I’m completely disenchanted

I just found out (through Americablog) that my congressman, whom I had such high hopes in, voted with the Bush administration again. I’m disgusted, disheartened, shocked even. When I voted for him I thought he was a real progressive. He sure had me fooled.

My letter to him:

I’m writing to tell you that I am extremely disappointed in your vote to exclude federal funds from D.C.’s partner registry law. I am also disappointed that you would crumble under pressure from the Oval office (or whomever pressured you against domestic partnerships).

“In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: “The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule.””

I am a strong proponent of gay marriage/civil unions, as well as hetero domestic partnerships and believe that if two people love each other and are in a long term, committed relationship they should be granted the same rights and benefits that married heterosexuals receive. I believe that this administration favors second-class citizenship status for the homosexual community (who should be considered full citizens regardless of their sexual orientation) and that voting with them on issues such as these you are contributing to that status for millions of Americans.

I was proud to vote for you last November because I was excited to finally give the ideologues on the right a run for their money. Unfortunately, it looks like nothing has changed.

Fucking bullshit.

By the way, I left this as a comment on another blog and just decided to paste that here. My congressman will undoubtedly google his name (or someone in his office, who is wont to do at the drop of a hat) so we’ll see if he can find me in other ways.

Update:

Didn’t take him long to find me. Do they pay people just to google their details all day?

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Murdoch wants WSJ to be as unbiased as Fox News

                    <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070703062902/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4929776.html">Here’s a shocker</a>. WSJ employees staged a walk out in protest of Rupert Murdoch’s impending purchase of their paper.

Union president Steve Yount said the employees were concerned both about the pending $5 billion offer from Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp. as well as the latest contract proposals from Dow Jones, which include higher health care premiums.

The union and a former board member at Dow Jones say the Journal’s independence and quality would suffer under Murdoch’s ownership, something Murdoch denies. Murdoch has said he plans to invest in the paper’s online operations, Washington coverage and expand overseas. He also hopes to tap Dow Jones resources to launch a Fox-branded business news cable channel later this year.

Well, we all know how unbiased Fox News is, don’t we? I’m sure the quality of the WSJ wouldn’t suffer at all under Murdoch.

Consider this:

On his plans for the Journal: “What if, at the Journal, we spent $100 million a year hiring all the best business journalists in the world? Say 200 of them. And spent some money on establishing the brand but go global … and then you make it free, online only. No printing plants, no paper, no trucks. How long would it take for the advertising to come? It would be successful, it would work and you’d make … a little bit of money.”

On his desire to compete head-to-head with the New York Times: “My worry about the New York Times is that it’s got the only position as a national elitist general-interest paper. So the network news picks up its cues from the Times. And local papers do too. It has a huge influence. And we’d love to challenge it.”

He’d love to challenge the national interest of network news. Doesn’t he already do that? Doesn’t Fox News challenge every bit of evidence that the “liberal” media gives us regarding such things as Iraq’s ties to 9/11?

From Paul Krugman of the NYT (reg. required):

Now, Mr. Murdoch’s people rarely make flatly false claims. Instead, they usually convey misinformation through innuendo. During the early months of the Iraq occupation, for example, Fox gave breathless coverage to each report of possible W.M.D.’s, with little or no coverage of the subsequent discovery that it was a false alarm. No wonder, then, that many Fox viewers got the impression that W.M.D.’s had been found.

When all else fails, Mr. Murdoch’s news organizations simply stop covering inconvenient subjects.

Last year, Fox relentlessly pushed claims that the “liberal media” were failing to report the “good news” from Iraq. Once that line became untenable — well, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the first quarter of 2007 daytime programs on Fox News devoted only 6 percent of their time to the Iraq war, compared with 18 percent at MSNBC and 20 percent at CNN.

What took Iraq’s place? Anna Nicole Smith, who received 17 percent of Fox’s daytime coverage.

So, should the New York Times, for instance, report that there are indeed no WMDs in Iraq (which a surprising number of people who get their news from Fox News primarily still believe) then Murdoch would like to challenge that. With what? If the New York Times reports that Bush refuses to comply with subpoenas (aka committing a crime against the American people) how would Murdoch like to challenge that?

A quick tour of my friend Google takes me to News Corpse[2004] (via Crooks and Liars):

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.” [also reported here]

I remember my Introduction to Business professor telling us that the WSJ was the best newspaper in the country for business students, and that we’d do well to study it. I wonder if he’ll say the same thing once Mr. Murdoch wipes his ass with it.

(Hat-tip Tennessee Guerilla Women)

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Dick, lost in translation

                    <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070703062902/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102309.html?hpid=topnews">Dick Cheney’s assertion</a> that his office isn’t part of the executive branch has brought about some proposed changes in the funding of his office. Since he feels that he’s part of the legislative branch, Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Rahm Emanuel(D-Ill.) has sponsored a bill that would strip Cheney’s office of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070703062902/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070626/ap_on_go_co/cheney_secrecy_9">executive branch funding</a>.

Emanuel said, “we will no longer fund the executive branch of his office and he can live off the funding for the Senate presidency.”

Of course, the Dark Prince says that it’s unfair to play “partisan politics” with taxpayer money (funding his office- it’s different when the King does it).

Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for the vice president’s office, said Emanuel “has a choice he can make: either deal with the serious issues facing our country or continue to play partisan politics.”

Because the Vice President would never do that. And, really, how important is it to anyone that the VP has refused to follow the law again. There’s important business to tend to! Get with the program. Let the Dark Prince have whatever leeway he needs to perform the duties of his office. He is, afterall, an upstanding, transparent member of the… um, well, Imaginary branch of the government? We’re not really clear as to where Dick Cheney falls in the three branches of government as outlined by the Constitution, but whichever one it is, he is never required to follow the law. Haven’t we figured this out yet? And, of course, we’re supposed to remain stupid and confused whenever his name is mentioned. The law? The Constitution? Are there such things?

It will probably never cease to amaze me that Dick Cheney considers the people of the United States to be such morons, and that he can continue to get away with his illegal behavior over and over and over again. There is no oversight of this man because he has put himself above the law and, thanks to his puppet the King he is not accountable to anyone. Impeachment is too good. He’s a criminal. Treat him as such.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Kick ‘em in the balls

I’ve been reading a lot about Jessie Davis and her (alleged) around and about. It’s a story that should be about a victim and her family, but instead has morphed into how those horrible blacks have corrupted an innocent white woman, and if she’d been a good Christian and not fucked that black beast she’d still be alive. Want proof that racism is alive and well in the good ol’ U.S. of A? Take a gander at some of these blogs.

But before I begin with the disgusting that call Jessie a whore who basically “asked” for what she got, I’d like to rant a little about a comment on one of my favorite blogs.

But what about the unborn fetus-fullly humancitizen withrightswhopays taxesownsacar andhasadaughterjustlikeyou?

I can almost understand the desire to depersonalize Jessie’s child. Many pro-women’s reproductive healthers often refuse to call a fetus of any age a “child” or a “baby” and frequently mock those of us that do. They don’t want the fetus to be considered “human” or “alive” at any time prior to birth because then the public will overwhelmingly come down on the side of preventing late-term abortions. I get that. But look, Jessie wanted her child. She’d recently celebrated a baby shower in anticipation of her arrival. She was ecstatic about having a baby girl. Her family is devastated by the loss of both Jessie and Chloe. Is there something terribly wrong with this? Apparently so. So much so that baby Chloe can’t be acknowledged at all as having her own life snuffed out violently and prematurely. If Chloe had been born the day she was murdered, she no doubt would have survived outside of the womb. The fact that she died when her mother died, though, makes that loss less significant. Except to the family that was anticipating her arrival- eagerly awaiting her birth. I have serious issues with some pro-women’s reproductive healthers who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that to some of us it is important, at times, to adopt the language of the other side. If only to make us look softer and more accepting and to perhaps sway more people to our side. This would have been one of those times when a little empathy would have went a long way. Why is that so hard? Please consider, at times, that old cliché- “You attract more flies with honey”.

Now on to the real bigots. Those motherfuckers who say Jessie deserved what she got. Some (a minority of those assholes that have voiced opinions like this) say it’s because she was sleeping with a married man. Because, you know, sleeping with him (obviously forgetting his culpability) is a crime punishable by death in this country. Right? The majority say it’s because she committed the “unseemly” crime of sleeping with a black man. And we all know that black men are all savages and kill at the drop of a hat.

My first thought was, “Figures.” My second thought was, “That’s what happens when a white woman marries a black man.”

Why such reactions? Just take a gander at the national statistics for violent crime. The facts speak for themselves – blacks commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime against whites than vice versa. You are aware of the stats and how to find/view them, right?


Just another guilty nigger.

They are animals, and everyone knows it. Savage beasts that belong back in the jungle.


As far as the touchy subject of inter-racial breeding (AKA Animal Husbandry). Again, ever seen what kids do to mixed-race kids? They are, IN-MOST-CASES, usually shunned by both parties, or have to be unusually extreme (behavior-wise) to be accepted by one or the other!
WHY the fuck would you do this to a kid nowadays? Life’s hard enough without handicapping them from the get-go!!!


I think you are missing the point. We aren’t blaming the victim for her own murder. We are blaming the victim for the life style choices she made that led her to be in the position to be murdered.


Wonder what she did for a living besides having children out of wedlock and messing with another womans husband? She didn’t deserve to die but she wasn’t the saint the media is making her out to be. Her mother seems very angry at Cutts. Where was she before?


Then when the scumbag adulterer follows his natural inclinations and does what “feels right” we end up paying for the investigation, the trial and three-square and cable TV for the twenty-five years it will actually take to work through the mandatory appeals and legal bullshit put this piece of shit in the ground where he belongs.

I’m tired of paying for people too stupid not to squeeze out unwanted, fatherless kids.

I’m tired of paying for rehab and ER care for people too stupid to stay off drugs or booze or pills or dope or whatever.

I’m tired of paying to pry people out of the shit they mired themselves in as they were barely raised by one disinterested parent with other priorities.

I’m tired of paying for the care and feeding of the endless generations of dregs dragging us into the morass of overly accessible social welfare that bleeds us productive citizens to support a drone class who have no inclination to be anything but a drain on the rest of us.

I’m tired of having to pay for a slew of law enforcement professionals to clean up the mess these people leave just living their “lives”.

I’m tired of having to live behind gates and fences and alarms because semi-people who have no grounding in the basic tenets of decency are told that their “lifestyle” of indolence crime and violence isn’t their fault but is the fault of us evil-white-patriarchal-male-aggressor-oppressors who are keeping them down and that THEY are the victim, for whatever trumped up BS-PC-hugs-and-fucking-fairyland-kisses-reason.


On the other hand, the pic (mugshot) of a bad-ass lookin’ AA female who I presume to be Cutts’ wife or other ho sets off alarm bells. AA women, in my observation, are some of the most brutal of perps, particularly to a female rival in any sense. I’ll leave the analysis of why to others with more psycho-social chops–I just call ‘em as I’ve seen ‘em.


AA women are some of the meanest women I have ever run into. The hate Euro women who date AA men since they have a tough time finding a man. If I have to go to where my husband works, I steer clear of the back porch where most of these types of women hang out. Their behavior in public leaves alot to be desired too.


the deceased apparently embraced this pimp-and-bitches theme as one of Cutts’ kept seminal depositories, and bore Cutts’ child, and was prepared to do so again – as a testament to Cutts’ virility as is the fashion in inner cities, where (as in my native Philadelphia) beatings and murders abound. Simply stating that there is no correlation between this particular underclass subculture and violence in general and against women in particular does not make it so. Saying that juggling chainsaws is a bad health decision does not equate to wishing for the juggler’s death, or rejoicing in it when the predictable occurs.


It seems to me that the schaddenfreude at the expense of alleged racists who become unnerved by pretty white women becoming the sexual plaything of a black man is more important to some here than calling out the degrading situation that Davis put herself in, and using these events both as a cautionary tale and a measuring stick by which to say “this behavior is unacceptable for all involved” which might elicit some value from a tragedy.

Regarding “social programs,” it is my opinion from the evidence provided that more “social programs” will render an exacerbation of the situation at hand as economic incentives for having the illegitimate children, and thus the twenty year tie to the battering father, in the first place.


Here is what makes you stupid: “”traditional values” do dictate that it’s unseemly for a white woman to procreate with a black man. That is indeed a fact, and I don’t dispute it.” BUT, it IS racist. BUT, as long as we ‘racists’ think as you do, we’ll lose the racism and become enlightened and in the process wipe out the facts of history? Great idea.

You are uneducated because you know nothing of your cause. If you held to the orginal tenants of your mighty cause, you’d tell black people to quit breeding. Get it?


And that’s just some comments from three blogs. I haven’t got the nerve to really go searching. I’m afraid of people anymore.

The fact remains that one sick, selfish motherfucker killed a young woman and her unborn child, which left his own son without a mother. This motherfucker, no matter what his skin color or what his ongoing relationship with the victim was, deserves to fucking fry. Hard and fast. It was a horrible crime committed against a woman by a man. Everything else doesn’t matter.

You know, I would say that I’m shocked and appalled that I saw this fucking garbage being spewed in this “day and age”. But I’m not. I’m just so tired of this kind of crazy, fucking nonsense. And as a side not, I noticed a couple of these assholes mention that Chris Benoit “passed away”- you know that freak pro-wrestler who killed his wife and son? Poor guy, hanging himself like that…boo fucking hoo.

Edited to clarify the blockquotes.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

She ’strayed’ and civil unions suck

Some people, like me, skim article titles to find subjects of interest. I love my newsreaders (two of them now) because I don’t have to read every single article. Today I see two different titles relating to the same person, neither seeming to agree with each other. I said to myself “What the fuck is this nonsense?”

MSNBC says: Elizabeth Edwards strays on gay marriage

Yahoo! News says: Mrs. Edwards comfortable with gay unions

From looking at those two titles you could say that both stories were different. MSNBC’s title would, theoretically, tell you that Mrs. Edwards doesn’t care much for gay marriage. She’s “strayed”- a good indicator of changing one’s mind or position or something. Yahoo’s title tells you that Mrs. Edwards isn’t the slightest bit put off by gay marriage. Pretty straight forward, that.

So, what’s the story?

SAN FRANCISCO – Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, kicked off San Francisco’s annual gay pride parade Sunday by splitting with her husband over support for legalized gay marriage.

“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me,” Mrs. Edwards said at a news conference before the parade started. “I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”

The stories are identical in that they go on about how Mrs. Edwards’ belief differs from that of her husband. But the headline at MSNBC gives no clue of that, unless you thought that Mrs. Edwards had already come out against gay marriage. Now, if one were, say the president, and gleaned all your news from the headlines and you stumbled across MSNBC’s article you might decide that there was something to use against the potential Democratic candidate and run with that. Like a fool. On the other had, if one were a conspiracy theorist of any type you might think that MSNBC is trying to cause issues with the Edwards campaign simply by wording the title of that article the way they did.

It does seem like there’s someone trying to get the screeching howler monkeys out of their beds today. Very funny. And, I think, they wanted those of us who fully support gay marriage to get bent out of shape because of the headline. That bitch strayed! How dare she!

I actually won’t be voting for Edwards in 2008 simply because he doesn’t support gay marriage all the way. I don’t want religious ideologies determining who has the right to get married in this country. I want every citizen who is of age and who can legally consent to be able to get married. None of this half-assed garbage. If marriage is so sacred and has to be “preserved” for the good of all mankind then adults should be able to enter into it without regard to their sexual orientation (this goes back to “Why divorce should be illegal“). Or just scrap the whole damned thing. So, someone saying that they support a separate-but-equal clause is not someone who would garner my vote. Ever.

Considering that John Edwards is running for president and that he cannot bring himself to approve of equal marriage regardless of sexual orientation, his wife’s “coming out” may not be such a shock. How better to pander to those of who support equal marriage and still not shock the pants off of the separate-but-equal crowd?

She made the remark almost offhandedly in answering a question from reporters after she delivered a standard campaign stump speech during a breakfast hosted by the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, an influential San Francisco political organization. California’s presidential primary is Feb. 5, one of the earliest contests in the nation.

We get all kinds of happy to see his wife (whom we presume has some influence over the man) come down on our side and they get to be happy because she goes on to mention what a strong, religious, Southern gent he his- and that his “morals” won’t let him support calling Jane and Kim’s union a “marriage”. Works out well for both sides. Right? What a bunch of bullshit. I don’t for one second believe the remark was “off-handed”.

John believes that couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples,” Edwards said earlier during her speech. “He supports civil unions.”

Then why doesn’t he actually say “gay marriage”? If people should enjoy the rights and benefits of marriage, then why not call it marriage?

When John Edwards was asked about gay marriage during a debate earlier this month, he emphasized his support for civil unions and partnership benefits but said, “I don’t think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can’t bless.

Oh, I get it. He wants to say he supports “civil unions” (gods I hate that phrase), but also wants the kindly folk of Ohio to keep their goddamned bigoted state constitution amendment, defining marriage as “between one man and one woman”. Because, really, what’s wrong with that? He wants states to be able to pass laws stating that domestic partnerships are not eligible for “rights, benefits and responsibilities” of marriage- such as insurance and family leave- , which they have, of course, in an effort to keep away the icky gays who find themselves blessed by “civil unions”. He sees nothing wrong with that. But, because his wife supports the word “marriage” regardless of sexual orientation, we’re supposed to jump up and down and turn all around.

Here’s an idea. Maybe it’s not original, but I don’t really care. Why don’t we insist that states stop issuing “marriage” licenses, and start handing out “civil union” contracts? Let the religious have their damned word and truly keep the church and state separate. Then everyone who was previously “married” will now be in a “civil union” and there won’t be any damned need for this nonsense of making a whole group of people second class citizens based on their sex lives.

Let me know when we get a candidate with some real balls, will ya? Someone who isn’t afraid to say, and mean, “I believe that ‘couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples’”.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Dick, lost in translation

Dick Cheney’s assertion that his office isn’t part of the executive branch has brought about some proposed changes in the funding of his office. Since he feels that he’s part of the legislative branch, Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Rahm Emanuel(D-Ill.) has sponsored a bill that would strip Cheney’s office of executive branch funding.

Emanuel said, “we will no longer fund the executive branch of his office and he can live off the funding for the Senate presidency.”

Of course, the Dark Prince says that it’s unfair to play “partisan politics” with taxpayer money (funding his office- it’s different when the King does it).

Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for the vice president’s office, said Emanuel “has a choice he can make: either deal with the serious issues facing our country or continue to play partisan politics.”

Because the Vice President would never do that. And, really, how important is it to anyone that the VP has refused to follow the law again. There’s important business to tend to! Get with the program. Let the Dark Prince have whatever leeway he needs to perform the duties of his office. He is, afterall, an upstanding, transparent member of the… um, well, Imaginary branch of the government? We’re not really clear as to where Dick Cheney falls in the three branches of government as outlined by the Constitution, but whichever one it is, he is never required to follow the law. Haven’t we figured this out yet? And, of course, we’re supposed to remain stupid and confused whenever his name is mentioned. The law? The Constitution? Are there such things?

It will probably never cease to amaze me that Dick Cheney considers the people of the United States to be such morons, and that he can continue to get away with his illegal behavior over and over and over again. There is no oversight of this man because he has put himself above the law and, thanks to his puppet the King he is not accountable to anyone. Impeachment is too good. He’s a criminal. Treat him as such.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Murdoch wants WSJ to be as unbiased as Fox News

Here’s a shocker. WSJ employees staged a walk out in protest of Rupert Murdoch’s impending purchase of their paper.

Union president Steve Yount said the employees were concerned both about the pending $5 billion offer from Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp. as well as the latest contract proposals from Dow Jones, which include higher health care premiums.

The union and a former board member at Dow Jones say the Journal’s independence and quality would suffer under Murdoch’s ownership, something Murdoch denies. Murdoch has said he plans to invest in the paper’s online operations, Washington coverage and expand overseas. He also hopes to tap Dow Jones resources to launch a Fox-branded business news cable channel later this year.

Well, we all know how unbiased Fox News is, don’t we? I’m sure the quality of the WSJ wouldn’t suffer at all under Murdoch.

Consider this:

On his plans for the Journal: “What if, at the Journal, we spent $100 million a year hiring all the best business journalists in the world? Say 200 of them. And spent some money on establishing the brand but go global … and then you make it free, online only. No printing plants, no paper, no trucks. How long would it take for the advertising to come? It would be successful, it would work and you’d make … a little bit of money.”

On his desire to compete head-to-head with the New York Times: “My worry about the New York Times is that it’s got the only position as a national elitist general-interest paper. So the network news picks up its cues from the Times. And local papers do too. It has a huge influence. And we’d love to challenge it.”

He’d love to challenge the national interest of network news. Doesn’t he already do that? Doesn’t Fox News challenge every bit of evidence that the “liberal” media gives us regarding such things as Iraq’s ties to 9/11?

From Paul Krugman of the NYT (reg. required):

Now, Mr. Murdoch’s people rarely make flatly false claims. Instead, they usually convey misinformation through innuendo. During the early months of the Iraq occupation, for example, Fox gave breathless coverage to each report of possible W.M.D.’s, with little or no coverage of the subsequent discovery that it was a false alarm. No wonder, then, that many Fox viewers got the impression that W.M.D.’s had been found.

When all else fails, Mr. Murdoch’s news organizations simply stop covering inconvenient subjects.

Last year, Fox relentlessly pushed claims that the “liberal media” were failing to report the “good news” from Iraq. Once that line became untenable — well, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the first quarter of 2007 daytime programs on Fox News devoted only 6 percent of their time to the Iraq war, compared with 18 percent at MSNBC and 20 percent at CNN.

What took Iraq’s place? Anna Nicole Smith, who received 17 percent of Fox’s daytime coverage.

So, should the New York Times, for instance, report that there are indeed no WMDs in Iraq (which a surprising number of people who get their news from Fox News primarily still believe) then Murdoch would like to challenge that. With what? If the New York Times reports that Bush refuses to comply with subpoenas (aka committing a crime against the American people) how would Murdoch like to challenge that?

A quick tour of my friend Google takes me to News Corpse[2004] (via Crooks and Liars):

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.” [also reported here]

I remember my Introduction to Business professor telling us that the WSJ was the best newspaper in the country for business students, and that we’d do well to study it. I wonder if he’ll say the same thing once Mr. Murdoch wipes his ass with it.

(Hat-tip Tennessee Guerilla Women)

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Getting a Bad Rap for Good Choices

As a woman and as a progressive I believe strongly in the right of choice for women. Women should be able to decide when or if they ever have children. They should have to right to decide that a man’s touch is unacceptable. They should have the right to decide if they want to work or if they want to stay home. But, wait! They do have those rights, to some extent, right now. Ok, we’re all on the same page.

Except we’re not. Leslie Bennetts recently said that stay-at-home moms as making a mistake for choosing to stay home. And I ran across a commenter at a radfem blog that declared of another woman “She’s a SAHM who isn’t contributing anything to Social Security or society”. Feh! Not contributing anything? But shouldn’t these women be championed because they’re exercising their rights to make these choices? Apparently not. Apparently stay-at-home mothers are the bane of some feminists’ existence. They work only to raise children and “give their lives away to their men”. Or some such nonsense.

Here’s another idea:

Some SAHMs are raising the next generation of strong, liberal feminists. They are raising understanding and open-minded sons. They are, one little person at a time, working to end sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, or [fill in you favorite humanitarian cause]. When a child asks of a SAHM “What does “gay” mean?” that child may hear an answer such as the one I gave my own child “It’s a description of joy and happiness. It also means homosexual. Just another word for people in love.” And the gates of communication were open. Now, perhaps that same child heard his or her sitter/nanny/day care provider refer to someone else as “nigger” and wanted to know what it meant. Who would be the first person to ask? A SAHM would be on the front lines. Again- one child at a time.

And what is this nonsense about not contributing? In the context that I read the quote (and I’m sorry, but I won’t be linking because, well, I’ve had enough blogwars for just right now) the SAHM in question was discussing Soci

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Via the NYT I learn today that same-sex married couples can stay married in Massachussetts.

By PAM BELLUCK
Published: June 15, 2007

BOSTON, June 14 — Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Gov. Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

Can they come to Ohio now and reverse our new amendment? Because, yeah, it sucks. At any rate, I love that quote from Gov. Patrick. “[T]he freedom to marry is secure” because gays and lesbians are not considered second class citizens in Massachusetts. Separate but equal didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.

So how did the Dems in MA pull it off?

As late as a couple of hours before the 1 p.m. vote on Thursday, advocates on both sides of the issue said they were not sure of the outcome. The eleventh-hour decisions of several legislators to vote against the amendment followed intensive lobbying by the leaders of the House and Senate and Governor Patrick, who, like most members of the legislature, is a Democrat.

“I think I am going to be doing a certain number of fund-raisers for districts, and I am happy to do that,” said Mr. Patrick, who said he had tried to persuade lawmakers not only that same-sex marriage should be allowed but also that a 2008 referendum would be divisive and distract from other important state issues.

You mean that Democratic leaders took the bull by the horns and did whatever it took to get the votes they needed? Is that even possible? Is there a handbook for Massachusetts Democrats and can we send it to Washington so those idiots can learn a thing or two about listening to their base?

Senator Gale D. Candaras, a Democrat, voted against the amendment Thursday, although she had supported it as a state representative in January. Ms. Candaras said her vote reflected constituent views in her larger, more progressive Senate district and her fear of a vicious referendum campaign.

You know, during 2006 there was a lot of money going to candidates from people not in their district and those candidates have largely failed. But I think, perhaps, that the Democrats in Massachusetts need some kind of prize for listening to the people for whom they work. They listened and they voted the right way. That almost gives me hope again.

But then Zack Space had me almost giddy with anticipation. Boy, was that ever a let down.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.