?

Log in

No account? Create an account
BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
News/Blog Roundup 
20th-May-2006 11:08 am
Double Barrelled
Comments 
20th-May-2006 04:33 pm (UTC)
Biscuit, I love your posts, but please don't bash us girls by throwing Pat Roberts in with us. He's just a coward. Hope I'm not being overly sensitive.
20th-May-2006 05:53 pm (UTC)
I don't write the links, I just copy them - and I think you're wrong, he ASPIRES to be a coward. ;-)
20th-May-2006 09:26 pm (UTC)
Oh, I thought those were your words, sorry.

*aspires to be a coward* - lol! In his dreams. ;-P
20th-May-2006 04:37 pm (UTC)
Do you agree with the insinuation in the sixth link that it is inherently insulting to be female?
20th-May-2006 05:56 pm (UTC)
I don't agree with any insinuation that suggests it is insulting to be female, and I'm personally not offended by that particular use of sarcasm. I gather that you're offended?
20th-May-2006 07:11 pm (UTC)
It takes a lot more than that to offend me, but... disappointed might be a good word. There are so many other metaphors or words that could have been used. Girls have a hard enough time of things as it is.
20th-May-2006 07:14 pm (UTC)
Fair enough!
20th-May-2006 06:30 pm (UTC)
The guy who runs Americablog is a gay man who sometimes shows the same unexamined assumptions about gender/sex that many people do.

His use of "big girl" leapt out at me, too, but if you really want to parse it down he didn't refer to him as acting like a woman, it was acting like the stereotype of a easily-frightened little girl. I read him regularly and I haven't seen any indication that he puts forward conscious or even unconscious sexism until this time.

He has been responsible for a lot of good - like the exposure and reversal of Ford Motor's caving in to the religious right. I'd say if it bothers you you should send him mail pointing out that "big girl" is not definitionally an insult, and "mewling scaredy-pants" might be a more accurate description.
20th-May-2006 05:24 pm (UTC)
Wiretapping Wouldn't Have Prevented 9/11

Wiretapping. That was enlightening and certainly puts a huge hole in the justification for further wiretapping. I suppose some wiretapping might have given them an edge, but all of the other screw ups need fixing first! Seems like they are just using 9/11 to push for more wiretapping for totally different means. That is just evil.

Judge Strikes Down Okla Gay Adoption Law.

I had no idea this was even going on. How anyone could put together a law that would take childern AWAY from their *EXISTING* parents is mindboggling. Clearly it's about their agenda and has nothing to do with families. And they think gay marriage is leading to the demise of marriage as whole? Don't they have other things to worry about?
20th-May-2006 05:59 pm (UTC)
It's really just another spotlight on this administrations' complete lack of respect for American law and the Constitution. As to OK and the adoption law, they were early on in that fight, so it didn't surprise me at all when it came to bite them in the ass. They don't consider us families in the first place, so it's a lot easier to attack & demonize when you've first dehumanized.
20th-May-2006 08:06 pm (UTC)
I love your posts! I hope you don't mind me adding you as a friend. Found you via babygirlss today. Have a great day. :)
20th-May-2006 09:56 pm (UTC)
I don't mind at all, thanks!
20th-May-2006 08:35 pm (UTC)
very good piece on the memory of the Sixties - being a scholar of the Sixties, the intential misrepresentation of the period is a major pet peeve of mine.
20th-May-2006 09:56 pm (UTC)
They'll do anything to rewrite history.
20th-May-2006 08:44 pm (UTC) - off-topic, but kinda not...
Here is an article you may be interested in reading:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=1647
20th-May-2006 09:56 pm (UTC) - Re: off-topic, but kinda not...
Bookmarked, will read first chance I get - thanks, hon!
20th-May-2006 09:01 pm (UTC) - RE:Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law
I went on my judgedchristian lj community and brought up this conundrum:
You are anti-abortion, you preach adoption as a viable option, but you think homosexuality is a sin, and do not allow for them to adopt all these kids you want people to have. These precious souls have no homes, but you would deny gay couples the right to marriage and you would deny them the right to settle down and have families. What the EFF do you want? Who do you want to adopt these kids? Where are all these children going to go? Gays are willing and able to care and love these children.

Only one person touched it, commenting that he doesn't see anything worng with gays adopting children.

This kind of thing makes me want to set things on fire. But it is good to see that some sensible action is taking place. keep it coming, people. We'll get there yet.


20th-May-2006 09:57 pm (UTC) - Re: Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law
Now THERE'S a surprise! Let's hope that common sense wins in the end!
20th-May-2006 10:05 pm (UTC) - Re: Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law
You should also check out these folks, a friend directed me to them a while ago - good people, these: http://www.christianalliance.org
21st-May-2006 12:10 am (UTC) - Re: Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law
Thank you so much!
21st-May-2006 05:08 am (UTC) - Re: Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law
Since when do logic and zealotry coexist peacefully?
This page was loaded Nov 24th 2017, 2:08 am GMT.