This blog is dedicated to the illogical, inhumane, irresponsible, and unscientifically stupid things people do and say, including my own. It is my hope that putting my comments here will make me more likely to be Happy Cindy.
Those of you who know me personally might be thinking "What is she talking about, she's been having middle aged moments for 5 years now." But I don't mean how my nouns have been flying out of my brain willy nilly, and I don't mean the happy dance my hormones have been having with my serotonin and dopamine.
I don't have to count these things as being caused by middle age, because I can come up with alternative explanations I can choose to believe instead. Lots of cyclical changes in a woman's body impact mood. Stress itself, regardless of age, effects memory's ability to retrieve the exact word one needs at the exact moment.
It could easily, I can say, have been stress that caused me, in the Dr.'s Office, to forget the word for Knee; or at work, the word forBook,or Vacuum,the former being in the middle of a children's talk during Worship, the latter being explained by a pushing motion with one hand simultaneous with a vvvrrrooooooooooonoise until someone guessed vacuum.
But this one can't be blamed on monthly shifts in estrogen or stress-induced mental moments.
I reached into the refrigerator to move the margarine so I could get to the wine, and dislocated a finger. Had to pull it out and everything. Swelling, pain, tendon popping, if not the whole 9 yards, then at least 4.5.
I whined and moaned. It was truly a middle aged moment. Young people don't dislocate fingers reaching for wine.
But then I was reminded of my friend -- Mags, Maggie, Margaret the Incredible -- and how blessed I am to have dislocated one joint this entire decade. When I came out of the closet at Eastern (Baptist) College in 1984, I could count on one hand the students who remained my friend at all, never mind those who were compelled to proselytize or "let you know that I didn't agree with it."
I was honored when Mags and her husband attended my wedding two years ago, doubly honored because of what it took out of her to be able to make the 600 mile trip. She hardly leaves her house, never mind a trip like that, from Virginia to Massachusetts.
See Mags has EDS. People with EDS have a defect in their connective tissue, the tissue that provides support to many body parts such as the skin, muscles and ligaments. The Fancy Medical definition is
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) is a heterogeneous group of heritable connective tissue disorders characterized by articular hypermobility, skin extensibility and tissue fragility.
This is a fancy way of saying that her body bends directions it should not and as a consequence her joints frequently fly apart, and her skin is too thin to protect her insides very well, and it's a terrible terrible illness. When she falls down everything comes apart. When she rolls over in bed something can come apart. When she picks up a dinner roll her finger, or elbow can dislocate, when she eats the roll her jaw might dislocate.
I am embarrassed to admit that fifteen-twenty years ago, before she was diagnosed, I dismissively thought she was depressed, or worse, a total woos. I was an uninformed jerk (and not for the last time in my life). I saw her complaining about symptoms of pain that didn't appear to have any cause, laying in bed all the time, and being depressed. And I mentally scoffed. Embarrassing or not, crankycindy will be as honest about herself as she is about hate mongers and bad drivers. I share it because it's a reality, and not uncommon. Remember when we "didn't believe in" things like chemical sensitivity, or gluten sensitivity? Young and judgmental, boy oh boy, sure miss those days. Um hum.
Because of course she was depressed, her body, the encasement for her self, the way she interacted with the world, was a total mess. And it's progressive.
This is her:
80% of people who have EDS don't know it. How 'bout your kids in your congregation? So let your good deed for the day today be to learn about EDS. Because of the internet, we don't need to remain ignorant when people tell us of a set of symptoms, or an ailment, and rarely understood diseases and syndromes are only a couple of links away from awareness.
So I dislocated a finger reaching for the wine. Big Whoop.
(note: this is part 2 of Huckabee's Christmas. If you don't read that first, you may miss the facetious, nay, dripping bitterness with which I pose these rhetorical questions as to whether there is an ounce of possibility that Huckabee might have an inch of wiggle room. While I am confident that he does not, I mean to provide evidence of that fact to you, dear reader, who may not simply wish to believe me because I say so.)
He keeps saying he didn't say quarantine, but that, of course, is what he meant.
In his not-backing-down statement, Huckabee cites
"Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers."
I started trying to remember. What year was that? What did we know then?
I mean, I remember being in an ER in Philadelphia in 1987 and yelling at a PA/Nurse to put on his gloves before he drew my blood. He said, "What, do you think I have something?" I said, "How do you know I don't? Aren't you just supposed to just always wear gloves?"
It was a time where those of us involved in understanding the importance of barrier protection in our own community were ahead of the medical community in some ways.
So in 1991, what were they, these restrictions Huckabee cites as a reason to support his desire to
deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.
So I had to look it up. Oh yes, now I remember. There was a big broohaha about it.
But factually, it was a clear and simple set of recommendations. They were recommendations, not requirements, and they were about both HIV positive and Hepatitis B positive health care workers, and the recommendations were that an HIV/HBV positive provider would not do "exposure prone" procedures without first seeking counsel.
As repeated by the American Academy of Physician's Assistants here
preventing the transmission of HBV and HIV from provider to patient during “exposure prone” procedures. According to the CDC recommendations, providers infected with HIV or HBV should not perform such procedures unless they have sought counsel from an expert review panel and been advised under what circumstances, if any, they may continue to perform these procedures. Such circumstances would include notifying prospective patients of one’s HIV status before conducting the procedure.
It was a big deal at the time -- we were afraid it was part of a slippery slope toward required testing and reporting... who would be the review panel? what would they do with information? was it medically necessary? why weren't they talking about barrier protection instead? why, if a panel said there were circumstances that a professional could do this procedure would s/he then have to reveal his/her personal HIV status?
BUT none of that matter in this moment. The question here is, was this a recommendation that would lead Huckabee to such beliefs? No, it certainly does not meet a standard that could serve as a rational indicator that Huckabee had reasonable cause to believe that HIV fit the category of infectiousness that would lead him to reasonably believe that it was still appropriate to consider
following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
So no, Rev. Huckabee can't use that as evidence that he reasonably believed HIV infectiousness raised to that level.
I think he just looked backward in time, tried to find some rationalization for his being nearly 10 years behind in understanding HIV, and came up with a girl who said she got HIV from a dentist, and what are, in retrospect, pretty weakass recommendations.
"Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing? Mostly about politics. I don't blame you. At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends. I hope that you and your family have a magnificent Christmas season. And on behalf of all of us, God bless and Merry Christmas. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approve this message."
The Christian Broadcasting Network suggests this is a harbinger of kinder, gentler political advertising. Others say it's brilliant politics.
What say you?
Also, the floating cross in the background -- subliminal, a trick of lighting, or miracle?
But lest you think my time away has mellowed my crank, there is a huge and elongated cranky bit here.
Huckabee says here that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends? Yes, as a private person of the Christian faith, one might celebrate the birth of Christ, and he certainly has the freedom to use his money advertising that.
On the other hand, he isn't just a private person of faith, he's a man who wants to be President of the United States. A man who is desirous of a tremendous amount of power and authority over, among other things, life and death.
You see I, myself a private citizen of faith, celebrate the birth of Jesus, (if not Christ), and would also like to spend Christmas with all of my family and friends. Yet I have names in my address book that are crossed off, that haven't received a Christmas Card from me in a decade or two.* This is due, in great measure, to the fact that HIV research and treatment was underfunded for decades, and they are dead for lack of funds, or medicine, or appropriate mental health care.
So Rev. Huckabee's nice pretty advertisement for faith, family, and friends is merely a reminder to me that he was and continues to be part of a conservative cabal -- yes, cabal -- of people of power who chose not to listen to medical experts, but instead to make decisions based, not on fact and reason, but on belief based in faith.
In particular, although he claims we didn't know much about how HIV was transmitted in 1992, in order for him to be that behind in the facts, he had to ignore not only the CDC in general, but C. Everett Koop, a conservative evangelical who was explicitly clear by 1988 that HIV was not transmitted like TB.
""I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."
"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."
This is his first attempt at spinning last week, not backing down:
In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.
Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.
At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last…
Sunday on FOX News Huckabee said, still spinning still not backing down: (I guess if you're running for President, it looks weak to say something like, "I was really really wrong, and people died 'cause I didn't use my leadership to actually lead a journey that embraced the continuation of life, and I'm really really sorry." Too much to expect?)
Chris, I didn't say that we should quarantine. I said it was the first time in public health protocols that when we had an infectious disease and we didn't really know just how extensive and how dramatic it could be and the impact of it, that we didn't isolate the carrier.
Now, the headlines yesterday started saying that I called for quarantines, which if you'll go back and read my comments, I did not.
I had simply made the point, and I still believe this today, that in the late '80s and early '90s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols that we would have acted — as we have recently, for example, with avian flu, which — I spent hours and hours, and months, in fact, as a governor dealing with a pandemic plan that we were looking at which called for isolating carriers if they contracted that disease.
According to The C. Everett Koop Paper Collection online at Profiles in Science at the National Library of Medicine, in 1988
Koop promoted redefining the prevalent scientific model of the disease, from a contagion akin to bubonic plague, yellow fever, and other deadly historic epidemics that required the strongest public health measures--mandatory testing and quarantine of carriers--to a chronic disease that was amenable to long-term management with drugs and behavioral changes.
In 1987 The National Academy of Sciences ran a poster campaign that included this one (if it doesn't appear below, click the link and open a new tab/window.)
In order to ignore the evangelical C. Everett Koop until 1992, someone running in conservative Christian circles would pretty much have to be listening to fundamentalists, while ignoring evangelical experts. The listening would have to be selective.
Koop himself knew explicitly he had to oppose some of these ideas that Huckabee cites:
"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, [Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." and "Cameron also views AIDS as being such a large threat to 'innocents' that he has proposed nationwide testing for HIV and the forcible quarantine of all those testing positive, either by confinement to their homes or in regional detention centers." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.
Huckabee would have to have been listening to anti-gay people like these:
1. The major cause of HIV and AIDS in the U.S. has been and remains male homosexual behavior. The next largest transmission category is intravenous drug use, followed by high-risk heterosexual contact. This last group consists of people who have had sex with anyone who falls into the first two groups. If we eliminated homosexual male sex and intravenous drug use, HIV would be reduced by at least three fourths in this country. Both are unnecessary, chosen behaviors. (Linda Harvey, President of Mission America, cited at Americans For Truth)
By the way, Peter LaBarbera, who has been spreading both exaggeration and overt lies about GLBT people in general and Gay Men and Men who have Sex with Men for years and years, praises Huckabee for his original statement:
"Mike Huckabee is right to reject the liberal media's talking points on homosexuality. We need more -- not less -- debate on why HIV/AIDS has been singled out as a politically protected disease, and why it gets such a huge percentage of taxpayer funding vis-à-vis other diseases."
"Despite the obvious link between male homosexual behavior and AIDS, gay bathhouses where men go for anonymous sodomitic encounters with other men are flourishing in cities like Cleveland and Chicago. If homosexual and AIDS activists – and public officials -- would work to close these disease-spreading centers down, it would protect the lives of homosexual men and also women who unknowingly get infected by male spouses who secretly engage in homosexual perversions."
LeBarbera comes from a long line of fundamentalist Protestant and ultra-conservative Catholic people whose anti-gay rabidity overwhelmed their sense of right and wrong, truth and falsity.
Huckabee likely listened to the ex-gay/anti-gay people who were held up by "ex-gay" organizations like Love in Action, promoted by conservative political organizations as proof that AIDS was God's judgment and therefore not worthy of secular intervention. This is a "testimony" that inextricably links the "homosexual lifestyle" and AIDS.
An aggressive, outspoken and highly intense person, Paul wholeheartedly gave himself to whatever cause he was pursuing. During his time with Love In Action and Church of the Open Door (San Rafael, CA), Paul immersed himself in ministry and made deep impressions on all who knew him.
But when his desires to go back to his old lifestyle would overcome him, he would disappear. Two or three times, he came back to the Lord for a brief period.
In 1984, Paul visited our director, Frank Worthen, at a time when he was thinking of returning to the Lord. Frank shared with Paul long into the night, warning him about this "new" disease striking homosexual men.
Paul went home, promising to consider what Frank had said. The next day, he called Frank to tell him of his decision: He was going to stay in his homosexual lifestyle.
About two months before his death on July 15, 1985, Paul made his final return to the Lord. Although he was physically diminished from a half-year's battle with Kaposi's Sarcoma, and other infections, God used Paul in some exciting ways. Right before he was hospitalized for the last time, Paul wrote a small paper on AIDS and brought it to the LIA office. While he was in the hospital, one of our staff typed up his paper on AIDS and made copies.
Our director's wife, Anita, brought them to Paul, and he enjoyed handing them out from his hospital bed. What follows is a copy of Paul's paper on AIDS...
"For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favour lasts a lifetime; weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning" (Psalm 30:5).
AIDS has become the world's number one health crisis, and the medical facts point to the epidemic becoming much worse before it improves.
LIFE magazine had an article on AIDS in their July, 1985 issue which said: "AIDS is an epidemic that may change the way America lives."
Why has AIDS become such a problem? Are we supposed to be learning something from all this? Let's take an honest look at AIDS from a Christian viewpoint.
The AIDS epidemic is the result of sexual sin, homosexual and heterosexual. We cannot escape the fact that God has allowed certain afflictions to befall his creation throughout history.
In this author's opinion it is beyond reasonable doubt that AIDS is a manifestation of divine judgement and that practicing homosexual men are, among others, the present objects of God's wrath. Further, the failure to recognize God's disposition of judgement in this major event in the history of the world is to fail to recognize a significant aspect of its meaning. The large number of people in the United States with AIDS and even larger number with HIV infection are of a "staggering proportion." The majority contract the illness through ungodly "high-risk" behaviors, especially homosexual intercourse (as well as IV drug abuse). While homosexual behavior is itself a present manifestation of divine wrath through God's judicial abandonment to shameful lusts, AIDS is a further manifestation of divine retributive judgement resulting in suffering, disease and death ....As frightening as it is to suggest, AIDS is probably also a purificatory judgement through which God partially cleanses His fallen creation. Before the fall He ordained, in the context of monogamous marriage, heterosexual intercourse as the only legitimate expression of a union which meets, at the most intimate level, our need for human companionship
So you see, dear people who put up with my crankiness all this way,
Huckabee didn't just "not know" about HIV, he lived, and expressed political leadership, in a religious context that explicitly blamed and demonized Gay men for it. He made decisions about where to get his information from, and what sources to ignore. There was no medical confusion about HIV that would lead to any anyone who paid attention to the facts to make any sort of comparison with airborne, easily transmittable viruses like TB. In the medical, and scientific world, there was no confusion.
So if Huckabee, in 1992, still had any concern that HIV was the kind of virus that might call for extreme community protection measures, it was because he chose not to ask people who actually knew.
I loved our last real evangelical president, Jimmy Carter. I would be happy with an evangelical president who understands the limits of faith in determining public policy. But I certainly don't want a President who chooses to listen, not to evangelical Surgeon Generals, but to the haters in his own, small community.
And here's a funny - Blogger thinks that demonized isn't a word.
*(I note here that I'm not counting people I just haven't sent cards because I am really really bad at sending cards.)
So yesterday I was on my way to a Religious Educator Cluster Meeting, when suddenly a low lopey dumb looking dog started ambling across the road in front of me. As I braked, I saw in a car coming toward me in the road, and in my peripheral vision a man, probably my age, on the far side of the road, chewing gum and telling the dog to get back here.
The dog then stopped in the road, cocked his head sideways, (do dogs see better sideways?) watched me coming toward him and decided my car was more interesting than the other side of the road and actually turned into me. The dog was, in fact, as stupid as it looked.
So I slammed my brakes on and pulled off to the right, stopping just short of the ditch. Phew, I thought. No dead dog. All the stuff in my car is on the floor, and my back is a little crooked, but no dead dog. I put on my flashers until the dog got out of the road.
The man still stood on the side of the road, still chewing, nay, chomping gum with his mouth open, his hands still in his pockets. Not a nod, not a wave, not a twitch of a smile to indicate that he was grateful that I didn't run over his dog. So either he wasn't grateful, or didn't think it important to express his gratitude, or, he couldn't in fact chew gum and wave at the same time.
I took a deep breath, and let it go without making a What's the Matter with You a face or gesture. I drove on.
So here's my ponder:
Is it not a nationally common expectation that when someone doesn't run your dog over, or waves you into a merge, or lets you know your headlights aren't on that people wave a thank you? It can't be generational, the guy was my age. If it's not, then I spend much unnecessary energy being ticked off by ingrates who aren't really ingrates.
Yesterday was such an emotional day. Deval Patrick, whom I've been excited about since I first heard him speak in a little house up the street two years ago, won here in Massachusetts. We (yellow dog Democrats and Progressives together) took back the House, and likely the Senate. Previously out of reach government measures (by the people andfor the people) like meaningful health care reform, wage support, and appropriate social services for citizens, are once again possible.
At the same time, citizens of seven of these states voted to ban gay marriage(or uh-hem, "affirm traditional marriage,") by sometimes overwhelming majorities, rejecting the extension of for the people to include me in a meaningful way. (Except Arizona. Thank you Arizona)
President Bush proved his narcisicissm, again, when he changed the subject of the national discussion half-way through the day from the Democratic sweep to his firing of Rumsfeld. Like a child or addict/alcoholic, bad attention is better than no attention. In a move that had Rove's fingerprints all over it, the President manipulated all the pundits and talking heads away from focusing on the democratic sweep state by state, Representative by Representative, Senator by Senator, and the various progressive (or reactionary) ballot initiatives that passed/failed to a HUGE piece of the pie discussion about Rumsfeld and the President and what's next for the Secretary of State, with a mere powdered sugar sprinkling of how it was the democratic sweep that led to this (except the Pres. says it didn't). They managed to have very little discussion about the actual races, or the platforms that were attached to them.
I attended a meeting of DREs (fabulous people) halfway across the state, and so listened to the radio for nearly 3 hours, switching between Rush Limbaugh and Air America's Al Franken. Something of a silly decision. Rush bellowed, "It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better folks," and Al didn't. He made noises about crowing, but didn't really crow.
When I got home, I checked out the television news networks. NECN, our local northeast cable news, stayed with the politics of the races, as did CNN. MSNBC and FOX switched their pundit focus and spent the majority of the time discussing the Rumsfeld resignation, er, firing, er, leaving.
John Hall won again in New York. ( Orleans' Jon Hall) At the end of this long and politically emotional day, last night's Colbert Report turned incredibly touching after the interview (wherein John Hall and Stephen bantered about Democrats and Republicanscrossing the aisle) when John and Stephen did an Amazing duet of the Star Spangled Banner. Not Carnegie Hall amazing, but contextually amazing. (update at noon: the clip from YouTube is now below.)
And here's the funny thing, one might even say the illogical, unscientific, irrational thing that crankycindy finds irritating. Even though it was fake united-across-the-aisle-ness, the symbology of it totally got to me and I choked up and actual tears ran down my face.
As of now, 8 am EST, last night's clips aren't up yet at the above link, but I hope that they will put it up. Otherwise dear readers, check your tv listings, Comedy Central repeats Colbert a couple of times throughout the day. (I know at least at 8:30 pm EST.) It's worth turning away from Survivor while they count the votes to catch it there at the end of the show.
Let me know if it was the singing that was honestly touching and patriotic, or if I was just overwrought and overtired and therefore suseptible to silly sentimentality.
"Repulsive" is a word they reserve for the Really Big Sexual Sins. It is how they talk about homosexuality. The use of language in Haggard's apology indicates that he is talking about something more than cheating on his wife. It isn't about generic cheating or compulsive behavior, it is specifically about the fact that this behavior involved another man not a woman.
Haggard is a deceiver and a liar, and I give him credit for admitting his failing - but I am saddened for his internalized shame, which isn't about cheating per se. So I'm sad personally for Haggard, because this isn't just about being unfaithful, it's about the repulsive sexual immorality of homosexuality.
In the religious world Haggard inhabits "cheating" isn't described as repulsive. It's described as wrong, as sin, as immoral. Repulsive is in some fashion a code word, the worst word you can use, generally held back for homosexuality, pedophilia, and pornography, the trifecta of loathsome sexual practices.
Dobson's opening statement on his radio program yesterday wasn't to talk about cheating but to identify Haggard's behavior as "a 3 year homosexual relationship."
What Dobson's response indicates is that his religious world will focus on the gender of his cheating rather than the lack of integrity, or the internalized conflict and shame that likely drove Haggard to feel he had no other options.
Let's be honest. A massage with a sexual component for money isn't a relationship, it's prostitution. Several popular Christian leaders have resigned because of being caught with prostitutes over the last couple of decades, but their peers don't say that these men who visit female prostitutes have "relationships" with them.
By saying that this prostitution was a "relationship," Dobson paints the current anti gay marriage initiative on the Colorado ballot (and others) with a nice big repulsive brush. If they want to stop these relationships, all they have to do is make sure that people vote their way. This is the same thing as the libelous The Gay Agenda video that was put out in 1992. Paint a vile picture of gays, then say that that is what they have to vote against. And the best part is that Dobson can do it while expressing compassion for his dear friend the fallen.
Here are some examples of what I mean, provided here for those who don't necessarily listen to or read the religious right folks.
"...persecution of Christians and state-sponsored persecution of people who are moral enough to find prancing homosexuals repulsive. This is what the homosexual lobby wants, folks. They not only desire the end of free speech, they want their views forced upon everyone else." Alpha and Omega Ministries
"Finding homosexuality repulsive is a natural human instinct to protect oneself, and is common to most humans, not just a few conservatives" MissionAmerica quoted at capalert.com
"Perhaps it is not very “Christian” of me but I find homosexuality as repulsive as God does from a mere human perspective. There’s something DIFFERENT about homosexuality. Male to male, female to female utterly denies what God designed us for and to whom." comment on Freerepublic.com.
Principles which guide AFA's opposition to the Homosexual Agenda "1. The scripture declares that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. It is a sin grievous to God and repulsive to Chrisitians because it rejects God's design for mankind as heterosexual beings." American Family Association Could you surf the web and find the word used elsewhere? Sure. a quick Google search found, within the first 8 pages or so -- christians who say that lesbians find sex with a man repulsive, christian anti-divorce website talking about wives who suddenly find sex with their husband repulsive. 9/11 is described as repulsive, and often they'll describe pornography as repulsive.
But cheating on your wife with another woman? Not repulsive, just sin.
And all the talk about one sin being just like another sin? Baloney.
And Haggard believes this and must be in some kind of special hell.
Shameless Plug Alert: I have a lovely 90 minute multimedia presentation/lecture called "The X-Gay Agenda: The Political Science Fiction of Reparative Therapy." It's simultaneously fun and appalling in a CrankyCindy kind of way. That said, in real life, I'm a relatively friendly combination of cranky and happy cindy. Hire me for your congregation today!
With this story about Ted Haggard that contains some of the worst writing I've seen on tv in years. I can't write good either, but then, I'm not on tv.
Rev. Ted Haggard, in his letter to his congregation, stated
“The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem,” ... “I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”
It breaks my heart that as he accepts responsibility for behavior that is shameful, cheating, and likely compulsive, but his focus is likely not the cheating or the compulsiveness of his behavior that he sees as repulsive, but that it was homo-sexual behavior. Internalized homophobia is a biatch.
I'm sad for him personally. I'm angry because his behavior, his choices, and his response to those choices have, for some people, simply proved how evil and repulsive homosexuality is.
James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, for example, who shares Haggard's political opinions, changed his website a day or two ago. An upgrade was "due this fall" (promo for it) and they put up the new site design and decided to go with MARRIAGE just in time for this thunderbolt to hit evangelical politics.
James Dobson discusses this situation on his radio program here. If you haven't listened to the leaders of the Religous Right discuss such things recently - if you mostly spend time with others who like and agree with you, I highly recommend that you listen to this 30 minutes with hand picked evangelical leaders known for their anti-gay opinions and political work.
OPENING AD: America, you span a great continent, whose strength reflects... America, your history rises up off thelives and sacrifices of ordinary citizens... America, your future waits to be written. will freedom continue to echo in the corridors of education on noisy factory lines, and on white steeple churches? Will enough people care about freedom enough to sacrifice, or to sacrifice the time needed to cast a vote? America, it's up to you.
DOBSON: sigh. I'm sure that many of our listeners are aware that one of the most influential...leaders... has experienced a moral failure. He has now admitted having a homosexual relationship that goes back for several years.
It's not a relationship. It's a call girl, er, male escort, er, massage... Whatever it was, it was definitely not a relationship.
They offer a Toll-free Pastoral Hotline: 877-233-4455. If you're heart sick about this and need pastoral care over the telephone, then you should call it.
I am, of course, referring to the admission of Rev. Ted Haggard, that he purchased methamphetamine from the gay escort, (once the convincing voicemail was released he admitted this) but says he didn't use it, or him.
I don't know if the gay-sex bit is true or not, but here's my question. Why would a man go to a gay escort/prostitute for methamphetamine and a massage but not sex??? Would one of the most significant evangelical leaders really go to a hotel to have a massage (only?) from a gay escort/prostitute? Perhaps this is simply a case of
REALLY REALLY BAD JUDGMENT?
There is a wonderful clip from beliefnet.com, see it below or open an external link atYoutube here.
how do you have a good family? you find a person of the opposite sex and make a lifelong committment to them..
Oral Roberts University has already erased Haggard from their website, but in a fashion that means they could bring him back very easily. This is slow, but enjoyable.
Really. Inquiring minds want to know. Last night we had about 65 kids and 6 adults. The kids were cute and adorable. Even the teenagers who decided at the last minute to go out with a streak of lipstick doubling as a costume were cute, but not so much cuteness from the adults.
None mumbled "this is for my other kid who is sick at home," or even stated, "I only look grownup." They proudly held their bags open for me to give them candy.
Is it just me? Do any of you trick or treat for yourself, and if so, why?????
In the 1980's I was occasionally afraid that those calling for the internment of HIV+ people and LGBT folk might actually get their wish. SON of COINTEL PRO was functioning alive and well in my life.
... by 1983, FBI agents and private security specialists had launched broad intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens engaged in otherwise legal activities. (from the brilliant political-social-analytic website Public Eye)
My activities and those of many of my colleagues and friends - social justice activities - all proactive, creative, and legal - were curiously interesting to hunkered down men who sat outside my home in parked cars, to tall men who stood at ease in the back of my church during communion, to the "insurance agent" who, for "insurance reasons" had to read the titles of our books into a tape recorder after being let in by our landlord.
Might you wonder what type of activities? Perhaps you surmise, dear reader, that we deserved to be snooped upon without warrant.
I was part of a drama troupe that educated various public servants, (educators, police, etc.) about HIV/AIDS and LGBT folks. I taught 5th grade. I was active in MCC, a "Gay Church" that met in the Unitarian Church, the same building that housed the anti-nuke people. I was involved in an attempt to provide an education for the children of MOVE members that would be acceptable both to the mothers and the State. (Such a compromise was not possible.) I protested to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. I lived in an intentionally diverse house of African Americans and white folks, gay men and lesbians during a decade and in a city that preferred to keep everyone as separate as possible.
Jesse Jackson spoke from our front steps on the eve of the Pennsylvania Primary in 1986. Maybe that was the dangerous activity that required surveillance.
We were never identified as "enemy combatants," picked up for questioning, or carted away to another country to be not-tortured. It was clear that there were those in "law enforcement," in "the government," who believed there was something about our activities that constituted a threat, but their interference in our lives didn't go beyond an intimidating quasi-public survelliance.
What of activists now? How chilling must it be to have a law that completely eradicates Habeus Corpus. Why bother with intimidation and scare tactics? We used to be afraid that someone would cart us off, drop us somewhere without defense. But it would have been illegal, and we held on to the shred of hope that the feds who were watching us would follow the law and would not physically interfere with us.
No hope of that now. It is now legal for someone to be identified as an enemy combatant, and carted off to G-d knows where, where G-d knows what to happen, where even the Geneva Conventions - that last bulwark of ethical instruction - aren't attended to, and, since there is no right to a lawyer, no one will even know where they are should they want to report them missing.
Maybe it can be an episode of Without A Trace. The FBI looking for someone the FBI has taken.
And what does this mean for Ministers, DREs, and other religious professionals who act as if the Reign of G-d is among us and we are to do justice? I think it can't be good. The chilling effect of this legislation, of this constitutionally unsupported square of rotting spam on a board, can't be good. It means that we may begin to second guess our public statements. And that's the cruelest censorship.
And his Special Comment on Habeus Corpus is available at Crooks and Liars. It's got a great last paragraph. It's worth waiting for though, so go read or watch the commentary from the beginning.
for so many reasons. Reason #334A is because he's on "news network" programming at the same time as Bill O'Reilly, which just seems fair. Here's reason number 334B--
Olbermann named Paul Weyrich the Worst Person in the World Award winner for Thursday Oct. 6, 2006 for making this statement as taken from Olbermann's Countdown page:
“Here’s the real problem,” [Weyrich] said, “it has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex.” When the host suggested that that was just an opinion and many would take exception to it, Mr. Weyrich explained “I don’t care whether they take exception to it; it happens to be true.”
Olbermann responds (two days after Chris Matthews didn't respond to a similar statement on Hardball):
No, actually. But let me repeat this, brainiac. This isn’t about Foley being gay. It’s not about what the kids did, it’s an adult, male or female, straight or gay — taking sexual advantage of children and other adults protecting that adult. Commentator Paul Weyrich, today’s Worst Person in the World.
A related set of statements/libels that has James Dobson and Matt Savage saying the Mark Foley scandal boils down to "pranks" by pages can be found dissected here.
It's so so nice to have the Right on popular television again, isn't it?
In case you're wanting a 360 degree view of other media outlets perspectives, here's Fox's:
Fox's Hannity and Colmes misleads their viewers about the actions of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, here, and a report on Special Report with Brit Hume, two days after CREW clarified their position, repeated these statements without including the clarification.
I've always wanted to do this. PB's Beauty Tips found the easy way, and given I don't have my mom's visual artistic nature to create one from scratch, I just went for it...
except i keep reposting this and I can't get the image to load... arrg aarrggggg talking like a pirate and that day's long over.
Good Golly Miss Molly, this statement has more power and clarity than any speechifying I've seen on television all year. If you haven't seen or read Keith Olbermann's Bush Owes Us An Apology yet, you must do it now. You can view the clip on his blog site linked above, or at Crooks and Liars in WMV or QT. [9/21 Note: since Michelle instructs me below as to the challenges of Crooks andLiars links, and then went to the effort of posting the video herself, please watch it there.]
Read it to yourself or watch the original, then come back here to read the rest of this entry.
[No really, click a link above and read or watch the essay first then read on for my take.]
I think that the President is so out of bounds in general and in particular with his statement that "it is unacceptable to think there is any kind of comparison between [actions of the US and of terrorists]..." that it deserves not only the apology Olbermann demands, but a gianormous turning away from sin repentance experience. What America should do with this speech/editorial/statement, over and above reading it quietly or watching Mr. Olbermanns' excellent delivery and then talking about it on blogs, at watercoolers or in grocery stores, is to do an All-American Dramatic Reading. Outloud. In public.
In fact, I think that all of America could do a simultaneous reading of this statement, in unison, church style. Our President continues to believe, being surrounded by sycophants as he is, that he not only knows best, but that he's speaking on behalf of the country.
Therefore, I call for Americans everywhere to organize and read this essay in unison as a National Call for the President to Repent and Turn from his Ways, this Sunday, September 24, at noon Eastern Time.
And since very few people read this sporadic blog, you're in charge of passing it on.
"If the kingdom of God is spacious, how dare church leaders take it upon themselves to rope off these large rooms and establish crannies for some while booting out the others?"
Faith and Values: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.
He's taken on the Republican Religious Right before, as in "Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers," but now there's a whole book of his theological, social, and political musings. (You all know he's an ordained Episcopalian minister, right?)
In a book excerpt available online from Newsweek, he says of moderates:
It is time for a clear statement of what we believe, a statement we repeat relentlessly and a statement that expresses the strength of our convictions:
We believe in a large God, a transcendent God, a God who cannot be shrunken by political activists and stuffed into their own agendas.
We believe that no one should presume to embody God’s truth, including ourselves. We acknowledge that our political programs, however prayerfully inspired, are no more than our best efforts to be faithful to God, and that we should pursue them with humility.
We believe that God’s truth is expansive enough to embrace conflicting opinions, even on hot-button issues, even of people with whom we vehemently disagree.
More from this lovely excerpt can be found here, from Newsweek.
I' ll point you to an excerpt about the Schiavo debacle at The Raw Story
Also according to The RAW Story, the book says of the "Marriage Amendment":
"I think that the only purpose served by the campaign for the amendment is the humiliation of gay Americans, advocated by the Christian right and eagerly supported by its suitors in the Republican Party. "In reality, it is gay bashing."
Danforth then goes even further, saying supporters' assertions that the amendment would protect marriage is ludicrous.
"America's divorce rate is now over 50 percent, and marriage is under attack from a number of quarters: finances, promiscuity, alcohol and drugs, the pressures of work, cultural acceptance of divorce, et cetera," he pens. "But it is incomprehensible that one of these threats is when someone else, whom we have never seen, in a place where we may have never been, has done something we don't like."
Alas, it's coming out now in hard cover. When it's out in soft cover, or available in my local library, I'll actually read the whole thing.
The Funniest Thing at the Wittenburg Door in months.
ICE AGE 2:Christian Meltdown is a sneakily acquired, er, found copy of an upcoming article in Don Wildmon's American Family Association Journal.
We are in a culture war of incredible proportions. We soldiers of Christ must take up our Biblical bayonets and stab the heart of the beast. We must hold high our crosses to repel the vampiric media which brainwash our children. We must rain down fire and outrage on the demons that attack impressionable minds through video games, television, movies, and "rap" music. It is not that we need to simply encourage our children to take up a hobby that inspires creativity. It is not that we need to interrupt our busy schedules to read to our daughters and play catch with our sons. It is not that we need to encourage excellence in sports, theatre, music or other activities that pull them away from watching these things. It is not that we need to monitor what our children watch and listen to. No! What we really need to do is organize nationwide bans. read the rest here
The Wittenburg Door is an evangelical Christian Parody and humor magazine. No, really, they're evangelicals. The above quote is parody. It's been on my sidebar for years as my favorite humor magazine, but alas, who looks at side bars anyway?
Here are some actual, non-parody press releases about the anti-Christian Media.
and here is the Full Tilt Campaign they're promoting.
The FullTilt Media Challenge is simple. Make a stand against negative entertainment for the next 30 days and listen exclusively to Christian music. Just for 30 days! We believe this simple exercise will help you see life from a godly perspective.
