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.

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.

It’s official, I’ve seen it all

Ok, so I’ve gone and hit my head with a hammer again. I joined a discussion on B-net. Well, the thread starts out talking about 9/11 and someone joins in with “Well, NO had it coming because they suck”– Ok, I reworded it a little bit. See it for yourself.

How do you compare 9/11 and Katrina? Sure they both were tragic. Sure they both turned our country upside down, but how are they the same?

This bozo says that NO police were cowards and the people that stayed behind were criminals trying to get ahead (basically). This bozo (I don’t know if it’s male or female) says:

I also couldn’t imagine what it would have been like for NYC if our cops had fled like they did in NO.

Not only did our cops NOT flee that day, but they gave their lives. 4 years later they would also help out the people of NO when their own cops abandoned them…

…Unlike Katrina, the folks in NYC didn’t have the luxury of a warning to get out of the city. The government of La and NO had DAYS of warning and still did what amounts to nothing…

… You are right, they are not. One had warning and time to get things together, the other did not…

So, how does this person know what NYC would have been like had a catagory 5 hurricane smacked right down the middle? How does this person know that the police force would not have been overwhelmed and the gangs would not have taken over? Why would you blame the victims when Mother Nature comes slamming down their door?

I don’t even know what else to say….

Note: Having a fog today!!

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Depressing news

I’ll be going to the doctor next week to find out if I definitely have lupus. I have all of the obvious symptoms, most notably the “butterfly” or malar rash. I’m glad to know that my symptoms aren’t all in my head, as my DH suspected, but have a real root cause. I don’t know what to expect if I should get a lupus diagnosis, but I’m ok with it.

I’ve been living with fatigue and pain for a long time. The rash is new since I had the baby. That was the most bothersome thing to me recently, because I thought I had developed an allergy to something and couldn’t figure out what it was. Now I know that lupus causes photosensitivity and the rash is just my immune system going crazy.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

The Complete Bushisms – Updated frequently. By Jacob Weisberg

The Complete Bushisms – Updated frequently. By Jacob Weisberg

This is really funny. Gotta love GW.

His handlers think it’s cute and folksy. They’re wrong. This man is a graduate of Yale University and can’t get a handle on the English language. He’s representing all of America to the world. He’s making us all look like we couldn’t pass a third grade grammar class.

He and his handlers should consider that most of America is not uneducated and can string words together coherently. We have brains. We know how to use them. Maybe if he picked up a paper he’d understand that. Or maybe he should read a book. Just to learn sentence structure.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

Constitution tries so hard to protect the Buddhist kid. By Dahlia�Lithwick

Bible Belt Upside the Head – Why the Constitution tries so hard to protect the Buddhist kid. By Dahlia�Lithwick

This is the kind of thing that really gets me going . I hate that religion has anything at all to do with public schooling. And, of course, if anyone objects then it comes down to persecuting Christians.

This is where the “How would you like it if…?” argument comes in. But it never works. Those that would do this don’t think that anyone could not want to learn about Christianity. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that Jesus doesn’t pay a part in a lot of people’s lives. They’re in luck right now. They have the right president in office for their cry-baby bullying.

But what about the ever-growing number of non-Christian students that miss out on their education while these other kids trek down to learn about Noah and his ark? Why doesn’t occur to anyone that kids want to fit, so separating a few from the class is going to make them stand out. Maybe this is what they want. They want these kids to feel so bad about being left behind that they’ll want to go to bible school and maybe even convert. What a way to win souls.

I don’t have a problem with letting children experience religion from whatever age. My eldest daughter has been to pretty much every Christian church or temple imaginable. Then she has me for a mother–a bonafide hell-bound Pagan. But she has learned that whatever religion a person follow doesn’t matter. A lot of kids her age will judge people for being odd, but my daughter doesn’t see religion as the end all of all end alls. Sure it’s a part of a person. But there are many parts of a person.

But I don’t want her education being interrupted anymore than it already is. She’s got enough to worry about with her friends, grades, and..gulp…boys. God-or gods-are for another time. A more appropriate and private time. And no kid should have to feel differently right from the get-go

Popularity: 8% [?]

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

The Price of Low Prices (

The Price of Low Prices (

I really hate Wallyworld. But this article makes a good point. We get what we pay for.

I hate Wal-Mart. I hate to drive in the overfilled parking lots. Walk down the overfilled aisles. Stand in the overfilled lines. I used to work there, I’m allowed to hate it. I have first hand knowledge of the crap they pull with their employees. Especially their female employees.

But Wal-Mart is not going to stop just because a couple of people find going there so loathsome. It’s a big money-making machine. And will continue on because shoppers can’t do without and they don’t want to have to pay good money for anything. Sure, you hear people say “You get what you pay for.” But those people are shopping at Wallyworld too. They’re standing in line talking on their cellphones while a nearly-homeless cashier scans their items. They’re picking up their pills from a pharmacy tech who doesn’t have any medical insurance .

Oh, sure Wal-Mart offers health insurance. But it’s almost $200 a month from a $700 a month paycheck. It’s insufferable. The people that work for Wal-Mart struggle just to buy food from their employer. Then they go to the welfare office to apply for food stamps–on advice from their employer!

There are plenty of reasons to hate Wal-Mart. But none of them matter when it’s time to open the wallet and pay just a bit more for something from another store. Or maybe have to go to separate grocery, hardware, and clothing stores. Very inconvienent. Who wants that?

I tell my husband that I don’t want to shop there anymore because I don’t want to support what they are doing to the work force in this country. He says he doesn’t have time to go anywhere else. And ’round and ’round we go

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.