensure integrity without yet another group to watch this new organization. Who would elect or appoint these highly qualified and honest people? Government regulating the "truth" leaves us open for 1984-like abuses of power. And who the hell knows the "real truth" anymore? It's entirely possible that in some situations there is more than one truth. And whose truth would be the right one? Mine? Yours? Of course my truth is always right.
   So the idea of regulating the truth isn't meant to be a reality, and for good reason. But I still yearn for a government where people can't blatantly lie to us, distort reality for their own purposes, and continue to let power and money stain the fabric of our country. Perhaps it is not really a flaw in our government, but in the people themselves. And when it gets bad enough, the public will take it upon themselves to find their own truth. It's a process that has to happen on an individual basis, and out of a need for something better. Maybe that process has already begun.

   Law Dork posted today about an article that appeared in the Thursday edition of The Columbus Dispatch editorial about blogging. It was entitled "Bloggers Beware" and commented on the issues surrounding blogging and the workplace. Basically, it was a warning that if you blog, you could be putting your employment in jeopardy.
   I agree with everything that Chris said in his post. It did seem that the editorial was an attempt to scare people away from creating ones own blog and publishing their writing. The idea that a media outlet would be against the free flowing of thoughts, ideas and news seems ridiculous. Unless of course that flow of information is someone else's and it might cost you lost revenue. And when I think about it, I do not consume as much information from local news sources anymore. Most of the news I get is from national news sources online. And instead of looking at the opinions in my local paper I read blogs. And this probably sounds bad, but I don't feel like reading the small-minded BS that I do in the local papers sometimes. I read certain blogs by people who are insightful, funny, and/or have a point to make. I don't want to read about how the lady down the street thinks that the end of the world is near because gay people got married. And I don't want to read the spin that the local news puts on national issues sometimes. I'll get the news from several sources and make up my own mind about it.
   So to answer Chris's question about why the newspaper wants us to stop blogging: It costs them money and some amount of power or control. (Doesn't everything come down to money and power?) When bloggers go nuts about a piece of news, it can become the news. The media loses control over what they think the news should be. And when bloggers have the free ability to publish their own thoughts without the editor seeing the comments first, the paper loses control of what is said about the news. I don't think that the news-media is necessarily on some power hungry war, but I think that blogging changes the power balance between the media and the people, and that's uncomfortable for them.
   And something else I want to comment on is the part of the article that references the fact that courts in America often defer peoples' First Amendment rights to their employers' wants. If indeed courts side with corporations over individual freedom of expression, I think that seems to fly in the face of what a free society is about. "Workers serve at the pleasure of those who issue their paychecks." This statement and it's placement in the editorial seem to indicate that people are bought off by their employer to believe and promote whatever the employer wants. Granted if you are working public relations for an abstinence clinic you wouldn't want to blog about your anonymous sexual exploits, but if you are a cashier at a gas station and you write about human rights you shouldn't be silenced by your employer. If someone at my workplace should decide to blog about how they are against feminism and women's rights, I may not agree and neither may my employer, but it is not anyone's place to tell that person to stop flapping their mouth.
   Certainly we all have our opinions, and it's our right to express them. Whether the media or your employer likes it should be of no consequence.

   Last night The Rhetoric passed yet another milestone - 2GB of info served since July 2003. Of course the bandwidth usage has gone down since we forbade the bandwidth thieves from using my server as their own personal image server.
   I just love checking my server logs to see what people searched for to find this site. Here are some of the fun examples:

• Ikea and Lesbians - is there a connection?
  
• beenie weenie - a childhood fav.
  
• don't squeeze the charmin - just don't do it
  
• meaning of constipated - this could go any number of directions
  
• interesting little test - what was the test?
  
• celebrity boobs - still none here
  

And if you're looking for images of a certain soccer player, they're gone. Bandwidth thieves stole them.

   I was unaware that there was an effort to create a "Christian Nation Amendment" until I read my most recent issue of Church and State (published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State of which I am a member). The point of the article was a poll that indicated that 66% of Americans are against a constitutional amendment "to establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States." (qtd. in 57: 171) 66%? That's it?
   Are people unaware of the reasons people came to America in the first place? Are they aware of the First Amendment? Are they thinking ahead to the possible consequences of creating a national religion? This is truly frightening folks. Would the Bible become law? Would non-Christians be persecuted or forced to convert? What kind of nation would we become? If you're wondering that same question and don't know the answer, just look to the middle east where they do have a national religion.
   I looked around online for more information to corroborate this article. I didn't find too much on it which leads me to believe this isn't quite at our doorstep just yet. But I did find one website with an "action plan" for making it happen as well as two equally scary examples of what such an amendment might say.

The Christian America Constitutional Amendment: "The United States is a Christian Nation. Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of all Christian religions, nor make law giving preference of one Christian denomination over another Christian denomination, nor giving preference of one Christian sect over another Christian sect. This amendment replaces the religion clause of the First Amendment and supersedes all treaties as relevant to this amendment."

Or how about this one?

Draft of a proposed [Christian Amendment] amendment to the Preamble to the United States Constitution (amendment in brackets):
"We, the People of the United States [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all], in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

   I truly cannot understand how one can come to the conclusion that their religion is so superior to others' religions that they should deny them the right to practice what they believe. History is replete with examples of "religion gone bad." How many women have been oppressed in the middle east in the name of religion? How many "witches" were burned in Salem? How many gay people are denied equal treatment right now?
   Now keep this in mind before you get angry with me: I am not against Christians or Christianity. What I am against is the over-zealous, selfish, superior notion that one religion must be imposed on others. I don't think that is what many, many Christians believe. But America is seeing more and more of the far right who seems hell bent on delivering us from whatever, even if we don't want their version of UPS. If the US ever declares itself a "Christian Nation" you'd see my blog coming from our northern neighbor. I don't care how cold their winters are.

(sources: "Americans Oppose "Christian Nation" Amendment, Poll Finds." Church and State 57.8 (2004): 171.; http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/christianamerica/; http://candst.tripod.com/chrsamnd.htm; http://www.acknowledgegodamerica.com/)

   This morning I read an article about Kerry and some of his latest observations about the Bush administration. Towards the end of the article I saw the line: "This president has created more excuses than jobs." Being that I've been somewhat frustrated - along with many Democrats - about Kerry's campaign and their apparent lack of spine, I was rather impressed with this latest sound bite.
   It gets to the heart of why many of us are upset with Bush. When we went into Iraq over WMDs and found none, there was nothing but spin from the White House about why we were there. Suddenly the tune changed like the Ministry of Truth had spoken and now we are there to liberate the citizens of Iraq. When they alienated our allies in the world, it was because we had to protect our national security. When seaports are still open to terrorist attack, it's because tax cuts are more important. When we didn't find Osama, it's because.. well we really don't know - they don't mention him much anymore. When jobs weren't created at the rate the Bush administration promised, it was the recession and 9/11. When the deficit began to grow out of control, it was an "economic stimulus." When Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, it was to protect the institution of the President and his staff. When Bush promoted the Marriage Amendment that divides Americans, it was because of an institution and faith. When Bush had nothing to run on besides failures and over-spending, he's running on 9/11 and empty promises. What was it when we didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol to protect the environment? Were they just too busy? Was that also the case with letting the assault gun ban expire?
   For a party that touts personal responsibility one would think that Republicans would own up to issues. But it's politics, and no one has problems or responsibility for anything. But that's their world. If I make excuses at work I get fired. Everyday people have to take responsibility for what happens in our lives and our country. No excuses. I hope in November we do just that.

(source: Democrat Kerry Slams Bush for 'Excuse Presidency')

   Windows XP Service Pack 2 installation went rather smoothly this morning - all 75MB of it. I had heard and read some disaster stories so I was bracing for the worst, but so far so good. It took forever though, and it really wanted me to turn on "automatic updates." It also got on my case about out of date virus software even though Norton is fully up to date. And I'm still deciding if I'd rather use the pop up blocker in IE or the stand alone I was using before. Decisions decisions.. I did clean most of the office though while SP2 was installing. I even made the paper shredder smell funny.

   I forgot to mention the fun things at work yesterday. The phrase of the day used by a customer who was in a hurry: "Hurry up, my baby is about to explode!"
   And the case of the woman who had a digital timer that wouldn't work. She wanted to return it unless someone could make it work. At the service desk we removed the plastic film with the "12:00" printed on it.
   Oh and then there was a man who when asked if he wanted a bag for his toilet paper replied, "I just want to get the hell outta this store!" Guess he really had to go...

   I have to admit I'm a little frustrated with the numbers lately. Of course I'm referring to the recent polls that show Bush in the lead. The polls continue to vary from a lead between 3-11%, but these days who knows what to believe. But the thought that Americans are falling for the rhetoric of the right gives me an anxiety attack.
   Bush makes an accusation about Kerry and we hear about it all over the news. But no one seems to notice the hypocrisy that lies under the words. Just the notion that Kerry is a "flip-flopper" (please let that not fall into the American lexicon) is quackery. What is it that causes people not to look beyond what it presented to them? Laziness? Boredom? I refuse to admit that 50% of America would vote for Bush if they thought about it for very long. But that's just my biased opinion.
   In the meantime, I signed up with the Get Out the Vote campaign, America Coming Together (ACT). Hopefully this will help me to work off some frustration and perhaps even make a difference. I have a clipboard to sign voters on to a petition against the Ohio anti-gay marriage amendment. And for those who are unregistered, I will have voter registration papers. I wish my work schedule allowed more time for me to go out and do this, but I will make the most of the free time I have. I feel like I have to do something - to be focused for awhile on one part of the bigger picture. Looking at the whole thing at once can be overwhelming; I start with Bush and his policies, then think of Supreme Court Justices and suddenly my mind is out there 20 years from now.
   So back to the present, I hope I can make even a small difference. And even if I only get a few people registered, I'm looking forward to talking with people. And of course I'll still be reading the views of the bloggers, and taking comfort in being part of the community.

Two stories I saw in the past few days that made me think about the mindset of the Republicans.
Activists Mount Last-Ditch Bid to Extend Gun Ban
Federal Judge Bans Enforcement of U.S. Abortion Law
   The Republicans are all out for protecting the life of the unborn, but seem not to take notice of this assault weapon ban that aims to protect the life of those who are living. I've heard that since the ban went into place, crimes committed with these weapons are down by over 60%. But Bush nor the Republicans in Congress are saying anything about extending the ban. (besides that it will expire) Is it because the NRA is lining their pockets? And the abortion ban that mentions nothing about protecting the mother's health is being supported full on by the White House. I don't get that. Is it because the right wing religious groups are lining their pockets?
   And why aren't Kerry and the Democrats saying anything about these two stories? Instead we're back to 30 years ago and Bush's service record. That tactic worked for the Republicans against Kerry, but the Dems better have a good plan or I think it may backfire on them.

Two milestones in one day.
The 50,000th visitor surfed The Rhetoric.
The 300,000th hit.
And of course the most searched for phrase:
"sheep sex." Still not here folks...

   A post over at some-chick reminded me that I wanted to post this clip about prescription drug side effects. You know the one that helps you with your problem but also causes back pain, nervousness, nearsightedness, diabetes, allergies, infertility, impotence, weight loss, weight gain, lupus, stroke, anxiety, panic, twitches, flipflopping, vomiting, diarrhea and the clap. Oh and don't forget those potentially fatal events...
Rx Effects

   I can only look up to the great nation of Canada as they gently remind the Pope that he is not in control of their country or their Parliament. Rest assured though John Paul, America is right there in your palm. At least some of it...
(Pope, Canada clash on same-sex marriage)

   Interesting to receive an e-mail that begins, "It is a priviledge to hear from God..."
   Reported on the morning news: The more sexual content that kids see on TV, the more likely they are to engage in sexual activity. Really? I would have thought that was common sense.
   Bush says in a recent speech that unemployment is down to 5.4% which is lower than the average unemplyment rate in the 70s, 80s or 90s. True. But interestingly, Clinton brought unemployment down by 3.5% while under Bush it has gone up 1.6%. I'm not sure these statistics matter much. I look at average hourly earnings (in constant 1982 dollars) and under Clinton's term it went from $7.53 to $8.07. Just in Clinton's last 4 years it increased by $.29. Under Bush it has gone from $8.24 to $8.30. Who knows if these numbers really mean anything about the president himself or even his policies. But it's interesting... well, no, not really.
(source: U.S. Dept. of Labor)

   My friend from work (we'll call her Cathy) tells me this story today. I just had to post it, and of course I have her permission. She works at a bar some nights, and a few nights ago she was there when they received a phone call from a frat house. They said that a new guy had to come in and streak in the bar. I guess that was part of his initiation. So they say sure - a frat guy streaking had to be worth some fun.
   So the guy comes in and it turns out he's not exactly "frat boy" age, but they let him go through with his stunt anyway. So he ends up having to do a lap dance for Cathy. So there he is with his stuff all hanging out and they make him do all kinds of things. He had to run around the bar, do jumping jacks, and last they tell him to grab his ankles. This is supposedly so that he's mooning those in the bar. Well he turns around so he's facing Cathy and puts his butt right up there for her to see. At that point, Cathy falls on the floor laughing and exclaims, "He's got toilet paper stuck in his ass!"
   So perhaps the moral is don't squeeze the Charmin too hard, or it'll get stuck up your butt.

   Went to Pittsburgh today to shop at Ikea. That place is amazing. They have so much stuff, and much of it is unique. There are plenty of shopping opportunities in my area, but the stores all have pretty much the same stuff. We spent 4 hours going through Ikea, and came home with some neat stuff. We got a new chair that we've wanted for awhile, and I got some new lights. (we spent a long time in the lighting area) It would be way too easy to spend way too much in that place. Overall a fun day. I think we might have worn my mom out with all that shopping which I didn't think was possible. Of course she reminded us that when it comes to clothes shopping she's got us beat. I'd agree.

Fun headlines I've seen recently:
Bush and Kerry Trade Blows on Jobs
Scat Storms This Evening

   Just a quick update on my previous post about the number of times Bush could have added "except gays and lesbians" or "to hurt/exclude gays and lesbians" in his acceptance speech at the RNC The number is 26. Some examples:

• ...freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world [except gays and lesbians].


• We owe you [except gays and lesbian soldiers] our thanks, and we owe you something more.


• I support the protection of marriage against activist judges [in order to exclude gays and lesbians].


• Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment [except for gays and lesbians].


• In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path -- a path to greater opportunity, more freedom [except for gays and lesbians], and more control over your own life [except for gays and lesbians].

Perhaps he's not as blunt as he claims.

[update 9/4/04: Apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed that. Bush speech angers many LGBT leaders]

   On my way home I was listening to George Bush's speech at the RNC. There were a few times I was about to agree with things he said, but then I remembered you can't take this stuff at face value. We took the WMD stuff at face value and that ended up not being the reason we went to Iraq. We took the "No Child Left Behind" at face value, and it was underfunded. If we took the Medicare prescription stuff at face value, we'd miss the serious budget issues that are forecasted. If we took the "protecting America" rhetoric at face value, we'd miss the fact that our trains and ports are largely unprotected. If I took "compassionate conservatism" at face value, I might forget that the president wants to write discrimination against me into the Constitution. So don't get me wrong, I'm not taking Kerry at face value either, but with Bush I know I can't believe a word he says before I see the facts for myself.
   And I lost count of how many times I could have appended one of Bush's statements with "except for gays and lesbians." And his blathering about the marriage issue almost made me run into a gas pump.