Those officers should be ashamed of themselves and this Active Soldier lets them know it.
News and Commentary About My Gay World
Monday, October 17, 2011
Spock is Gay
From joemygod.com"when i found out that jamey rodemeyer killed himself - i felt deeply troubled. but when i found out that jamey rodemeyer had made an it gets better video only months before taking his own life - i felt indescribable despair. i also made an it gets better video last year - in the wake of the senseless and tragic gay teen suicides that were sweeping the nation at the time. but in light of jamey's death - it became clear to me in an instant that living a gay life without publicly acknowledging it - is simply not enough to make any significant contribution to the immense work that lies ahead on the road to complete equality." - Actor Zachary Quinto, writing on his personal blog. Quinto came out this weekend.
Thank you Zachary.
For those of you still in the closet......Come out! Come out! Where ever you are!
We need you to show the world we are many. That we are your friends and family. We are neighbors, church members, parents at PTA, doctors and lawyers. We are the same and deserve the same.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
KC Catholic Bishop INDICTED for Failing to Report Kiddie Porn Priest
But what about the children?
Kansas City's anti-gay and "pro-life" Roman Catholic bishop has been indicted on a charge of "failing to protect children" after he and his diocese waited five months to report to police that "hundreds of images of child pornography" were discovered on a priest's computer, reports the AP.
Bishop Robert Finn becomes the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman and the "highest-rank clergyman charged" in the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals, reports the Kansas City Star.
A Jackson County grand jury on Oct. 6 secretly indicted both Finn and the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on misdemeanor charges of failure to report child abuse in a case involving a priest facing child pornography charges. As Finn and the diocese denied wrongdoing Friday after appearing in court, news of the charges roiled the nation and the Catholic world.
The charges were announced Friday at a news conference by Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker. "This is a significant charge," Baker said. "To my knowledge, a charge like this has not been leveled before."Finn as a member of the clergy and the diocese as the operator of schools are required under Missouri law to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse. But they did not do that for five months in the case of the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, the indictment alleges. In a statement, the diocese said its lawyers entered a plea of not guilty for the diocese.
Ratigan faces multiple child pornography charges in state and federal court. A separate lawsuit filed in June accuses Finn and the diocese of violating federal and state child pornography and child abuse laws when they allegedly concealed evidence that the priest "was creating child pornography by photographing and being sexually inappropriate with young parish girls."
The Kansas City Star has published an editorial demanding the Bishop's resignation, saying that Finn "must go."
Bishop Finn is affiliated with the Opus Dei movement. Finn has called for "war" against gay rights and pro-choice activists. Kiddie porn producing priests? Not so much.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Rachel Maddow On Frank Kameny - LGBT history
This is the kind of history our kids need to know. LGBT history is NOT about sex. It is about the hard working people who helped shape this great country and this man is at the top of that change.
Thank you Frank for a life time of service.
Bigots fail in California! Anti-gay referendum doesn't get enough signatures
From Alvin McEwen at Holy Bullies and Headlass Monsters
All of the religious right's lies and all of the religious right's men won't be able to put gays in the closet again.
From the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News:
What tripe. They pass themselves off as so noble. Of course they omit the depths they stooped to in trying to get signatures for the petition such as telling basic lies about what the petition was about and then trying to push the following mess in area churches:
I didn't post this yesterday in spite of the fact that several pro-gay blogs did simply because I wanted concrete confirmation. Having dealt with religious right tactics, I was very wary of a Trojan Horse tactic. But there is no need to be wary any more.
These folks and all of their lies about "indoctrinating children" lost and lost hard. And that includes the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.
Let this be a lesson to us all. There are times when all of the money, influence, and connections in the world can't make lies true. And if those of us who are fighting these lies hold fast to our principles and never stop fighting, we win.
For true information about the Fair Education Act, go here.
All of the religious right's lies and all of the religious right's men won't be able to put gays in the closet again.
From the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News:
Today was the deadline for signatures to qualify a new referendum for inclusion on the November 2012 ballot.
As EQCA announced yesterday, the anti-equality advocates were unable to get the specified number of signatures to get their discriminatory policies back in the hands of the voters.
They were seeking a referendum to overturn the recent FAIR Education Act (SB48), which ensures classrooms are including LGBT, minority and handicapped individuals in the teaching of history.
At many public locations where the group attempted to gather signatures, it was reported they were misleading the public about what the law was about, even linking it in some cases to pedophilia.
After a last minute rally in an attempt to uncover or gather more signatures, today the group sent out an email to all their supporters, entitled, "We Fought the Law and the Law Won."
In the email, they shared their disappointment with losing their attempt at overturning the "very bad law" and thanked their supporters.
They also offered guidance on what to expect of their referndum's "opponents," avowed to not give up the fight for the sake of the children and identified the state politicians that stood with them in the attempt to overturn the FAIR Education Act.
The communication also gives insight into to their discriminatory tactics, from the school board level, up.
Unfortunately we did not collect enough signatures to qualify the referendum to overturn SB48. That law will be in place in our schools at the first of next year.
We thank all of you that worked so hard to provide the hundreds of thousands of signatures received. In the end, 90 days was too short a time to accomplish such a large task.
In the coming days you will see the celebration of our opponents. We know this because it has already started in social media and other places. And some of the rhetoric will be harsh. Remember, despite what they say about us, we opposed SB 48 simply because we do not believe that children should be exposed to an intentionally one-sided argument about lifestyles and values we do not hold.
And you will have to face some of those who said from the beginning that our referendum effort was a waste of time. They said we did not have enough money, the commitment of enough groups, or enough days. Ultimately they were right. And in private perhaps they will ask if the effort they withheld would have made the critical difference.
In the end, everybody that dedicated time and effort to qualifying this referendum should hold their heads high. The children in California schools and their parents owe a debt of gratitude to each of you for attempting such a huge task.
We hope that you will be there for the next battle.
While we did not overturn this very bad law, we built a small army of dedicated volunteers that collected an incredible amount of signatures. There will be a next battle. Despite the overuse of the term "tolerance," there is little tolerance for those who do not endorse the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyles. And there will be more laws passed that advocate for these and attempt to silence any opposition.
What tripe. They pass themselves off as so noble. Of course they omit the depths they stooped to in trying to get signatures for the petition such as telling basic lies about what the petition was about and then trying to push the following mess in area churches:
I didn't post this yesterday in spite of the fact that several pro-gay blogs did simply because I wanted concrete confirmation. Having dealt with religious right tactics, I was very wary of a Trojan Horse tactic. But there is no need to be wary any more.
These folks and all of their lies about "indoctrinating children" lost and lost hard. And that includes the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.
Let this be a lesson to us all. There are times when all of the money, influence, and connections in the world can't make lies true. And if those of us who are fighting these lies hold fast to our principles and never stop fighting, we win.
For true information about the Fair Education Act, go here.
Skin Cell Regeneration from a Bioreactor - Very Cool
Skin Cell Regeneration from a Bioreactor
by - October 11, 2011 - 3:49 PM
Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/103309#ixzz1acfn9Rk4
--brought to you by mental_floss!
This is so cool! My younger and favorite brother, Paul, was burned on his face, neck, and arm this last Auguest the day after we left Ohio for home. He is doing fine and his beautiful face is almost back to normal. His arm will be scared. It has taken weeks of painful recovery and we all learned about the treatment of bad burns. I hope this "skin gun" gets in the hands of every burn unit world wide.
Here’s a clip from National Geographic Explorer, showing Dr. Jörg Gerlach’s experimental “skin gun,” a tool used in regenerating burned skin using the patient’s own skin cells from other parts of the body. This technique, though experimental, can heal in a matter of days, rather than the weeks (and the associated scarring caused in that time) typically necessary for other techniques like skin grafts.
Gerlach: “We isolate cells from the healthy part of the skin — the patient’s own cells — which can be taken in a water solution, and that solution is prepared for cell spraying.”
The whole approach is part of Gerlach’s work on bioreactors; his approach involves not just the applicator gun, but also a system for growing cells and a special wound dressing that helps with healing. In the video below, we see one example of a man who had second-degree burns over much of his face, right arm, and right shoulder which was treated with the experimental technique — and to my eye there’s virtually no scarring. Let’s hope this works for others!
Warning: there are a few images of second-degree skin burns in this video, though they are not shown with the intent to gross you out. If you’re not cool with seeing a bit of post-burn flesh, don’t watch. Just in case, I put the video (with its poster frame of a second-degree-burned hand) after the jump:
by - October 11, 2011 - 3:49 PM
Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/103309#ixzz1acfn9Rk4
--brought to you by mental_floss!
This is so cool! My younger and favorite brother, Paul, was burned on his face, neck, and arm this last Auguest the day after we left Ohio for home. He is doing fine and his beautiful face is almost back to normal. His arm will be scared. It has taken weeks of painful recovery and we all learned about the treatment of bad burns. I hope this "skin gun" gets in the hands of every burn unit world wide.
Here’s a clip from National Geographic Explorer, showing Dr. Jörg Gerlach’s experimental “skin gun,” a tool used in regenerating burned skin using the patient’s own skin cells from other parts of the body. This technique, though experimental, can heal in a matter of days, rather than the weeks (and the associated scarring caused in that time) typically necessary for other techniques like skin grafts.
Gerlach: “We isolate cells from the healthy part of the skin — the patient’s own cells — which can be taken in a water solution, and that solution is prepared for cell spraying.”
The whole approach is part of Gerlach’s work on bioreactors; his approach involves not just the applicator gun, but also a system for growing cells and a special wound dressing that helps with healing. In the video below, we see one example of a man who had second-degree burns over much of his face, right arm, and right shoulder which was treated with the experimental technique — and to my eye there’s virtually no scarring. Let’s hope this works for others!
Warning: there are a few images of second-degree skin burns in this video, though they are not shown with the intent to gross you out. If you’re not cool with seeing a bit of post-burn flesh, don’t watch. Just in case, I put the video (with its poster frame of a second-degree-burned hand) after the jump:
Explaining Ten Years of War to a Child
Filed By Terrance Heath | October 11, 2011 5:00 PM | 0 comments at Bilerico.com
The first question came out of the blue. “Dad,” he asked me, “Why did we go to war in Afghanistan?”
I had to think for a moment. Not because I didn’t know the answer, of course. Ten years ago today we went to war in Afghanistan, under “Operation Enduring Freedom, even as smoke still rose from the rubble at Ground Zero. Less than a month after the September 11th attacks,” which happened a little more than year before our oldest son was born. Ostensibly, we went to war with Afghanistan because the Al-Quaeda used the country as an operating base, and the Taliban government allowed it.
So, we went to war because …? Was it self-defense? Was it vengeance? Should I tell him that, in the aftermath of 9/11, a number of very vocal Americans wanted to “bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age” and “make the rubble bounce”? Should I tell him that the country had already been bombed back to something like the Stone Age during the Soviet war in Afghanistan? Should I tell him how we armed, trained and financed the Mujahideen, to fight the Soviet Union, to the tune of $40 billion? Should I tell him that once the Soviets withdrew, we abandoned the Afghanistan?
Should I tell him that Osama bin Laden was one of the mujahideen, and likely among those we armed and trained? My son knows who bin Laden was — that he was the leader of the terrorist organization that launched the attacks on 9/11, and was instrumental in planning those attacks. He knows that bin Laden was killed in a targeted special forces mission. Should I tell him that we knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and — in terms he could well understand at the age of eight — let the “bad guy” get away? Should I try to explain to him why it took us nearly ten years to do what should have been done after 9/11, and could have been done without going to war in Afghanistan?
Should I tell him about the tremendous cost of it all?
I gave a brief answer to our son’s first question, but as he turned his attention back to his Legos, I still pondered all of the above.
Lost in thought, I was utterly unprepared when he looked up again and asked, “So, why are we still at war in Afghanistan?”
I thought of all we sacrificed and continue to sacrifice to pay for the war in Afghanistan, as cataloged yesterday by Jim Wallis.
Our son turned back to his Legos, either unfazed that I didn’t have an answer or understanding that I didn’t have a simple answer.
Why are we still in Afghanistan, when so much needs doing and can be done several times over with we have spent and are still spending on war?
What are we waiting for?
That’s one question my son didn’t ask. If he had, I’d have had to give the same answer. I don’t know. I just don’t know.
I had to think for a moment. Not because I didn’t know the answer, of course. Ten years ago today we went to war in Afghanistan, under “Operation Enduring Freedom, even as smoke still rose from the rubble at Ground Zero. Less than a month after the September 11th attacks,” which happened a little more than year before our oldest son was born. Ostensibly, we went to war with Afghanistan because the Al-Quaeda used the country as an operating base, and the Taliban government allowed it.
So, we went to war because …? Was it self-defense? Was it vengeance? Should I tell him that, in the aftermath of 9/11, a number of very vocal Americans wanted to “bomb Afghanistan into the Stone Age” and “make the rubble bounce”? Should I tell him that the country had already been bombed back to something like the Stone Age during the Soviet war in Afghanistan? Should I tell him how we armed, trained and financed the Mujahideen, to fight the Soviet Union, to the tune of $40 billion? Should I tell him that once the Soviets withdrew, we abandoned the Afghanistan?
Should I tell him that Osama bin Laden was one of the mujahideen, and likely among those we armed and trained? My son knows who bin Laden was — that he was the leader of the terrorist organization that launched the attacks on 9/11, and was instrumental in planning those attacks. He knows that bin Laden was killed in a targeted special forces mission. Should I tell him that we knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and — in terms he could well understand at the age of eight — let the “bad guy” get away? Should I try to explain to him why it took us nearly ten years to do what should have been done after 9/11, and could have been done without going to war in Afghanistan?
Should I tell him about the tremendous cost of it all?
I gave a brief answer to our son’s first question, but as he turned his attention back to his Legos, I still pondered all of the above.
Lost in thought, I was utterly unprepared when he looked up again and asked, “So, why are we still at war in Afghanistan?”
I thought of all we sacrificed and continue to sacrifice to pay for the war in Afghanistan, as cataloged yesterday by Jim Wallis.
If the moral and financial costs weren’t enough to end the war, public opinion has turned against it, and its strategic importance has long been in question.I thought of how we’ve chosen and continue to choose war over all of these things. I shook my head and answered, “I don’t know, son. I just don’t know. But I hope that soon we won’t be fighting in Afghanistan anymore.”
Tomorrow, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be more than $1.259 trillion.
Tomorrow, almost 14 million Americans will still be unemployed.
Tomorrow, the homes of more than 2,500 new U.S. families will enter foreclosure.
Tomorrow, one in seven U.S. households still won’t know where their next meal is coming from.
Tomorrow, one in four American children under the age of six will still be living below the poverty line.
Tomorrow, three billion people around the globe will still be living on less than $2.50 a day.
Tomorrow, 400 million children will still lack access to clean water.
Tomorrow, 300 children under the age of five will die in the Horn of Africa because of famine.
People are feeling crushed from all sides.
Parents who aren’t sure where their kid’s next meal will come from, and the college students who have tens of thousands of dollars in loans and can’t find a job.
Families that have lost their homes in bank foreclosures, and the tens of millions of people who live below the poverty line even though they HAVE jobs.
Our son turned back to his Legos, either unfazed that I didn’t have an answer or understanding that I didn’t have a simple answer.
Why are we still in Afghanistan, when so much needs doing and can be done several times over with we have spent and are still spending on war?
What are we waiting for?
That’s one question my son didn’t ask. If he had, I’d have had to give the same answer. I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
BREAKING: Hate Groups FAIL To Collect Enough Petitions To Overturn SB 48
From joemygod.com comes this wonderful piece of news.
Please click on the links below to access Joe's library for more information.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! From a Stop SB 48 email blast:
"The News is Not Good ... it is doubtful we will get the number of signatures we need to qualify. Unfortunately the last several deliveries of mail have not been what was expected and a large number of petitions have been pulled out because of errors. From all appearances, we would need a miracle to qualify this referendum."We chortle in our joy. We chortle the fuck outta this.
Bryan Fischer at the Values Voter Summit - From the Horses Mouth
Here you go folks! I have been telling you about how bad Bryan Fischer is.
This is him speaking to every GOP candidate and other Hate Groups on the topic of "homosexuality".
He has similar feelings about other topics as well.
Bad mouthing a minority and wanting to strip away rights is NOT my America!
This is him speaking to every GOP candidate and other Hate Groups on the topic of "homosexuality".
He has similar feelings about other topics as well.
Bad mouthing a minority and wanting to strip away rights is NOT my America!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Bryan Fischer goes After Romney at the Values Voter Summit
From Jeremy Hooper at Good As You.
Bryan Fischer, the so-called "Value Voters Summit" speaker who GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called out in his own VVS speech, wants to make something perfectly clear. That is: Even though most mainstream media reports are pitting the current controversy as being between evangelicals and Romney's Mormon faith, for central figure Fischer (who spoke immediately after Romney at the summit), the war of words is much more about gays and their rights than it about Joseph Smith or Temple Garments.
Fischer writes:
Association, co-hosted this silly Values Voters Summit. A man who got to speak right after someone who could become our next President. A man who used that plum speaking gig to give one of the most insanely hostile speeches imaginable, complete with a call for the next President to declare homosexuality a public health hazard. A man whose extremism (along with that of Pastor Robert Jeffress) led said candidate to publicly renounce him. And yet still, most every single report I'm seeing is making this current war-within all about whether or not figures like Jeffress and Fischer consider Mormonism to be a "cult" and not about what Fischer himself is flat-out saying is the real issue. Adding insult to injury, I'm still seeing far to many people paint Fischer as nothing more than a mere conservative voice, which is just plain negligent at this point. All leading to the major question here, which is: Why do LGBT issues get so much focus in some ways yet so much of a pass in another?!
When people like Bryan Fischer say insane things about LGBT people: BELIEVE THEM! This person not only got to speak at this same conference as the leading GOP presidential contenders, but the organization that gives him a paycheck was invited to co-host the damn thing (along with the Family Research Council). Fischer highlights that last point himself:
Bryan Fischer, the so-called "Value Voters Summit" speaker who GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called out in his own VVS speech, wants to make something perfectly clear. That is: Even though most mainstream media reports are pitting the current controversy as being between evangelicals and Romney's Mormon faith, for central figure Fischer (who spoke immediately after Romney at the summit), the war of words is much more about gays and their rights than it about Joseph Smith or Temple Garments.
Fischer writes:
But my main disagreement with Mitt is this, and this is what I told every member of the media who interviewed me: my problem with Mitt is not that he’s Mormon, it’s that he’s not Mormon enough. In fact, that is all I’ve ever said about Romney’s Mormon faith.In saying this, Fischer actually helps our cause, highlighting a major problem with how LGBT matters are commonly treated. Here we have a man whose organization, the American Family
...
The Mormon church has always been strongly pro-marriage, yet Gov. Romney imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts and the United States by executive fiat in 2004.
The sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage are the two absolute non-negotiables. That Mitt suddenly discovered these values at the same time he decided he wanted to be the next Republican presidential candidates smacks of a political conversion that is more about convenience than conviction.
In fact, I think the main reason Mitt Romney tried to kneecap me on Saturday is that I have been unswerving in pointing out he imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts by executive fiat.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the fall of 2003 that the state’s existing natural marriage law - which outlawed same-sex marriage - was unconstitutional. The court, in a nod to the separation of powers, urged the General Assembly to write a new law, since that’s not the role of the judiciary, and gave it 180 days.
The General Assembly did precisely nothing. In fact, same-sex marriage is still illegal in Massachusetts. It is against the law, because the law has never been changed. You could look it up.
But Gov. Romney, in his craven capitulation to homosexual activists, was not about to be deterred. He plunged ahead and “legalized” same-sex marriage in a burst of executive activism and tyranny.
He ordered town clerks in the spring of 2004 to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples or get fired. Massachusetts state law still to this day directs town clerks to only issue marriage licenses that are “authorized by the laws of the commonwealth.” So Romney was ordering them to break the state law or lose their jobs, a gross abuse of power.
There’s a rule in politics: you never punch down; you only punch up. You never attack someone who has less power than you. Yet Mitt Romney came after me, someone with a minor national profile and no political power whatsoever.
Why did he punch down by going after me? Because I’m saying something he does not want Republican voters to know: America has same-sex marriage because of Mitt Romney.
In other words, his attack on me wasn’t about Mormonism at all. It was about same-sex marriage and his shameful role in foisting it on America.Bryan Fischer: Mitt Romney publicly attacks me. Why? It's not about Mormonism [AFA]
When people like Bryan Fischer say insane things about LGBT people: BELIEVE THEM! This person not only got to speak at this same conference as the leading GOP presidential contenders, but the organization that gives him a paycheck was invited to co-host the damn thing (along with the Family Research Council). Fischer highlights that last point himself:
Speaking of “decency and civility,” the American Family Association is one of the hosts of this event. How “decent and civil” is it to insult one of your hosts in front of the entire nation from the platform they have made available to you? Hmmm?Bryan Fischer: Mitt Romney publicly attacks me. Why? It's not about Mormonism [AFA]So there is no debate here. Fischer says his Romney fight is all about same-sex marriage, he takes responsibility for getting Romney to the summit in the first place, and he thinks the candidate was wrong to "insult" him in the way that he did. There's the story, which is inextricably connected to the Family Research Council, the Romney campaign, the crowd that gave Fischer a standing ovation, and the marriage fight in this country. We must demand it get reported in this way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)