Gulf Oil Tracker
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Leave Barack Alone
I have to admit, I got this from Andrew Sullivans blog (where does he come up with all this stuff) and just had to repost it.
Warning, it does contain some language some might find objectionable.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Good News!
The House today voted 118 to 35 to repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
The measure, which the Senate passed earlier this month, will head to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick, who is expected to sign it into law. The move will clear the way for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts, making it the second state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry regardless of their place of residence.
There is some progress being made...finally!
The measure, which the Senate passed earlier this month, will head to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick, who is expected to sign it into law. The move will clear the way for out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts, making it the second state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry regardless of their place of residence.
There is some progress being made...finally!
Monday, July 28, 2008
New Move-On ad
MTV is going to start running political ads for the first time in their history and the Republicans are planning on hitting the youth hard with negative anti-Obama ads. Move-on is hitting back first with this ad submitted in a contest they held.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Worth repeating
Sue on her Coming Out 101 blog posted this video of Ennio Marchetto. I hadn't seen him before, but am a big fan now...I thought it was a video worth sharing.
I SIGNED-shame on FOX
My signature was among the 620,126 that were delivered in 19 boxes to FOX's national headquarters at 6th Ave and 48th st in NYC. by rapper Nas to object to their racist remarks about Obama and his wife in their newscasts. Here is the video of what happened when he tried to deliver the signatures. Later that evening, Nas appeared on the Colbert Report which you can see at the move-on.org site. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3980&id=13330-1513612-Vzdajhx&t=4
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama wows the Germans
Berlin officials said it was the largest crowd in Berlin History that came out to the historic Victory Column in Tiergarten to see and hear Obama's speach. They estimated the crowd at 200,000 while the German Embassy in the United States estimated the number as high as a half-million. On this side of the pond, folks are using McCains speaches as a laugh of the day or as a sedative to put them to sleep at night. I have to admit, Obama is much easier on the eyes as well. I told Steve that this reaction to his trip in Europe makes me think of the way Eva Perone was greeted when she went abroad in the movie EVITA. As his opposition laughs nervously back here saying it doesn't bother them at all, you know they have to be jealous as hell.
NOW do you understand the Surge?
You know things are going bad for McCain when even a conservative writer like Andrew Sullivan in his blog "the daily dish" makes fun of his speaches. You would think that he would just drop the whole surge matter he seems to be stuck on, but NOOOO he keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. The comment below the video is a little of what Andrew had to say about the surge in his blog.
So, if I understand this: the surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy has a number of components. Since the surge is part of the counterinsurgency strategy, you'd think it might be one of these components, but no: while the additional troops were a mere part of the strategy, the surge is the counterinsurgency strategy, in its entirety. This "counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge" obviously did not begin when the additional troops arrived; it had been going on for months before President Bush announced it.
McCain is arguing as follows: find some X, of which what we normally think of as the surge is a part. Define all of X as "the surge". Argue that since X is responsible for some development Y, a development which preceded what we normally think of as the surge, "the surge", understood to mean X, is responsible for Y. This is a delightful argument, and it yields all kinds of fun results. For instance:
The surge is part of American history, and American history has a number of components. And this American history was initiated in some sense by Captain John Smith, and when I visited with him in 1607, he had already initiated that history at Jamestown, by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is American history. And he told me at that time that he believed that that history, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. [Ed. note: Did you catch that crucial move?] So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to continue our history. And so I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of American history [Ed. note: there it is again!], which means the settlement at Jamestown, declaring independence, winning the Civil War, emancipating the slaves, the New Deal, deciding to invade Iraq, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that American history.
Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several centuries before that?
Yes, and again, because of my visits to Virginia, I was briefed by Captain John Smith shortly after he established the settlement at Jamestown where he outlined what was happening there in American history which we all know of now as the surge.
I could go on and show that the surge is responsible for the invention of the calculus, the birth of Christ, the extinction of the dodo, and the hula hoop craze.
So, if I understand this: the surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy has a number of components. Since the surge is part of the counterinsurgency strategy, you'd think it might be one of these components, but no: while the additional troops were a mere part of the strategy, the surge is the counterinsurgency strategy, in its entirety. This "counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge" obviously did not begin when the additional troops arrived; it had been going on for months before President Bush announced it.
McCain is arguing as follows: find some X, of which what we normally think of as the surge is a part. Define all of X as "the surge". Argue that since X is responsible for some development Y, a development which preceded what we normally think of as the surge, "the surge", understood to mean X, is responsible for Y. This is a delightful argument, and it yields all kinds of fun results. For instance:
The surge is part of American history, and American history has a number of components. And this American history was initiated in some sense by Captain John Smith, and when I visited with him in 1607, he had already initiated that history at Jamestown, by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is American history. And he told me at that time that he believed that that history, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. [Ed. note: Did you catch that crucial move?] So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to continue our history. And so I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of American history [Ed. note: there it is again!], which means the settlement at Jamestown, declaring independence, winning the Civil War, emancipating the slaves, the New Deal, deciding to invade Iraq, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that American history.
Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several centuries before that?
Yes, and again, because of my visits to Virginia, I was briefed by Captain John Smith shortly after he established the settlement at Jamestown where he outlined what was happening there in American history which we all know of now as the surge.
I could go on and show that the surge is responsible for the invention of the calculus, the birth of Christ, the extinction of the dodo, and the hula hoop craze.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Don't Ask..Don't Tell-reviewed in Congress today
Below is an article about Congress reviewing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy which was a bad policy to start. I recently read some other statistics in another article which I thought fits right in with the way our government runs things. Last year, the Army gave moral waivers to 106 applicants convicted of burglary, 15 of felonious break-ins, 11 of grand-theft-auto, and 8 of arson. It also admitted five rape/sexual-assault convicts, two felony child molesters, two manslaughter convicts, and two felons condemned for “terrorist threats including bomb threats.”
“The Army seems to be lowering standards in training to accommodate lower-quality recruits,” RAND Corporation researcher Beth Asch observed at a May 12 Heritage Foundation defense-policy seminar in Colorado Springs.
Conversely, expelled military personnel include Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists who help crush America’s foes in the War on Terror. “Don’t Ask” has ousted at least 58 soldiers who speak Arabic, 50 Korean, 42 Russian, 20 Chinese, nine Farsi, and eight Serbo-Croatian — all trained at the prestigious Defense Language Institute. Al-Qaeda intercepts need translation, and Uncle Sam may need people who can walk around Tehran with open ears. Yet these dedicated gay citizens now are ex-GIs.
Under “Don’t Ask,” the Pentagon reported in February 2005, only one percent of gays were sacked for pursuing or achieving same-sex marriage. Just 16 percent were dismissed for seeking or performing gay sex. Fully 83 percent of those fired between 1994 and 2003 merely stated their gay or bisexual status.
In March 2007 the Navy discharged Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin, an Arabic cryptologic interpreter. Supervisors investigated him when a message he transmitted said, “That was so gay — the good gay, not the bad one.” He also mentioned his social life, thus exposing his homosexuality. Now I ask you, would you sleep better knowing the guy next to you was convicted of a crime or if he was gay? Below is the article about the review which is supposed to happen today.
Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on whether to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on Wednesday. It will be the first congressional review of the controversial policy since it was adopted in 1993.
No Pentagon officials are scheduled to appear during the hearing, and the bill repealing the policy is not expected to be passed any time soon. But opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" say they plan to ride on the current change in perceptions about homosexuals in order to repeal the law under a new administration.
"We're fighting two wars and we have an overstretched military. We have too many people that are on their third, fourth and fifth tours in Iraq or Afghanistan," Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) told Fox on Tuesday. "It is a time when we have a president that will sign a legislation and we don't have one now." Tauscher is the main author of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a measure seeking to abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by allowing homosexuals to serve freely in the armed forces. Tauscher supports Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who has vowed to repeal the law if he becomes president.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former POW, supports the Pentagon's position that the law should be kept.
However, Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) also said during a conference call that she "want[s] to start a conversation" that will fuel more debate on the issue, according to Politico.
A Washington Post poll found earlier this month that 75% of Americans favor homosexuals serving in the military, up from 44% in 1993.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a law prohibiting homosexuals and bisexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the military. It was passed by a Democratic Congress under former President Bill Clinton, despite strong opposition from civil rights groups. About 12,000 military personnel have been discharged because of homosexuality since the policy was enacted 15 years ago.
“The Army seems to be lowering standards in training to accommodate lower-quality recruits,” RAND Corporation researcher Beth Asch observed at a May 12 Heritage Foundation defense-policy seminar in Colorado Springs.
Conversely, expelled military personnel include Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists who help crush America’s foes in the War on Terror. “Don’t Ask” has ousted at least 58 soldiers who speak Arabic, 50 Korean, 42 Russian, 20 Chinese, nine Farsi, and eight Serbo-Croatian — all trained at the prestigious Defense Language Institute. Al-Qaeda intercepts need translation, and Uncle Sam may need people who can walk around Tehran with open ears. Yet these dedicated gay citizens now are ex-GIs.
Under “Don’t Ask,” the Pentagon reported in February 2005, only one percent of gays were sacked for pursuing or achieving same-sex marriage. Just 16 percent were dismissed for seeking or performing gay sex. Fully 83 percent of those fired between 1994 and 2003 merely stated their gay or bisexual status.
In March 2007 the Navy discharged Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin, an Arabic cryptologic interpreter. Supervisors investigated him when a message he transmitted said, “That was so gay — the good gay, not the bad one.” He also mentioned his social life, thus exposing his homosexuality. Now I ask you, would you sleep better knowing the guy next to you was convicted of a crime or if he was gay? Below is the article about the review which is supposed to happen today.
Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on whether to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on Wednesday. It will be the first congressional review of the controversial policy since it was adopted in 1993.
No Pentagon officials are scheduled to appear during the hearing, and the bill repealing the policy is not expected to be passed any time soon. But opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" say they plan to ride on the current change in perceptions about homosexuals in order to repeal the law under a new administration.
"We're fighting two wars and we have an overstretched military. We have too many people that are on their third, fourth and fifth tours in Iraq or Afghanistan," Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) told Fox on Tuesday. "It is a time when we have a president that will sign a legislation and we don't have one now." Tauscher is the main author of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a measure seeking to abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by allowing homosexuals to serve freely in the armed forces. Tauscher supports Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who has vowed to repeal the law if he becomes president.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former POW, supports the Pentagon's position that the law should be kept.
However, Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) also said during a conference call that she "want[s] to start a conversation" that will fuel more debate on the issue, according to Politico.
A Washington Post poll found earlier this month that 75% of Americans favor homosexuals serving in the military, up from 44% in 1993.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a law prohibiting homosexuals and bisexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the military. It was passed by a Democratic Congress under former President Bill Clinton, despite strong opposition from civil rights groups. About 12,000 military personnel have been discharged because of homosexuality since the policy was enacted 15 years ago.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Massachusetts Senate repeals 1913 law
July 15, 2008 03:36 PM
By Boston Globe Staff
The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill that would repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
The bill, which had the support of Senate President Therese Murray, passed with no objections on a voice vote. Proponents of the repeal called the 1913 law archaic and discriminatory.
"There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I'm ashamed that they're on the books," said State Senator Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat. He said he opposed the law because of the "immorality of discrimination."
"This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books," he said.
"The 1913 law is a shadow, a terrible shadow. It represents a segregationist past that is best put to rest and put to rest quickly," said Senator Harriette Chandler, a Worcester Democrat.
The law originated when lawmakers in many states were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry. It fell into obscurity for decades. But it received new attention in 2004, when Republican Governor Mitt Romney invoked it after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts to prevent out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying here and forcing their home states to consider recognizing Massachusetts marriage law.
“The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that’s exactly what they voted today to do,” Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposed the repeal, said in a statement after the vote.
The bill now heads to the House, where Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has already expressed support. Supporters said they expected the bill to pass the House and be signed by Governor Deval Patrick by the end of the month. "If that bill comes to me, I will sign it and sign it proudly," Patrick said Monday.
By Boston Globe Staff
The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill that would repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
The bill, which had the support of Senate President Therese Murray, passed with no objections on a voice vote. Proponents of the repeal called the 1913 law archaic and discriminatory.
"There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I'm ashamed that they're on the books," said State Senator Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat. He said he opposed the law because of the "immorality of discrimination."
"This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books," he said.
"The 1913 law is a shadow, a terrible shadow. It represents a segregationist past that is best put to rest and put to rest quickly," said Senator Harriette Chandler, a Worcester Democrat.
The law originated when lawmakers in many states were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry. It fell into obscurity for decades. But it received new attention in 2004, when Republican Governor Mitt Romney invoked it after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts to prevent out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying here and forcing their home states to consider recognizing Massachusetts marriage law.
“The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that’s exactly what they voted today to do,” Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposed the repeal, said in a statement after the vote.
The bill now heads to the House, where Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has already expressed support. Supporters said they expected the bill to pass the House and be signed by Governor Deval Patrick by the end of the month. "If that bill comes to me, I will sign it and sign it proudly," Patrick said Monday.
Monday, July 14, 2008
So you think you can drum
You know what? After watching a whole lot of lame entertainers on "Americas Got Talent" over the past couple of weeks while waiting to see the Kinsey Sicks...which were in the promo for the show and we still haven't seen yet...the need only go as far as the local subway station to find some real real talent.
Learn from History
Here is a beautiful history lesson we might all learn something from. Try to ignore the fact that the woman who is being interviewed had a few too many drinks before doing the interview.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Rest of the Story
Here is the news article that my post below was based on.
Gays and lesbians who marry in California could face fines, imprisonment
NICOLE C. BRAMBILA • THE DESERT SUN • JULY 11, 2008
An archaic Wisconsin law could have lesbian and gay couples married in California paying a stiff $10,000 fine or behind bars, if district attorneys dust off the 1915 law.
That’s a big if, same-sex marriage proponents and opponents say.
“The law was not intended to do anything to quote, unquote, same-sex marriage because it wasn’t on anyone’s radar when it was written,” said Julaine Appling, CEO of Wisconsin Family Council.
“What’s the likelihood, in today’s political climate, of finding a district attorney to enforce the law?”
Formed in 1986 to advance traditional conservative Christian values, the Wisconsin Family Council supported the state’s 2006 Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.
Shannon Minter – legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the same-sex marriage case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of the 14 couples and Equality California – agreed.
“It would be very mean-spirited and unprecedented if they whipped out that dusty law and tried to prosecute a gay or lesbian couple that’s trying to get married in California,” Minter said.
“I think it would be thrown out of court in short order.”
Based in San Francisco, the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a lawsuit after the Supreme Court nullified about 4,000 same-sex marriages in 2004 because state law limited marriage to heterosexuals. On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
The 1915 Wisconsin statute was originally crafted as part of the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act – adopted by four states including Massachusetts – to address, among other things, minors crossing the state line to get married.
Some states – such as Wisconsin and Delaware – impose criminal penalties on residents who enter a prohibited marriage outside the state. In Wisconsin, for example, couples could face a $10,000 fine or 9 months jail while in Delaware, it’s a $100 fine that if not paid could result in 30 days in jail.
Only two states – California and Massachusetts – allow same-sex marriage. California, unlike Massachusetts, does not have residency requirements.
Gay and lesbian advocates and defenders, however, worry the law could be applied to same-sex couples.
In June before same-sex couples said, “I do,” in California, Fair Wisconsin – a statewide organization that works for equality and legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – sent out about 10,000 emails alerting supporters about the state law.
Glenn Carlson, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, said he learned of the antiquated law two years ago at a wedding reception for Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) and his partner, who tied the knot in Canada.
Pocan, Carlson said, joked that his same-sex marriage violated Wisconsin law.
“There are very conservative parts of the state,” Carlson said. “I think (prosecution) very definitely is in the realm of possibility.”
Same-sex couples have been able to marry in Canada since 2003.
Legal experts say no one has been prosecuted for Canadian marriages.
That doesn’t mean Bob Klebba and his partner of 10 years, David Waugh, aren’t mildly concerned about their San Diego wedding in August.
“I’d rather be prosecuted than persecuted,” the Madison, Wisconsin resident said.
“Part of the reason I’d like to see this issue come to a head is I’d like to see it establish jurisprudence.”
Breaking the Law in Wisconsin
Well folks, here's the bad news, when we attended a discussion group on LGBT legal issues at the Pride festival in Green Bay, WI on Saturday, a lawyer asked if any of the couples there were planning on going to California to get married or if any of us were already married. We raised our hands and he asked where we got married. We told him Toronto and after congratulating us he said "now for the bad news". We have broken a 1914 Wisconsin law and could face a $10,000 fine and 9 months in jail. The law was originally made (among other things) to prohibit minors from crossing the state line to marry. It is called the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act. Well folks, guess we fall into that category somewhere. Steve and I both asked where we can sign up to test this law and challenge it. When he asked where we lived and we told him Madison...he said "NOT A CHANCE". There isn't a prosecuter in Dane county that would take it on...it would be thrown out of court right away. Dane county is far to liberal and progressive to mess with such a thing. Fair Wisconsin lawyers ARE looking for a couple to test this out, but he said they need to be from a conservative area of the state...probably further north somewhere. If you want to read more on this story, let me know and I'll send you the link.
Friday, July 11, 2008
NEWPride '08
If anyone will be in the Green Bay, WI area this Saturday, Steve and I will be giving a one hour presentation on Soulforce at the Green Bay Pride event at 4:30. It is being held at Joannes Park and officially starts at 11:00. For more information on the event, here is the link to their website.We will be showing the Soulforce 10th anniversary dvd which we bought at General Conference in Fort Worth.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Rock translation
NOW I understand what Joe Cocker was singing about at Woodstock...I just needed a translator.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A Bellagio 4th
Happy 4th of July, wish I could be at Bellagio to see this in person on the 4th. Instead I will save money by staying at home and enjoy our own dancing fountain in our little patio pond. Add some music and a little imagination and...hmmmmm, better make that a LOT of imagination!!!!
MAC vs PC commercial
Being a mac user, I love the mac/pc commercials, but this is one I had never seen before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
