Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘news’ Category

Well until today, the only state on my boycott list was Utah (for obvious reasons). I’ve now added Arizona.

I cannot believe the extremists were able to get an immigration law passed that allows  police to enforce immigration laws and stop people, using “reasonable suspicion,” for being illegal. Now, I was a cop and have a criminolgy degree and I cannot define what characteristics would describe someone being illegal, and allow a stop, can you? This is racial profiling at its worst.

I am glad I am not dark skinned.

Further, the Constitution does not allow states to enforce federal laws. Does not matter if the feds have failed at their duties, states cannot enforce immigration. Period.

Lastly, it is well known that most illegals are already afraid of the police. This will be the nail in the coffin of the chances that illegals will call or cooperate with police in any way ever again. In Arizona and get robbed in front of an illegal? Don’t expect help. You will not get it. Police and prosecutors looking and needing witnesses to convict a murderer? Forget it.

We have soldiers fighting for us overseas that were born here, and are therefore citizens. However, they have family members that are not. Should we arrest and deport Mom and Dad while Son or Daughter is in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a subject for another day, but it has happened.

What happens when the state arrests people for being illegal and the feds refuse to take them? It will happen as this country does not have the means to arrest, jail, process and deport every illegal. It is simply not possible with current fiscal constraints and infrastructure.

Oh, get this. This law just passed today. Type in “boycott” in google and the first suggestion that apears before you hit the enter key is “boycott Arizona.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Washington Post
By Sir Elton John
Sunday, April 25, 2010; B01

Dear Ryan,

Twenty years ago this month, you died of AIDS. I would gladly give my fame and fortune if only I could have one more conversation with you, the friend who changed my life as well as the lives of millions living with HIV. Instead, I have written you this letter.

I remember so well when we first met. A young boy with a terrible disease, you were the epitome of grace. You never blamed anyone for the illness that ravaged your body or the torment and stigma you endured.

When students, parents and teachers in your community shunned you, threatened you and expelled you from school, you responded not with words of hate but with understanding beyond your years. You said they were simply afraid of what they did not know.

When the media heralded you as an “innocent victim” because you had contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, you rejected that label and stood in solidarity with thousands of HIV-positive women and men. You reminded America that all victims of AIDS are innocent.

When you became a celebrity, you embraced the opportunity to educate the nation about the AIDS epidemic, even though your only wish was to live an ordinary life.

Ryan, I wish you could know how much the world has changed since 1990, and how much you changed it.

Young boys and girls with HIV attend school and take medicine that allows them to lead normal lives. Children in America are seldom born with the virus, and they no longer contract it through transfusions. The insults and injustices you suffered are not tolerated by society.

Most important, Ryan, you inspired awareness, which helped lead to lifesaving treatments. In 1990, four months after you died, Congress passed the Ryan White Care Act, which now provides more than $2 billion each year for AIDS medicine and treatment for half a million Americans. Today, countless people with HIV live long, productive lives.

It breaks my heart that you are not one of them. You were 18 when you died, and you would be 38 this year, if only the current treatments existed when you were sick. I think about this every day, because America needs your message of compassion as never before.

Ryan, when you were alive, your story sparked a national conversation about AIDS. But despite all the progress in the past 20 years, the dialogue has waned. I know you would be trying to revive it if you were here today, when the epidemic continues to strike nearly every demographic group, with more than 50,000 new infections in the United States each year. I know you would be loudly calling for the National HIV/AIDS Strategy that was promised by President Obama but has not yet been delivered. I know you would reach out to young people. I know you would work tirelessly to help everyone suffering from HIV, including those who live on the margins of society.

It would sadden you that today, in certain parts of the United States, some poor people with AIDS are still placed on waiting lists to receive treatment. It would anger you that your government is still not doing enough to help vulnerable people with HIV and populations that are at high risk of contracting the virus, including sexually active teenagers. It would upset you that AIDS is a leading cause of death among African Americans.

It would frustrate you that even though hundreds of thousands of HIV-positive Americans are receiving treatment in your name, more than 200,000 don’t know their HIV-positive status, largely because of a lingering stigma surrounding the disease that prevents them from being tested. It would disappoint you that many teenagers do not have access to science-based HIV-prevention programs in school, at a time when half of new infections are believed to be among people under 25.

I miss you so very much, Ryan. I was by your side when you died at Riley Hospital. You’ve been with me every day since. You inspired me to change my life and carry on your work. Because of you, I’m still in the struggle against AIDS, 20 years later. I pledge to not rest until we achieve the compassion for which you so bravely and beautifully fought.

Your friend,

Elton

Sir Elton John, a Grammy- and Academy Award-winning artist, is the founder and chairman of the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

Read Full Post »

One more step, albeit small, towards equality.

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post staff writer
Thursday, April 15, 2010; 8:08 PM

President Obama on Thursday signed a memorandum requiring hospitals to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and to grant their partners medical power of attorney.

The president ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation. The memo is scheduled to be made public Friday morning, according to an administration official and another source familiar with the White House decision.

An official said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding.

The decision injects the president squarely into the debate over gay marriage by attempting to end the common practice by many hospitals of insisting that only family members by blood or marriage be allowed to visit patients.

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing gay marriages would ease the emotional pain associated with not being able to visit their partners during a health crisis.

By contrast, opponents of gay marriage have said the visitation issue is a red herring, and have argued that advocates want to provide special rights for gays and lesbians that others do not have.

The memorandum from Obama to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, made public late Thursday night, orders new rules that would ensure hospitals “respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.”

Obama says the new rules should require that hospitals not deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay,” Obama says in the memo.

Affected, he said, are “gay and lesbian American who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

Obama’s actions are the latest attempt by his administration to slowly advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.

In his first 15 months in office, Obama has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and hosted the first gay pride day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama’s top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of getting rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.

But the moves have been too slow for some in the gay community, who have urged the president to champion their causes head-on. One prominent gay blogger, John Aravosis, wrote last October that Obama’s “track record on keeping his gay promises has been fairly abominable.”

Read Full Post »

I love these stories. It is hard for all of us to come out yet these people act holier than thou until they are forced into coming out. Karma is a bitch.

Roy Ashburn, California State Senator, Says He’s Gay After DUI Arrest

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.

Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.

Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.

“I am gay … those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long,” Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.

The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest.

“When I crossed the line and broke the law and put people at risk, that’s different, and I do owe people an explanation,” he said.

Ashburn was arrested after he was spotted driving erratically near the Capitol, according to the California Highway Patrol. Shelly Orio, a spokeswoman from the Sacramento County district attorney’s office, said a breath test showed the senator’s blood-alcohol level was .14 percent, or .06 points above the legal limit.

The next day, reports surfaced that Ashburn had left Faces, a gay nightclub, with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle.

“The best way to handle that is to be truthful and to say to my constituents and all who care that I am gay,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s something that has affected, nor will it affect, how I do my job.”

Ashburn had been on personal leave since his arrest, but attended Monday’s brief Senate session, where he avoided the media. Fellow lawmakers greeted him warmly, and he received pats on the back and hugs from some Republicans and Democrats.

Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk.

Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, has consistently given Ashburn a zero rating on its scorecard.

The group’s executive director, Geoff Kors, said Monday that he hopes the senator’s revelation will lead him to change his voting patterns.

“He’s still the same person, only living more honestly,” Kors said. “I hope his own self-awareness will result in him no longer voting to deny people the most basic rights.”

Ashburn said his votes reflected the way constituents in his district wanted him to vote, not necessarily his own views.

“I felt my duty – and I still feel this way – is to represent my constituents, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict,” he told Barks.

Ashburn said he planned to continue voting on behalf of what he sees as the majority viewpoint in his district, which includes parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino counties.

Former state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, an openly gay Democrat who was visiting the Capitol Monday, said she hopes Ashburn receives support, not condemnation, from his friends, family and constituents.

“It’s very painful,” she said of the coming-out process. “And mostly it’s painful because you think everyone will be against you.”

In the radio interview, Ashburn said he is drawing on his Christian faith, and he asked people to pray for him.

He said he does not plan to run for any public office after his term ends this year.

Read Full Post »

Never thought I’d see the day so soon. Congress decided it was better not to get involved and the courts have (so far) thrown out every suit against the law.

More here.

Read Full Post »

Should political donors be disclosed? I certainly believe so, but since there are some that have faced pressure for their contributions to pro-8 groups, these two individuals below feel that they should not face actions for supporting the removal of rights. I love that some people just cannot understand the need for people to take responsibility for their actions. What a load of crap from the Wall Street Journal:

Donor Disclosures Has Its Downsides

Supporters of California’s Prop.8 have faced a backlash.

By John R. Lott Jr. and Bradley Smith

How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public — many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people’s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 — California’s recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman — is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign.

Richard Raddon, the director of the L.A. Film Festival, donated $1,500 to Yes on 8. A threatened boycott and picketing of the next festival forced him to resign. Alan Stock, the chief executive of the Cinemark theater chain, gave $9,999. Cinemark is facing a boycott, and so is the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival because it uses a Cinemark theater to screen some of its films.

A Palo Alto dentist lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles gave a $100 personal donation, triggering a demonstration and boycott against her restaurant. The pressure was so intense that Marjorie Christoffersen, who had managed the place for 26 years, resigned.

These are just a few instances that have come to light, and the ramifications are still occurring over a month after the election. The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future: to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns.

The question is not whether Prop. 8 should have passed, but whether its supporters (or opponents) should have their political preferences protected in the same way that voters are protected. Is there any reason to think that the repercussions Mr. Eckern faced for donating to Prop. 8 would be different if it were revealed that instead of donating, he had voted for it?

Indeed, supporters of Prop. 8 engaged in pressure tactics. At least one businessman who donated to “No on 8,” Jim Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In each case, the law required disclosure of these individuals’ financial support for Prop. 8. Supposedly, the reason for requiring disclosure of campaign contributions is to allow voters to police politicians who might otherwise become beholden to financiers by letting voters know “who is behind the message.” But in a referendum vote such as Prop. 8, there are no office holders to be beholden to big donors.

Does anyone believe that in campaigns costing millions of dollars a donation of $100, or even $1,000 or $10,000 will give the donor “undue” influence? Over whom? Meanwhile, voters learn little by knowing the names and personal information of thousands of small contributors.

Besides, it is not the case that voters would have no recourse when it comes to the financial backers of politicians or initiatives. Even without mandatory disclosure rules, the unwillingness to release donation information can itself become a campaign issue. If voters want to know who donated, there will be pressure to disclose that information. Possibly voters will be most concerned about who the donors are when regulatory issues are being debated. But that is for them to decide. They can always vote “no.”

Ironically, it has long been minorities who have benefited the most from anonymous speech. In the 1950s, for example, Southern states sought to obtain membership lists of the NAACP in the name of the public’s “right to know.” Such disclosure would have destroyed the NAACP’s financial base in the South and opened its supporters to threats and violence. It took a Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to protect the privacy of the NAACP and its supporters on First Amendment grounds. And more recently, it has usually been supporters of gay rights who have preferred to keep their support quiet.

There is another problem with publicizing donations in political elections: It tends to entrench powerful politicians whom donors fear alienating. If business executives give money to a committee chairman’s opponent, they often fear retribution.

Other threats are more personal. For example, in 2004 Gigi Brienza contributed $500 to the John Edwards presidential campaign. An extremist animal rights group used that information to list Ms. Brienza’s home address (and similarly, that of dozens of co-workers) on a Web site, under the ominous heading, “Now you know where to find them.” Her “offense,” also revealed from the campaign finance records, was that she worked for a pharmaceutical company that tested its products on animals.

In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today’s easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.

Mr. Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, is the author of “Freedomnomics” (Regnery, 2007). Mr. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission commissioner, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and professor of law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.

Read Full Post »

I work form home so I wouldn’t be missed. However, not answering calls and emails would definitely be noticed. Does it matter that I am not out at work lol?

—–

The HR office has probably never encountered this before: People across the country are being urged to skip work Wednesday after calling in “gay.”

The loosely organized protest, called “Day Without a Gay,” is intended as a statement against California’s ban on same-sex marriage, along with other political developments considered anti-gay.

Some are calling for a boycott of all economic activity to highlight the gay community’s financial power. Others want gays and lesbians to spend the day volunteering for worthy causes to demonstrate their compassion, which could win new sympathy to their cause.

In Chicago, the Gay Liberation Network has called for an 11 a.m. rally outside the County Building, 118 N. Clark St., to call for granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Network co-founder Andy Thayer said he didn’t expect people to actually “call in gay,” but added that “many people will find one way or the other to not be in work that day, because we’re sick of being treated like second-class citizens.”

The motto has stirred a tempest of online debate about the wisdom of skipping work during a recession. Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood, Calif., comic and personal trainer who helped devise the event, said the slogan wasn’t meant to be taken literally. But noting the flood of media attention it has attracted, he was unapologetic.

“I’m happy with the way we did it,” he said. “We’re keeping gay people in the spotlight.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »