For some reason today was the day for dealing with people who just aren't super familiar with dealing with gay people. I started the day asking an out-of-towner how their weekend went. They had inadvertently stumbled onto the Portland Pride parade and had to do a lot of explaining to their teenage child. This gave me a giggle at first. I could just imagine running into a parade and stopping to watch then being mortified as your teen asked why someone in the parade was wearing nothing but leathers or perhaps had a dildo strapped onto the outside of their clothing. I chuckled a little and then, when I realized she was still horrified, reminded her that only a few of the groups marching in Pride wear things like that. Then she said, "I said to my family, 'Do married people dress like that?'" I quickly changed the subject.
I wanted to say, I'd like to march in Pride sometime. I'd like to have been at Pride, but I was sitting in the hospital with my wife this year. Do married people do that? I wanted to explain that I am gay and here I am all normal looking, I'm in a job where I dedicate myself to helping families with sick children and I've spent the last week busting my ass and worried sick making sure my wife has the best healthcare possible. That's what married people do.
I also spent several sessions listening to how part of the stress that has her hospitalized is from her frustration with the comments people make to her about how her marriage isn't real or she just hasn't met the right man....
Then this afternoon, as we were sitting down with another professional, I was asked, "Who are you? Are you a friend?" When I said, "I am her wife," the professional looked startled and then asked me, "So are you married?" I thought that's what "wife" meant.
I'll end on a positive note though. The rest of this past week I was treated as nothing other than a complete and 100% spouse by my wife's team. I was able to help make decisions and see that she got the best care possible. They were fantastic folks and I was so appreciative of being able to just do everything I could to help.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Add Screening Options to Friend Requests!
I want a feature on Facebook that allows you to ask some screening questions when people send you a "friend request." Here's what my - so who are you questions? - would be:
- Do I actually know you?
- Do you remember me because I have no idea who you are and my yearbooks are in another state...
- I'm not an ass, high school was traumatic and I blocked most of it out.
- Have you at some point actually wanted to be my friend or do you just add everyone who might have been in your graduating class, the year before you or even the year after you?
- Do you just add everyone who might have gone to the same high school as you did in the last 30 years?
- I'm gay, do you still want to "friend" me?
- If you say yes to the question above, you do realize you should not post homophobic, anti-gay marriage crap on your wall or on mine at any point in the future right?
- Do you regularly post inappropriate drunken night out photos and/or other crap that will lead me to have to eventually block you so I don't have to worry about your stuff coming up when I happen to be checking my FB at work (for work purposes of course)?
- Still with me? OK. Let's be friends!
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Healthcare
OK, so just remember, I still love you even if you don't agree with me and you don't have to agree with me to love me : )
I hear a lot about how we can't change our healthcare because if we do something to it it might get worse. I also hear about how awful Canadian Healthcare is. I have several thoughts about these things.
1. If we never changed a bad situation we were in because we were afraid it could get worse... well we would probably not have or do many things we love to have or do.
2. I lived on the Canadian border for 13 years and I have many Canadian friends. Not one actual Canadian that I know that still lives in Canada would trade their healthcare system for ours.
3. Our system is broken. If you think that it's good, you have great insurance, but you are not why healthcare needs to change. Here is a real example, albeit from the friend of a friend, but this was from their online journal about dealing with their child's illness:
(This is not something from a family I work with)
"A close family friends son (10 years old) has a brain tumor. This comes after 5 years of remision from Leukemia. They suspect that it could be a result of the intense radiation treatments he previously received (wasn't aware this could happen) for Leukemia. Apparently chemo is now considered a "prescription drug" because it is available in pill form. So, the insurance company won't pay for it because their plan doesn't include "prescription drugs". Wild."
"This is from their CaringBridge Journal.
'And actually, before we did that we went up and met briefly with the oncologists. We got one little "ray of hope" piece of news. The molecular findings from the lab at UT Southwestern, which contain words that would win pretty much any Scrabble game, indicated that the nature of the tumor is such that it might be more susceptible to the chemo than was originally believed based on the microscopic findings.
And speaking of chemo, at this point we do not have a resolution on that front. We did not begin this treatment yesterday. The doctors assure us that a few days delay should not have an impact. So we hope to hear whether or not Schering-Plough will provide this. For anyone unaware, our insurance does not include prescription drug coverage. And since advancements in chemo delivery now make more of it available orally via tablets, the insurance companies have siezed on this and are calling it a "prescription drug." While we find it hard to make the leap that chemotherapy is a prescription drug, the insurers are apparently comfortable with that leap. So we have applied to the drug-maker, with information from our oncologists, to see if they will provide it. So if we can get some good news soon on that front we should be able to get the chemo going. '
I hear a lot about how we can't change our healthcare because if we do something to it it might get worse. I also hear about how awful Canadian Healthcare is. I have several thoughts about these things.
1. If we never changed a bad situation we were in because we were afraid it could get worse... well we would probably not have or do many things we love to have or do.
2. I lived on the Canadian border for 13 years and I have many Canadian friends. Not one actual Canadian that I know that still lives in Canada would trade their healthcare system for ours.
3. Our system is broken. If you think that it's good, you have great insurance, but you are not why healthcare needs to change. Here is a real example, albeit from the friend of a friend, but this was from their online journal about dealing with their child's illness:
(This is not something from a family I work with)
"A close family friends son (10 years old) has a brain tumor. This comes after 5 years of remision from Leukemia. They suspect that it could be a result of the intense radiation treatments he previously received (wasn't aware this could happen) for Leukemia. Apparently chemo is now considered a "prescription drug" because it is available in pill form. So, the insurance company won't pay for it because their plan doesn't include "prescription drugs". Wild."
"This is from their CaringBridge Journal.
'And actually, before we did that we went up and met briefly with the oncologists. We got one little "ray of hope" piece of news. The molecular findings from the lab at UT Southwestern, which contain words that would win pretty much any Scrabble game, indicated that the nature of the tumor is such that it might be more susceptible to the chemo than was originally believed based on the microscopic findings.
And speaking of chemo, at this point we do not have a resolution on that front. We did not begin this treatment yesterday. The doctors assure us that a few days delay should not have an impact. So we hope to hear whether or not Schering-Plough will provide this. For anyone unaware, our insurance does not include prescription drug coverage. And since advancements in chemo delivery now make more of it available orally via tablets, the insurance companies have siezed on this and are calling it a "prescription drug." While we find it hard to make the leap that chemotherapy is a prescription drug, the insurers are apparently comfortable with that leap. So we have applied to the drug-maker, with information from our oncologists, to see if they will provide it. So if we can get some good news soon on that front we should be able to get the chemo going. '
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Obama's Katrina?
Let us count the ways in which I disagree:
1. Anything Karl Rove says should be immediately debunked. Period. Give me another source for your analogy.
2. This is a man-made, corporate made, disaster and is in no way a natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina.
3. If Obama had as head of the coast guard or head of minerals management, a person whose only experience was as the former owner of a casino... then maybe there would be an analogy to draw. IF the head of minerals management had failed to curb corrupt policies in the bureau, this is not the same as just not answering your Blackberry when the call regarding a disaster came in.
4. If Bush were president right now, the price of gas would have gone up "due to the disaster" to $5 a gallon. Like when he was in office and not before any significant Republican race.
5. Um, during Katrina people were dying of dehydration, violence from poor shelter organization and hunger. Not to mention water-bourne illnesses.
6. One of the only similarities I can conclude is that both disasters were preventable and both were predicted. However the reasons they were not prevented are entirely different. The flooding that destroyed mostly a highly impoverished area occurred because improvements to levees and flood controls were ignored for decades. Improvements that had been requested were continuously ignored by successive federal administrations. They were expensive fixes and these were poor people. The safety issues on the oil rig seem to have been identified and minerals management did nothing about them. Powerful lobbies and bribes were behind this. Even though BP is the third largest oil company in the world, they got away with this. This is about corporate greed. While we will fire the head of an agency, we won't let a corrupt corporation fail.
7. The only other analogy I can draw has nothing to do with who's president. Both are examples of our willingness to ignore the obvious. If you build below sea-level and you live by the sea, expect to be flooded at some point no matter what your efforts are. It's like building near a volcano. If you drill off-shore, there will be oil spills that impact nearby land. We are human, our best efforts at preventing these problems (without corruption) will fail at some point. Now we just have to decide if we are prepared to deal with the results. Let's focus on that instead of whining about "was my president unfairly blamed.
The conclusion I think we can all agree on is that it does nothing towards solving what created either of the disaster conditions in either situation to simply point the finger at one individual. The problem lies in an unwillingness on our part to break apart these situations and truly hold those individuals responsible accountable. We are also unwilling to change the very circumstances which exacerbated both situations. We are unwilling to either not build on flood plains or to improve the safety conditions around them, especially if we are not the ones living in the flood plains and those who are are poor. We are unwilling to deal with corrupt local politicians. We are unwilling to restrict the lobbying abilities of major multinational corporations and to examine a future without oil. We are unwilling to pay the price for oil that it truly costs when environmental damages from drilling are factored in. It is much easier to point the finger at one individual. This is how democracies die if you ask me. The laziness of the average voter to actively participate. If the president of the U.S. were able to unilaterally solve both of these issues, they would be overstepping their role and doing away with our system of checks and balances. It is going to take far more than one vote for one person to create change and to keep democracy alive.
1. Anything Karl Rove says should be immediately debunked. Period. Give me another source for your analogy.
2. This is a man-made, corporate made, disaster and is in no way a natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina.
3. If Obama had as head of the coast guard or head of minerals management, a person whose only experience was as the former owner of a casino... then maybe there would be an analogy to draw. IF the head of minerals management had failed to curb corrupt policies in the bureau, this is not the same as just not answering your Blackberry when the call regarding a disaster came in.
4. If Bush were president right now, the price of gas would have gone up "due to the disaster" to $5 a gallon. Like when he was in office and not before any significant Republican race.
5. Um, during Katrina people were dying of dehydration, violence from poor shelter organization and hunger. Not to mention water-bourne illnesses.
6. One of the only similarities I can conclude is that both disasters were preventable and both were predicted. However the reasons they were not prevented are entirely different. The flooding that destroyed mostly a highly impoverished area occurred because improvements to levees and flood controls were ignored for decades. Improvements that had been requested were continuously ignored by successive federal administrations. They were expensive fixes and these were poor people. The safety issues on the oil rig seem to have been identified and minerals management did nothing about them. Powerful lobbies and bribes were behind this. Even though BP is the third largest oil company in the world, they got away with this. This is about corporate greed. While we will fire the head of an agency, we won't let a corrupt corporation fail.
7. The only other analogy I can draw has nothing to do with who's president. Both are examples of our willingness to ignore the obvious. If you build below sea-level and you live by the sea, expect to be flooded at some point no matter what your efforts are. It's like building near a volcano. If you drill off-shore, there will be oil spills that impact nearby land. We are human, our best efforts at preventing these problems (without corruption) will fail at some point. Now we just have to decide if we are prepared to deal with the results. Let's focus on that instead of whining about "was my president unfairly blamed.
The conclusion I think we can all agree on is that it does nothing towards solving what created either of the disaster conditions in either situation to simply point the finger at one individual. The problem lies in an unwillingness on our part to break apart these situations and truly hold those individuals responsible accountable. We are also unwilling to change the very circumstances which exacerbated both situations. We are unwilling to either not build on flood plains or to improve the safety conditions around them, especially if we are not the ones living in the flood plains and those who are are poor. We are unwilling to deal with corrupt local politicians. We are unwilling to restrict the lobbying abilities of major multinational corporations and to examine a future without oil. We are unwilling to pay the price for oil that it truly costs when environmental damages from drilling are factored in. It is much easier to point the finger at one individual. This is how democracies die if you ask me. The laziness of the average voter to actively participate. If the president of the U.S. were able to unilaterally solve both of these issues, they would be overstepping their role and doing away with our system of checks and balances. It is going to take far more than one vote for one person to create change and to keep democracy alive.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Civil Discourse
Over the last week I've been thinking about an incident that happened on my flight back from Missouri. At one point another passenger near me asked the flight attendant for the front page section of the newspaper. After being told the attendant only had the sports section, the passenger said, "Well, I just wanted to see if Obama appointed a justice." The flight attendant blurted out, "Yes, Kagan, and she has absolutely no judicial experience at all. None. I can't believe it."
I have to admit, I didn't know anything about the Kagan nomination. I've been a little preoccupied with some other things going on and haven't paid much attention to politics. I thought I should pay attention to this conversation as the flight attendant seemed better informed. I thought he might have done reading about Kagan and I wanted to learn what his opinions were or the opinions of the other passengers. I was actually thinking, "Geez, I didn't even realize we were already needing to appoint another person to the Supreme Court. I'm really out of the loop. I need to get back to reading the news."
At that point, the attendant began an unexpected tirade on the current administration. He started out addressing the passenger with the paper request, but went on to scan the rows near him as he spoke. Although I'm certain I don't have the exact words memorized, this is very close: "I can't believe this president. I want the next four years to go by as quickly as possible [I'm sure he meant next 3, but he said 4]. I can't stand this man. I mean, he isn't even a citizen. He's the antichrist."
So several things disturb me about this entire event:
1. This attendant was the one up front, guarding over the cockpit and, as such, in a position of power. I don't care what his political views are, such comments are inappropriate. I had absolutely zero respect for George W. Bush the person, but I have always tried to maintain respect for the office. If he had made similar comments regarding Bush while he was in office, I would have felt this was inappropriate.
2. Again, I think had Bush been in office and someone made these comments about him, people would have said, "This attendant is a threat and is unpatriotic."
3. As much as people disliked Bill Clinton, I am completely unable to recall one moment when anyone questioned his citizenship nor called him the antichrist and meant it. People do this to Obama. I am unable to come up with any other explanation for the severity of these accusations other than racism. Racism. These comments are racist. These comments are proof positive that we have not overcome racism - as if anyone should think we have in just a few short decades.
4. I was excited to learn something about a crucial appointment and instead was subjected to hate speech. What happened to civil discourse about such important issues?
Here's what I think has happened to civil discourse:
1. Politically correct speech became a tool to stifle any dissenting comments and led people to fear being labeled or misunderstood. Politically correct speech was intended to simply push us to be more aware of others. The intent was to try to think about how what we said might affect our listeners. This is a good idea. We should be aware of how we are saying what we are saying. Unfortunately, it made us so afraid of insulting someone and being labeled a bigot or ignorant that we quit talking altogether - well many of us.
2. Backlash. The backlash against PC speech has led to a "I can say what I want, when I want" attitude in folks. The media adopted this and the crazy hard right has made a science, literally, out of it. Karl Rove is undoubtedly the king of this movement and has deftly proliferated the school of "if you say it, they will believe it." The news now is less about fact finding and more about sensationalizing a story for the profit.
3. For some reason, we seem to believe (we = US Citizens) that to listen, to acknowledge a person who does not agree with us, and to believe that we may have something more to learn about our own beliefs is equivalent to moral weakness regardless of whether you are on the right or the left.
4. Getting a little philosophical here, we are clinging tight to a belief that binary oppositions are real. We want to believe that things are either right or wrong, black or white, Republican or Democrat, good or bad, just or unjust, yours or mine, us vs. them, with us or against us. The result is, if I'm right, you're wrong. Period. PC speech or radical speech. No middle ground. If you get what you want, I don't get what I want.
I have to admit, I didn't know anything about the Kagan nomination. I've been a little preoccupied with some other things going on and haven't paid much attention to politics. I thought I should pay attention to this conversation as the flight attendant seemed better informed. I thought he might have done reading about Kagan and I wanted to learn what his opinions were or the opinions of the other passengers. I was actually thinking, "Geez, I didn't even realize we were already needing to appoint another person to the Supreme Court. I'm really out of the loop. I need to get back to reading the news."
At that point, the attendant began an unexpected tirade on the current administration. He started out addressing the passenger with the paper request, but went on to scan the rows near him as he spoke. Although I'm certain I don't have the exact words memorized, this is very close: "I can't believe this president. I want the next four years to go by as quickly as possible [I'm sure he meant next 3, but he said 4]. I can't stand this man. I mean, he isn't even a citizen. He's the antichrist."
So several things disturb me about this entire event:
1. This attendant was the one up front, guarding over the cockpit and, as such, in a position of power. I don't care what his political views are, such comments are inappropriate. I had absolutely zero respect for George W. Bush the person, but I have always tried to maintain respect for the office. If he had made similar comments regarding Bush while he was in office, I would have felt this was inappropriate.
2. Again, I think had Bush been in office and someone made these comments about him, people would have said, "This attendant is a threat and is unpatriotic."
3. As much as people disliked Bill Clinton, I am completely unable to recall one moment when anyone questioned his citizenship nor called him the antichrist and meant it. People do this to Obama. I am unable to come up with any other explanation for the severity of these accusations other than racism. Racism. These comments are racist. These comments are proof positive that we have not overcome racism - as if anyone should think we have in just a few short decades.
4. I was excited to learn something about a crucial appointment and instead was subjected to hate speech. What happened to civil discourse about such important issues?
Here's what I think has happened to civil discourse:
1. Politically correct speech became a tool to stifle any dissenting comments and led people to fear being labeled or misunderstood. Politically correct speech was intended to simply push us to be more aware of others. The intent was to try to think about how what we said might affect our listeners. This is a good idea. We should be aware of how we are saying what we are saying. Unfortunately, it made us so afraid of insulting someone and being labeled a bigot or ignorant that we quit talking altogether - well many of us.
2. Backlash. The backlash against PC speech has led to a "I can say what I want, when I want" attitude in folks. The media adopted this and the crazy hard right has made a science, literally, out of it. Karl Rove is undoubtedly the king of this movement and has deftly proliferated the school of "if you say it, they will believe it." The news now is less about fact finding and more about sensationalizing a story for the profit.
3. For some reason, we seem to believe (we = US Citizens) that to listen, to acknowledge a person who does not agree with us, and to believe that we may have something more to learn about our own beliefs is equivalent to moral weakness regardless of whether you are on the right or the left.
4. Getting a little philosophical here, we are clinging tight to a belief that binary oppositions are real. We want to believe that things are either right or wrong, black or white, Republican or Democrat, good or bad, just or unjust, yours or mine, us vs. them, with us or against us. The result is, if I'm right, you're wrong. Period. PC speech or radical speech. No middle ground. If you get what you want, I don't get what I want.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tea Parties
OK so this is on the "Tea Party Patriots" website and was posted not long ago:
"Tea Party Patriots consists of everyday Americans who once again have realized that vigilance and sacrifice is required to protect liberty. An overbearing government will only extinguish liberty, it can only enslave, governments cannot give freedom. To feel the sting of sacrifice in the cause of liberty is to know what it costs to be free. Have you paid your price for liberty yet? What have you sacrificed? Nothing? What can you sacrifice? Talent? Charity? Time? What should be sacrificed today, in the fight for liberty?"
Now, I agree completely with this statement. I believe that sacrifice is required to protect liberty. I agree that an overbearing government is to be feared and contained. I believe in serving my community which is why I have chosen a life of service and I regularly donate to my favorite charities. So, why do I get irritated with the "Tea Party" folks if I agree so much with something they posted on their website?
Well, I guess we disagree with how government should be involved in our lives. I, dare I say it, believe in taxes. I am not ashamed to admit this. I LOVE public libraries.
Did you know in many other, even developed, countries you can look at books in the library but you can't remove them from the library. Our tax dollars provide that. I also like to drive. I know that's not a very eco-friendly statement, but I love that our tax dollars provide these great roads that I love to drive on.
I also like the police. Not that there aren't problems within individual precincts and we all know that the best police are well-educated, represent a wide spectrum of our community etc. This takes money - tax money. I love the fire department too. They don't bring in their own revenue people, they subsist on tax dollars.
I also love public transportation, not just for the eco-friendliness of it, but also that it can get people to work. Public transportation also provides a low-cost way for people to get to jobs. The more we subsidize it, the more people can work.
You don't like people coming into the country illegally (the Tea Party Patriots website supports SB1070)? Well, the border patrol is paid for by taxes folks.
Did you know that big business receives an exponentially greater proportion of subsidies than any welfare program and yet we require very little reporting on how those businesses use those subsidies? Oh, and I believe in public education and that it is a fundamentally crucial aspect of a viable democracy. I just don't agree with how it is funded locally.
So, taxes are good for us. I believe in our government, both local and federal, providing essential services to us, in helping to support us when we are sick or out of work. I'm not saying these systems are perfect. But let's look at the contradictions espoused by this "Tea Party."
1. Overbearing governments enslave people (their words)- the Patriot Act is one of the single most devastating acts against freedom and democracy. I don't agree with our own government being able to inspect my health records, tap my phone or internet dialogue without subpoena. I also don't believe our government should be required to demand papers based on random suspicion - what I look like (SB1070). Hello, this reeks of tyranny.
2. Bringing "...free-market principles back to our government." - hello, we are in the recession because of highly deregulated markets. Even Thomas Jefferson felt that corporations needed to be limited. In fact, early on in our nation's history, corporations were limited in the time they were allowed to exist. Jefferson felt that companies should not be allow to exist in perpetuity. The Bill of Rights was not written to include corporate rights either.
3. We are not being taxed without representation. We voted in our representatives. Policies that affect how we do business are being made without representation - it's called the G8. Large multi-national corporations are making laws without representation. That is undemocratic.
4. Have you noticed that most of the people at these Tea Parties are white?
5. Tax dollars aren't sacrifice to liberty and freedom? I think so.
Bottom line, I agree with the principles of liberty, flexing our right to protest against what we see as abuses against our liberties, and I love our country too. This is why I believe in taxes, I don't believe in SB1070, I believe in a regulated free-market, I believe in individual - not corporate- rights. Where were these people when laws are passed that determine that I can't marry who I want? Where were these people when the government was passing the Patriot Act? Where were these people when our government was letting business/banks make abusive lending decisions that have impoverished our nation?
"Tea Party Patriots consists of everyday Americans who once again have realized that vigilance and sacrifice is required to protect liberty. An overbearing government will only extinguish liberty, it can only enslave, governments cannot give freedom. To feel the sting of sacrifice in the cause of liberty is to know what it costs to be free. Have you paid your price for liberty yet? What have you sacrificed? Nothing? What can you sacrifice? Talent? Charity? Time? What should be sacrificed today, in the fight for liberty?"
Now, I agree completely with this statement. I believe that sacrifice is required to protect liberty. I agree that an overbearing government is to be feared and contained. I believe in serving my community which is why I have chosen a life of service and I regularly donate to my favorite charities. So, why do I get irritated with the "Tea Party" folks if I agree so much with something they posted on their website?
Well, I guess we disagree with how government should be involved in our lives. I, dare I say it, believe in taxes. I am not ashamed to admit this. I LOVE public libraries.
Did you know in many other, even developed, countries you can look at books in the library but you can't remove them from the library. Our tax dollars provide that. I also like to drive. I know that's not a very eco-friendly statement, but I love that our tax dollars provide these great roads that I love to drive on.
I also like the police. Not that there aren't problems within individual precincts and we all know that the best police are well-educated, represent a wide spectrum of our community etc. This takes money - tax money. I love the fire department too. They don't bring in their own revenue people, they subsist on tax dollars.
I also love public transportation, not just for the eco-friendliness of it, but also that it can get people to work. Public transportation also provides a low-cost way for people to get to jobs. The more we subsidize it, the more people can work.
You don't like people coming into the country illegally (the Tea Party Patriots website supports SB1070)? Well, the border patrol is paid for by taxes folks.
Did you know that big business receives an exponentially greater proportion of subsidies than any welfare program and yet we require very little reporting on how those businesses use those subsidies? Oh, and I believe in public education and that it is a fundamentally crucial aspect of a viable democracy. I just don't agree with how it is funded locally.
So, taxes are good for us. I believe in our government, both local and federal, providing essential services to us, in helping to support us when we are sick or out of work. I'm not saying these systems are perfect. But let's look at the contradictions espoused by this "Tea Party."
1. Overbearing governments enslave people (their words)- the Patriot Act is one of the single most devastating acts against freedom and democracy. I don't agree with our own government being able to inspect my health records, tap my phone or internet dialogue without subpoena. I also don't believe our government should be required to demand papers based on random suspicion - what I look like (SB1070). Hello, this reeks of tyranny.
2. Bringing "...free-market principles back to our government." - hello, we are in the recession because of highly deregulated markets. Even Thomas Jefferson felt that corporations needed to be limited. In fact, early on in our nation's history, corporations were limited in the time they were allowed to exist. Jefferson felt that companies should not be allow to exist in perpetuity. The Bill of Rights was not written to include corporate rights either.
3. We are not being taxed without representation. We voted in our representatives. Policies that affect how we do business are being made without representation - it's called the G8. Large multi-national corporations are making laws without representation. That is undemocratic.
4. Have you noticed that most of the people at these Tea Parties are white?
5. Tax dollars aren't sacrifice to liberty and freedom? I think so.
Bottom line, I agree with the principles of liberty, flexing our right to protest against what we see as abuses against our liberties, and I love our country too. This is why I believe in taxes, I don't believe in SB1070, I believe in a regulated free-market, I believe in individual - not corporate- rights. Where were these people when laws are passed that determine that I can't marry who I want? Where were these people when the government was passing the Patriot Act? Where were these people when our government was letting business/banks make abusive lending decisions that have impoverished our nation?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Let's Substitute the Name Bush for Obama
I saw this going around on Facebook just the other day. Take a look at it and then substitute the name "Bush" for "Obama." Then honestly answer the question, "What do you think a non-Obama fan would say to this if this had been posted during the Bush Administration?"
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN
Seriously people. First of all, how 'bout you spell Swayze right?? Can you at least Google "Swayzie" to confirm you have his name right?
Secondly, if I or any other non-Bush fan had said something like this during the Bush Administration we would have heard one of the following responses:
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN
Seriously people. First of all, how 'bout you spell Swayze right?? Can you at least Google "Swayzie" to confirm you have his name right?
Secondly, if I or any other non-Bush fan had said something like this during the Bush Administration we would have heard one of the following responses:
- If you don't love this country then leave it.
- You have to at least respect the office of the president.
- Are you threatening the president?
- Really, Farah Fawcett is your favorite actress?? Cause if so, then you'd know her name is actually Farrah, not Farah....
Let's try not to be hypocritical people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
