This boy, though only 10, is well, amazing. He outshines millions of adults in this country, that’s for sure. The article makes that point clear:

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Out of the mouths of babes – or a child, in this case. Preach it, Will.

I love how deliberate this child is in his considerations. Again, would that many adults were capable of such rational thought:

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Ahahahahahahaha. I love that, “with all due respect…” It seems he had been showing her more respect than she was showing him. This was the quintessential “teachable moment,” and this teacher wildly missed the mark.

Well, you know what happened next, as will happen when a child backtalks a teacher (at least in Arkansas):

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

And why not? In this case, this teacher was wrong, as the principal acknowledged. The issue was one of justice and liberty, again, a great teaching moment for these children. The discussion could have been quite enlightening, but no:

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Unfortunately, we we could see that coming, especially from Fifth graders, and other school age children who routinely say, “Oh, that’s so gay.” What am I talking, some teachers do it, too (unfortunately). Still, this young man has some backbone:

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Okay who wants Will to run for president in 35 years??? Yeah, me too.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson IS smiling at this wonderful young boy, and I am thankful for parents like the Phillips. We could sure use more like them. We DEFINITELY could use more young people like Will. What a thoughtful, grounded, boy he is. I hope for his sake, for our sake, he will be able to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance before he goes off to college…

There was another election issue on which I wanted to focus instead, and that was the vote in Maine to allow or prohibit Same Sex Marriage. The title of this article pretty much says it all: “Mainers Vote Down Gay Marriage Law“. Dammit.

Here are the particulars:

Maine voters on Tuesday narrowly voted to repeal a law that would have made the state one of a handful that allow same-sex couples to marry.

At 1 a.m., with 87 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, 52.8 percent of Mainers had voted to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law, versus 47.2 percent who voted to keep it.

Yes on 1, which led the people’s veto effort, proclaimed victory at about 12:30 a.m., as supporters gathered on a small stage at the Eastland Park Hotel behind Frank Schubert of Schubert Flint, the public relations firm hired to work on the campaign.

“I am very proud to tell you tonight that Question 1 has passed,” said Schubert. “Thank you so much to the people of Maine. To the thousands of volunteers who have worked day in and day out. It has all come together tonight.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across this nation,” he said, pumping his fist into the air.

Marc Mutty, Stand for Marriage Maine campaign manager, took the podium after Schubert: “What a team we’ve had. We’ve worked hard. We’ve struggled, we’ve worked against tremendous odds, as we’ve all known.

“It’s been the little guy against the big guy in terms of resources, financial resources,” said Mutty. “We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight.”

A prayer followed.

I imagine that prayer went something like this: “Dear Lord, thank you so much for your will being done to subjugate those homosexuals, Lord. We thank you for helping us keep the sanctity of marriage as you meant it to be, one man and one woman, forever and ever. We thank you, dear Lord, for making it clear it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So, we thank you, Lord, that your will has been done. We thank you, dear Heavenly Father, for the love you have shown us in your son, Jesus. We know that you are love, Lord. We thank you for showing what true love is through us so we can take away rights from other Mainers, as you want us to do. In Jesus’ name we pray…”

Or something like that.

But some Mainers aren’t giving up:

At 12:30 a.m., a defiant Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, spoke to several hundred supporters who lingered at the Holiday Inn By the Bay. Connolly did not concede, saying the campaign always knew the election would be close. Workers would be counting votes all night long, he said.

Connolly said supporters of same-sex marriage would keep fighting and keep working for their cause. “We’re not short-timers, we’re here for the long haul,” he said.

Pollsters and pundits had predicted a thin margin on the state’s same-sex marriage vote, and the results proved them right.

Gov. John Baldacci – who watched returns come in at the No on 1 party – signed the bill into law in May, but opponents of same-sex marriage quickly gathered well more than the 55,000 signatures necessary to call for a public vote.

Maine would have been the sixth state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, and New Hampshire’s new law will take effect in January.

Five states out of fifty. That’s it. Just five that recognize our being fully human and thus deserving of all rights bestowed upon heterosexual couples.

As indicated above, in addition to religion, there were other issues that prompted the outcome of this vote:

The fight over the issue touched on religion, civil rights, schools, sexuality and family.

The two campaigns spent more than $7 million, with same-sex marriage supporters outspending opponents. Both sides said the vote will have national implications that will influence future same-sex marriage battles in other states.

The crowd at the No on 1 party was several times larger and louder than the competition. In the lobby outside the ballroom, Roger and Peggy Marchand of Gorham set up cardboard cutouts of male and female couples and brought along their camera for those who wanted to get a snapshot.

“We have high hopes,” Roger Marchand said.

While gay-marriage supporters have had success in New England and Iowa in the last five years, most of the country still opposes same-sex marriage. Nationwide, 30 states – including California – have voted to ban it.

Oh, that just makes me feel so warm and fuzzy inside as I consider that the vast majority of my fellow citizens think so little of me, my partner, and millions of other GLBT people in this country.

As for how Maine got to this place:

The push to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine began in January, when hundreds of activists gathered at the State House to announce that Sen. Dennis Damon, D-Trenton, would sponsor a bill to change the definition of marriage.

The bill defined marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people” rather than “the union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage,” a definition put in place by the Legislature in 1997.

It allowed any two people to apply for a marriage license “regardless of the sex of each person.” And, finally, it allowed religious institutions to refuse to perform same-sex marriage if it is not consistent with their beliefs.

When the bill was introduced, Baldacci, a Catholic Democrat, said he was unsure whether he would support it. He had previously been on record as supporting civil unions but not gay marriage.

In April, more than 3,000 people came to the Augusta Civic Center for a 10-hour public hearing on the measure. Supporters said the change was necessary to give gay and lesbian families access to more than 400 state laws pertaining to marriage, including health insurance through a spouse and tax benefits. They said a separate civil union law would not be equal.

Opponents said it was important to keep the traditional definition of marriage, arguing that it is better for society and children to have a mother and a father.

Six days later, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted in support of the bill.

House and Senate votes quickly followed, with final Senate approval at 21-13 and House approval at 89-57.

The same day the Senate took the final vote, Baldacci signed the bill into law, saying “times have changed.”

As Baldacci announced his decision, cheers of joy could be heard coming from the hallway outside his office, where gay and lesbian couples gathered to await his decision.

But, as they celebrated, opponents expressed their disappointment and vowed to gather the signatures necessary for a people’s veto of the law.

Less than three months later, opponents turned in more than 100,000 signatures to the state calling for a vote.

The law was put on hold pending the outcome of Tuesday’s election.

At the No on 1 party Tuesday night, optimism had prevailed earlier in the night. The No on 1 campaign had led in early returns.

Eigen Heald of Portland said she’s been with her partner for 22 years.

“My toes are curling,” she said. “It would be really nice to be married in Maine.”

James White, 31, of Berwick, who was at the No on 1 party , said he was “very emotional.”

“It’s our time,” he said. “It’s our moment.”

Staff Writer Jenn Menendez contributed to this report. Reach Susan Cover at 620-7015 or at scover@centralmaine.com

Sadly, no, no it is not “our moment.” Not in Maine, anyway. It makes me emotional, too, both sad and angry at the same time. I guess the lesbian and gay couples there will have to continue to live without more than FOUR HUNDRED benefits extended to heterosexual couples.

I cannot leave it there, though. That would simply be too depressing. While Mainers may have voted to continue to discriminate against GLBT people, there is some good news. And here is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to bring it to you:

This left my partner and me arguing over who loves her more. It’s me, I’m telling you!

Secretary Clinton gives me hope that one day, my partner and I will have the same rights and benefits as everyone else, over 1,000 federal benefits, even as another state votes against us, robbing a number of their citizens of over 400 rights enjoyed by others in that state. Some day. But not today.

It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.

The results of this article came out the other day, though one might think the results would more likely be from the 19th century:

Newly minted brides should do more than vow to love their hubbies for a lifetime, say the majority of Americans. Some 70 percent of the respondents in a new study feel they should also take their spouse’s surname – and 50 percent say that it should be a legal requirement for a woman to take her spouse’s last name.

The study, presented Tuesday at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting, was done by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University, as reported by USA Today.

Some 815 people were asked multiple choice and open-ended questions about a variety of family and gender issues. On the issue of marital name change, the majority of respondents weighed in with a fairly conservative answer, says Laura Hamilton, Indiana University associate professor and lead study author.

“The results were surprisingly conservative,” she says. “Even though there is a general movement toward neutral language, like saying chairperson instead of chairwoman, people seemed to feel it was better for a woman to change her last name to her husband’s.”

You gotta admit. This is pretty surprising. Well, I should say, it would have been MORE surprising back in 2007, if you get my drift. But wait, there’s more:

She said that the fact that half of American thought this should be a legal requirement was also surprising.

“Americans don’t want much government intervention in family life, so for 50 percent of Americans to feel this way was interesting,” she said.

Only 5 to 10 percent of women keep the name they were born with when they marry, Hamilton says. She notes that some studies show that younger women are more likely or as likely to change their name as baby boom brides. “It’s not a straight age trend,” she said, according to USA Today.

When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.” (Emphasis mine.)

Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.

“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.

For cryin’ out loud, really? That’s some of the logic going on there? That the “mailMAN” will get confused if people with two last names at the same address get mail?? Well, our mailWOMAN doesn’t get the least bit confused delivering mail to us. Hey, I’m just saying (and no, I am not putting down men – just the sexist implications all the way across the board with that one).

And yes, that so many think it should be a LAW is significant. So much for personal liberty and all that. Who needs to make decisions about something as personal as their name? Certainly not the little lady who just got married.

This is not as surprising, though:

Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.

“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”

Oh, well. I feel better about that, don’t you? It’s a start, I suppose. Maybe we actually get to KEEP our own identity then?? Woohoo – being a lesbian in this culture is finally paying off! Yippee!!!

Ahem. Yes, according to the survey, “women should lose their identity…” LOSE THEIR IDENTITY. Forget about this sounding like the 19th century. It goes back WAY father than that. This is so disturbing on so many different levels, I can only shake my head in utter disbelief. Seriously – can you BELIEVE this? This “subjugate yourself to the man” thing is freakin’ biblical – and two THOUSAND years later, women are still expected to eradicate themselves?

Wow. You know, it is only a matter of degrees between this survey, and this recent article, Afghanistan Passes ‘Barbaric’ Law Diminishing Women’s Rights, Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands.

(Photo, Kabul, 2002, Sung Nam Hoon)

It is exactly the mindset above that gives SPACE to this kind of thinking, and allows laws like this to gain approval:

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

“It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying ‘blood money’ to a girl who was injured when he raped her,” the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

Holy freakin’ shit. I feel like I have fallen through a wormhole and traveled way, WAY back in time.

But wait – didn’t The One wave his magic wand, ride in on his Rainbow Unity Unicorn and say this wasn’t such a peachy keen idea because women-folk around the globe might get a tad bit miffed, thus casting a pall on the reflection from his halo? Well, close enough:

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women’s rights groups remain, including this one: “Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband’s reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband’s permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient.”

Huh, well, I’ll be damned. Evidently, SOME people don’t give a damn what The One has to say. Ahem.

Clearly it didn’t matter what Obama and Brown said, especially when you consider this:

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country’s Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday’s election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan’s own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had “made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election”.

Brad Adams, the organisation’s Asia director, said: “The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.

“These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval.”

Indeed. Women are pawns, and property of men. Dare I say it, they are forced to give up their identities, and their own bodies, to every wish and whim of the men to whom they are married? And any violation of the woman is really a violation of the man to whom she is linked. That is, to whom she belongs.

As for Karzai:

The latest opinion poll by US democracy group the International Republican Institute showed that although Karzai was up 13 points to 44% since the last survey in May, his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, had soared from 7% to 26%.

If those numbers prove accurate, it would mean the contest would have to go to a second round run-off vote in early October. In that scenario, 50% of voters said they would vote for Karzai and 29% for Abdullah.

The survey was conducted in mid to late July, so it is not known whether Abdullah has made further gains on Karzai.

He could further increase his chance of victory by joining forces with Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister who is also running on a platform fiercely critical of Karzai.

Fifty-eight per cent of the 2,400 people polled by IRI said they would like to see an alliance between Abdullah and Ghani, who is polling in fourth place.

In other words, at least from when this survey was taken, Karzai still seems to be the frontrunner. Gosh, that is SO good for the women in that country, isn’t it? Yeah, right – not even close.

And speaking of women in Afghanistan, this article came out recently, too “Marines Try A Woman’s Touch To Reach Afghan Hearts“:

Put on body armor, check weapons, cover head and shoulders with a scarf.

That was the drill for female American Marines who set out on patrol this week with a mission to make friends with Afghan women in a war zone by showing respect for Muslim standards of modesty.

The all-female unit of 46 Marines is the military’s latest innovation in its rivalry with the Taliban for the populace’s loyalty. Afghan women are viewed as good intelligence sources, and more open to the basics of the military’s hearts-and-minds effort — hygiene, education and an end to the violence.

“It’s part of the effort to show we’re sensitive to local culture,” said Capt. Jennifer Gregoire, of East Strasburg, Pa. She leads the Female Engagement Team in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

“If you show your hair, its kind of like seeing a nude picture here, because women are very covered up,” she said.

Uh, yeah, you can say that again. As another reminder:

(photo by worldwidewandering)

I think that qualifies as “very covered up” (click HERE to read the rest of the Women Marines story). What is more, there is absolutely NOTHING of the actual woman underneath the burqa. You don’t know who she is, you can’t see her eyes, her mouth, HER. You cannot SEE her.

That is the point of women “losing their identity in men,” is it not? Of women being nothing more than the property of their husbands, or their fathers, because who they are doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter. They are NOTHING unless they are connected to a man, and he may do to her as he wishes, whenever he wishes, and she must, simply, take it.

Well, at least according to the majority of those who took the survey here in the US, and according to the lawmakers in Afghanistan. Yep – seems there are people here who seem to have the same high (cough, choke) opinion of women as they do in Afghanistan. “What Women’s Lib,” indeed.

I bet you didn’t see THAT coming…

As she has done for so many years, Hillary Clinton speaks out for, and stands with, women and children, calling out those who have treated them with such brutality, with such inhumanity. She calls out for justice for these women and children, and for their torturers to receive their comeuppance.

Sadly, inhumanity is not limited to how people treat other people, but the inhumane ways we treat animals, as well. In this particular case, I am referring to horses. And you know I am nuts about horses, have been my entire life. I simply cannot begin to fathom how anyone could do this, and I am thankful that I cannot fathom it.

And that is your warning. The next video is very, very difficult to watch. If you have a weak stomach, you may think twice about watching it:

These two may not seem related, but I think they are. They both speak to how capable people are of despicable acts. In terms of the horses, it is about greed, plain and simple. In terms of the brutal rapes of women and children in DRC by people in the military, no less, it is to control and terrorize civilians, as well as for greed and power.

And in both cases, women and children, as well as the horses, are pawns in someone’s game, used and abused to suit someone’s needs other than their own, with no one to help them. Both the women and children, as well as the horses, are innocent victims of someone’s brutality, of their inhumanity.

Thank HEAVENS we have Secretary Clinton to speak up for women here and abroad, to work to end rape as a tool by those in power. How lucky we are to have someone like HER on our side, who is dedicated to eradicating violence against women. This is her lifelong quest thus far, and goddess knows, I pray she is successful.

As to the horses, I am not a violent person. I have never owned a gun in my life. Frankly, I am scared to death of them though I did have my brother teach me how to handle one properly simply because I think it is important to know how to handle one safely. You just never know when you might come across one these days.
ike I said, I am scared of them.

That being said, I certainly can relate to thinking of horses as beloved family members. Heck, I’d rather hang out with my horse any day than some members of my blood family (three of whom are certified Obots). And I can certainly understand wanting to take action to protect these creatures who cannot protect themselves. Think of it – these horses see people as their caregivers, so naturally, if a person is coming to them, they aren’t going to know the person bears ill intent toward them. How could they know? And that innocence, that trust, literally leads them to slaughter.

I’m sorry – hang on – talk amongst yourselves – okay. Whew.

I know this is nothing new, the manner by which people can treat other people, and animals (Michael Vick is certainly a case in point for the latter after his rampant dog abuse – and he is already out of prison, of course). But it doesn’t mean that I have to accept that this is just how it is. No, not at all.

I hope you won’t either. Thank Secretary Clinton for her work (heck, you can even text or Twitter her). Join an organization like People Helping Horses, which takes in abused and rescued horses, restoring them to health, then allowing them to be adopted by responsible horse owners. Speak up, speak out. We CAN make a difference. We have to make a difference…

Are extremists infiltrating our own military to the point of inadvertently training terrorists who will attack us in the future? It turns out that at least 40 persons who list their occupation as “military” are profiled on the Internet forum New Saxon, a Facebook-like site operated by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement.

Is this a real problem? Or is it just another conspiracy theory, the kind that boils all-too-freely in a country now ruled by fear?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not known for being on the batshit fringe. Quite the contrary. Helping to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as making courtroom challenges that resulted in equal benefits for women in the military, ending involuntary sterilization of women on welfare, reform of prison conditions, are among the organzation’s many victories. The first civil suit against a major Klu Klux Klan was brought by the SPLC, and it has been riding the Klan’s ass ever since.

But hate crimes go on, and the SPLC continues its mission to protect America from its own destructive elements. Its concern about white supremacists infiltrating the military is not new. While reaffirming that the overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform reject extremism and are dedicated to our country’s ideals, based on new evidence the SPLC is engaging in a new push to investigate. A letter to those of us on the SPLC email list reads, in part:

We’ve been warning the Pentagon about the danger of extremists in the military for more than two decades. In 2008, the FBI issued a report indicating that the problem may have worsened. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not taken forceful action.

Indeed, the Pentagon appears to consider homosexuals more of a threat to the good order of the military than neo-Nazis who reject our Constitution’s most cherished principles. While the military has discharged more than 12,500 service members because of their alleged homosexuality since 1994, it has refused to adopt a true “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to extremists in the military.

A more detailed letter was sent to the chairs of the House and Senate committees on Homeland Security and Armed Services, copied to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Under Secretary of Defense David S.C. Chu. See it here.

Yet, what damage could realistically be done by a few dozen hate-filled members of the armed services? The potential could be two-fold: (1) these individuals are learning warfare skills, and (2) they are in a position to recruit new haters. And lest we not forget Sergeant Timothy McVeigh, a name that still sends chills up our collective spine. (If you have not yet visited the memorial on the bombing site in Oklahoma City I dare you to hold it together when you see those 19 “little chairs” representing the murdered children). It takes only a few, as we also recall from the Twin Tower terrorists who learned to fly on our soil.

So, are you worried about this?

“Gays, Lesbians Rally Over Bar Raid in Fort Worth”

About 18 hours after officers with the Fort Worth Police Department and agents with the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission raided a Fort Worth gay bar, about 150 to 200 people gathered on the steps of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth Sunday night, June 28, to protest the raid.

Sources have said that seven people were arrested in the raid although witnesses at the scene said many more people were handcuffed with zip ties and taken out of the bar.

One man, identified by his sister as Chad Gibson, was in the intensive care unit at Fort Worth’s JPS Hospital with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.

The raid happened on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion.

Well, that is some way to mark this inauspicious occasion, isn’t it?? To basically reenact it?? What in the world prompted this, is my question, and others, as well:

Joel Burns, Fort Worth’s first and only openly gay City Council member, was in Houston for the weekend, but came back to Fort Worth in time for the rally at the courthouse.

“We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws of ordinances of our great state and city will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement,” Burns said at the rally, reading from a prepared statement.

“We consider this to be part of ‘The Fort Worth Way’ here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the city of Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning,” Burns said.

In an e-mail communication before noon on Sunday, Burns said he had already talked with Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead who had promised an investigation into the matter. Burns also said at that time that Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks, who represents the district where the Rainbow Lounge is located, and City Manager Dale A. Fisseler were also already aware of the situation.

Noting that the rainbow Lounge raid came on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Burns said at the rally, “Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all its citizens are protected.”

Well, yeah, maybe so, but AFTER the fact. How about the citizens being protected in the FIRST place instead of being beaten and handcuffed? Just asking. But Representative Burns is dealing on that:

Burns said he is working with Mayor Mike Moncrief, Halstead, the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and “our state legislative colleagues” to get “a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.”

Burns added, “Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And known that the GLBT community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

“Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end,” Burns said.

Lisa Thomas, Burns’ appointee to the city’s Human Relations Commission, also spoke at the rally, as did Todd Camp and Chuck Potter, two men who were at the bar when the raid happened and who were the primary organizers of Sunday’s two rallies.

Camp, referring to eyewitness accounts of the raid and to photographs that Potter took as the raid was occurring, said at the rally that “evidence demonstrates that the Fort Worth Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissioner over-reacted and used excessive, perhaps brutal force … .”

“The circumstances of the police action strongly suggest that elements of the law enforcement community selectively targeted a recently opened gay and lesbian establishment for selective enforcement and harassment.”

Ya think?? Evidently!! Even their statement is a bit fishy, if you ask me:

Fort Worth police have not returned calls seeking comment placed by Dallas Voice beginning at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. However, Fort Worth police released a statement to several mainstream media outlets saying that Rainbow Lounge was one of three bars targted by six Fort Worth police officers and two TABC agents and a supervisor.

The statement said that nine people were arrested at the first two bars — the Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace, both on Rosedale Avenue — and that another seven people were arrested at Rainbow Lounge.

The statement also said that “an extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements toward the police supervisor” and that person was arrested for public intoxication.

A second “intoxicated individual” was arrested for public intoxication after making “sexually explicit movements towards another officer,” and a third person assaulted a TABC agent by grabbing his groin. That man was escorted outside and arrested for public intoxication, but was released to paramedics because of his “extreme intoxication” and the fact that he was vomiting repeatedly.

The statement said that while some officers were outside dealing with the vomiting suspect, another officer inside requested assistance in handling an intoxicated patron who was resisting arrest, and that this person was “placed on the ground to control and apprehend him.”

This person was apparently Chad Gibson, who was knocked unconscious and is now hospitalized with a brain injury.

Eyewitnesses to that incident said Gibson, who is “maybe 160 pounds soaking wet,” did not resist arrest but that he did stumble after the first officer grabbed his arm.

Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock said claims that patrons made sexual advances to the officers and that one patron groped an officer were lies.

“The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said to the crowd that gathered at the bar Sunday afternoon. “That is a lie, and I am appalled by it.

“They treat us like outcasts. But even outcasts have a time to shine, and this is it,” Schrock said, pledging that he would not be “scared away” or intimidated into closing his bar. (E-mail nash@dallasvoice.com)

Okay, is it REALLY a surprise that people might be intoxicated AT A BAR??? I mean, I’m no rocket scientist, but that just doesn’t seem so far out of the realm of possibilities.

I reckon it’s a pretty easy defense for the excessive use of force the police used to say these guys “groped” them. Too many people would automatically accept that as more than enough reason to handcuff them, or throw them to the ground and cause a brain injury. An appeal to homophobia to justify one’s actions still works in this country. Sad to say, but true. Just look at the recent statement by Obama’s Justice Department on DOMA.

But I gotta say, the whole thing seems a bit suspect, so personally, I’m not buying what they’re selling. I am glad the GLBT community has a representative on their side in the Fort Worth area, but I have to say, it sure will be nice when the day comes that these kinds of things no longer happen at ALL. In the meantime, I am glad Mr. Shrock is keeping his bar open. More power to him. I hope this is the last of the police he will see in his bar, unless he calls them himself.

But all women, in my humble opinion. That is what David Letterman did with his sexist comments regarding Governor Palin and her daughter (and it doesn’t matter if he meant the OLDER one – not that much difference between 14 and 18, ya know). Here is Conservative pundit Andrea Tantaros discussing this issue with Megyn Kelly on America’s Newsroom Tuesday morning (and the clip includes Letterman’s apology, hence why it is not linked above):

Tantaros was taking off on a post she wrote on this very issue, Attacking Conservative Women. Even though she is a Conservative, she makes a lot of good points. And I say this as someone who actively fought for Equal Rights for Women, who ran in the Seneca Falls to Houston Run way back when, carrying the torch, who helped found a chapter of NOW. Because this was what was NOT part of all of that work – that it was only for liberal women. No, we were fighting for ALL women, and that is why these kinds of comments are so offensive, whether they are about Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton: because they are WRONG:

A growing trend seems to be emerging. From Perez Hilton to Playboy’s “Conservative Women Hate List” to David Letterman’s lewd comments about Sarah Palin, it appears that attacking women – specifically conservative women – is not only all the rage, but oddly, acceptable.

The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

I’m not talking about attacks from bottom feeder leftist blogs either. Notable mainstream brands like the Miss USA Organization, “The Late Show” and Playboy magazine have all lost their sense of humor and their sense of decency by allowing conservative women to become a punching bag — and a punch line — for the left. Forgoing all boundaries, a party that once used to claim to own the violence against women issue has embraced it and let their politics run them when it comes to the issue of misogyny.

On its face, this isn’t even a political issue. It’s a women’s issue –- a human issue that transcends politics (emphasis mine). But why, when it comes to the most serious and sensitive attacks against women the National Organization for Women spokeswoman warrants a missing person’s report?

That’s EXACTLY it – this is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. This kind of language would never be tolerated if it was directed at any other group (okay, maybe at “The Gays,” as Kathy Griffin calls us, but that’s it), and it sure shouldn’t be tolerated against the largest minority in the world.

Tantaros continues:

Carrie Prejean was called the most offensive four and five letter words by Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s after she expressed her traditional views on gay marriage. Was he scolded by one of the organization’s owners, Donald Trump? Hardly. Trump actually expressed willingness to allow Hilton to judge at next year’s competition.

And that’s just the beginning. Playboy magazine published a vile, incendiary list of conservative women it would like to engage in hate sex with, and it was only after public outcry that it pulled the article. Its response was watered down, to say the least. Where was that writer’s editor? (And that editor’s mind, moreover?) It doesn’t take an expert to know that the first stage of violence is thinking about it, then expressing it, then actually doing it.

Again, about Prejean, she said NOTHING that OBAMA and BIDEN hadn’t already said. Yet, Obama got voted in (more or less), and Prejean was put on trial – for saying the same, exact thing.

And the Playboy piece was despicable.

As was this:

David Letterman made a disgusting joke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s underage daughter and he didn’t stop there. He continued to make an off color joke about the Governor’s appearance making many want to invoke slaps but not against their knees.

Palin is apparently more popular than Letterman. Thanks to growing pressure from viewers Letterman offered — not one — but two — mea culpas. But where was CBS from the start? It was only after the public got involved that the comedian began to react with some seeming sincerity.

For the record, Palin should never appear on his show. Protests calling for his resignation should continue with a larger message to the general population and television executives everywhere: distasteful behavior against females will not be tolerated.

The only reason for Palin to ever appear on Letterman’s show is to demonstrate that she takes the high road, and is a MUCH bigger person than he is. I used to watch Letterman’s show, by the way, before he took every opportunity to trash Clinton – both of them (I mean, really – it has been a long damn time since the Monica Lewinsky issue, and Letterman STILL takes digs at Bill over it – there isn’t ANYTHING else going on in the world about which he could joke? That’s just lazy. And in very poor taste.)

Here’s the kicker:

The United States, a champion for women’s rights throughout the world, will have a tough time wagging it’s finger at countries that are less than progressive in their attitudes toward women and crimes against women all over the world when we tolerate hate speak at the expense of the American female, for a few laughs or fame, no less.

The First Amendment protects free speech but there is no reason that we, as citizens and consumers, should buy it. When it comes to those who want to disrespect any woman, we can take it to their bottom line and not only speak out, but also boycott their business.

Violence against women is wrong, no matter what party affiliation, not to mention it’s just not funny. The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

Amen, Sister Tantaros. We may differ politically, but on this issue, I am standing right with you. We have seen the open season that was declared on women last year, we have felt the effects of it, and we still are. But it is UNACCEPTABLE to decent people. And we are decent people.

As is Dan K. Thomasson, who wrote a very good piece on this issue, “Letterman’s Remarks Symbolic of National Coarseness.” Now I realize this might date me some, you know, that I expect some level of decorum and decency and all, but so be it. (I’m also a Southerner, so what do you want from me already? That was supposed to be funny, just so you know.) I think Mr. Thomasson has it right in this post, and highlights that it isn’t just women who are upset by this level of discourse:

One doesn’t have to be a fan of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family to be offended by David Letterman’s utterly tasteless, senseless remarks about her trip to New York City. Somewhere in there may be a clue as to why NBC picked Jay Leno instead of Letterman to replace Johnny Carson on the “Tonight Show” all those years ago.

Letterman told his television audience that Palin, her husband and daughter had attended a New York Yankees game where the daughter had been “knocked up” during the seventh-inning pause by Yankee star Alex Rodriguez. He also insulted every hard-working airline crewmember outside the cockpit by describing Palin’s own appearance as a “slutty flight attendant look.”

Let me note here that as the father of one daughter and the grandfather of four young ladies, three of them teenagers, and the father-in-law of a former longtime flight attendant who missed being on one of the ill-fated 9/11 planes by one day, I was particularly outraged by these mindless remarks.

To her credit, Palin ignored the assault on her own person, realizing her political ambitions have made her fair game. But what parent, even one who understands that in this country politicians can expect rough treatment, would not be angered by the gratuitous off-color assault on her teenage daughter? The Palin daughter at the game was 14-year-old Willow. Palin called the remark “sexually perverted,” which seems an apt description for one who apparently thinks the suggested rape of a child or a teenage pregnancy are laughing matters.

Letterman said he would never say that about a 14-year-old. Well, that would indicate at least he knows the consequences attached to an assault, verbal or otherwise, on an underage girl. He said he was referring to Bristol, the 18-year-old who is an unwed mother but who was not at the game — an obvious cop out. But either way, of course, he was out of line. Just because this former TV weatherman hails from the Indiana farm country (as do I) doesn’t mean he should be bombarding us with pig dung in the guise of barnyard “humor” that most Hoosiers on either side of the political aisle would consider unfunny.

Like I said, I don’t think it is any funnier if it is about an 18 yr old, either. What a pathetic excuse that is, and in no way minimizes the inappropriateness of that “joke.” And extra credit if you figure out how old Obama’s mother was when she had HIM.

Thomasson continues:

Furthermore, this smutty dialog is not fit for national television. Aren’t we getting a bit tired of those who feel somehow their lofty positions give them immunity from the social restraints and standards of good taste and decency that govern most civilized Americans? It is safe to say that had Letterman’s remarks been made with any sort of racial overtone, his job would be on the line. There really is no reason for it not to be now if one subscribes to the notion that a baseless suggestion of immorality about any one no matter their color should bear some consequences, First Amendment guarantees notwithstanding.

Letterman’s remarks may have been written for him, but the responsibility is still his. He has complete control of his own material. It is puzzling that after all these years, he has not learned the difference between fair comment and satire and vicious disparagement. What may be more troublesome in all this is that it furthers the incivility of today’s politics, that its nastiness moves us just that much closer to the hate line at the expense of innocent bystanders — in this case children.

Liking or disliking Gov. Palin has nothing to do with this. Those who find her politically unsettling should be as appalled as those who are her biggest supporters. Her daughter’s pregnancy and decision to keep the baby does not make her a legitimate target for scurrilous public bathroom scribbles from morons. Mothers all over the world should be offended. It may be too late for a Letterman apology, but it isn’t for CBS officials to issue a strong disassociation with his remarks. After all, he violated most of the unwritten but understood rules that have protected minor family members from such unfair attacks. They have fired people for less. What this whole matter says about our direction is downright disgusting.

Yes, it does say a lot about our direction, and it sure as hell is disgusting. We saw a whole lot of that kind of behavior throughout the Primary and Election campaigns, too. It has all been well documented here before, the shirts, the actions, the horrible comments by the MSM, Obama’s supporters, and the enabling by the DNC of the sexism or coarse discourse.

Oh, and Dave? It’s not the PERCEPTION of what you said. It is WHAT YOU SAID. Just to be clear. We didn’t misunderstand you. We heard you loud and clear. And we didn’t like what we heard. Because what we heard, what you SAID, was offensive to women, and children. Enough of the deflection masquarading as an apology. We heard what you said, Dave, and it was offensive.

Maybe the third time is the charm – maybe Letterman can make a REAL apology without pushing it off on his listeners, or claiming he was mixed up, or whatever BS he comes up with next.

And maybe, just maybe, women will start to turn him off, and others of his ilk, who demean, belittle,castigate, and sexualize us, and our children. Now THAT might be a message clearly understood by everyone, Dave included.

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

Here’s the story:

Waynesville Woman Finally Reunites With Abducted Daughter

Janet Greer’s moment finally arrived Wednesday — 12 years after her daughter was abducted by her father and taken to Egypt.

With Chris Cuomo from ABC’s “Good Morning America” at her side, the Waynesville woman entered her daughter’s world, wrapped her arms around her, touched her and smelled her hair.

She shed tears that never stopped pouring from years of living with a broken heart.

That heart broke when Greer’s ex-boyfriend — who had a court-allowed weekend visit with his then-3-year-old daughter Sarah in 1997, never returned with her. Instead, Magdy Elgohary got on a plane with Sarah in tow and flew to Egypt.

Authorities in Hawaii, where Greer and Elgohary were living at the time, issued warrants charging him with felony kidnapping.

But Sarah “Dowsha” Elgohary’s family refused to let Greer to see her own child. Even after the Egyptian courts awarded her custody, the family intervened to stop it from occurring. And local leaders refused to intervene on her behalf.

Finally, the day she’s dreamed and fought so hard for happened Wednesday.

“I think she saw her in the afternoon over there,” said Ruth Greer, Janet’s mother from their Waynesville home. “She said, ‘Mom, she looks like me; tall and slender. She’s got hair down to her waist.’ She was ecstatic.”

Can you imagine what this must have been like for this woman? To have her child abducted, and despite her best efforts, to have any contact with her daughter refused? I sure can’t:

State Department Assistance

Ruth Greer said a recent bombardment of media coverage, pressure from people like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-profile officials put shame on the Elgohary family, with whom Dowsha and her father were living.

An Egyptian-American journalist recently published a stinging piece about Greer’s situation in Egyptian newspapers. The publicity and outcry enlightened the government and enraged people, writer Zagloul Ayad, of Boston, said in an interview last week. Ayad also runs a nonprofit to help others in similar situations.

Greer’s YouTube video, in which she tearfully pleads her case, also spread all over Egypt and other newspapers picked up her story.

“They all got tired of the press hanging around,” Ruth Greer said, “and bringing shame on themselves.”

I’ve followed this story for years and have been amazed at the fight Greer puts up daily — the e-mails and phone calls, her reaching out to anyone who may help her see her child.

Many times she flew to Egypt, only to win custody by law, but was never granted actual access to her daughter.

Here is the YouTube video, mentioned above:

Holy cow, can you imagine what Janet Greer’s life has been like for the past 12 years? It sounds like a living hell. And then Secretary Clinton stepped in:

Finally, A Reunion

Janet Greer prepared for the reunion by collecting some of Dowsha’s favorite toys from when she was a baby and toddler. The girl is now 15, and Janet hadn’t seen her since she was 3. She was hoping the toys would stir a memory.

“(Janet) used to wear Jontue (perfume) when Sarah was little and wore it today, hoping when they hugged each other the familiar scent would be there,” Ruth Greer said.

“Janet called me to say peace has been established between the family (the Elgoharys of Egypt) and her. She said she met with them all and Magdy (Dowsha’s father) even asked about me. The lines of communication are open. They have agreed for her to have visitation and there was even some joking.”

According to the “Good Morning America” segment, the days preceding the reunion were tangled in red tape and more refusals.

Clinton spoke to the Egyptian foreign minister on Greer’s behalf, saying that “as a mother,” she was hopeful this would be resolved.

A spokesman from the U.S. State Department said the department has been aware of the case since 1997.

“The Department has been fully engaged with Ms. Greer since learning of the tragic abduction of her daughter, Sarah, in 1997,” said spokesman Darby Holladay. “At every possible opportunity, we have pressed the Egyptian government to resolve this case. We will continue to assist Ms. Greer for as long as necessary.”He also said the embassy had assisted Greer during each of her visits to Egypt over the last 12 years and accompanied her to court hearings and meetings, providing support.

But just last week, despite pleas from high-profile officials, Greer again lost custody in Egyptian courts, due to paperwork problems from a lawyer.

With American leaders and national media at her side, she then decided to plead once more with the family, and told them she’d drop all charges if they’d allow visitation with Dowsha.

The family, upset by all the media attention, agreed to a meeting in their hometown near Cairo.

I’m glad to hear the State Department has been aware of this for the past 12 years, and has provided assistance, but, evidently, it wasn’t enough. Clinton has been on the job how long now, and she was able to make this happen? Just sayin’.

Finally, the actual reunion:

‘I Love You‘

With her daughter finally standing next to her, the first words out of Greer’s mouth were “I love you,” in both Dowsha’s language and in English.

“I think she’s on Cloud Nine,” Ruth Greer said of her daughter. “She’s actually laid eyes physically on her daughter and is so thrilled and excited. She doesn’t speak much English so they are going to have to get to know each other again.”

Despite the good news, Ruth Greer continues to harbor mixed emotions.

“I still don’t trust them,” she said of the family who put them “through hell,” including so much stress both she and Janet suffered health problems over the years, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent trying to reunite with the girl.

“I wonder if this is another ploy,” Ruth Greer said.

She also said she didn’t know how long her daughter would remain in Egypt or if Dowsha would come to the United States with her.

“I wish this was behind me and she were back home to a normal life,” Ruth Greer said.

Earlier in the week, I received the following e-mail from Greer, describing the conditions she was under.

“It is all over the news here and in the newspapers, people point at me where ever I go,” she wrote. “The local news filmed this day before yesterday and it is all over the satellite here. They would not let us film here at the hotel because it is an old Palace where the King lived, a landmark, so it is against the law to film so we went out into the street by the Nile to do it. Traffic stopped to watch … It would be so simple if the Elgohary family would just let me see Dowsha!”

And now they have. Many years are gone, but I imagine Janet Greer is wondering about the many more she can share with her daughter. (Susan Reinhardt is a Citizen-Times columnist. Contact her at sreinhardt@CITIZEN-TIMES.com.)

Wow – what an amazing tale.

And Secretary Clinton has also been fighting on behalf of David Goldman, a NJ man who has been fighting to have his son returned since 2004 (h/t to a faithful reader who told me of his plight). His son, now 9 years old, was taken by his wife on a visit to Brazil. After she got there, she informed her husband she was staying, and a battle has ensued ever since. Secretary Clinton began working on this in March.

No doubt, Secretary Clinton will continue to fight for Mr. Goldman until he, like Janet Greer, gets to be with his son again. I hope, and pray, that time will be soon…

As some of you know, my mother suffered a stroke recently. I am currently in my home town spending time with her and getting her house in order. As a result, I rushed a recent post on “DADT” I wrote in order to get to the nursing center in a timely fashion. Alert No Quarter reader, Ed, gently (I am not being snarky here – he really was) pointed out to me that the soldier whose actual case went before the Supreme Court was not at ALL amused at Obama’s lack of support, though the rest of my post stands as is, I think. The point is, he is dong nothing, and too many people are allowing him to WORM (What Obama Really Meant) out.

The soldier whose case was thrown out by the SCOTUS, had something to say about it, alright, and it was not a whole bunch of WORMing, as this article makes clear,

Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout. Check this out:

When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.

James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” (emphasis mine) upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.

I don’t want to overreach or anything, but it does sound like Pietrangelo is a tad hot under the collar, as he SHOULD be. About damn time the MSM bothered to report that not everyone is in love with Obama.

As for “DADT” and Obama’s lack of action:

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.

The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.

“EVENTUALLY”??? Just how the hell long is THAT?? I’m not buying what he’s selling, and neither is Pietrangelo:

Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified “Don’t ask, don’t tell” after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

But the trouble is that the law was passed by Congress and, if Obama decided to go around the legislature, he would face political blowback. The current law allows gays to serve, so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. The legislation means that a majority of the 535 members of Congress is going to have to vote to undo the ban — and that will have its political fallout. Obama is plainly taking his cue from the 1993 fiasco, which hurt Clinton’s relationship with conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and with many in uniform.

But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives — 58% — now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. “While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue,” the polling firm reported last Friday, “the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move.”

Here’s what gripes me about this, and the other service members who have been kicked out of the military for being LGBT, including Arabic linguists, whom we could actually use right now: the military has actually lowered its enlistment standards over the past few years because of the two wars we are fighting. I am not kidding. Click HERE to read more about it. Doesn’t that just gripe you, too?

Uh, yeah, so enough with the excuses already about “DADT.” Like I said, if Obama has the time to do a videotaped message for Stephen Colbert, giving a “lawful order,” he sure can pick up the phone to call Pelosi and Reid, and tell them to push this through. Dadgummit!

And here’s another good one, courtesy of faithful reader, SF Indie, who informed me of THIS new pick by Obama,
Head Of Pro-Life* Group Gets Job At HHS (* I take issue with the term “Pro-Life, and prefer “Anti-Choice.”). Well I’ll be darned – he’s throwing NARAL, NOW, and a whole bunch of other women and women’s groups under the bus, too???? Oh, I am so, so, so surprised!!! Not, not, not:

The Obama administration has picked the former head of a pro-life Catholic organization to run faith-based and community outreach programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alexia Kelley, co-founder of the liberal group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Thursday to run HHS’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. (The administration wouldn’t immediately confirm that, but the Catholic Reporter published a press release from Catholics in Alliance trumpeting the announcement.) Catholics in Alliance’s main goal since Kelley helped found it in 2005 has been to emphasize the Catholic Church’s social justice teachings in the political sphere; like other progressive religious groups, it lines up with Democratic positions on health care, poverty, labor and other issues.

On abortion, the group has mostly worked to find ways to reduce demand, rather than to push laws aimed at curtailing the availability of the procedure. But its Web site makes clear that it isn’t pro-choice. “Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life — from conception until natural death,” says a frequently asked questions page.

Pro-choice activists weren’t happy: HHS oversees health care, including abortion policy, for much of the federal government. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, called it “a defeat for reason and logic.” “The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that,” he told Salon. But “to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion… really beggars belief.” The timing of the appointment — just days after abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in his Wichita, Kan., church — is likely to aggravate pro-choice groups even more. (Anti-choice organizations, though, have criticized Catholics in Alliance for giving cover to pro-choice Democrats, by attempting to shift the debate from banning abortion to simply reducing it.)

Well, golly gee – they aren’t happy with the man they chose to support over the WOMAN who has shown her resolve on this issue time and time again?? As Kathy Griffin would say, they can suck it. Again, had they BOTHERED to look at his record (or lack thereof) or his experience (or lack thereof) rather than jumping on the popularity bandwagon, they wouldn’t be so unhappy now. They brought it on themselves BY themselves.

Oh, and you’ll like this part:

Aides at the White House and HHS didn’t immediately return calls and e-mails for comment.

ROTFMLAO – really? They White House and HHS didn’t want to talk about this?? Yeah, I bet.

One last piece:

Update: A spokeswoman for Catholics in Alliance, Jennifer Goff, just sent over a statement. The group clearly wasn’t happy with the criticism from Catholics for Choice: “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward reaching common ground in order to make real progress on the moral and political challenges our country faces instead of resorting to spurious attacks launched by those who are more concerned with inflaming the culture wars than effecting positive change.”

Okey dokey. Sure. Whatever they say…

By now, I am certain everyone has heard of the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum. It was a tragedy indeed, and my heart goes out to the security guard’s family, as well to those who were present at the time. But. And you knew it was coming. When President Obama comes out with a statement tout suite on the security guard’s death, and even Fox News talking about honoring this guard’s service, it makes me a bit irritated. And if you have been reading my posts of late, you know why: because Obama waited DAYS to say anything about the soldiers being gunned down in the street outside a recruiting center, men who were not just doing a job, but giving their LIVES in service to this country (and I meant that in the big picture sense – when you are in the military, it ISN’T just a job. It is your LIFE.). Bottom line is this: Private Long deserved at least as much attention as the security guard did, not to in any way, shape, or form diminish the tragic, senseless loss of life at a museum dedicated to memorializing one of the most horrific periods in world history (and it is an amazing, amazing place).

I’m just saying enough WORMing on Obama’s lack of support to our military, for those lost through an unequal law, or through a politically, religiously motivated attack on service members on our own soil. And, enough WORMing on the poor choices Obama continues to make. Enough already.

Again, big thanks to Ed and SFIndie…

Wow. I imagine teachers everywhere just cringe when they hear about stories like this. Parents, too, I expect. And especially the latter when the child who was sexually assaulted says things like this:

The victim asked the judge not to give him the maximum sentence because he was a nice man.

Holy smokes. “A nice man.” Hardly. Her father didn’t think so, either. This was his response:

Her father then told the judge that his daughter was emotionally and psychologically scarred and that Judy had a power over her, Strickland said. (Strickland is the spokeswoman for that court district.)

I think we can agree that it goes without saying that the child is “emotionally and psychologically scarred…”

At least Judy acknowledged what he had done:

Judy admitted during the hearing to having sex with the girl, who was 14 at the time, and said he knew what he did was wrong, Strickland said.

I suppose that’s something. Better than him insisting the girl was lying, I guess.

Here’s the thing – this man COULD have gotten up to 20 years in prison. He has affected this child’s life in ways the extent of which cannot possibly known for years to come. Here are the legal particulars:

Tracy Lee Judy, 38, pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation of a minor and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor during an emotional hearing that included testimony from the 15-year-old victim and her father.

Circuit Judge Perry Buckner sentenced Judy to five years in prison and two years probation upon completion of the prison sentence. He also will be on the sex offender registry for life.

Five years in prison, two on probation. That just does not sound like enough to me. And yes, I know he will have a tough time in prison. No doubt, he will be in Protective Custody. That may, or may not, save him. Inmates have their own codes, after all (I worked with prisoners, both men and women, and had the Protective Custody Unit as part of my duties, so I do actually have some experience with that. I just didn’t want you to think I was writing, “words, just words.” Ahem.).

Oh, and there is one other little piece of this:

Judy tried to kill himself by overdosing on painkillers on May 10, the night before his trial was to begin. In a four-page suicide note, Judy described himself as a mentally ill Gulf War veteran struggling with “panic anxiety disorder, depression, agoraphobia and other undetermined social disorders.”

As part of his sentence, Judy must receive counseling through Veterans Affairs, Strickland said.

Let me say right off the bat that I have no doubt whatsoever Judy is experiencing those symptoms. No doubt. And it is terrible the long-lasting effects too many of our men and women in uniform carry with them after their service is done. Too many denied or ignored or minimized by the very entity that sent them in. That being said, it is NOT an excuse for this man to sexually assault this child. Good that he is going to get counseling – clearly he needs it, as the list above indicates, as does the “undetermined social disorders,” though I think we have a BIT of a clue as to what ONE of those is, and it is no longer “undetermined”: child sexual molestation.

That girl is going to need therapy, too. Probably her parents will also have to participate. Even still, that girl’s life will never, never be the same again. Never.

How does this happen? The paper the next day had an article announcing that “Violent Crime Is Down 12%,” but rape is up. I’m sorry, but when, exactly, did rape not qualify as a “violent crime”???

This can happen because this kind of mindset is cumulative. You rank rape below, say, bank robbery; have a president make a huge speech abroad in which he minimizes women’s rights and human rights (”Yo, Bitches, Wear That Hijab,” and “Cairo: The Emptiness Of Obama’s Rhetoric” address that issue nicely); and a teacher who gets all of 5 years for repeated sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. That is some message here in the Good Ol’U.S. of A. to women, isn’t it? (I have also written about the use of rape as war tactic, and the treatment of women in other countries numerous times before, but this time, my focus is closer to home.)

Judy gets 5 years in prison, probation, and on the Sex Offender Registry for sexually assaulting this child. And the girl gets life without parole.

Rasha took us to some amazing places, including the national museum, which houses an unbelievable collection of antiquities – one could easily spend an entire month in there, though we had but a few hours. We did get to see ALL of King Tut’s burial chamber, though, so that was pretty cool. And Rasha, a thoroughly knowledgeable guide, took us to the Great Pyramids (as well as other places). And it was in National Museum that we saw women dressed in full burkas – it was startling, to tell you the truth. Wow.

And so it was, that when I saw the following video, I wanted to share it with you since I developed a soft spot for Rasha, and her country. Secretary Clinton is hosting a group of young people from Egypt. Their goal is to improve the lives of people in their country, including the area of human rights:

What an amazing trip this must be for these young people, many of whom have never left Egypt, either. And how fortunate that they get to spend some of that time with this remarkable woman, the one capable of listening to a multi-part question, and answering it in full (without notes or a teleprompter). How wonderful that she is the one with whom they get to meet as they work on the issue of human rights, an issue near and dear to Secretary Clinton’s heart. What a great start they are getting, and no doubt, it will help them when they return to their country to work to implement those changes (and hopefully, this will extend to the treatment of animals in Egypt – that’s a story for another day). How fortunate are we to have a Secretary of State who is so gracious, generous of time, spirit, and knowledge. One can only imagine what she would do as president …

We’re becoming a Puritanical society, bit by bit. No same sex marriage, no domestic partnership benefits, no rights for any couple unless they’re married under the eyes of the law. What’s next? No divorce allowed? We have to protect marriage, after all. Governmental approval of choice of spouse before marriage can take place? I wonder what their criteria would be.

Here in SF, the gay community is despondent, and rightly so. (But now I’m going to rant a bit, because I’m so freaking tired of the blindness and apathy and non-accountability and hypocrisy I run into daily.)

The folks I talk to here in the Castro are very nastily taking their frustrations out on Carrie Prejean who, while I certainly don’t agree with her views, has the exact same views as the man they voted for President. Yet when I mention this, I get no response, or “that’s different”.

Mention The Pretender’s turnaround with DADT and DOMA? No response. Mention some of the anti-gay people he’s appointed to positions in his administration? No response. Mention his non-support of equal marriage rights for everyone, his non-support of the gay community, his never once having marched in any gay pride parade? No response.

But mention Carrie Prejean? Well, you’d think she was the devil incarnate. Like I said, I certainly don’t agree with her views, but would someone please tell me why she’s bad and The Pretender is still The One???

I agree we ALL have to fight for marriage equality, gay and straight alike. I wish someone would tell the gay community here in SF. I’m seeing a lot of anger at the outcome of the CSC decision, but where were they all when Prop 8 was on the ballot? The level of involvement was almost zero. Easier to blame its passing on others rather than take responsibility for educating and enlightening those people outside of their community.

Okay, time for me to go hide again and pretend I’m in the midst of a nightmare and I’ll be waking up any minute and turn on the news and find out what President Hillary Clinton is accomplishing today.

What SFIndie said. Couldn’t have said it better myself…Thanks, SFIndie, for letting me post this!