Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on Proposition 2, an amendment that would ban the cruelest practices involved in food animal production, specifically, those that “do not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.”
It has always seemed strange to me that we have rather stringent laws protecting our pets from cruelty, but virtually none designed to protect our food animals? Why such a profound disparity?
The answer, of course, is very simple. Most people just don’t know what an unconscionably cruel system produces their meat. They’ve never been to a meat factory. They don’t know anyone who works there. Never bothered to sit down and have a chat with a chicken raised in a battery cage, or a veal calf that spent its entire short life immobilized in a crate. They’d rather not think about it.
But most people are not wicked. They’re perfectly willing to pay about 1% more for their meat in order that the animals be raised in slightly more humane conditions.
The meat industry in California has unleashed a multi-million dollar campaign of misinformation opposing Amendment 2. I’d like you to consider helping fund the effort to counter this campaign. Doing so could mean an end to the cruelest kinds of treatment for millions of farm animals.
Even if the amendment passes, we’ve got a very long way to go to get to a point where our meat is produced in a way that can be countenanced with anything other than shame and horror. But this is a start.
While on the subject of California ballot initiatives, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Proposition 8. It's the one that would ban gay marriage. I refuse to link to any of this garbage, but there are prominent nut cases all over the place saying that if the proposition doesn't pass, it will certainly signal the Armageddon, and that life as we know it is over, and other such spectacularly over-blown hyperbole.
I'm sure that none of you need convincing, but allow me to frame the argument in my famously succinct way. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is an agreement to jointly own property with another person, which carries with it various other legal provisions. The end.
Marriage in any other sense is a religious or spiritual institution that the state has no business in. For historical and unfortunate reasons, the state calls a civil union between two individuals a "marriage", and has no constitutional grounds to distinguish between by which parties such a union is entered into.
What so-inclined religious zealots perhaps should be arguing is that the state should not be involved in the sacred sacrament of "marriage" at all, since doing so moves the sacrament into the secular realm, certainly not a fit domain for a spiritual institution of such profound religious importance.
That certain individuals get so upset about the notion of two members of the same gender jointly owning property is yet another example of making God in one's own image; they don't like gay people and so obviously neither does God. And what an easy way to garner favor with the Almighty! Just speak vitriolically, eat your Wheaties, and click the "Yes" box next to Prop 8. Welcome to Heaven you fucking retard.
But I digress. Please support Proposition 2.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Vote for a better Republican Party
I’ve been tempted to categorize Republican politicians and voters into a few basic groups: 1) Mean and/ or power-hungry, like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Carl Rove; 2) Stupid, like Sarah Palin, or any other snake handling toothless inbred in America; 3) Religious zealot, like Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, or anyone who attends an Assembly of God church; 4) Deranged ideologue, like Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, or Timothy McVeigh or; 5) Uninformed or Willfully ignorant, like Sarah Palin, or the 31% of Americans who can’t name the Vice president (not to imply that none of those people are Democrats, but ultimately, if you are that ignorant, do you really have a valid political identity?)
But I’ve met enough Republican voters who don’t fit neatly into any of those groups to think that perhaps I ought to rethink my thinking on that, or add at least one new category, or stop putting labels on people (perish the thought!). So here’s the latest entry into The Human Animal Republican Taxonomic Schematic:
6)Well-meaning-but-myopic-and-glassy-eyed-libertarian-leaning-government-mistrusting ideologues, like, well, maybe John McCain, and quite a number of other people I know. These are people who identify themselves as fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and tend to have libertarian ideas about the role of government in economics, business regulations, and tax policy. They are also generally concerned about the preservation of civil liberties and believe that laws should be based in Constitutional principle. They are concerned about the environment. Basically, they like the Republican Party platform.
I do too, kind of. Or at least, it’s not that bad; a valid political philosophy.
The problem is that when you vote for Republicans, you’re not voting for the platform, you’re voting for Republican politicians; you’re voting for what Republicans do, as exemplified by the past eight years of fiscal recklessness, socially regressive policies, disastrous economic policies, the shredding of civil protections and the rule of law, the expansion of culture wars, the ignoring of science and research in shaping environmental and educational policy, the shredding of environmental protections, the widening of the class gap, expanded power of corporations, expanded power of the executive branch, appointment of very dangerous Supreme Court Justices, and the total alienation of America from the rest of the world. If you think the Bush administration was okay, there’s probably nothing I can do for you.
“But McCain isn’t Bush”, you say, “He’s for “Change”, a real “Maverick”? Here’s the thing: we knew those were the sorts of things Bush would do, because we know what Republicans do. Moreover, Republicans knew who George Bush was, and they put him in office anyway, and supported his policies across the board. McCain, the “Maverick”, famously voted with him 95% of the time.
The Log Cabin Republicans, a well-known group of gay Republican supporters, have been roundly criticized for continuing to support a party whose unwritten platform includes keeping them socially repressed and disadvantaged. They, like the aforementioned Human Animal Group 6, want to remain loyal to the party in order to “change it from within”, or get it back to its foundational principles, or whatever. But clearly, such an approach is counterproductive. What these people are doing is enabling the party to pander to fringe elements while still maintaining their blind loyalty, in effect, moving the party away from having to confront the issue of gay equality.
This is what happens when you accept all that crap from the Republican Party, simply because you admire their foundational principles, to which they fail to adhere. You enable them to continue to promote policies with which you disagree and still get your vote.
But it gets much worse.
McCain has not shown any restraint when it comes to pandering to the extremist segments of his party.
Most notably, by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain has squandered an opportunity to move his party away from the worst and most fundamentally un-American elements in our society. The religious and philosophical context which shaped her political and cultural identity, embodied by the Assembly of God church, represent the most intolerant, hateful, and, frankly, looniest agents of right-wing extremity.
But my point is not that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, but that in choosing Palin, McCain has spectacularly failed to address his party’s alliance with, and dependence upon, these extremist elements, and has instead embraced and emboldened them.
When the McCain campaign goes around making absurd claims that Obama associates with terrorists, in a post 9/11 environment, they are stirring up hornets and racists, or worse, assassins.
McCain has not been a “Maverick” in this campaign. To the contrary, like Bush, he has failed miserably to run an honest campaign and stand up for everything that is good about America, and instead has embraced the worst elements among us. He therefore does not deserve to be President.
McCain had a historic opportunity, after the failed, corrupt, and wearisome Bush administration, to take the high road and monumentally improve his party by moving it back toward its foundational principles. In a profoundly woeful lack of judgment, he relinquished this opportunity, and he should be held accountable by all reasonable Republican voters.
So a vote for Obama is a vote for a better Republican party. A vote for Obama sends a message that you, as a decent American, are no longer willing to compromise all of your core social, environmental, and cultural values to vote for a party whose platform has been historically, consistently, and systematically violated by the very people who purport to uphold it. A vote for Obama is a vote against the kind of Republicanism that has met with spectacular failure, and must change or come to an end.
But I’ve met enough Republican voters who don’t fit neatly into any of those groups to think that perhaps I ought to rethink my thinking on that, or add at least one new category, or stop putting labels on people (perish the thought!). So here’s the latest entry into The Human Animal Republican Taxonomic Schematic:
6)Well-meaning-but-myopic-and-glassy-eyed-libertarian-leaning-government-mistrusting ideologues, like, well, maybe John McCain, and quite a number of other people I know. These are people who identify themselves as fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and tend to have libertarian ideas about the role of government in economics, business regulations, and tax policy. They are also generally concerned about the preservation of civil liberties and believe that laws should be based in Constitutional principle. They are concerned about the environment. Basically, they like the Republican Party platform.
I do too, kind of. Or at least, it’s not that bad; a valid political philosophy.
The problem is that when you vote for Republicans, you’re not voting for the platform, you’re voting for Republican politicians; you’re voting for what Republicans do, as exemplified by the past eight years of fiscal recklessness, socially regressive policies, disastrous economic policies, the shredding of civil protections and the rule of law, the expansion of culture wars, the ignoring of science and research in shaping environmental and educational policy, the shredding of environmental protections, the widening of the class gap, expanded power of corporations, expanded power of the executive branch, appointment of very dangerous Supreme Court Justices, and the total alienation of America from the rest of the world. If you think the Bush administration was okay, there’s probably nothing I can do for you.
“But McCain isn’t Bush”, you say, “He’s for “Change”, a real “Maverick”? Here’s the thing: we knew those were the sorts of things Bush would do, because we know what Republicans do. Moreover, Republicans knew who George Bush was, and they put him in office anyway, and supported his policies across the board. McCain, the “Maverick”, famously voted with him 95% of the time.
The Log Cabin Republicans, a well-known group of gay Republican supporters, have been roundly criticized for continuing to support a party whose unwritten platform includes keeping them socially repressed and disadvantaged. They, like the aforementioned Human Animal Group 6, want to remain loyal to the party in order to “change it from within”, or get it back to its foundational principles, or whatever. But clearly, such an approach is counterproductive. What these people are doing is enabling the party to pander to fringe elements while still maintaining their blind loyalty, in effect, moving the party away from having to confront the issue of gay equality.
This is what happens when you accept all that crap from the Republican Party, simply because you admire their foundational principles, to which they fail to adhere. You enable them to continue to promote policies with which you disagree and still get your vote.
But it gets much worse.
McCain has not shown any restraint when it comes to pandering to the extremist segments of his party.
Most notably, by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain has squandered an opportunity to move his party away from the worst and most fundamentally un-American elements in our society. The religious and philosophical context which shaped her political and cultural identity, embodied by the Assembly of God church, represent the most intolerant, hateful, and, frankly, looniest agents of right-wing extremity.
But my point is not that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, but that in choosing Palin, McCain has spectacularly failed to address his party’s alliance with, and dependence upon, these extremist elements, and has instead embraced and emboldened them.
When the McCain campaign goes around making absurd claims that Obama associates with terrorists, in a post 9/11 environment, they are stirring up hornets and racists, or worse, assassins.
McCain has not been a “Maverick” in this campaign. To the contrary, like Bush, he has failed miserably to run an honest campaign and stand up for everything that is good about America, and instead has embraced the worst elements among us. He therefore does not deserve to be President.
McCain had a historic opportunity, after the failed, corrupt, and wearisome Bush administration, to take the high road and monumentally improve his party by moving it back toward its foundational principles. In a profoundly woeful lack of judgment, he relinquished this opportunity, and he should be held accountable by all reasonable Republican voters.
So a vote for Obama is a vote for a better Republican party. A vote for Obama sends a message that you, as a decent American, are no longer willing to compromise all of your core social, environmental, and cultural values to vote for a party whose platform has been historically, consistently, and systematically violated by the very people who purport to uphold it. A vote for Obama is a vote against the kind of Republicanism that has met with spectacular failure, and must change or come to an end.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Sarah Palin is just awful.
By Cole Wakefield, Special to 365gay.com
10.08.2008 5:30pm EDT
Rev. Howard Bess is not gay. He was not raised by gay parents and does not have gay children. Bess did not grow up with a gay family next door and his best friend was not gay. Rev. Bess might not have had a horse in the GLBT rights race, but that did not stop him from becoming a trailblazer for the issue in the American Baptist church and Christian faith at large.
Rev. Bess has recently enjoyed some time in the spotlight thanks to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attempt to ban his book, Pastor, I Am Gay, from the Wasilla Public Library.
The book, published in 1995, was received somewhat coldly in Alaska’s Mat-Su Valley, home to Rev. Bess and the soon to be Mayor of Wasilla Palin.
In fact, for a long time, the only places you could buy the book in Mat-Su were a barber shop and beauty salon. The book was also available at the Wasilla Public Library, a “problem” Palin infamously sought to solve. Wasilla’s librarian stood up to Mayor Palin’s rash and uninformed demands. The librarian was then fired by Palin only to be reinstated after the community objected loudly to the dismissal.
Rev. Bess’ book was just one of at least three books that then-Mayor Palin tried to yank off the shelf.
There has been some confusion regarding exactly what titles Palin sought to ban, but Rev. Bess has been told that Pastor, I Am Gay was among them, and he would be “flabbergasted” to hear otherwise. Pastor, I Am Gay had been openly ridiculed by the pastor of Palin’s church and Rev. Bess was fired from the newspaper column he had written for seven years. The fundamentalist outcry against Bess in Mat-Su was loud and local bookstores were afraid to carry the book. Sarah Palin and her church friends thought the book was obscene and that the public needed to be protected from its contents.
Pastor, I Am Gay is not an obscene book by any stretch.
It is the open and honest story of how Rev. Bess came to the conclusion that GLBT folk are just as blessed as everyone else and deserve to be fully included in the life and traditions of the church.
Rev. Bess admits his ignorance of issues regarding sexuality for much of his life. He discusses the first time a parishioner came out to him and details the personal introspection and experiences that brought him to his current understanding of the gay community and its place in this world.
Finding a copy of Pastor, I Am Gay today can be a chore. Most of the major booksellers are out-of-stock and the popular used book service list astronomical prices. Fireside Books in Palmer, Alaska still had copies as of press time.
Rev. Bess is happy to talk about Pastor, I Am Gay, but he matter-of-factly states that “the book has run its course.” Rev. Bess is most concerned that people learn about the beliefs of Sarah Palin and that her election would be “bad, bad news for the gay population.”
Bess describes Palin as a religious duelist, someone who sees everything as good vs. evil. Bess says that Palin and the churches she attends are “as anti-gay as they come.” He even described Palin, to Salon.com, as “…Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.”
Reverend Bess has been a crusader for GLBT equality in Alaska and his warnings should be heeded. Rev. Bess knows Sarah Palin and has struggled against her on behalf of more than one progressive cause. He has also fought against Palin for the rights of Mat-Su woman to have access to an abortion provider. Rev. Bess knows the GLBT community and its struggles. He has served as a regional director on PFLAG’s national board and has led the pro-gay fight in the American Baptist Church.
Rev. Bess has struggled for years to promoted gay equality and worries that the election of Sarah Palin could erode much of the work he has done. Bess has also expressed frustration and confusion toward members of the GLBT community who continue to support the McCain/Palin ticket. He states he was astounded by the Log Cabin Republican’s endorsement of the pair and that they obviously have little understanding of Sarah Palin and her beliefs.
Bess summarized his feelings towards Sarah Palin while talking to Salon.com, “this person’s election would be a disaster for the country and the world.”
10.08.2008 5:30pm EDT
Rev. Howard Bess is not gay. He was not raised by gay parents and does not have gay children. Bess did not grow up with a gay family next door and his best friend was not gay. Rev. Bess might not have had a horse in the GLBT rights race, but that did not stop him from becoming a trailblazer for the issue in the American Baptist church and Christian faith at large.
Rev. Bess has recently enjoyed some time in the spotlight thanks to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attempt to ban his book, Pastor, I Am Gay, from the Wasilla Public Library.
The book, published in 1995, was received somewhat coldly in Alaska’s Mat-Su Valley, home to Rev. Bess and the soon to be Mayor of Wasilla Palin.
In fact, for a long time, the only places you could buy the book in Mat-Su were a barber shop and beauty salon. The book was also available at the Wasilla Public Library, a “problem” Palin infamously sought to solve. Wasilla’s librarian stood up to Mayor Palin’s rash and uninformed demands. The librarian was then fired by Palin only to be reinstated after the community objected loudly to the dismissal.
Rev. Bess’ book was just one of at least three books that then-Mayor Palin tried to yank off the shelf.
There has been some confusion regarding exactly what titles Palin sought to ban, but Rev. Bess has been told that Pastor, I Am Gay was among them, and he would be “flabbergasted” to hear otherwise. Pastor, I Am Gay had been openly ridiculed by the pastor of Palin’s church and Rev. Bess was fired from the newspaper column he had written for seven years. The fundamentalist outcry against Bess in Mat-Su was loud and local bookstores were afraid to carry the book. Sarah Palin and her church friends thought the book was obscene and that the public needed to be protected from its contents.
Pastor, I Am Gay is not an obscene book by any stretch.
It is the open and honest story of how Rev. Bess came to the conclusion that GLBT folk are just as blessed as everyone else and deserve to be fully included in the life and traditions of the church.
Rev. Bess admits his ignorance of issues regarding sexuality for much of his life. He discusses the first time a parishioner came out to him and details the personal introspection and experiences that brought him to his current understanding of the gay community and its place in this world.
Finding a copy of Pastor, I Am Gay today can be a chore. Most of the major booksellers are out-of-stock and the popular used book service list astronomical prices. Fireside Books in Palmer, Alaska still had copies as of press time.
Rev. Bess is happy to talk about Pastor, I Am Gay, but he matter-of-factly states that “the book has run its course.” Rev. Bess is most concerned that people learn about the beliefs of Sarah Palin and that her election would be “bad, bad news for the gay population.”
Bess describes Palin as a religious duelist, someone who sees everything as good vs. evil. Bess says that Palin and the churches she attends are “as anti-gay as they come.” He even described Palin, to Salon.com, as “…Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.”
Reverend Bess has been a crusader for GLBT equality in Alaska and his warnings should be heeded. Rev. Bess knows Sarah Palin and has struggled against her on behalf of more than one progressive cause. He has also fought against Palin for the rights of Mat-Su woman to have access to an abortion provider. Rev. Bess knows the GLBT community and its struggles. He has served as a regional director on PFLAG’s national board and has led the pro-gay fight in the American Baptist Church.
Rev. Bess has struggled for years to promoted gay equality and worries that the election of Sarah Palin could erode much of the work he has done. Bess has also expressed frustration and confusion toward members of the GLBT community who continue to support the McCain/Palin ticket. He states he was astounded by the Log Cabin Republican’s endorsement of the pair and that they obviously have little understanding of Sarah Palin and her beliefs.
Bess summarized his feelings towards Sarah Palin while talking to Salon.com, “this person’s election would be a disaster for the country and the world.”
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Top 2 Lies from McCain
1) "Obama wants to raise your taxes!" No. If you make more than $250,000 per year, Obama will repeal the Bush tax cuts on your income. Otherwise, you will see no tax increase.
2) "Obama announces that he wants to invade Pakistan!" That McCain won't stop saying this is illustrative of his desperation. Obama said that he would attack top Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it. That is definitely not the same as "invading Pakistan". Good grief.
Bonus: Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Here is the "terrorist" to whom she refers. Be very afraid. Ayer's association with Obama includes hosting an event during Obama's first senatorial run, and sharing a spot with him on the board of two non-profit organizations. According to the Associated Press, "No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago."
The McCain campaign is grasping at straws. One can not blame them as they slide in polls.
Missouri, by God!
2) "Obama announces that he wants to invade Pakistan!" That McCain won't stop saying this is illustrative of his desperation. Obama said that he would attack top Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it. That is definitely not the same as "invading Pakistan". Good grief.
Bonus: Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Here is the "terrorist" to whom she refers. Be very afraid. Ayer's association with Obama includes hosting an event during Obama's first senatorial run, and sharing a spot with him on the board of two non-profit organizations. According to the Associated Press, "No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago."
The McCain campaign is grasping at straws. One can not blame them as they slide in polls.
Missouri, by God!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)