February 09, 2005

Don't Blink!

So, I was away from the net most of today, and apparently the blogworld has uncovered an Aliased Military-fetish-Gay, possible prostitute, republican operative with a White House press pass, who has since resigned from his newspaper.

And there seems to be a picture of him available in his underwear.

So, no complaining about you day at work, Ok?

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:15 AM || Link to me || Category:: Republicans, JustLeft on

Good news

Bush has called for an end to racism.

So, you know, that's taken care of:

They need to know how families were separated, denied even the comfort of suffering together. It's an important lesson of a shameful period that the young must never forget.

Hmmmm. Families separated, denied the comfort of suffering together? Sound Familiar?

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:07 AM || Link to me || Category:: Freedom, Just Left On

Alan Keyes' Daughter is a Heathen

Well, she a lesbian. To him it's the same thing. Oh, apparently, this man of 'god' has fired her and tossed her out of the house. He did, however, give her two weeks.

Jesus would be proud.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 07:46 AM || Link to me || Category:: The Way Right, Just Left on

February 08, 2005

Speaking About 'Protecting' Marriage

Seems the Catholic Church has been approving more and more 'annulments' which, essentially, is divorce without the D.

Citing statistics for 2002, Vatican officials said more than 56,000 requests for annulments were decided by local church tribunals worldwide, and 46,000 of them were granted. Of those, nearly 31,000 came in North America, compared with less than 9,000 in Europe and lower numbers for other continents.

But gay marriage is a threat...

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:08 AM || Link to me || Category:: Just left of God

It's about 'protecting marriage'

A religious law group and a handful of taxpayers have filed suit to stop a school district from offering domestic partner benefits.

Patrick Gillen, an attorney with the Ann Arbor-based Christian law group, said Proposal 2 prevents public employers from giving benefits to the same-sex partners of employees because such a policy recognizes a relationship similar to marriage. "It is akin to marriage," Gillen told the Associated Press on Monday. "The Ann Arbor Public Schools can't recognize same-sex marriages by calling them domestic partnerships

Once again we see that conservative purpose is not protecting marriage, rather it is a full out assault on any form of gay relationship.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 07:54 AM || Link to me || Category:: Gay Stuff, Just Left On

February 07, 2005

Schizophrenic Bush

Bush in October

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions, and not the citizenry of the United States.

Bush Today

That's a better -- it's better that they define it than me. After all, these are all lawyers and judges; I'm not. But when they say -- the Supreme Court says we have a national problem, I think Congress needs to listen.
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:21 AM || Link to me || Category:: Bush and Co, Just Left On

Tort Reform

Bush Today

And finally, we're here to talk about asbestos lawsuits. We got a problem. The Supreme Court recognized it as a problem. They said it is a huge mass of -- huge mass of asbestos cases defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation

DOJ Today

W.R. Grace and Co. and seven high-ranking employees knew a Montana mine was releasing cancer-causing asbestos into the air and tried to hide the danger to workers and townspeople, according to a federal indictment unsealed Monday. More than 1,200 people became ill, and some of them died, prosecutors said.
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:12 AM || Link to me || Category:: Bush and Co, Just Left On

Off-Pink Humor

I happened to revisit commecialcloset.com, a site which collects commercials (both good and bad) which deal with LGBT issues/themes/ ect.

As I poked through the offerings, I found myself surprised by what they found 'offensive' compared to my own reactions. Now, certainly, as they are an advocate group it makes sense that their line is more conservatively drawn than mine, but I still found myself wondering, ala sex in the city:

When does humor become hurtful?

I was looking at the Leaders and Laggards, which is a clever way of best and worst. I foundmyself, however, not overly bothered by the worst.

For instance, they hated this ad from Budweiser called 'The Opener'. The ad is simple - 2 guys in a bar are left in charge while the bartender goes to take care of something. One hops over the bar to steal some Bud Light, and hides in a cubbyhole on the floor when the bartender returns. Which, just happens to be right below the bottle opener. The bartender opens one bottle and asks 'Did you hear something?'. Then, of course a crowd comes in.

Now, I'll admit the humor is base - but I also found it funny. Here's how the CC saw it:

This commercial is unusually sexually daring and brutal. It strikes the darkest fear of many heterosexual men with the idea of being raped. While no one would find this situation pleasant, the negative comparison to gay male sex is unavoidable

They also hate this ad from very gay-friendly Ikea. The Ad concept is 'Starting over', and it shows 2 overly effeminate gay men get into a fight and pretty much destroy the apartment. The concept being, they'll need to buy new stuff from Ikea.

CC's take:

While some offer that this ad is intended as a parody of stereotypes, it unfortunately draws humor from no where else. This project offers that while effeminate men are indeed part of the community, marketers can do better than to find humor merely in cliched stereotypes alone -- as they have for so long.

Yes, the commercial involved stereotypes, but was so over the top that there's no way that it was intended to offend. Again, while recognizing the concern, I found it funny. The gay community, which by the way has no problems lampooning themselves, has always been known for a good sense of humor. Every time a joke involves someone's rear end, or an uncomfortable moment between two men, is not meant as a slap to the gay community.

That's not to say, there aren't horribly anti-gay commercials out there. Jack in the box made the list with their Carnivores ad, which seemed to be nothing more than a set-up of an anti-gay joke. And wasn't funny either. I feel the same way about the current JitB commercial running now, where Jack is worried about exercise and looks at a muscled guy and says 'I bet he works out a lot." Then, after a pause, "Why am I staring at a guy?". There's nothing funny there, really, and just seems to go out of their way to say 'Hey - Jack isn't gay'. (Which is too bad, because some of the JitB commercials are pretty funny).

All of this is probably splitting hairs, but after last nights 'humor free' superbowl, I felt the need to suggest commercials which push the envelope or poke fun, aren't always bad. Yes, we have to keep our eye out for the ads whose only purpose seems to be saying gay is bad (like this one ), but if the choice is between having funny commercials, with a few that offend, or having no funny commercials at all.

Well, I'm willing to be offended.

(PS - The commercial closet is a great place to see some wonderfully pro-gay ads. Including this fantastic one from Guiness and This one from Hyundai. Neither of which got much, if any, play in the US, I'm afraid.)

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:07 AM || Link to me || Category:: Gay Stuff, Just Left On

Quote of the day

Because there is no way for homosexuals to engage in safe sex unless they abandon their homosexual lifestyle and then confine sexual relations to the monogamous boundaries of marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

Courtesy Tony Perkins

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 03:25 AM || Link to me || Category:: The Way Right, Just Left on

Hey you! Don't touch that!

Hmmm, among the projects which received increased spending in Bush's budget is abstinence training.

Funding for abstinence-only sex and HIV education for U.S. youths also is set to receive a $38 million funding increase in Bush's proposed budget, to $192.5 million. Funding for abstinence programs has increased 50% since 2004 under the Bush administration.

Because it works so well...

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 02:34 AM || Link to me || Category:: Bush and Co, Just Left On

Republican Math

The president is committed to cutting the deficit in half, by proposing a budget with a deficit higher than last year, and still doesn't include spending for the war.

Q But a higher deficit this year, without Iraq, again, and a higher deficit projection for next year, minus Iraq, than this year, minus Iraq -- that doesn't exactly suggest a lean budget.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think Director Bolten talked about this. I disagree with you. I think if you look at the budget, it shows that we are exercising even greater spending restraint than we have in the previous few years. This is a responsible budget that funds our nation's highest priorities and keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 01:55 AM || Link to me || Category:: Bush and Co, Just Left On

If you're against Gay marriage...

The decision in the NY Marriage case is a must read. It goes beyond the Mass decision, I think, by arguing that the marriage ban isn't just unfair, that it also puts the children of gay couples at a disadvantage.

Excluding same-sex couples from marrying may, in fact, undermine the State's interest in providing optimal environments for child-rearing, in that children of those families are then not afforded the same legal, financial and health benefits that children of married couples receive

There's also some good analysis on the evolution of marriage. Of course, if you're opposed to gay marriage you'll see it as words to incite riots. In other words, she says marriage has constantly been changing and keeping gays out, simply because they have been kept out, is not a valid rationale.

Law Dork has a couple of good posts, with his thoughts about the politics of the appeal which is sure to come, and rounds up what others are saying.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 01:33 AM || Link to me || Category:: Gay Stuff, Just Left On

February 06, 2005

A culture of life

I have to say I'm of mixed feelings about this Illinois court decision.

The short version is a man and a wife were going through an IVF procedure. And the clinic accidentally destroyed their fertilized embryo. The brought a wrongful death suit against the clinic and, after having it initially tossed out, were told the suit could go forward on appeal.

The court stated that "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ...whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb." He based the decision on the state's Wrongful Death Act which allows a family to bring wrongful death suits if their fetus is destroyed by accident or assault.

The implications of the decision, much like the law it was based upon, is that it can have effects on Abortion and Embryonic Stem Cell research.

From a purely legal standpoint, this case probably could have been decided purely as a contract breach, though that would not allow (I'm pretty sure) the parents to recover for emotional distress and the rest. Also, I'm not sure if the court would be able to determine an 'expectancy' award in this case - so it is possible if they went the contract route, they could only recover the costs to make more eggs, bring them back to where they were.

Certainly, as I am involved in an IVF process right now, that couldn't begin to cover their true losses.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that that embryo would actually have become a person. And, while though the same can be said of any child before it is born, I think there is much less likely of a frozen embryo successfully being implanted and carried to term than a fetus that is already in the womb.

One might argue that 'choice' comes into play here. That abortion and embryos donated for research were done willingly, while those that are accidentally destroyed or destroyed via assault are not. Is it possible to view embryos in this dualistic manner? The only other possibility seems to be to either declare embryos life - and have that in effect for abortion and the like, or bar people like the family in this case from being able to bring wrongful death suits.

Comments:

Rick DeMent said (at February 7, 2005 07:17 AM):

I wonder if couple will get charged for manslaughter once they concive and discard the unused embryos?

Henry said (at February 7, 2005 08:13 AM):

That's a good question. Especially since all IVF procedures involves creating more embryos than you need. I do understand why they want go this route, but it does have some implications which could effect IVF procedures. One reason they take so many, is that the retrieval process is expensive and lengthy. IVF clinics may start to only take what they need for each transfer, and if it doesn't work, need to retrieve again which will push up the costs for the patients. All so that aren't responsible for storage of the extras.

Rick DeMent said (at February 8, 2005 08:42 AM):

Consider this a track back, they don't often work.

http://uschatter.com/index.php?p=101

Posted by Henry at 10:50 AM || Link to me || More Thoughts (3) || Category:: Law, Just Left On
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2