Politics

• 4 Comments

•

Abuse exists...and it happens way too often (once is way too often).  I am not writing about real abuse.

I am writing about those who cry "abuse" where there is no real abuse present or no abuse intended.

Sexual harrassment

  • A woman who has an employer that bases hiring and promotion on the cut of her blouse...bad
  • A woman who sues a co-worker for telling her that she looked nice on a particular day...get a grip.

Verbal abuse

  • You're stupid and not worth wasting time on...the person saying this should be disciplined by the "powers that be"
  • I think that you are showing a lack of understanding on this issue...this is a reasonable statement and could very well be true (or not)...but it is not abuse.

Physical abuse:

I believe that a false accusation is a form of abuse.  And "abuse" is an accusation from which there is little or no defense.  Like "racism" - denying abuse may only confirm the accusation.  In this political season, any disagreement with Barrack Obama may be seen as racism...likewise, a person who questions a woman in a debate-like conversation may be accused of "abuse".

Abuse is NOT a one-way street (meaning that male-on-female abuse is the only way the street runs).

On previous shows, "Primetime" has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby -- men and women -- often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense? (...)
"There are some data that suggest that women actually hit more than men do," says Keating. "Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do."

A report prepared for the Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year there are over 800,000 serious cases of men being physically abused by women. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher, since many men are often too embarrassed to admit being the victim of abuse by a woman.

One after another, passersby witnessed the abusive scene… and kept right on going.

Mathilda was one of those bystanders. She says she didn't think the man was in any physical danger, and could probably take care of himself. "I didn't immediately think to protect the man at all," she said. "It didn't look like any harm was being done."

The reaction of another woman, Lynda, was stunning. As our actress continued to heap abuse on her make-believe boyfriend, she walked by the scene and pumped her fist in a show of sisterly solidarity.

"Good for you. You Go, Girl!" is how Lynda recalls her reaction.

A pattern of false accusation, inattention and (one) actual support for a female abuser - all of this points to a problem of how we deal with abuse.

  • Abuse is always wrong.
  • False accusation is a form of abuse that has nothing to do with gender
  • False accusation is also always wrong.

The more I read about false accusations in the news, the more likely I am to view any accusation with skepticism.

The more people cry "wolf", the less likely we are to hear when there is a real one around.

•

But, he said, because of Clinton's campaign, "My daughters and all your daughters will know there's no barrier to who they are. ... They will take for granted women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better, and do it in heels. I still don't know how she does it in heels." SacBee.com

Did you catch that?

Girls will take it for granted that they can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better.  Hardly the words of "equality".

(this post is set to moderate all comments until I return from vacation. you can comment, it just needs to be approved)

• 1 Comment

•

It's going to get interesting.  It is my opinion that we will see gay activists targeting Christian businesses with lawsuits in order to change the face of American Christianity.  It is also my opinion that they will mostly succeed - except for that "remnant".

~~~~~~~~~~

New Mexico
...a New Mexico court decides against a Christian photographer who opted not to photograph a lesbian wedding.

After Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.

This will end up affecting many Christian small business owners that rub shoulders with the marriage "industry".  Flowers, photographers, seamstresses, caterers, cake bakers.

Gay activists are not above deliberately targeting Christians in order to sue and set precedents in the court system.

In another story, "Legally Speaking: Through a Lens, Darkly" the point is made that there are civil rights at stake:  the rights of the photographer.

~~~~~~~~~~

California

...A lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic

This is disputed by Kenneth Pedroza, the attorney for the two doctors. He said they clearly informed Benítez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women and treated her no differently than any other single woman seeking treatment at the clinic.

"Freedom of religion absolutely protects all of their conduct in this case," he said. "There are two areas in medical care where freedom of religion is invoked most clearly: in the creation of life and the termination of life." And just as patients have rights, he said, so too do doctors.

Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal who is representing Benítez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis. In other words, when doctors refuse a treatment, their refusal must apply to all patients -- not to a group, such as unmarried women or lesbians.

~~~~~~~~~~

San Diego

Employees who refuse to perform gay wedding ceremonies at the San Diego County Clerk's Office are facing reassignment. At least 14 employees who raised religious objections to performing same-sex weddings have been told they cannot pick and choose between marriage applicants. California began gay marriages this week. Clerk Greg Smith had told workers earlier that those who object on religious grounds wouldn't have to perform the ceremonies, but 14 employees balked and that was more than his office could accommodate.

~~~~~~~~~~

Maggie Gallagher asks:

But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?

She notes in her article:

For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).

But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?

"faithful" does NOT mean the same thing to gay people as it does to heterosexuals.

What about the next step: "Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?"

Here's what the gay newspaper of record thinks: "That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles."

~~~~~~~~~~

Gay trumps Christian.And we will see more.

•

MICHIGAN'S UNEMPLOYMENT MAKING NEWS...Governor Granholm said "in five years, you'll be blown away," but many Michigan families are being blown away now as the state reported the highest monthly jobless rate (8.5 percent) in 16 years. In addition, 23,000 more people have lost their jobs since October when Granholm and the Democrats pushed through the largest tax increase in state history.
Obama is promising more of the same for America.

If you like what Jennifer Granholm has done to Michigan, you'll love what Barack Obama will do to Michigan.  It didn't work here...won't work nationally.

Indeed.  Consider us blown away, Ms Granholm.

• 6 Comments

•

States at odds over gay marriage recognition:

When Massachusetts passed their law providing for legal, same-sex marriages, they also made provisions to NOT grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples who live in states that have laws or constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage.

A gay couple residing in a state with a DOMA (defense of marriage act) could go to Massachusetts to get "married" and be denied.

This "helps" prevent a state with a DOMA from being forced to recognize a gay union from another state.

California has no such residency requirement.

A gay couple can come to California to get a state issued marriage certificate and then go home (wherever home is).  Hetero couples do it all the time.  I was at a wedding last week in the Las Vegas area (Valley of Fire - wonderful location) - the couple resides in California.

California may be the "Nevada" of gay marriage.

Scenario...a lesbian couple drive from Wisconsin to California to "get married".  Driving home, in Kansas, they are in a car accident.  Does the hospital in Kansas (a state that prohibits gay marriage) have to recognize the "rights" of the spouse that have a legal marriage in California?

Scenario:  Does a divorce court in Michigan (that grants divorces to couples married in other states) have to grant a divorce to a gay couple married in Massachusetts or California - thus lending legitimacy to that union (how can one dissolve something that one does not accept as existing in the first place?)

Attorneys general from Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah were so worried about potential legal complications they asked California to postpone marrying gay couples until after the November elections when voters will have a chance to overturn the court's ruling.

California declined.

• 1 Comment

•

Who is Ali Jawad?

As presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain touches down in Michigan today for a fund-raiser and town hall meeting in Oakland County, some leaders in metro Detroit's Arab- and Muslim-American community are demanding an apology from the Arizona senator.

The leaders said Monday that they are insulted that McCain's campaign severed ties with political activist and businessman Ali Jawad, the founder of the Lebanese American Heritage Club.

And who wants what?

A group of Arab-American and Muslim leaders said Monday they want John McCain's campaign to apologize for cutting ties with an Arab-American businessman serving on the GOP presidential candidate's Michigan finance committee. (emphasis mine)

What about it?

Schlussel said among her concerns about Jawad were two federal cases involving him and his company: He was convicted in 1997 in U.S. District Court in Detroit for insurance fraud and sentenced to probation. His company was convicted the same year of mail fraud and was ordered to pay more than $250,000 in fines and restitution.

She also alleges that he has met with Hezbollah leaders and Hezbollah-allied members of the Lebanese parliament on two trips to Lebanon.

"John McCain did the right thing by asking Ali Jawad to leave," she said.

And?

For his part, Jawad said he wasn't forced into resigning. He asked to be removed from the committee after receiving two calls from the McCain campaign inquiring about the allegations and questioning his "integrity and loyalty to this country."

Ok...McCain should apologize...McCain did the right thing...BUT...Jawad wasn't forced to resign!

The story also says:

We do not want a president who makes a decision ... based on false information," said Osama Siblani, president of the Arab American Political Action Committee and publisher of the Arab American News. "This is an insult to every Arab-American and Muslim American in the country."

MY TAKE:

1) Schlussel has been involved in many political scuffles and anything she writes should be investigated (meaning both her sources and her content). If you take her word for an accusation such as this one - you might get hung out to dry.

2) Jawad is a convicted fraud.

3) If every political campaign weeded out all of the convicts (such as this one)...the political arena would be a much different place.

4) If there are suspected ties to Hezbollah, they should be investigated...if the ties are not there, act accordingly. If they are not, act accordingly.

5) If Jawad asked to be removed from the committee based on mere questioning...that does seem like a smoking gun.

6) Either way, he was not removed by McCain. He asked to be removed. Is an apology in order? If the questioning were only following up on rumors - no.

Following up on rumors like this one is what a responsible campaign does.

•

I am (constantly it seems) reorganizing categories, or posts into categories.

Anyway, I ran into a couple of posts on polygamy (and there might be more, but I'm starting early and working this way).

At first, it was in the "religion - not Christianity" category, but I'm not all that sure that it's strictly a religious issue, since there are cultures that practice polygamy that have nothing to do with religious reasons.

So I put it in the "politics" category - I have a feeling that we'll be seeing more of the issue and it's not going to be a religious issue (although religious groups will be driving the question). No, it will be a political hot-potato.

•

From Marc Ambinder:

1. Florida and Michigan. Clinton, not Obama, is identified with the cause of seating those delegations. Since FL and MI won't decide the nomination now, Clinton has every reason to push for a negotiated settlement. It way well be that Clinton refuses to officially drop out until she is satisfied that the voices of Florida and Michigan are heard.

Here's the thing: Michigan and Florida spoke loud and clear, it's just that Clinton doesn't want to listen.

Here is what the voices said:

  • We know the rules
  • we don't care.
  • we've been told the consequences of breaking the rules
  • we don't care.
  • we know that our delegates won't count if we move up the primary
  • we don't care.

Let us not whine at the consequences when we discover the parties were serious about the rules.

• 2 Comments

•

look under the fold for the the whole article:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

...continue reading →