Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues

All comments welcome, pro or con. Passionate ok, but let's be civil. ...Pertinent comments will be published on this blog. Air your viewpoints.


Skyline - Houston, Texas

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Sure Could Use a Little Good News Today

That's a line from a song done by one of my favorite Canadians, Anne Murray. Happy Canada Day to all of our good neighbors to the north. 140 years and going strong.

I've taken the day off from doing anything useful like housework or cooking. One child is spending the night with friends and the other two settled for quesadillas. I've been watching my Giants and blog surfing at the same time. (paragraph here)

All of which leads me back to the post title. I was over visiting Echidne of the Snakes (speaking of rockin girls) who was directing traffic to Phila of Bouphoria who writes a weekly post called Friday Hope Blogging.(paragraph here)

I've tried from time to time to write an upbeat post over here but sometimes it's difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm always expecting the oncoming train.(paragraph)

Phila has compiled a post of hopeful news items and some lovely photographs. I hadn't seen any of her writing before but I've added her to my list of fantastic women rockin girl bloggers.(paragraph here)

Take a look if you'd like to brighten your day.

Update: I did not type this as one long, runon paragraph. Pretend the paragraphs are where I say they are.

I'm trying to fix it with html so who knows what the next viewing will look like.

Hey, it worked!! But shouldn't Blogger be doing this for us?

I'm leaving the little notes for "paragraph here" so all of you can share our frustration. Not only did blogger give us one long paragraph, it broke up two sentences in the middle. Half the sentence in one paragraph, the other half two lines down. I fixed that too but I'm growing weary of trying to figure out code.

Worried said...

You are one-up on me, Granny. I haven't figured out the code to fix it when Blogger runs an entire post into one long, unending "paragraph" on some of my blogs. It will be just fine on edit-post page but a solid page of print upon publishing. And it has split my sentences too, skipping down to the next line to complete a sentence.

SheaNC has graciously emailed me his little avatar of the man banging his head on the computer. I think that should be our "theme song".

I note that Blogger is trying out some great and wonderful innovations and marvelous new things for draft. Do you reckon that their tweaking may be part of the problem? Seems like it takes a while for them to iron out the bugs when they hit us with some fantastic new things (that I absolutely will not touch!)

Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:06:00 AM

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Thanks to SheaNC for this visual "theme song" for me and Granny. Incidentally, check out SheaNC's post of Thursday, June 14, 2007 for a good laugh.
P.S. If you haven't done so already, pop over to Granny's Rocrebelgranny blog and sign her fantastic Guest Book. Looking GOOD, Granny!
July 01, 2007 4:06:00 AM
Granny said...
It won't let me type the code here. Remember how to do a strikeout? Substitute a "p" for the "s" and put one without the slash and one with the slash the end of each paragraph (to open and close - just like the strikeout). It's like a link or the blogroll - you need to open and close it.If you can't figure it out from this, let me know. I'll email it.If you look at some of the things you copy from other places, you'llsee it. I just guessed that it was short for paragraph (or maybe linebreak - whatever works).When it splits the sentence, look at the code. Blogger has inserted aparagraph break. Delete it and the sentence should be okay.My edit post page looked okay too. It was the finished product that messed up.I hadn't noticed anything new except the automatic save (which I dolike because we are subject to sudden power outages here). I haven'tlost a complete post lately.Also, you can always look at my code or anyone else's. I'll have to look it up again but there is a way.
Sunday, July 01, 2007 7:50:00 AM
Granny said...
I found a tutorial and copied the page about paragraphs.Here it is
Sunday, July 01, 2007 7:57:00 AM
Worried said...
Thanks, Granny.
Sunday, July 01, 2007 7:56:00 PM


We've Arrived!!

Thank you Ingrid!! I have one of these over on "granny" and I was thrilled. The hardest part was limiting my choices to five of my friends. I finally decided to stay with the grannies.

My first thought for a nomination then was my blogging partner, Worried American but then I reconsidered. It would be too much like nominating my own blog which would be impolite.

I'll wait to nominate anyone here until I hear from WA who may have some ideas of her own. She can also be the one to add it to the sidebar. With all the problems we've been having, I'm afraid to touch it.

First we were dubbed "golden girls" (you too Gadfly) and now we're the "rockin girls". Not bad for the over the hill set.

Worried said...

Thank you so very much, Ingrid. I shall cross my fingers, pull out the lucky rabbit foot,pray to all the internet gods (including the blogger and browser sub-deities)and the God of the Universe and brave the template one more time to place it on the sidebar. (I hope that any of our friends using IE can see our sidebar. IE shows me the sidebar stuff scattered all over the bottom of the page like a train wreck, but MF displays it properly. )

I urge our readers to scroll down and read the comments displayed on this blog, especially the comments on Granny's post about she-who-shall-not-be-named. I needed that!!

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:43:00 PM

Gadfly said...

Yes, thanks a bunch, Ingrid. That is so cool!

Yeah, scroll down and read the comments. I came in for coffee and was hanging over the Old Woman's shoulder kibitzing (she hates that) while she worked on the blog and she about fell out of her chair haw-hawing. When I talk like that she acts prim but says "slanguage is SO expressive" when others do it. Now why in hell is that? Way to go Betmo and JBlue.

I like it when the Old Woman laughs out loud.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:56:00 PM

Worried said...

Gadfly has had her say, checked her email and I've demanded the return of my computer usage. She can hang around and do the cussing for me when I tackle the template. Although I will admit sometimes I don't need anyone to do it for me when "Oh FIE!" just desn't do the job.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:03:00 PM

Granny said...

I see the button is now on the sidebar. Nice going!!

Blogger did it to me on my latest post. I had to go back and try to manually construct paragraphs with html. What I know about code you could put in your ear but I'm learning from pure desperation.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:06:00 P


Does Cheney Love His Grandson?

Granny usually posts on domestic issues involving inequality for citizens such as those affecting gays, but sometimes I do. Cheney's two-faced bigotry enrages me.

It's time for Dick and Lynne to prove whether they love their new grandson or not.

Bush is now threatening to veto the DC Appropriations bill because it no longer includes gay-bashing language that the GOP has put in there for years. The language banned the DC government from using federal funds to in any way support domestic partner benefits, civil unions and the like (not that the DC government was using federal funds, but it was a nice chance for the GOP to gay bash anyway). Now that the Democrats have dropped the GOP gay-bashing language from the bill, George Bush is threatening a veto.

First off, has Bush learned nothing from the fact that his vice president has a daughter, Mary Cheney, who is a lesbian, and who just had a child - in DC - with her lesbian partner, Heather Poe? What Bush is saying is that should Heather end up in a hospital in DC, dying, Mary won't be allowed to see her because she's not "family." What Bush is saying is that if Mary and Heather's baby, Samuel David Cheney, ends up in a DC hospital with a serious illness (and forget him if he ends up in Virginia) only one parent (we're not sure which) will be allowed to visit because both clearly aren't the biological parent of their baby. (And it's interesting that Mary and Heather, who live in Virginia, chose to come to DC to have their baby - a city in which they have far more rights as a lesbian couple than they have in Virginia. Yet now those rights are in danger of being taken away by the man Mary helped get elected. Way to go, mom.)

Second, Bush supports civil unions for gay couples. He said so on ABC right before the 2004 elections. From the NYT:
In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."
So, why is he now going to veto legislation that supports his own policies? Answer: because Bush has nothing left to stand for. As he sinks lower in the polls he can only define himself by saying "no," and by falling back on tried and true Republican cliches: lowering taxes; scaring the public; and bashing gays (and their babies). And if Bush has to say no to Samuel David Cheney, Mary and Heather's baby, in order to appease the bigots at the Family Research Council, then the baby is toast. Hell, the baby is the easiest target (reminds me of an old ad from the Children's Defense Fund (at left)).

George Bush is willing to veto Mary Cheney's baby. And not a word from Dick Cheney or Lynne Cheney about the legislative child abuse Bush is about to inflict on their grandson. It's bad enough Dick and Lynne Cheney sat by for so many years as the GOP (and Dick's own boss) bashed their daughter, but you'd think that the Cheneys would finally come to the defense of their own innocent grandson, Samuel David. The Cheneys have a simple choice. They can side with their own flesh and blood, or they can side with the people who bashed Mary and Heather and their newborn child.

So the question remains, Dick and Lynne, do you love the kid or not?

UPDATE: Pam has more.

Labels: ,

Cheney Poses With Newborn Grandson, But Not His Lesbian Daughter

By Jennifer Chrisler, AlterNet. Posted May 28, 2007.

Cheney and his wife posed in a photo with their new grandson. While the media ate it up, they failed to question why the newborn's two mothers -- Mary Cheney and her partner Heather, were not included.

A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case the silence is deafening.

Picture the photo of the Vice President and his wife and their newborn grandchild -- fresh from delivery and still wrapped in his hospital-issue receiving blanket. What's missing here? The child's parents, of course.

The fact that this White House chose to announce the birth of Vice President Cheney's grandson -- Samuel David Cheney -- with a photo of the baby without either one of his two mothers in sight should come as no surprise. This administration continues to try to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans.

Think about it. Samuel is the Cheney's sixth grandchild -- but can you recall seeing photos of any of the other grandchildren? The only thing that makes Samuel's birth newsworthy at all is that his birth mother, Mary Cheney, is both a lesbian and the daughter of the man who is second in command of an administration that has been more destructive to the lives of LGBT parents and their families than any other group in American history.

By virtue of Mary's status as the Vice President's daughter, she and her partner, Heather Poe, continue to be arguably the most prominent Republican lesbian couple in the country. Mary's pregnancy has been covered by the media since it was first announced. The couple welcomed their first child, Samuel, into the world earlier this week. And yet the mothers are not included in the photo that was sent out to announce the birth of their child.

A more astute media might be asking why there is no photo availability of the entire family, but that is not happening. As a result of the absence of a compelling and truly representative visual to accompany the story, there has been minimal media coverage of the latest addition to one of the nation's most prominent LGBT-headed families. Once again, this administration has manipulated the media for its own purposes -- and the media has allowed them to do so. And, once again, LGBT-headed families remain largely faceless and invisible to the majority of America.

As a lesbian mother and an advocate for full equality for LGBT-headed American families, I have followed Mary Cheney's pregnancy with great interest and empathy. I have read and appreciated her statement that their baby is a "gift from God" -- for is that not true of all children?

I certainly believe that about mine. I have also read Mary's statement that, in her view, their child is "not a political statement." I wish that were also true. I absolutely join Mary and Heather in their desire to live in a world -- and to raise their son in a world -- in which that were the case. However, the unfortunate reality is that our children and our families are politicized -- but not by us. Mary and Heather's invisibility in the public announcement of their own son's birth is proof of that reality.

It is no secret that President Bush and Vice President Cheney's re-election campaign strategy centered around mobilizing the most conservative elements of the Republican Party by targeting LGBT people and their families. Ballot initiatives about same-sex marriage were introduced in many states with the specific intent of bringing religious conservatives to the polls.

However, when asked about his daughter Mary's sexual orientation, Vice President Cheney has consistently asserted his love and support for his daughter. In addition, the Vice President was described by an official White House spokesperson as "looking forward with eager anticipation" to the birth of his sixth grandchild. Additionally, when asked specifically about Mary and Heather becoming parents, President Bush replied that he thought Mary would be "a loving soul to her child" and "a fine mom." Mary's partner, Heather, reportedly even receives protection from the Secret Service.

Nevertheless, in a cowardly move to mollify their conservative base, the administration stripped Samuel's lesbian mothers from the picture heralding his arrival. It simply doesn't get any more political than that.


See more stories tagged with: cheney, lgbt

Jennifer Chrisler is the Executive Director of Family Pride, the nation's only organization dedicated to achieving equality for gay families and their children. She and her spouse are raising twin boys.


Ingrid said...
I have not been online very much but are sooo right. Isn't it obvious even to a staunch Republican who's anti-gay AND knows all about Mary??Great post! Ingrid
Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:32:00 AM
Granny said...
I started to post this (the threatened veto) when I saw it yesterday and ran out of time.You did a much better job than I would have done.I wouldn't have made the connection between Bush veto and the Cheney granddaughter as quickly.
Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:00:00 AM
Ingrid said...
btw ladies, you guys have been awarded the 'rockin' girls blogger' award.. check it out. It's well deserved and I love to refer anyone to your site. You guys are real troopers!Ingrid
Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:56:00 AM

The Future Was Yesterday said...

It's Cheney's definition of "Tough Love."

Bush's veto is intended to prevent just such a "horrible" thing from happening again....snicker!

Saturday, June 30, 2007 4:01:00 PM


Friday, June 29, 2007

As A Favor to Me and a Gesture to a Fellow Blogger

I don't know how many of you know our online friend granny insanity.

She's another of our many intelligent women bloggers who's become discouraged. I hear her clearly and can identify with every word she wrote. Some days I read through my mail and I don't know where to start. So much is evil on so many levels. How do I focus on one or two problems? So I don't and yet another day goes by without a post.

The recent Supreme Court decisions (all 5-4) were almost the last straw. With very few exceptions, they toed the Administration line. We knew this would happen when Roberts and Alito were confirmed. Personally, I sat at a table in our town square with petitions in a vain effort to stop the confirmations. Very few of our good local citizens knew who either one of them were. The word filibuster was foreign to them. Bush got his hand picked Court and the results are already all too obvious.

They railed against "activist" judges when they are the most "activist" of all. They overturn years of precedent without a thought and stand logic and the Constitution on its ear.

But - at least I did something, no matter how futile. Our weekly vigil against the war is also doing something. Every blogger who sits down at a keyboard is doing something. Every phone call and every letter is important. I said the other day and I'll repeat it now, at the very least we support each other.

We may not agree on everything; I'd be a little afraid if we did. We do agree on the important things and we can't allow discouragement to run us off.

The country is beginning, albeit slowly, to awaken. I'd like to think we (all of us) were part of bringing that about.

Every blogger out here is important. I want my friend in Montana to know that.

Please drop over and tell her so.


The Future Was Yesterday said...
......Very few of our good local citizens knew who either one of them were. The word filibuster was foreign to them.Imo, you put your finger on a very large part of the problem. SO many are politically ignorant, and seem to be that way by choice! The politics of the day are not pleasant to dwell on by any means....but apathy does nothing but increase their unpleasantness.I'm on my way to your friend.
Friday, June 29, 2007 8:27:00 PM
Daniel said...
I agree, Granny, that all bloggers are important. Where else are there voices speaking out against the Evil Ones?
Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:16:00 AM
Progressive Traditionalist said...

Hello, Granny Ann.
And thank you for your efforts.

What got me about the whole confirmation thing was the way that it was sooooo obvious that they were trying to duck the questions, to side-step the process itself, and they let them get away with it.

Unfortunately, our country will pay for this madness, and for a very long time to come.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:52:00 PM

Worried said...

PT, you are soooo RIGHT!

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:27:00 PM


Thursday, June 28, 2007

Class Act Versus Trash

Class Act - 1
Trash - 0

I hadn't planned to write anything about Elizabeth Edward's phone call to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I dislike giving "She who shall not be named" any more space than she already has.

However, a local friend sent me this column by Tim King of the Salem (OR) News. From his writing, he appears to be somewhere between moderate to somewhat conservative (note the Jane Fonda remark). However, for the most part he nailed it.

Here's a brief excerpt from his column:

"And that illustrates the most important thing that we all should feel obligated to remember; that this it is not about right and left folks, it is about right and wrong. It's also about the increasingly unethical behavior of media bullies who distance themselves farther from the truth, or any concern for Americans, with each passing day."
She crosses the line every time she opens her mouth. There is no justification for sneering at the loss of a child or wishing for assassination. The woman is vile.

Worried said...

When the breakdown of moral standards begins in the highest office in the land, it demonstrates the worst of the "trickle-down" theories. The lowest standards do not trickle, they pour down through society in general, perpetrated via the media and hollywood and business. Tolerance of she-who-shall-not-be-named displays the way society is becoming hardened to such evil behavior. (And it IS evil to be so cruel and vicious to others!)

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:20:00 PM

The Future Was Yesterday said...

All of what you said is true. I find it equally disgusting that Chris Mathews had a known trash mouth on his show. Why did he? Ratings! CNN received a blistering letter from me.

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:17:00 AM

Nvisiblewmn said...

Of all the people in the world and in the country, why this person? Aren't there Nobel prize winners and INTELLIGENT people out there with something to say? That she even gets a spot on TV is just pathetic. Also, I think Tina at Fuzzy and Blue is right: she's really a man.

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:27:00 AM

Granny said...

What disturbs me more even than her being invited onto the talk shows is the rabble that thinks she's the second coming.

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:29:00 AM

betmo said...

if anything was abundantly clear, it was that she has no value at all to anything. she adds nothing to discourse or debate- she is a scorched earth flame thrower. edwards was polite and had facts. bitchtits looked like a warmed over crack whore who could do nothing but throw more insults. why people keep treating her as valid- i know not.

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:02:00 AM

Nvisiblewmn said...

...warmed over crack whore....

That was so good.

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:50:00 AM

Tina said...

I'm always struck by how ridiculous Coulter acts when directly confronted by anyone who "dares" to call her out on her vile spew. It is obvious Ann can dish it out but simply can't take it.
If I had been Elizabeth Edwards, I could not have been so classy. I know myself. I would have wanted to cut her so deeply to the bone with my words that she wouldn't have been able to flip around that greasy blond hair of her's nor nervously giggle. I would have went for the jugular and asked Ann something like this: "You make light of my son's death, Ann? Why is that? Is it because at your age, are you jealous that no man has been brave enough to risk sticking it in and breeding with you? Or are you childless because your womb is a festering cesspool of infertility? Or maybe, just maybe, the real problem is that dick of your's. Ya know, the one that you duct tape to your leg? It just always seems to get in the way, huh?"
She dared to attack Elizabeth's kid... and a DEAD child at that??? Oh no.... there is simply no way I could have been as cool headed and classy as Elizabeth. Kudos to Mrs Edwards, and as her husband said on Hardball, he is proud of his wife. So am I.

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:33:00 PM

Granny said...

Tina, it's so good to see you over here. It's been a while.

I read your post on the same subject, probably before I wrote mine.

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:08:00 PM

Related site: Matthews and Coulter: No Shame here


Monday, June 25, 2007

Approaching Meltdown?

Can his Masters and Handlers keep him propped up/controlled to his term's end? If he melts down completely, Cheney will continue to rule, as always.

"Wild-Eyed" Bush Thumps Chest, Repeating "I Am The President!"
Posted by Guest Blogger at 5:03 AM on June 1, 2007.
Nico Pitney: President Bush has a meltdown during a private meeting with Texas friends and calls staying in Iraq “our country’s destiny”

This post, written by Nico Pitney, originally appeared on Think Progress

Georgie Anne Geyer writes today in the Dallas Morning News about President Bush's strange behavior during a recent meeting with "[f]riends of his from Texas."

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.
Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

This is the second time in recent weeks that accounts have surfaced of Bush lashing out or "ranting" in private meetings when responding to criticism of his Iraq policy. Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report offered a similar account earlier this month:
[S]ome big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK...etc., etc. [ WA: Like Hitler during his last megalomaniac days?] This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it.

When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.
Like the tearful House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Bush needs to channel his bottled up emotions towards a more worthy end -- winding down the war in Iraq rather than defending the status quo.

How dare the hoi polloi question or criticize his God-mandated course of action and his and his Masters' plan for world domination of the world's resources and an Imperial United States ? Doesn't the public realize that HE knows best, that the elite are better qualified to plan the world's future?
Bush's increasing emotional instability reminds me of his idol's (Adolph Hitler) meltdown towards the end of WWII as his planned destiny for the superior Third Reich began to unravel.

The Future Was Yesterday said...

I feel like I was watching star trek, and suddenly it became real..(:

With the recent disclosure (surprise, surprise!!) of President Cheney being in control, the term "petulant child" came quickly to mind.

I's a fact, that unless alcoholics seek help in changing behaviors, they're stuck at whatever "age" of maturity they were, when they stopped drinking.

Bush allegedly stopped drinking, with no outside help. So, what was his "maturity" age, the day of his last drunk?

Musta been at least 10!!

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:21:00 AM

SheaNC said...

When I started blogging in Oct 2004, I knew it would get worse before it got better. But I never imagined it could get as bad as it has under this regime. Argh.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:18:00 AM

betmo said...

crazier than a shithouse rat. this is the alleged leader of the free world. sigh. echos of king george anyone?

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:04:00 AM


Bush Poll - Lowest

How Low Can He Go?

President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

Gerald Herbert / AP
Iraq isn't the only issue dragging Bush's approval ratings down

By Marcus Mabry
Updated: 10:49 a.m. CT June 21, 2007

June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.


The war in Iraq continues to drag Bush down. A record 73 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush has done handling Iraq. Despite “the surge” in U.S. forces into Baghdad and Iraq’s western Anbar province, a record-low 23 percent of Americans approve of the president’s actions in Iraq, down 5 points since the end of March.

But the White House cannot pin his rating on the war alone. Bush scores record or near record lows on every major issue: from the economy (34 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove) to health care (28 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove) to immigration (23 percent approve, 63 percent disapprove). And—in the worst news, perhaps, for the crowded field of Republicans hoping to succeed Bush in 2008—50 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of terrorism and homeland security. Only 43 percent approve, on an issue that has been the GOP’s trump card in national elections since 9/11.

If there is any good news for Bush and the Republicans in the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, it’s that the Democratic-led Congress fares even worse than the president. Only 25 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

In the scariest news for the Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination in 2008, even rank-and-file Democrats are unhappy with Congress, which is narrowly controlled by their party. Only 27 percent of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing, a statistically insignificant difference from the 25 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents who approve of Congress.

Overall, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, including 60 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents. Apparently, voters aren’t happy with anyone in Washington these days.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc. |


WA: Unfortunately, this poll will not deter Bush and his Masters; he is a megalomaniac who believes he cannot be wrong and he, the Neocons and his Masters will not give up their plot to take control of the world's resources. None care what the hoi polloi, the "lesser beings", think nor do they care about public disapproval. The only hope is that the public will finally get so outraged that they will become virulently vociferous enough to influence the Gutless Wonders on the Hill to do the right thing, impeach and prosecute Bush, Cheney and the other criminals, and repeal all the fascist, dictatorial laws Bush and Cheny pushed through.

Keep on plugging, fellow activist bloggers. Arouse the sheeple to arise!
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Sometimes Saintly Nick said...

Rather than “how low can Bush go,” my question is “who will follow him?” I didn’t think he’d be re-elected, but our gullible electorate did. Now is the time to look to the future and work to assure that the next administration is one that is responsive to the needs of our citizens and all of the peoples of the world.

Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12:00 AM

David Cho said...

Looking like you got rid of the pesky problem!

To Bush, it's been always us-against-them. Now the legions of "them" include the majority of the American people, not just Al Queda. What a sad and simplistic world he lives in.

Monday, June 25, 2007 10:21:00 AM

enigma4ever said...

Oh, how I have waited to say this.....( this is Enigma very quietly gloating - no joy ...just expectation)....Nixon's numbers were propped up numbers 26%-28% the WHOLE of his Watergate Summer...poor man had to deal with a Horrendous War that was hated by the masses, Unstable recessional economy, rising gas prices, and Too Many Liberals asking too many Questions......( sound familiar ???).....BUT there is ONE thing Missing- by that Hot Fatefilled summer the Media joined the masses in saying WHAT THE ?????

The Media for the most part is still treating him like a struggling leader....serving his plight to us with tea and sympathy....They should be storming this administration and the White House- and it ain't happening....the Media is focused on the Next Election already- but they have not done their job exposing the Blunders of this Administration......

BUT that being said- I do love hearing Bush compared Daily to Nixon...makes my heart sing..

Monday, June 25, 2007 11:29:00 AM

Worried said...

Thank you for your input Friends.We appreciate your input.

David: No, not rid of it. Just working twice as long to post because of the problems. No solution so far.

Monday, June 25, 2007 5:20:00 PM

Progressive Traditionalist said...

Hello, Worried.
The thing about those statistics that really gets me is that, after Nixon's dip down to 23%, his approval rating went back up.

Also, wondering how much of Mr Bush's low approval stems from the foreclosures in the housing market, and mortgage rate adjustments.
I think people are starting to realize that the stock market is kept artificially high by the re-packaging and re-selling of debt rather than actual production, and that the boasting of how good the economy is doing isn't touching the middle class (except to thump them).

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:28:00 AM



Saturday, June 23, 2007

Blogger Gone Ape S**T?

Before the Old Woman catches me for cussing on this blog, will someone please tell me what in hell is wrong with Blogger screwing up the posts? That one of Worried's about Gaps is a doozy.

Also, it is screwed up on both Internet Explorer and MFer (Mozilla Firefox - yeah, I dislike it as much as the Old Woman does) but on IE the sidebar is crowded out but on MF the sidebar is ok. WTF??

And what';s the deal about Blogger sticking all that crazy code in our posts that pushes the writing so far down? The gap, as Old Woman calls it.

Is Blogger freaking nuts? I said fREAking, Old Woman, don't get your knickers in a knot.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Granny said...
Nice to hear from you, Gadfly.I can't figure out why Blogger does it on this blog but not on "granny".I'll take a look and see what's causing that huge gap at the bottom. There wasn't any code there that I could see.
Saturday, June 23, 2007 5:50:00 AM
Worried said...
On one post there was the same code at bottom as the mess we have to delete from the top, but others didn't have it, just the huge white space.On some of my personal blogs the accursed code at top is present AFTER something is saved but not if I publish directly, yet even then there is the wide space at bottom. The wide spacing between paragraphs can sometimes be removed with the backspace key. If not, scanning the HTML code reveals a bewildering array of code in those places that I don't dare delete unless I am prepared to re-do the entire post ( in case the deletion ruins the post).The width of side margins varies but the mess on "Gap" is ridiculous! Today, the text margin is properly spaced so I can see our sidebar. Gadfly's post is correctly published. My knickers have BEEN in a knot, Gadfly, but with Blogger or whatever is causing this. You are forgiven and I admire your restraint.
Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:13:00 PM


Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Welcome Back Enigma Forever

After months of absence, here is a new post on Watergate Summer.


Worried said...

That is good news. She has been sorely missed by her numerous friends. Spadoman will be especially glad, I am sure.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:17:00 AM

Granny said...
Wow!! Look at all that space. I could swear it didn't look like that earlier.Let me see if I can fix it.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:40:00 AM
Granny said...
I had to delete almost an acre of code top and bottom and manual enter WA's comment.That's ridiculous!! The only code I entered was for the link.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:45:00 AM
enigma4ever said...
oh thank you so much for the warm welcome.....and yes Blogger STILL is being so hard to work with....( I guess some things Never change...) I did send Spado a messege- apparently he is off on vacation I hope to hear from him soon....
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:45:00 AM
enigma4ever said...
Dear Worried above- thank you too, and I have missed you and Granny so much...I missed Blogatopia so much..
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:47:00 AM

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Same Sex Marriages - Victory and Defeat

After Granny's post, I said I'd post the Fundie viewpoint. First, a recap of Granny's post:

Thursday, June 14, 2007
Victory for Families - All Families!!
The fundamentalists won't see it that way but who cares:From Garden State Equality today. I copied it almost verbatim - just rearranged a couple of paragraphs. You can find much more on LGBT rights nation and world wide on their excellent web site.BREAKING NEWS: In one of the greatest victories ever for the LGBTI civil rights movement in America, the Massachusetts state legislature has once-and-for-all defeated a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. See the Associated Press article below.The threat to marriage equality in Massachusetts is now over! Garden State Equality salutes MassEquality, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), among other incredible advocates in Massachusetts, whose heroic work defies description. They are among the greatest civil rights heroes of our time.

For Granny's complete post and article, see

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Gay folk and supporters celebrate victory in Massachussetts


The Fundies' viewpoint:

From the FRC; Tony Perkins (Dobson's protege)

Note his "scare tactics" of predictions.


Mass Transit: Have Marriage, Will Travel

Buoyed by their success in blocking the people's vote on marriage, homosexual activists have set their sights on another Massachusetts policy--the 1913 law that bans non-resident same-sex couples from visiting the state to get married. The campaign could "export" counterfeit marriages to the other 49 states that haven't legalized homosexual "marriage." As former governor Mitt Romney said, repealing the law would make the Bay State the "Las Vegas of gay marriage." Unfortunately, what happens in this Las Vegas wouldn't stay in Las Vegas.

If the opposition is successful in their coup, it could trigger a domino effect across the states and backlog every court in America with suits for mandatory recognition of same-sex marriage. Nine turncoats in the Massachusetts legislature went over to the pro-homosexual side in the last 24 hours before last Thursday's vote. Among the inductees for the Marriage Hall of Shame, these members voted in favor of putting the issue on the ballot in January 2007 only to flip-flop last week: Sens. Gale Candaras (D) and Michael Morrissey (D); Reps. Christine Canavan (D), Paul Kujawski (D), Paul Loscocco (R), Robert Nyman (D), Richard Ross (D), James Vallee (D), and Brian Wallace (D).
Additional Resources ';Vegas of gay marriage' Order Your Copy Now Critical Mass DVD
Fundies believe in Old Testament Law and literal interpretation of the Bible.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Old Testament Law dictates that:
Homosexuals should be put to death.
Adulterers should be put to death.
Children who curse at their parents (rebellious sons) should be killed.
If a man sleeps with a woman on her period they are to be exiled.
You may not eat pork or lobster but it's OK to eat locusts.
A woman who has given birth must bring a lamb and a pigeon to church (for sacrifice).
[Plus many more laws].


Granny said...
It is true that activists have begun working to change the 1913 law. And why not?Although if they went back to their home state, it probably wouldn't be valid because of the obscene federal Defense of Marriage Act.One baby step at a time.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:52:00 AM
The Future Was Yesterday said...
I can understand the concerns the gay community has on this issue. However, I wonder if it's not being overblown by "that piece of paper." If you're in love, and you live together, other than benefits....that paper means nothing.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:31:00 PM
Granny said...
Future is Yesterday:As I said in my email to you:I said that to one of my gay online friends. Ii asked him if they'd be okay with a law like New Jersey's which supposedly gives all the same benefits of marriage but without the word "marriage" or even CA with it's fairly liberal Domestic Partners law..It isn't working in New Jersey. Employers are ignoring the law. My CA friends tell me that there are still many things missing from Domestic Partners. It is about the benefits. Health Insurance, family leave, the right to visit in a hospital, the right to make medical decisions, adoption, and a host of other things marrieds take for granted.On the other hand, seniors are discovering that they often do better financially living together. Ray and I would have been so far as medical care is concerned. If we were living together, he'd be qualified for SSI as well as SSA because of his disability. He wouldn't be stuck with that huge Medicare co-pay. Now, because we both have Social Security, he's over incomed. Some people actually divorce to survive.And of course separate but equal usually isn't.What I'd like to see is the gov't out of the marriage business completely and make it a civil contract like any other for all people. Leave the "marriage" optional and up to the churches. The civil contract would be binding, the "marriage" would be window dressing. And I agree with you. If it weren't for the benefits (and becoming next of kin which can be extremely important), the piece of paper doesn't make any difference so far as a commitment is concerned.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:46:00 AM
Granny said...
After I wrote the comment above, I received my daily email from Garden State Equality. Here's part of what it said:"As of last Friday, 1092 couples have gotten civil-unioned in New Jersey, according to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Service. As of today, 151 civil-unioned couples have complained to Garden State Equality that employers refuse to provide civil-union benefits. In fact, 13 percent is, if anything, way too low an estimate of the New Jersey civil union law's failure rate. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights reports that in the four months of the law, 90 couples a month have inquired about trouble with their civil unions working in the real world, for 360 such couples in all."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:36:00 AM
Worried said...
Granny is right about co-habiting instead of marriage for seniors is often the best option and many seniors do divorce (yet continue to co-habit) in order to survive.Before my aged aunt's husband finally perished from a long bout with cancer, they considered the divorce option. Uncle John would have been eligible for far more benefits as a single man than as a husband. They did not divorce, as my aunt felt like she was in spirit abandoning him in his terrible need.
However, Granny is also correct about gays being denied benefits without the "piece of paper" in spite of the law. I know of a gay couple who had been together for over 30 years, had accumulated property and many household material possessions. Although the real property was owned jointly (legally) there was no ownership papers on all the material goods, some of great value. When one partner became terminally ill, his anti-gay family stepped in, took charge of all his medical and legal affairs, denied the other partner visiting privileges to his dying loved one and later even to the funeral, and denied him any access to the personal properties within the home. He was able to fight for his share of the real property but it was ugly and painful during a time of great grief and loss. That is very wrong, whether one approves or disapproves of homosexual love. It was not only un-Christian, it was cruel and inhumane.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:04:00 AM


Monday, June 18, 2007

Listen to the Children

I worked almost the entire time my kids were growing up. Not for luxuries, but to put food on the table. Part of the time I was a single parent, part of the time it took both incomes to make ends meet.

It was difficult but I did it. I was fortunate the last 20 or so years that I worked to have employers who provided decent benefits and sick pay. If my kids were sick, I could take a day without worrying too much.

Others are not so lucky. They have little or no sick leave. Our much touted family leave bill is unpaid, most can't afford to take the time, and even this small step was under attack.

I retired 14 years ago from the job I'd held for 15 years.

In those 15 years, working conditions for women seem to have made large steps - backward.

Yes, there are more women in the professions and in corporate positions, but for many women, the outlook is grim.

Here, from Tom Paine today, is what some children of these low income, working moms have to say.

The party of "family values" has much to answer for.

Listen To The Children

Ellen Bravo

June 15, 2007

Ellen Bravo is former director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women and author of the recently released Taking on the Big Boys, or Why Feminism is Good for Families, Business and the Nation.

Teachers tell researchers they’ve never seen so many children coming to school sick. Guilt-ridden mothers share stories of sending ailing kids to day care or school out of fear that staying home with them would result in discipline on the job.

These stories don’t surprise me. But what was startling was finding out how many kids drag themselves to school sick to keep a parent from losing pay or getting fired.

I first became aware of this three years ago at a leadership conference of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, in Washington, D.C. Members were getting ready to tell their elected officials why they need a new workplace standard guaranteeing a minimum number of paid sick days—something half the workforce, and three-quarters of low-wage women, don’t have. For these workers, staying home to care for one’s own illness or a sick family member could mean not only loss of pay, but loss of a job.

First I stopped by the group from Wisconsin and heard Robbie Bickerstaff describe how her son Eric, then age seven, got hit by a car on the way home from school but chose not to tell her. He was afraid she’d lose her second shift job if she didn’t go in to work. Later an older sibling called to say that Eric was crying because his arm hurt from being hit by the car and she had to take him to the hospital. When Robbie informed her boss, he was adamant: “Leave and you’re fired.” Her pleas didn’t move him. She did leave; she was fired. Eric turned out to have a broken arm.

I moved on to the 9to5 members from Pennsylvania and shared Robbie’s story. Carissa Peppard, the 21-year-old daughter of activist Kiki Peppard, was sitting next to her mom. “I’ve never told my mother this before,” she said, “but when you’re a kid, you know everything. Whenever I was sick, I’d ask myself, ‘Should I tell Mom? Will we have groceries this week if she stays home with me?’ If I could, I just dragged myself to school.”

I related these stories recently at a briefing for Congressional staff organized by 9to5. On the panel with me was Jeannetta Allen, an energetic 18-year-old with a disability that affects her balance and her speech. She’d just testified how lack of paid sick days had cost her mother a job.

“I’m that kid,” Jeannetta said when I’d finished. “After my mother was fired, I always tried to go to school no matter how I felt. I didn’t want her to be fired again.”

A chain reaction started among 9to5 members in the audience. One after another, they told stories of discovering a child was walking around with bruised ribs or the flu or strep throat because staying home meant Mom could lose her job.

“My son had stopped eating,” Christina said. “He thought it would save on groceries.”

Nearly 20 years ago, a Wisconsin coalition brought a group of children to Madison, Wisconsin, to fight for a state family and medical leave bill. They represented the range of reasons children might need a loved one by their side—childhood cancer, being adopted, death of a grandparent, having a sibling with a developmental disability or asthma, being hit by a car. After listening to the kids’ stories, the Secretary of Employment Relations was visibly moved. “You know,” he told them, “we’re so used to dealing with lobbyists, we forget about those who are affected by our legislation.”

Too many elected officials are preaching family values but listening to lobbyists who want those values to end at the workplace door.

It’s time we listened to the children instead.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

HR 1592 - One More Time

Great post, WA!!

Here's what that loving Christian, Donald Wildmon, has to say. I've had it for a few days but was reluctant to post the contents of the letter and blow my cover.

However, he suggested I inform my friends so that's what I'm doing. It may be the last mail I ever receive from him.

I'll have to check on the California lawsuit he mentioned. They usually twist the facts but I'll try to make sure. It applies only to government workers evidently in any event.

The administration denies that Pace's opinions were the actual cause of his firings.

June 14, 2007

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality

Message to pastors and other Christians: Just keep your mouth shut

Dear ann,

If pastors and other Christians don’t aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.

The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:

  • A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” a “hate speech” crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!

  • CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

For the Alliance Defense Fund’s summary of this bill, click here.

Take Action

We are looking for one million Americans willing to take a stand and not allow a small group of homosexual activists to take away our freedoms. Can we count on you? Click on the link below to sign our Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom.

Please forward this to others, especially your pastor, and ask them to get involved in protecting our freedoms of speech and religion. This threat to our religious freedoms is real!


And, one more time, here is the actual language of HR 1592

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.


David Cho said...
I have a question about this.Isn't there a federal provision already in place for hate crimes committed against people because of their race and religion already?And this new legislation adds to the existing law the homosexuality element to this. Is my understanding correct?
Sunday, June 17, 2007 2:51:00 PM
Worried said...
Heh! Heh! Granny, I suppose both of us have blown our cover. I. too, subscribe to fundie newsletters and literature to keep abreast of what they are up to in order to "know thine enemy". I do not view fellow Christians as my enemy by any means, even if our beliefs differ somewhat, but I object quite strenuously to some of the beliefs, practises and goals of the fundies. I also object to our president and elected representatives allowing the fundies (or any religious group) to gain too much power in the halls of government.
Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:06:00 PM

[WA: David, see post above this for a response to your question]

Labels: , , ,

Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Harass?

First of all, I want to iterate my previous statements that both Granny and I are professing Christians; in our lives we do our human best to follow the teachings of the Christ. ( In her own peculiar way, so does the hellraising Gadfly). Neither Granny nor I are anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-Christian, anti-religion. I will state most unequivocally that I am anti-fundie as I believe that their teachings are contrary to those of Jesus and they err in calling themselves followers of Christ - Christians. I believe that they are deceivers and liars and have done more than than any anti-christ to turn people away from Christianity.

As an example of how they distort the truth to deceive the faithful, I submit the following articles. Please refresh your memory of the HR1592 legislation posted by Granny by clicking on the link below. Granny included excerpts for easy perusal:

Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues: And More on the Fundies - HR 1592

Continuing, here is a copy and paste newsletter from Dobson's pet poodle, head of the FRC:

Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians

Learn What the Federal Thought Police Have in Mind for You
Hate Crimes Laws: Censoring the Church and Silencing ChristiansJune 1
Advocates of a sweeping national "hate crimes" law are on the verge of victory in the U.S. Congress. With massive funding from the homosexual lobby, these advocates are moving one step closer to the day when the federal government will be able to investigate, and punish, politically incorrect speech and thoughts.

Think "it can't happen here"? In October 2004, a small group of Christians, now known as the "Philadelphia 11," were arrested and spent a night in jail for preaching the Gospel at a "gay pride" event. They were charged with a "hate crime" under Pennsylvania law.[**WA: more on this] Though the case was ultimately dismissed, the Christians had no support from the ACLU and other self-described champions of free speech.

More and more, the political left is protecting the First Amendment rights only of speakers they agree with.Hate crimes laws now threaten free speech and religious liberty nationwide. They have the potential to "shut down churches and send pastors to prison for simply reading a part of the Bible," as Dr. D. James Kennedy has warned.

Family Research Council, along with Coral Ridge Ministries, invites you to order a copy of our provocative new video, "Hate Crimes Laws": Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians. This program, which I had the honor to host, features shocking examples of how hate crimes laws trample free speech, muzzle broadcasters, and intimidate pastors in country after country.For a limited time, with a donation of any amount, you can obtain this 40-minute video and discover how even the Bible is being deemed "hate" literature.

The time has come for every citizen to take action. Violent crimes are despicable, and their perpetrators deserve swift and certain punishment. But the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to attribute violence to certain ideas as a way of attacking and ultimately outlawing those ideas, among them, that homosexual conduct is wrong and unhealthy.

If hate crime laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote homosexuality. Please click here to order your copy of Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians. Watch it and share it with your neighbors, family, and friends. Our freedom to speak is the bedrock of our political liberties. Help us spread the word.
Censoring the Church and Silencing Christians
Sincerely,Tony PerkinsPresident
P.S. The American left knows it's politically hard to oppose any bill that says it's about stopping "hate crimes." This power grab in Congress is not about prosecuting crimes, however, it's about punishing thoughts. With our new video, produced with Coral Ridge Ministries, you will understand the real agenda behind this massive power shift to Washington. Please order your copy today, then forward this message to anyone else who wants to understand the real agenda behind the new federal "hate crimes" bill. Thank you and God bless you.

Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

Does a scan of the provisions in HR1592 even remotely resemble the dangers Tony Perkins warns of? The FRC sends out these newsletters to Christian subscribers and churches. Church pastors, either willing followers or dupes of the fundies, in turn preach these distortions of the truth from their pulpits to the congregants, who believe them implicitly. I doubt that one in a thousand takes the time and trouble to research the issue and discover the real truth for themselves.

Re: the "Philadelphia 11" :
In a nutshell, gay folk in Philadelphia obtained all legal permits necessary to block off several streets in order to hold a gay affair (something like a big block-party/demonstration). The anti-gay bunch did NOT get permits but were allowed in despite the gay folk's request to the city to forbid their entry. The anti-gays were not denied any of their rights.

The story, according to all the sites I researched, was that these loving Christians, concerned for the immortal souls of their fellow men living in sin and otherwise doomed to hell, merely prayed, read the Bible and passed out pamphlets to the crowd of gays. The mean old police harassed them, arrested them and threw them in jail for exercising their right of free speech.

There are always two sides to every story so I researched the incident. Most of the sites I pulled up were by various religious organizations and all told the same pitiful tale. In general, the Philadelphia 11 were depicted as virtual holy martyrs, cruelly persecuted by the gay-protecting police and robbed of their right of free speech.

Eventually I found reports of the other side of the coin. These meek and mild Christians, dedicated to saving the souls of the sinful gays, came equipped with a bull horn, signs like the ones below, interfered with the flow of foot traffic of the crowds and disrupted the gays' programs. Gay people, having all the emotional responses as other people, were offended and annoyed, especially when the anti-gays' bull horn drowned out their stage program. Some encircled the "Christians" clearly demonstrating their displeasure.

Efsigns.Sized (

The police, fearing a riot was in the offing, did NOT arrest the Christians nor silence them, but at that point ordered them to move to another location WITHIN the blocked off area in order to separate them from the irate gays. These loving Christians, overflowing with love of their fellow man, refused to move, at least one lay down on the street, and they continued to block the street. (Even though the street was blocked off to motor vehicle traffic, it needed to be clear for foot traffic for the legally authorized participants). Their defiant refusal to obey the law resulted in them being arrested, a few were handcuffed, they were hauled off to jail and charged with a variety of offenses. Traditionally, the police take a dim view of disobedience under any circumstances and especially when citizens are getting riled up and a possible riot is being incited. Police dislike riots.

The Philadelphia 11 were not as innocent as their defenders would have the public believe. You may do a search on them and find a plentitude of sites decrying their ill treatment. For a more balanced view, see " Philly, San Diego Rulings on First Amendment Claims of Anti-Gay Demonstrators" at

01/philly_san_dieg.html .
For a gay person's view, "FOF Tries to Muddy The Hate Crime Legislation Vote" at

fof_again_tries.html .

A third site is .

(If the authorities were dedicated to incarcerating gay-bashers, Fred Phelps would be imprisoned for about forty lifetimes.)

Imagine another scenario: Several hundred African Americans, with legal authorization and within a blocked off section of a community, hold a rally celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King. A group of KKKs or Neo-Nazis show up with signs, chanting their slogans and drowning out the speakers with bull horns. What would be the expected reaction of the African Americans? Think the haters might be trying to incite a riot? Or, turn it around: a few hundred KKKs and Neo-Nazis hold a rally and some African Americans show up and behave as described above. Is it likely such actions might instigate ill feelings?

These articles are quite sufficient to demonstrate how the fundies distort the truth of events and even outright LIE!! Granny, now what was that scripture about lying? Maybe the fundies need to study it again.

Re: Granny's post immediately below. So far I haven't found the response of the fundies to that tidbit but as soon as I do, I'll post it.


Gadfly said...
Uh-huh! Sounds like that bunch of fundys might be adopting a few of old Fred-baby's tactics. Can you imagine what a howling mess it would have caused if any of the gays had actually walloped one of them? Talk about holy martyrs! From all I've heard and read about that Jesus dude's teaching (and what you advise, Old Woman) bellering through bull horns and making a hulabaloo is not the way he taught to lead people to live good lives. I'm with you, Old Woman. I don't give a big grey rat's ass what agreeing adults do in their private lives and I don't know why those fundies make such a big deal about it. Ain't God supposed to be the one to judge if people have done something wrong? What right do they have to judge if the gays are bad or good people? Most the gays I ever knew were just as good as straight people. Some better.
Sunday, June 17, 2007 6:49:00 AM