Jon Swift has posted the best blog posts of 2007, from his blogroll. There are enough fantastic posts there to keep you reading until next year, including “The Queer Thing About School Shooters, Pt. 2″ from this blog. Check them out!
Before I got Jon’s invite to send in what I thought was my best blog post, I hadn’t really given the question much thought. After I picked one to send Jon for his post, I starting going through my 2007 archives. It was a little strange to step back and take a look at what I was writing about at the beginning of the year. I’d no idea I’d written so much, and pleased to find some of it I actually liked.
So, these are my favorites from the past year. I don’t know if they’re my “best of 2007″ or not, but at least some of them are my “personal best,” and represent the kind of writing I most enjoy doing. If you’ve been reading the blog this year, I invite you to share in the comments your favorite posts from this blog (or another, since I’m always looking for interesting reading) in the comments. Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve been meaning to post some kind of follow-up after my lastthreeposts on mental illness and mental health care (or the lack thereof). After going off about the lack of mental health services, or lack of access to treatment, can lead to problems for the mentally ill, their families, and the rest of society, it was encouraging to read about states increasing funding for mental health services. But it raises some interesting questions about how to achieve a balance that also protects the rights of the mentally ill.
I thought about it a couple of weeks ago, when I read about Kaine’s plan to boost mental health funding, in the wake of the VA Tech shootings. But that funding comes with a reform that—though apparently intended to address situations in which people, like VA Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, don’t get court ordered treatment—raises questions about the effectiveness of basically coercing the mentally ill into getting treatment. Read the rest of this entry »
Michael in Norfolk points out an article about Obama’s latest statement on DOMA.
In an interview with the Bay Area Reporter Monday, December 17, Tobias Wolff, a gay man who’s chair of the national LGBT policy committee for the Obama campaign, called the Illinois senator a “fighter” who will stand by his principles.
…Wolff, 37, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, also noted that while he disagrees with Obama on the issue of same-sex marriage, he nonetheless believes that Obama is the better candidate. Obama, as well as the other leading Democratic candidates, support civil unions. Wolff supports marriage equality. But Wolff drew a distinction with Obama’s and Clinton’s position on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Obama supports repeal of all DOMA, while Clinton is on record supporting repeal of only part of the legislation. President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, as well as the anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.
At the Logo presidential forum in August, Clinton said that she would repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which states that, for federal purposes, “marriage” can mean only marriage between a man and a woman, thus it essentially denies same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Section 2, however, says that states do not have to recognize same-sex relationships, and Clinton has not gone so far as to support repeal of that provision.
What that part of DOMA means, Wolff said, is that gay couples could have problems should they move to a state that doesn’t recognize their relationship. That section of DOMA could also come into play regarding custody or wrongful death issues.
“States can disregard judgments,” Wolff said, referring to the problems that could arise. “Senator Obama from the start said this is wrong and we shouldn’t be making excuses.”
I’ve already made it clear who I’m supporting during the primaries. I’m voting my hopes until I have to settle for what I can get. And while I’ve been critical of all the rest of the Democratic field, Obama’s statement on DOMA does underscore a distinction that should become more important as the field narrows. Read the rest of this entry »
This is not a joke. A Scotsman and an Englishmen hike into the woods. The Scotsman accepted the theory of evolution. The Englishman believed in creationism. Actually, the article says he “had taken a more biblical view of history.” An argument ensues and the creationist Englishman kills the evolutionist Scotsman. I have now heard everything.
The holiday wouldn’t be complete without the obligatory “Jesus is the reason for the season” commentary, and this year Roland S. Martin provides it.
This whole push to remove Christ from the Christmas season has gotten so ridiculous that it’s pathetic.
Because of all the politically correct idiots, we are being encouraged to stop saying “Merry Christmas” for the more palatable “Happy Holidays.” What the heck are “Seasons Greetings”? Can someone tell me what season we are greeting folks about? A Christmas tree? Oh, no! It’s now a holiday tree. Any Christmas song that even remotely mentions Christ or has a religious undertone is being axed for being overtly religious. And I’m sorry, forget X-M-A-S. Malcolm X? Yes. X replacing Christ? No.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m very respectful of other religions. I don’t want anyone to be afraid of discussing the Jewish faith when we address Hanukkah. And we shouldn’t dismiss Muslims when the annual pilgrimage to Mecca is held during December. In fact, Americans are so ignorant of other faiths that we can all learn from one another.
But this seeming backlash against Christianity is bordering on the absurd, and we should continue to remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.
I don’t disagree with Martin on some points, but the overall tone of his column is basically the same old “Christian appropriation of everything” theme. Much as the “Christian nation” rhetoric serves to remind us that the country does not really belong to the rest of us, the “Christian holiday” rhetoric serves to chide us that if the rest of us non-believers celebrate the holiday we are by default celebrating Christianity, its tenets, and mythology.
But it’s not true. Jesus hasn’t been “removed from Christmas,” so much as he was grafted onto it in the first place. And he wasn’t the “reason for the season” until the season was appropriated by the Christian church. So, it’s appropriate that we’re reminded that “the season” predates Martin’s “reason.”
The American Cancer Society just wrapped up a study which finds that insured cancer patients do better. They live longer than those with private insurance. You think that would be obvious, but I bet it would be news to Nataline Sarkisyan if she were alive. At the very least, it would be news to her family. Bitterly ironic news, but news nonetheless.
Gravel’s presence at the forum isn’t going to make supporting equality seem goofy and thus dissuade Democratic candidates from supporting equality, because the “serious” candidates are all afraid to publicly support equality even if they support it privately. The only person even connected with a major Democratic candidate who has the courage of her convictions is Elizabeth Edwards, and that’s a damn shame because she’s not running for anything. Her husband is, and while I don’t doubt Elizabeth’s sincerity, her stance accomplishes little more than making some gay voters feel better about her husband while also giving him enough cover to basically have it both ways by “tolerating” his wife’s stance and saying that he opposes discrimination while basically supporting discrimination and inequality.
…I refuse to cheer any candidates support of civil unions or “leaving it to the states” unless they either explain why the federal government is even in the business of offering benefits and protections to heterosexual families but not ours, or make a case for the federal government getting out of the business of awarding benefits and protections on the basis of marital status. And I don’t want to hear about any candidate’s support for civil unions unless it’s followed by their vision for some national policy measure that establishes civil unions in a way that protects our families across state lines.
The most astounding assumption is that everyone should have children. This despite the abundant evidence that there an untold numbers of people who’ve already had children probably shouldn’t be parents, if the results of their parenting thus far is any indication. There are undoubtedly more who realize they may not be parent material and thus avoid becoming parents. Would the author have them become parents too, and subject children yet unborn to living with parents who may not want the, or who may even be neglectful or abusive?
That’s the unspoken but fundamental point in his argument, as well as many on the same side. The assumption is that people who marry and have children should do so within the context of the faith that he practices. Because, if they do so and do it right, there won’t be any abuse or neglect. Just like if all women surrendered to their husbands, there wouldn’t be any domestic abuse so long as they’ve married “godly men.”
It’s an ideal that has nothing to do with reality, because there will never be a time when everyone practices the author’s idealized brand of Christianity. But it seems so obvious to him how wonderful it would be if everyone would, that he can remain oblivious to the unhappiness that is bound to result from attempting to force everyone into a one-size-fits-all family unit.
After all happiness, the human variety at least, isn’t the point.
One after the other conservatives from Huckabee right down to the Maryland Court of Appeals will apply the procreative imperative as a supremely logical (in their eyes) reason to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples: if gays are accepted and not discriminated against, and same-sex couples allowed to marry and be treated like any other family, human beings will stop having babies altogether, and civilization will crumble.
I’m taking a blog break until sometime after the holiday, and just spending that focusing on my family. I’ll be back here sometime between Dec. 26th and New Year’s Day.
In the meantime, I don’t have any eloquent holiday/year-end message. So I’ll leave you with my favorite song this time of year, which pretty much says it all.
May you and yours have a happy and safe holiday, and enter the new year with renewed hope. And so may we all.
Mark this day on your calendar: August 4, 2009. It may not all happen on that day, but it will mark 9 months since November 4, 2008: the day Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the presidential election. So, that would be "zero day" for the Obama baby boom.
Well, I'd hope so. Anyone stupid or careless enough to put an uzi inthe hands of an eight-year-old ought to be charged with something. The D.A. looking into "whether anyone committed a reckless or wanton act" by allowing the child to fire a weapon. Oh, I'd say that qualifies as reckless and wanton. If it doesn't, then nothing does.
I admit it. My first thought when I saw this was, "Honest, officer. I don't know what happened. I totally meant to hit the brakes. I guess my foot just slipped."
I'm not saying its the kind of thing that anyone should base their vote on, but I gotta admire a campaign when I find out about the candidate's economic plan on an LGBT social network, and then get a link to read or download the entire plan on Scribd. It tells me that a campaign is making a special effort to reach out to people like me, and that the campaign is up to date on the latest ways to disseminate information.
If you haven't yet, take the time to stop by Box Turtle Bulletin, where they have been doing a great series of day-by-day posts on the Matthew Shepard murder. Today's post is a particularly heartbreaking one, about the moment ten years ago when Dennis and Judy Shepard walked into their son's intensive care room and saw him for the first time since the attack. It also links to the earlier posts in the series.
Its sounds like a joke, but it's true. You know the economy has gone South when folks around in Macon (or anywhere else in the south) are going to restaurants and not ordering sweet tea.
Big news. Clay Aiken is gay. Bigger news. So is Lindsey Lohan. Or, at least, she's been dating a woman "for a really long time." I don't know what counts as "a really long time" for Lohan. But kudos to Aiken, at least, for finally coming out. The closet is no place to raise a kid.
Posts
Entries (RSS)