Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Clinton or Rubio: Which One is Really Yesterday?

What gets me is Rubio trying to spin Hillary as "yesterday" and same old same old, when that is purely AGEISM: it is based SOLELY on the age/generational difference between Clinton and Rubio. If you base your vote on IDEAS versus ageism, you see that it is the Republicans and Rubio who espouse the profoundly TIRED, OLD, and utterly discredited ideas of the past, namely, three words: trickle down economics. I mean, REALLY? You can't get more YESTERDAY than that, Marco.

Hillary is older than Marco but her ideas are PROGRESSIVE, whereas Rubio's and the Republican party's are REGRESSIVE. No mas trickle down! NO MAS. That is the true bridge to the PAST.

Last time I checked, elections are about IDEAS, not biological age...unless you count the EXPERIENCE factor, which is a GOOD thing and usually (but not always) goes along with age. There are good things to be said for youth and good things to be said for age, but trying to paint someone as "yesterday" and "the past" just because they are older than you is PURE, unabashed ageism, period. Ask yourselves: which IDEAS are relevant and healthy for today? Then it becomes evident why Rubio is trying to spin your attention away from where it should be focused.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Binary Blues

The following article (see link below) infuriates and profoundly dismays me. This is what's wrong with society! Why can't this kid just be himself? He's not "wearing a disguise", he just doesn't fit into society's/the DMV's binary box of what a male should look like. This is who he is and he has the right to be who he is, binary box be damned!!!!!!!!!

If he keeps having experiences like this, he may feel like he has to "choose" one way or the other (one side or another of the gender binary) instead of just being himself, and that is a crime. Why should he have to fit himself into what the DMV or anyone else says he should be? He doesn't fit neatly on one side or the other of "the line", and that is PERFECTLY FINE--the DMV doesn't have the right to say "Step onto what we define as the MALE side of the line!" This just infuriates me beyond any ability to even adequately express the degree of my infuriation.

P.S. PLUS this is a clear violation of his civil rights and I hope he takes this all the way up to the Supreme Court!

Link: Teen forced to remove his make-up for driver's license photo.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Pork Yes, Love Thy Neighbor No?

Soooo, let me see if I have this: If I'm a Christian restaurant owner in Arizona, it's okay if I serve pork (bible says no), open my restaurant on Saturday (bible says no), and serve shellfish (again, big fat NO), yet I can't, in good conscience, allow all my fellow humans equal access to my establishment because "those people" over there, who I am commanded to LOVE by the bible I claim to be bound to follow, engage in some behavior that I don't approve of and that I think God doesn't approve of (even though God clearly says I'm supposed to LOVE MY NEIGHBOR AS MYSELF) ...or I think they do, I can't really tell because right now they are just two people presenting themselves at my restaurant and asking to be let in and allowed to support my business.

So, do I have this situation evaluated correctly?

Well, I might have to open a restaurant in AZ and refuse to serve radcon fundie bigots because they are VERY offensive to everything that MY religion stands for!*

And where does it stop? Religious freedom is fundamental to our constitution. Bigotry and discrimination are NOT. Get to know the diff, fundie radcons.

( * AND everything that my COUNTRY stands for!!! You know, the constitution: yeah, THAT. That's what the laws in this country are built on, NOT on what ONE radical, hate-filled wing of ONE religion MISINTERPRETS their own bible to be saying!)

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Travesty for Trayvon

I am very dismayed about the George Zimmerman verdict.  I think it was a bad one and sets a terrible legal precedent.  Zimmerman got off on a “stand your ground” defense.  His lawyers kept trying to make a case that he was defending himself against Trayvon Martin.  And one lawyer got on CNN last night and said that he thinks what “people are confused about” (I am NOT confused—I think I understand the law better than this condescending fool, but moving along…) is that they (“we”:  the so-called “confused people”) are taking into account that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, and we shouldn’t do that, because, according to this fool, the law only looks at what was going on in the moment of the struggle.  You know what I say to that?  BULLSHIT:  the last time I looked, the law looks at the WHOLE scenario.  And if we look at the WHOLE incident, start to finish, it is documented heavily that, every step of the way, George Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon Martin and it was Trayvon Martin who felt threatened!  So IF Trayvon Martin did turn around and attack George Zimmerman at one point, then it was HE who was standing his ground, not Zimmerman!  It was Trayvon who clearly should have been protected under any “stand your ground" law!  Yet Zimmerman is not the one dead, Trayvon is, and Zimmerman walks free under some overly broad and misapplied “stand your ground” law.

Let’s look at some of the clearly documented facts that we know:

1.  Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman killed him.

2.  George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin (to me, this is the key point), even after the police dispatch operator TOLD HIM “we don’t need you to do that.”  They asked, are you following him?  Zimmerman said yes.  They said, as I just wrote but bears repeating:  “we don’t need you to do that.”

3.  Trayvon Martin felt threatened.  This is DOCUMENTED in his phone call with his friend.  He said there was a creepy white guy following him.  HE had cause to “stand his ground” under Florida law, NOT Zimmerman!  How was Zimmerman threatened?  He could have turned back at ANY TIME until the actual struggle, and the actual struggle was because TRAYVON felt threatened!!!  And that is ASSUMING that Trayvon started the actual physical struggle:  we don’t know that, it could have been Zimmerman who started it.  But to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt on that one, just say Trayvon started it:  that would be legal under the “stand your ground” law!  Trayvon felt threatened and fought back.  He wound up dead.

The “stand your ground” law has been turned on its head here and misapplied.  It is an overly broad, dangerous, pro-gun law in the first place, but in this case it has been horribly perverted.  This is a travesty of justice and a sad day for my state of Florida and our country.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Message from Home

Walking through sunshine chilled blue all around
Suddenly seized seeing mountains death bound
Filled with dark clarity
Forced to hear chime
Feeling sharp happening
Water, air, crime
Decimation, desolation
Desecration so near
Toxic spill, violent pill
Infusing all dear

Scream NO
Silent future reel seems so real
In sunshine I’m present, yet dark danger feel
Facing monster naked eyes cannot see pass
Mutant air surrounds green in sick silent cast
Stealthily slaying life like knife’s slow slash
Invisible death claiming all in its path

Stand here yet there hearing clearly through trees
Request for respect from familiar north breeze
Turn like a compass needle pointing toward home
Receiving perceiving magnet’s message alone
Future cries stop it now
Don’t let clock chime
Grab hands and hold still
To hope there’s still time

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Memo to Antonin Scalia: "Separate but Equal" = Unconstitutional

Antonin Scalia: "I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?"

Me: Well, I can't believe I have to inform you on this, since you are a Supreme Court Justice (!!!) and therefore should know the basics of constitutional law, but since clearly you do NOT, allow me to answer your dumb-ass, bigoted question: It became illegal to exclude homosexual couples from marriage the day the constitution became the law of this land.

Do you have any other questions I can answer for you, Antonin?

P.S. Get with it, Antonin. Just because "separate but equal" is state law in some states, doesn't make it CONSTITUTIONAL. Just look at the history of our country: The constitution will trump bigotry, every time. Even when it is euphemistically labeled "separate but equal'

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Exit, Stage Right

I am profoundly disgusted and infuriated with Mitt Romney for his comments, which came to light yesterday, to donors to the tune that Obama won re-election because of "gifts" he provided to certain groups, such as Hispanics, African-Americans, young people, seniors, women, working people--you know, those pesky special interest groups known as THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, a.k.a., the mythical "47%" of self-entitled "victims" that Romney spoke of previously and has so much clear and shocking contempt for. While he has no problem with viewing corporations as people and thus entitled to certain rights and/or privileges and/or TAX BREAKS, he apparently looks at any policies that benefit actual citizens, actual PEOPLE of this country, as "gifts". How DARE people want health care, for example, or think it could actually be good policy for our country?

I think the Democratic policies and positions, such as being FOR everyone paying their fair share of taxes, are PATRIOTIC and not at all about being the entitled, whiny victims with our hands stuck out that Romney views the entire American electorate as being! We WANT to pay taxes, unlike YOU, Romney. Your policies were for cutting taxes to the richest 1% of American individuals and corporations, you don't think THAT is a "gift" calculated coldly to win an election and NOT in the best interest of this country as a whole? YOU are talking about yourself, you are confusing President Obama and the greedy, ugly picture you paint of the American people with YOURSELF.

Very often, when someone goes on and on about the supposed faults of another, s/he is really talking about her or himSELF. Such is the case here. And in the picture he paints of his view of the Americans who voted for President Obama, Romney paints a revealingly disgusting, despicable picture of himself.

His comments are delusional and utterly contemptuous towards the American people who voted for President Obama. He is saying that people only voted for Obama in light of what he could give them personally, not in light of what is best for this country. He fails utterly to see that some of us think that EVERYONE paying their fair share of taxes IS what is best for this country. That a good, sustainable health care system (not that I personally agree that Obamacare is a good, sustainable health care system, but I digress) is what is best for this country. Some of us feel that student loans, FEMA, roads, bridges, greening the economy, funding education, and YES, even providing birth control (GASP!), IS what is good for this country!  And we feel that way even if we as individuals may never need some of those things ourselves.  We voted for what we think is best for our COUNTRY.

We are not selfish, spoiled children with our hands stuck out, waiting for "gifts", Mr. Romney. That would be YOU. That would be YOUR constituency. So why don't you accept the fact that you lost the election fair and square due to an electorate that loves our country at least every bit as much as your supporters do, and that voted its conscience to do what is best for our country. You have missed your opportunity to exit gracefully to stage right. At least please now exit quietly to stage right. We have heard more than enough out of you.