Ewww and hahaha

Richter Reminder
 

Small rumbles and an earthquake predicting cat that remind me I live in earthquake country, and someday may own ocean front property. :cigar2:

Region: GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIF.
Geographic coordinates: 33.783N, 118.131W
Magnitude: 3.7 Ml
Depth: 21 km
Universal Time (UTC): 5 Nov 2010 16:06:37
Time near the Epicenter: 5 Nov 2010 09:06:37


Location with respect to nearby cities:
3 km (2 miles) SE (133 degrees) of Long Beach, CA
4 km (3 miles) ESE (119 degrees) of Signal Hill, CA
5 km (3 miles) WNW (301 degrees) of Seal Beach, CA
32 km (20 miles) SSE (160 degrees) of Los Angeles Civic Center, CA

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...cbaKV/610x.jpg

Sabine:

I think that there is as little chance of your responding to this as there was you admitting you were wrong about the Shirley Sherrod blow-up over the Summer but I'm going to put this out there at any rate.

Why did you post a lie? Because what you posted was a lie. This isn't a matter of interpretation and it isn't a matter of being off by a few thousand dollars. What you posted was a lie and I'm curious as to why you did so. It took me all of about 15 minutes to debunk your lie so I'm curious were you simply too lazy to do the research yourself, figuring that someone like me would do your homework for you, did you not even have a moment of "that figure seems a bit high" or were you SO gleeful at being handed a stick with which you could poke liberals that it never even occurred to you to actually fact-check this? I ask because this behavior is genuinely perplexing to me.

It seems as if you do not CARE if something is empirically true. Or perhaps you do not realize that, all the rhetoric you may have learned in humanities classes at university to the contrary, there IS such a thing as reality. EITHER this trip is going to cost $200 million per day or it is not. EITHER there will be 34 warships off the coast of India or there will not. These are matters subject to empirical verification. You do not get to interpret that 10 warships that are on station in the Indian Ocean as part of a the normal deployment of the 7th fleet is somehow 34 warships that are being sent to the region for the purpose of Mr. Obama's trip. Either they are there on normal deployment or they are there because of this trip. Either there are 34 ships or there is a number other than 34.

Now, the chances are that you will do what you did with the Shirley Sherrod incident and just pretend that you never posted a lie--and it was a lie that Ms Sherrod's speech was racist gloating. If so, I'm curious why you want us to think that you are either dishonest, gullible or lazy. Because it has to be one of those three. If you knew what you were posting was inaccurate but posted it anyway, you're deliberately posting a lie which makes you mendacious. If you didn't realize that what you were posting was a lie but posted it anyway, that means you were gullible. If you weren't sure about the veracity of the claim but didn't take the time to verify it before posting it, you were lazy. There are no OTHER generous interpretations of your actions. I suppose you might rejoin that you just don't give a damn but if that is the case that really puts you in the category of dishonest. At which point why should we take ANYTHING you say as having any weight what-so-ever?

Like I said, it's highly unlikely that you will respond to this because you seem to lack the courage of your convictions but I would be fascinated to know by what core conservative belief do you base your posting of lies--and whether you knew it or not what you posted was a lie--and why you would consider dishonesty an honorable thing.

And if you feel you must report me for saying you posted a lie, so be it. When you can demonstrate that this $200 million figure is anywhere NEAR close then I will stop calling it a lie but until such time as you do so, I'm not going to pretend that you get to have an opinion about WHAT amount is being spent. You don't, I don't. An actual dollar amount is being spent, that dollar amount is a matter of empirical fact and not subject to opinion. You have every right to an opinion, you have no right to your own set of facts.

Cheers
Aj

Country's first out transgender judge.
 

California voters elect country's first transgender judge

NEWS
Published 11/04/2010

Transgender judicial candidate Victoria Kolakowski made history Tuesday night, becoming the country's first out transgender judge.

According to unofficial returns Wednesday morning, Kolakowski had garnered 115,570 votes or 50 percent of the total, giving her a 3,329-vote lead over her opponent, Alameda County Deputy District Attorney John Creighton, for the Alameda County Superior Court's Office #9.

With an unknown number of ballots remaining to be counted, Creighton has yet to concede the race and a final count isn't expected until Friday at the earliest. But Kolakowski was cautiously optimistic that her lead would hold and she would be sworn into office in early January.

"I've got the lead and it looks really good, but it is not 100 percent. It is not in the bag yet," Kolakowski told the Bay Area Reporter early Wednesday morning. "When the final votes are counted, I think I will have won."

Yet the congratulatory calls were already coming in and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helped Kolakowski raise money for her campaign, featured her on a call with its major donors Wednesday.

Her campaign had attracted national attention, with the mainstream media playing up the history-making potential of her campaign. But Kolakowski said voters paid little attention to her transgender status and were more focused on her resume. Victoria (Vicky) is married to Cynthia Laird, the news editor of the Bay Area Reporter newspaper.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...suspended.html

Keith Olbermann has been suspended “indefinitely without pay” for making campaign donations to three Democratic candidates. In a statement, network president Phil Griffin said, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.” According to a report in Politico, the host of Countdown gave the maximum legal contribution ($2,400) to Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-pf..._b_779496.html

Here's an article talking about how the whole "Obama's trips are costing a Bazillion Farillion dollars!!!!!" thing is "not based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.

I enjoyed Rachel Maddow's little rant on her show regarding this. Basically she said that it's now impossible to debunk lies and rumours started by the crazies at Fox News and their friends - because they are all confirming the lies and rumours FOR EACH OTHER to such a degree that it becomes as good as fact.

linkarinkaroo

Second video down (at this moment, anyway) titled: Echoing falsehoods still don't ring true.

See, I just don't know how I feel about this.

I'm bummed out, for sure. I enjoy his show and I will be sad without it.

OTOH....well. If it is in fact in their rules and in his contract that they not donate to any political campaigns without permission...then what could he expect? If I break the rules at my job, even ones that I think are stupid, I get fired. That's just how having a job and having a contract that you sign works.

It still really sucks, though.

Cops Wife Doesn't Remain Silent
 

Dear Mom, There is another one just like you. What a nice link a friend sent me and I wanted to post is somewhere. It touched my heart, and I want to share with those that know. I had a Mom just like Boo's.

In your honor :fastdraq:, your lil cowboy

RIP Mom
Nov. 2, 1990:rose:


""Nerdy Apple Bottom says My Son's Gay""

Or he’s not. I don’t care. He is still my son. And he is 5. And I am his mother. And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don’t want to know you.

I have gone back and forth on whether I wanted to post something more in-depth about my sweet boy and his choice of Halloween costume. Or more specifically, the reactions to it. I figure if I’m still irked by it a few days later, I may as well go ahead and post my thoughts.

Here are the facts that lead up to my rant:

1. My son is 5 and goes to a church preschool.
2. He has loved Scooby Doo since developing the ability and attention span to sit still long enough to watch it.
3. Halloween is a holiday and its main focus is wearing a costume.
4. My son’s school had the kids dress up, do a little parade, and then change out of costumes for the rest of the party.
5. Boo’s best friend is a little girl
6. Boo has an older sister
7. Boo spends most of his time with me.
8. I am a woman.
9. I am Boo’s mother, not you.

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago. I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...45_468x498.jpg
Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

And then the big day arrives. We get dressed up. We drop Squirt at his preschool and head over to his. Boo doesn’t want to get out of the car. He’s afraid of what people will say and do to him. I convince him to go inside. He halts at the door. He’s visibly nervous. I chalk it up to him being a bit of a worrier in general. Seriously, WHO WOULD MAKE FUN OF A CHILD IN A COSTUME ON HALLOWEEN? So he walks in. And there were several friends of mine that knew what he was wearing that smiled and waved and gave him high-fives. We walk down the hall to where his classroom is.

And that’s where things went wrong. Two mothers went wide-eyed and made faces as if they smelled decomp. And I realize that my son is seeing the same thing I am. So I say, “Doesn’t he look great?” And Mom A says in disgust, “Did he ask to be that?!” I say that he sure did as Halloween is the time of year that you can be whatever it is that you want to be. They continue with their nosy, probing questions as to how that was an option and didn’t I try to talk him out of it. Mom B mostly just stood there in shock and dismay.

And then Mom C approaches. She had been in the main room, saw us walk in, and followed us down the hall to let me know her thoughts. And they were that I should never have ‘allowed’ this and thank God it wasn’t next year when he was in Kindergarten since I would have had to put my foot down and ‘forbidden’ it. To which I calmly replied that I would do no such thing and couldn’t imagine what she was talking about. She continued on and on about how mean children could be and how he would be ridiculed.

My response to that: The only people that seem to have a problem with it is their mothers.

Another mom pointed out that high schools often have Spirit Days where girls dress like boys and vice versa. I mentioned Powderpuff Games where football players dress like cheerleaders and vice versa. Or every frat boy ever in college (Mom A said that her husband was a frat boy and NEVER dressed like a woman.)

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it ‘concern.’ Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

It is obvious that I neither abuse nor neglect my children. They are not perfect, but they are learning how to navigate this big, and sometimes cruel, world. I hate that my son had to learn this lesson while standing in front of allegedly Christian women. I hate that those women thought those thoughts, and worse felt comfortable saying them out loud. I hate that ‘pink’ is still called a girl color and that my baby has to be so brave if he wants to be Daphne for Halloween.

And all I hope for my kids, and yours, and those of Moms ABC, are that they are happy. If a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. If he wants to carry a purse, or marry a man, or paint fingernails with his best girlfriend, then ok. My job as his mother is not to stifle that man that he will be, but to help him along his way. Mine is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.

I hope I am doing that.

And my little man worked that costume like no other. He rocked that wig, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.


IF you want to comment the site is below
http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/...#comment-30080

Anyone have any info on the employment contracts and political contributions at Fox? My guess is that it is just dandy for the likes of Beck to contribute to Palins' Pets, etc.

FOX News contributed a million dollars to the RNC over the summer. Herein lies a principle difference between FOX News and its fans and MSNBC News and its supporters: at FOX it is perfectly acceptable for a news organization to contribute to the political campaign of a party it covers, while at MSNBC that is unacceptable. With FOX News fans/watchers/adherents/partisans this kind of behavior is unquestionably correct. With MSNBC fans/watchers/adherents/partisans, at *best* that kind of behavior is questionable or up for debate.

For the record, while I do not wish to see Mr. Olbermann lose his job over this what he did WAS, in point of fact, a violation of journalistic ethics and he should be disciplined for it.

Cheers
Aj

Well sure, but that is kind of the point.

MSNBC is not Fox News. Some people have started describing them as being the Fox News of the Left (or something like that) so of course they are going to want to keep their political commentators from doing the sort of thing that is considered acceptable at Fox.

Exactly.

Glad it wasn't maddow

Seriously. I wouldn't be able to get out of bed for a week if it was Maddow. :)

It seems from that long post earlier that Aj is feeling rather polysyllabic today :giggle:

I'm quite fine with Olbermann's suspension. The news will hopefully start a conversation about the difference between MSNBC and Faux, between ethical and slimy. If I had a spare fifty bucks, I'd bet it on him having intentionally created this situation.

If the MSM picks up the story (I happened to see it mentioned on CNN, they'll cover it more detail once they generate some giant graphics and collect viewer tweets to read on-air), then perhaps someone will bother to look up this information for us.

Maddow makes the distinctions clear between MSNBC's and Faux News as far as Fox really pimping for the GOP as well as the employment rules. I wonder if management will trump this up as making a point and Olberman will be back next week?

I am also wondering about what Corkey and others bring up about Olberman just breaching his emplyment contract. This doesn't make sense after hearing in this video that he could have asked management about making the donations. It seems like permission was granted to other MSNBC employees to do so.

Some of this seems strange to me.

I have mixed feelings. I really don't think Olbermann has the same powers of logic and consistency that Maddow (for example) has. He makes great points, he has interviewed people - very interesting people with very interesting points of view - that nobody else has.

He interviewed Raul Grijalva (one of the people he donated to) after Grijalva's office received a package of white powder with swastikas on the outside packaging. He's the best source on youtube for finding out more about that guy whose house burnt down while the firemen watched because he hadn't paid his pay-as-you-go fireman fee.

But he is a very emotional, impassioned speaker and he also delivers a lot of low blows. Which to me puts him further into the Fox-News-Like arena whether or not he actually fundraises for the people he's interviewing.

A friend and I were talking about how Jon Stewart kinda attacked him at the rally for sanity thing - basically saying Olbermann was part of the problem. (Which kinda reminds me of that saying about when you have one finger pointed at somebody else, the other three are pointing back at you). We were wondering whether Jon Stewart's conflation of MSNBC and especially Olbermann has had more to do with why MSNBC has suspended him than anything else.

It doesn't make sense that he would have intentionally gone against his contract to donate toward 3 campaigns. His ability to keep his job was doing more for those candidates than whatever money he could have given them (which would have gone back into tv exposure anyway). Either he knew it was a matter of public record or he thought it was somehow secret. If he knew it was a matter of public record, it doesn't make sense that he would have done it if he knew it would get him in trouble at work or make him look bad on the national stage. If he somehow thought his donations would remain a secret, then that would make him look extremely bad because he's been attacking the US Chamber of Commerce for accepting secret and overseas donations and then running republican political ads. The guy who originally replaced him was then also found to have made political contributions, so if I had to make a guess it would be that there was the official policy which wasn't enforced, that there was a culture of violation of that policy or a culture of not caring if people violated that policy and that MSNBC suspended him because they are very concerned with not looking like the liberal equivalent to Fox (which Jon Stewart recently emphasized).

The thing with Fox is that there really does need to be an equally strong counterbalance. They don't have to be so crooked, but MSNBC's shying away from liberalism right now just stinks of fear and disloyalty that has been the sickness of many dems and other leberals since obama took office.

Unfortunately, whoever gave you this information had their facts wrong. Chris Hayes, who was supposed to fill in for Keith, is a contributor to MSNBC; his real job is Washington editor of The Nation magazine. He's not a show host, so he works under different rules, rules that do not include a ban on political contributions - which he did before he had signed a contract, BTW. Chris didn't do the show because he refused, not because he had also contributed money. It was his decision, not MSNBCs.

Chris' twitter on the subject : "OK: I'm not filling in on Countdown tonight because I didn't feel comfortable doing it given the circumstances." And "My not hosting tonight has *nothing* to do with several donations I made to two friends *before* I ever signed an MSNBC contract"

Peter Sagal of NPR has been abuzz on twitter over this, too. He points out that this is a condition of employment, both at NBC and at NPR (and ABC and NYT and CNN), but not a Faux. Notice how the legitimate news sources all ban this stuff, but not the Republican Campaign News Network.

152 Arrested in Oakland Cop Sentencing Protest

Police arrested 152 protesters who streamed through the streets Friday - some breaking windows and knocking down fences - after a white ex-transit officer received the minimum two-year prison sentence for fatally shooting an unarmed black man on a California train platform.

The case against defendant Johannes Mehserle has provoked racial unrest at every turn, and police in Oakland, the scene of the killing, were on alert for more problems following a sentence many thought was too light.

"This is outrageous - This sentence of two years is outrageous," one protester told CBS Station KPIX. "For murder, for killing somebody!"

A rally billed as a tribute to Oscar Grant turned into a march through the downtown area, where people broke car windows and two windows on a bus. After police in riot gear repeatedly blocked and outflanked them, several hundred protesters splintered into smaller groups and entered residential neighborhoods.

Police helicopters hovered above, shining spotlights on the crowd.

A group of about 100 protesters holding a banner reading “Justice for Oscar Grant” was hemmed in with officers on both sides of the street before police started making arrests around 8 p.m. Friday, saying the assembly was illegal.

The action was taken, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said, after one officer had his gun taken from him in a fight and another officer was hit by a car and suffered what police described as a non-life-threatening injury. "It's one thing breaking windows; it's another thing taking a gun from an officer," the chief said.

Police spokesman Jeff Thomason said officers checking the backpacks of several of those arrested found hammers, pepper spray, switchblades and anti-freeze.

Mehserle's sentence, handed down in Los Angeles, also angered the victim's family and friends, who demanded a much harsher punishment.

Wanda Johnson, Grant's mother, shouted, "Oh my!" when Superior Court Judge Robert Perry issued the two-year sentence. She burst out of the courtroom saying, "He got nothing! He got nothing!"

Grant's uncle, Bobby Cephus Johnson, said outside court: "I do believe it's a racist criminal justice system."

Still, he said the family was reacting calmly but added he could not comment for others.

"I have no power over what people feel their matter of expression should be," he said.

Some of the dozens of people who gathered outside Oakland City Hall for a tribute to victim Oscar Grant broke into tears when they learned of the judge's decision. Outside the Los Angeles courthouse, a small crowd that had earlier shouted "No justice, no peace" reacted relatively calmly to the sentence.

Mehserle, 28, had faced a possible 14-year maximum term after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. At the time of the shooting, Mehserle was a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer responding to a report of a fight.

In making his decision during the highly charged, 3½-hour hearing, Perry threw out a gun enhancement that could have added as much as 10 years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence that it was an accidental shooting.

Perry said race would not factor into his decision and although Mehserle had shown "tons of remorse" for killing Grant, he would have to account that a "young man needlessly died."

"I did the best I could with this case," Perry told the courtroom. "My decisions today will not be well-received by many people. I'm sorry for that."

Police said they were prepared in case there was a replay of the rioting in Oakland that followed the shooting on New Year's Day 2009.

Mayor Ron Dellums said he understood the pain and disappointment sparked by the sentence.

"It is still my hope that people will express their anger, will express their disappointment, their outrage, their pain in a manner that is nonviolent, in a manner that is not destructive to our community," he said at a news conference.

Johnson family attorney John Burris acknowledged a small step was taken by the justice system in sentencing Mehserle to two years, but he said that was insufficient. Both Burris and Bobby Johnson noted that NFL star Michael Vick got a harsher sentence for running a dog-fighting ring.

"What you take from that is that Oscar Grant's life was not worth very much," Burris said.

He also targeted Perry's comments before sentencing that he was saddened by the polarization of the community over the shooting.

"This case does nothing at all to heal, if that was ever any intent," Burris said.

Reaction to the case has drawn comparisons to the infamous 1991 Rodney King beating by Los Angeles police officers, which inflamed a racial divide and led to the disastrous 1992 riot when the officers were acquitted of brutality charges.

Mehserle was convicted in July in the videotaped killing of Grant, 22, in Oakland. The case was moved to Los Angeles for trial.

Perry had wide discretion when sentencing Mehserle. Prosecutors sought prison time while defense lawyers argued for probation. The judge gave Mehserle the minimum possible prison sentence.

Defense attorney Michael Rains immediately filed an appeal with the court after the sentencing. After time already served and good behavior credits, Mehserle will likely serve an additional six to seven months based on California's sentencing guidelines, the lawyer said.

Mehserle testified during the trial that he thought Grant had a weapon and decided to shock him with his stun gun but instead pulled his .40-caliber handgun. Grant was unarmed and face down when he was shot.

Sentencing came after four relatives of Grant and his fiancee pleaded with Perry to send Mehserle to prison for 14 years.

Wanda Johnson cried and struggled to give a victim impact statement. She said she regrets telling her son to take a BART train to San Francisco before the shooting.

"I live every day of my life in pain," she said. "My son is not here because of a careless action."

The family continues to maintain that it was murder when Mehserle shot Grant.

Mehserle, shackled and wearing a jail jumpsuit, also stood before the judge before sentencing and apologized for the shooting, which he contended was accidental and not racially motivated.

"I want to say how deeply sorry I am," Mehserle said. "Nothing I ever say or do will heal the wound. I will always be sorry for taking Mr. Grant from them."

He cried during portions of his 10-minute statement and said he and his family have received numerous death threats and he's been "green-lighted" - a term in which other jail inmates have the go-ahead to kill someone.

Earlier, the judge said he had received more than 1,000 letters urging a harsh sentence.

Prosecutors had sought a second-degree murder conviction, saying Mehserle became angry at Grant for resisting arrest.

However, jurors were given the choice of lesser charges, including voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In reaching a decision on involuntary manslaughter, jurors found that Mehserle didn't mean to kill Grant, but his behavior was still so negligent that it was criminal.

Involuntary manslaughter has a sentencing range of two to four years, while the gun allegation carries a term of three, four or 10 years.

The judge rebuked prosecutors for arguing that Mehserle intentionally shot Grant, saying there wasn't any evidence to back up that allegation. Perry also said he believed the videos showed Grant resisted arrest and many people, including Mehserle's fellow officers and Grant's friends, contributed to the tragedy.

"All of these people share some responsibility," Perry said.

Early in the day, before the sentencing, there was a scuffle outside the Los Angeles courthouse that led to at least one arrest and an undercover officer being briefly handcuffed.

Police Lt. John Romero said the undercover police officer was coming out of the building when a member of the crowd recognized him and the two had a verbal exchange. When it escalated to pushing and shoving among the crowd, sheriff's deputies who guard the building moved in.

L.A., the place where I was born and raised. Where I learned to fear police, and for a long time, hate them.

L.A. It's a hot place. So dry, the air sometimes crackles.

In L.A., law enforcement exists to enforce those situations that threaten white privilege. Of course, this doesn't include poor whites ... except when that group is privileged over brown or black. This helps to maintain tension between groups, dontcha know. And supposedly gives poor whites a sense that they are at least over somebody else.

L.A. the place where, in my youth, a male companion, also a POC, was picked up by police while we walked around the closed shops of Wilshire Blvd. I looked for my friend, for the police department. Found him around the corner from where he was picked up. He was beaten.

L.A. They said that things had changed there. It wasn't like the old days. Then, Rodney King happened. He was a long time ago, too. But I hear, once again that things are better. The things I look for to change, though, are not the presuppositions and facile pronouncements of an accepted multiculturalism. Rather, it is the heat and dryness ... of racist thoughts and the actions, or lack of same, which follow such thinking that renders my judgement. Just my penny's worth...

And so goes Richmond and Oakland, California! I don't know if the new Oakland police chief is going to deal with this stuff, I hope so. Richmond is a mess and has such a high population of unemployed POC, the desperation hangs in the heavy in the air. Kids kill each other there like going to a Friday night movie. Rapes on school campuses happen all of the time- we just hear about the gang ones!

About a month ago, I was physically threatened in a Richmond park by an African American man who really had a problem with a butch woman just asking him to leash his dog after it attacked my dog (his dog was about 85 pounds to my 25 pound little guy). The guy was big and I had no escape route and with my mobility problems, I was even more in a pickle and it was getting dark.

I made a police report after getting to safety. And I have to say that while talking to the Richmond PD officers (both white), I immediately felt something change when I told them the guy was African American. At first they were not all that interested in my complaint (hummm... not such a big deal that a butch is threatened with physical violence and stalking, I guess). But since the guy was a POC, that was cause for action and getting all the facts as well as statements from these so called "professionals" that frankly were racist.

Weird, weird situation! The guy could have been any race that attacked me- he did call me "white bitch," (I’m a quarter Latino, but don't look it) "bull dagger" and said, "you can suck my cock" to me. he told me that he was going to come back every day to the dog park and "make me miserable." And that there are no rules at dog parks (there are, it is run by (the regional park service).

Mostly, he was a sexist, homophobic ass that decided to throw in some racial stuff while threatening me. But, I didn't feel like the Richmond PD officers were much better than him and frankly, I think that they would have gone after him differently than if he were white if he had stuck around.

This whole thing demonstrates just how fucked up race, homophobia and police in areas where POC are the majority. It is craziness!! not to mention that I was very scared and am always looking for this guy at that park. For awhile, I went to another dog park, but, I have gone to this one almost every day for 10 years and it is close to my home. I decided to face my fears and reclaim my dog park! Have never seen him again.

Supporters of Keith Obermann
 

Very interesting article! Especially...


Among media personalities and even straight-forward reporters, there has been a bit of shock over what was viewed as a knee-jerk punishment for a fairly minor ethical lapse. Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative scribe for the Weekly Standard, penned a blog post under the headline "Keep Keith!" extolling MSNBC's brass for muzzling someone whose ideological leanings are fairly self-evident.


Kristol is pretty damn right-wing!

Gene Robinson, first openly gay Episcopal bishop, announces his retirement

Robinson made it clear that the stress of being the focal point of discussion in the Anglican Communion has taken a toll on him. Robinson has been at the center of an international uproar over whether a married, openly gay man should lead a church that disapproves of homosexuality.

Cholera death toll rises in hurricane-hit Haiti

The death toll from the current cholera epidemic in Haiti has exceeded 500, the country's health ministry has said.

Fifty-nine people had died up until and including Thursday, and 617 others had been infected, bringing the total affected to 7,359, the ministry added.

The news came as the local authorities and relief agencies attempted to get clean drinking water to those areas worse affected by Hurricane Tomas.

What has always gotten to me is when he was made bishop, he wore a bullet-proof vest and was surrounded by body guards! Great display of Christian love, huh?

I wish him the best in retirement, some peace would be nice..

This isn't really a breaking news event, but it's hysterical and you all want to watch it. Trust me.

Why have I never seen this before?

Cross posting these articles from the Beginning of the End of DADT thread, as I think our current position on this very important issue needs to be passed on as much as possible.

Keeping up with this issue after mid-terms. I ran across a couple articles of interest. Will continue watching and sending every petition in I come across.

One from Huff Post:

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780371.html

Another from Metro Weekly/ Poliglot:

The (Military) Brass Tacks of Lame-Duck DADT Repeal

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010...-military.html

From the Wall Street Journal:

Drive to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Policy All but Lost for Now

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...961320666.html

0% Abuse Experienced by Adolescent Children of Lesbian Parents
 

Having raised O/our wonderful Daughter with love and care and diversity, I am so glad to see this study.

New Study Shows 0% Abuse Experienced by Adolescent Children of Lesbian Parents

A paper published on 11/10/10 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior showed that none of the sample 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers who are part of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS ) experienced physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. The paper contrasts these results with “…26% of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3% who report sexual abuse.”

The NLLFS was funded in part by the Lesbian Health Fund, a program of GLMA.

Information: For more information about this study, please visit the NLLFS website at http://www.nllfs.org/publications/.