Cute new No on 1 ad from Maine
Check it out:
Common Sense
Friday, October 9, 2009
Celebrate Progress: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
So, here is why I think Obama deserves this prize, despite the fact that he was only in office 2 weeks before the nominations were submitted.
1) First Non-White President: As the first biracial president Barack Obama has changed and moved forward the racial dialogue for an entire country. Just as Mandala changed the conversation in South Africa, Obama has completely changed the conversation here. Have we achieved a post-racial America? no, definitely not, but this is the first time in history that children of color will have a role model telling them you too can achieve whatever you set out to regardless of the racial injustices of past. If that isn't a huge step toward peace and prosperity, I'm not sure what is.
2) Simply by virtue of his election, America has reaffirmed our commitment to "moral" leadership on the world stage. One of the most embarrassing moment in recent memory was when Collin Powell got un before the UN and lied about weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not he knew he was lying doesn't matter, he lied and it cost us big points with our closest friends and allies. When Barack Obama was elected it made a statement that we were just as disappointed as the rest of the world, and our new president will change the way we interact with the world.
3) One of Obama's first acts as president was to extend a hand to the Islamic world and has completely changed our relationship with the islamic world. It's not going to happen over night, but Obama has made the first step toward bringing this population into the world community.
4) Obama's response to the global economic crisis has helped to prevent a major depression across the entire world. His action here has helped to stabilize governments across the world that could easily have suffered an overthrow by extremist factions had their countries fallen into depression. The same thing happened during the last depression, and I think we'd all like to avoid that again.
Congrats Mr. President. we're all behind you!
Common Sense
1) First Non-White President: As the first biracial president Barack Obama has changed and moved forward the racial dialogue for an entire country. Just as Mandala changed the conversation in South Africa, Obama has completely changed the conversation here. Have we achieved a post-racial America? no, definitely not, but this is the first time in history that children of color will have a role model telling them you too can achieve whatever you set out to regardless of the racial injustices of past. If that isn't a huge step toward peace and prosperity, I'm not sure what is.
2) Simply by virtue of his election, America has reaffirmed our commitment to "moral" leadership on the world stage. One of the most embarrassing moment in recent memory was when Collin Powell got un before the UN and lied about weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not he knew he was lying doesn't matter, he lied and it cost us big points with our closest friends and allies. When Barack Obama was elected it made a statement that we were just as disappointed as the rest of the world, and our new president will change the way we interact with the world.
3) One of Obama's first acts as president was to extend a hand to the Islamic world and has completely changed our relationship with the islamic world. It's not going to happen over night, but Obama has made the first step toward bringing this population into the world community.
4) Obama's response to the global economic crisis has helped to prevent a major depression across the entire world. His action here has helped to stabilize governments across the world that could easily have suffered an overthrow by extremist factions had their countries fallen into depression. The same thing happened during the last depression, and I think we'd all like to avoid that again.
Congrats Mr. President. we're all behind you!
Common Sense
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Michele Bachmann Watch: Michele Talks about her Friend Joe Wilson
I'm not sure what I would do with my life if this woman ever stopped being crazy...
Michele Bachmann Watch: Michele Gets Roasted!
So, I just found this YouTube clip from April 30, 2009, and I could not stop laughing. This guy just roasts Michele. It's almost to sad to watch, but it's so worth it in the end, especially his last comment. "she is so stupid, she makes Sarah Palin look smart." Amen!
Enjoy
Enjoy
Neo-Con Nutjobs: Hate Crimes Bill = Legalizing Bestiality, Pedophilia, and Necrophilia
WOW, sometimes it's just hard to listen to these people
Just to clarify a point he seems to have missed:
Straight/Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual
Sexual Orientation = Physical and Emotional Attraction to a Gender
Sex with Children = Attraction to a given age range isn't that uncommon, however it is NOT an orientation. Why? because how can you argue that you have an emotional attraction to an age that is emotionally unstable and developing? if you do, then chances are you have emotional problems yourself. Which supports the idea that pedophilia results from a mental/developmental condition or problem. And in the case of extreme pedophilia, you have an attraction to individuals who have no emotional self-concept at all.
But lets say for the sake of argument that it WAS an orientation. The state has a very strong vested interest in the healthy sexual development of children, and we know from research that allowing them to have sexual partners who are many years older than them can have lasting consequences for this sexual development. So there is still a good reason to make this behavior illegal.
Sex with Animals - Attraction to a species (again different from gender, duh!). Again we go back to the physical and emotional attraction piece. You cannot be emotionally attracted to something that does not have emotions in the same way that we are able to conceptualize and perceive them. This is a behavior, NOT an orientation.
Again, lets say it was an orientation. Does the state have an interest in outlawing this practice. I can't imagine a person would survive an attempted sexual encounter with a wild animal (i.e. bear f***er) so lets assume you are talking about farm animals or pets. I'd rather not have my farmer doing things with his farm animals, and considering we are going to be eating those animals eventually, it's prolly best if we don't go there. as for pets, I'm pretty sure pets can't consent, and don't know any better, so it would probably quality as abuse.
Lastly, WHO THE F*** does this kind of stuff??? is it really a problem? is there a significant population in the US doing this and I'm just completely lost about it? do we really need a law to police what people do on a farm in the middle of no where that no one cares about? yuck.
Sex with Dead People is just disturbing and since they are dead, no emotions, thus NOT an orientation.
lets say it is, I DON'T WANT YOU VIOLATING MY DEAD RELATIVES! thus state interest in prohibiting it.
WTF PEOPLE USE SOME COMMON SENSE!!!
Common Sense
Just to clarify a point he seems to have missed:
Straight/Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual
Sexual Orientation = Physical and Emotional Attraction to a Gender
Sex with Children = Attraction to a given age range isn't that uncommon, however it is NOT an orientation. Why? because how can you argue that you have an emotional attraction to an age that is emotionally unstable and developing? if you do, then chances are you have emotional problems yourself. Which supports the idea that pedophilia results from a mental/developmental condition or problem. And in the case of extreme pedophilia, you have an attraction to individuals who have no emotional self-concept at all.
But lets say for the sake of argument that it WAS an orientation. The state has a very strong vested interest in the healthy sexual development of children, and we know from research that allowing them to have sexual partners who are many years older than them can have lasting consequences for this sexual development. So there is still a good reason to make this behavior illegal.
Sex with Animals - Attraction to a species (again different from gender, duh!). Again we go back to the physical and emotional attraction piece. You cannot be emotionally attracted to something that does not have emotions in the same way that we are able to conceptualize and perceive them. This is a behavior, NOT an orientation.
Again, lets say it was an orientation. Does the state have an interest in outlawing this practice. I can't imagine a person would survive an attempted sexual encounter with a wild animal (i.e. bear f***er) so lets assume you are talking about farm animals or pets. I'd rather not have my farmer doing things with his farm animals, and considering we are going to be eating those animals eventually, it's prolly best if we don't go there. as for pets, I'm pretty sure pets can't consent, and don't know any better, so it would probably quality as abuse.
Lastly, WHO THE F*** does this kind of stuff??? is it really a problem? is there a significant population in the US doing this and I'm just completely lost about it? do we really need a law to police what people do on a farm in the middle of no where that no one cares about? yuck.
Sex with Dead People is just disturbing and since they are dead, no emotions, thus NOT an orientation.
lets say it is, I DON'T WANT YOU VIOLATING MY DEAD RELATIVES! thus state interest in prohibiting it.
WTF PEOPLE USE SOME COMMON SENSE!!!
Common Sense
Monday, October 5, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Religious Discrimination
There is an arguement out there that allowing same-sex marriage discriminates against traditional or religious people. let's explore why this is not the case.
Dictionary.com Definition:
Discrimination: (noun) treatement or consderation of, or making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Example: racial or religious intolerance and discrimination.
Encyclopedia:
Same-Sex Marriage: the practice of marriage between two males or two females. Although the institution of marriage between male and female partners has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses to same-sex marriage have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.
So, what does all this tell us about it. You COULD look at the legalization of same-sex marriage as religious discrimination, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is being targeted because of their religious affiliation. No one has said that you as a group can no longer believe something. You are more than welcome to continue believing gays and lesbians are evil. You just can't act on it, just like we don't allow religions to practice other arcane practices and rituals like sacrificing animals or children, burning and drowning women, or starting wars in the name of purging the infidels. quite the contrary, the religious people are doing the targeting and acting in a way that is outside of their constitutional right to beliefs. I really want to make this point clear, you have the right to BELIEVE anything your religion chooses to believe, you do not always have the right to PRACTICE or ACT on it.
You would also have to assume that it is the right of religion to define who is and who is not allowed to get married, and they alone can perform those marriages under the law. If you did this, then you could make the argument that we are discriminating against them by taking away their rights. BUT again this is not the case. In the United States, each state has the right to regulate or define marriage is they see fit AND to establish who may perform those marriages, not religious institutions. For example, the following is the text from the Family Code of CA:
400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:
So in reality, it is possible for a person to get married without EVER setting foot in a church or talking to a religious official. Thus marriage can safely be assumed to be secular practice where we ALLOW religious officials to be involved.
So, when a religion claims that they alone have the right to define marriage and it is discrimination to stop allowing them to do so, they are, in fact, lying. It is not their right. Thus, equal marriage is NOT discrimination. In fact, since religious groups are stepping outside of their constitutional right to belief and are actively discriminating themselves, they are the perpetrators, not the rest of us.
Furthermore, since marriage is a secular institution, any regulation that distinguishes who may and may not receive marriage benefits based on their status as part of a group or catagory (i.e. gays and lesbians) is perpatrating discrimination. Without at least a rational basis, this is not acceptable. It should require a compelling state interest, but that is a different issue.
**For those stupid enough to believe that this opens the door to incest, polygamy, and sex with children or animals, I'd be happy to walk you through the differences (namely those are choices, NOT orientations, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting those practices. Except polygamy, I really don't see a problem with that other the exploitation of women piece, which can be regulated without prohibiting the whole practice.).**
Dictionary.com Definition:
Discrimination: (noun) treatement or consderation of, or making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Example: racial or religious intolerance and discrimination.
Encyclopedia:
Same-Sex Marriage: the practice of marriage between two males or two females. Although the institution of marriage between male and female partners has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses to same-sex marriage have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.
So, what does all this tell us about it. You COULD look at the legalization of same-sex marriage as religious discrimination, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is being targeted because of their religious affiliation. No one has said that you as a group can no longer believe something. You are more than welcome to continue believing gays and lesbians are evil. You just can't act on it, just like we don't allow religions to practice other arcane practices and rituals like sacrificing animals or children, burning and drowning women, or starting wars in the name of purging the infidels. quite the contrary, the religious people are doing the targeting and acting in a way that is outside of their constitutional right to beliefs. I really want to make this point clear, you have the right to BELIEVE anything your religion chooses to believe, you do not always have the right to PRACTICE or ACT on it.
You would also have to assume that it is the right of religion to define who is and who is not allowed to get married, and they alone can perform those marriages under the law. If you did this, then you could make the argument that we are discriminating against them by taking away their rights. BUT again this is not the case. In the United States, each state has the right to regulate or define marriage is they see fit AND to establish who may perform those marriages, not religious institutions. For example, the following is the text from the Family Code of CA:
400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:
- A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.
- A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
- A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
- A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
So in reality, it is possible for a person to get married without EVER setting foot in a church or talking to a religious official. Thus marriage can safely be assumed to be secular practice where we ALLOW religious officials to be involved.
So, when a religion claims that they alone have the right to define marriage and it is discrimination to stop allowing them to do so, they are, in fact, lying. It is not their right. Thus, equal marriage is NOT discrimination. In fact, since religious groups are stepping outside of their constitutional right to belief and are actively discriminating themselves, they are the perpetrators, not the rest of us.
Furthermore, since marriage is a secular institution, any regulation that distinguishes who may and may not receive marriage benefits based on their status as part of a group or catagory (i.e. gays and lesbians) is perpatrating discrimination. Without at least a rational basis, this is not acceptable. It should require a compelling state interest, but that is a different issue.
**For those stupid enough to believe that this opens the door to incest, polygamy, and sex with children or animals, I'd be happy to walk you through the differences (namely those are choices, NOT orientations, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting those practices. Except polygamy, I really don't see a problem with that other the exploitation of women piece, which can be regulated without prohibiting the whole practice.).**
Friday, October 2, 2009
Patriotic Language Abuse Project: Political Action Committees
This on-going series is in response to the fact that I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person getting tired of hearing certain disreputable people abuse what should be unifying patriotic language for political (rather than patriotic) gains. Since this has always been an extremely irritating practice, that for some reason is getting more common, I've decided it needs to be called out for what it is.
Political Action Committees:
Political Action Committees are groups specifically organized to help elect a single or multiple individuals to public office. These organizations are often used as a means of raising money. The benefit of these political action committees is that they are seperate from the official campaign and are thus free to do all the dirty work that the candidate would not want to be seen doing.
Some of these groups are harmless. special interest groups form them to help elect multiple politicians who agree with their point of view. Some examples are EQCA PAC, Planned Parenthood PAC, and Godless America PAC (American Atheists). Others are set up to elect a single politician (or occasionally are set up by politicians to help elect themselves and others like them). Some examples of these are Nancy Pelosi's "PAC for the Future" or Chris Van Hollen's "Victory Now PAC" (DCCC).
Here is where things start to get ugly. Some politicians have decided that it is appropriate/acceptable for them to use patriotic language in their political action committees thus suggesting that patriotic americans side with them against their opponants or that their opponants are not patriotic. NOT OK! Here are some of the perpetrators of this practice:
House:
House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) - The Freedom Project
Chair of the NRCC Pete Sessions (R-TX) - People for Enterprise, Trade, and Economic Growth PAC
Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA)- Invest in a Safe & Secure America PAC (ISSA PAC)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) - Liberty PAC
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) - Secure PAC
Senate:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - Country First PAC
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) - Heartland Values PAC
Perspective Presidential Candidates:
Mitt Romney (R) - Free & Strong America PAC
Tim Pawlenty (R) - Putting Freedom First PAC
Causes:
Pro-Life (Conservative) - Life & Liberty PAC
Anybody noticing a trend on what party seems to be the primary perpetrator of this garbage? Gotta love shamelessly offensive people who are so self-centered that they think it acceptable to claim patriotism as their own. Well here's news for you. It's not, and if anyone is unpatriotic, it's you for using it as a political wedge!
Common Sense
Political Action Committees:
Political Action Committees are groups specifically organized to help elect a single or multiple individuals to public office. These organizations are often used as a means of raising money. The benefit of these political action committees is that they are seperate from the official campaign and are thus free to do all the dirty work that the candidate would not want to be seen doing.
Some of these groups are harmless. special interest groups form them to help elect multiple politicians who agree with their point of view. Some examples are EQCA PAC, Planned Parenthood PAC, and Godless America PAC (American Atheists). Others are set up to elect a single politician (or occasionally are set up by politicians to help elect themselves and others like them). Some examples of these are Nancy Pelosi's "PAC for the Future" or Chris Van Hollen's "Victory Now PAC" (DCCC).
Here is where things start to get ugly. Some politicians have decided that it is appropriate/acceptable for them to use patriotic language in their political action committees thus suggesting that patriotic americans side with them against their opponants or that their opponants are not patriotic. NOT OK! Here are some of the perpetrators of this practice:
House:
House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) - The Freedom Project
Chair of the NRCC Pete Sessions (R-TX) - People for Enterprise, Trade, and Economic Growth PAC
Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA)- Invest in a Safe & Secure America PAC (ISSA PAC)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) - Liberty PAC
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) - Secure PAC
Senate:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - Country First PAC
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) - Heartland Values PAC
Perspective Presidential Candidates:
Mitt Romney (R) - Free & Strong America PAC
Tim Pawlenty (R) - Putting Freedom First PAC
Causes:
Pro-Life (Conservative) - Life & Liberty PAC
Anybody noticing a trend on what party seems to be the primary perpetrator of this garbage? Gotta love shamelessly offensive people who are so self-centered that they think it acceptable to claim patriotism as their own. Well here's news for you. It's not, and if anyone is unpatriotic, it's you for using it as a political wedge!
Common Sense
Michele Bachmann Watch: "Sex Clinics"
Being a native of the great state of Minnesota, I feel it is my responsibility to call out the politicians who make our state look bad on a daily basis. Thus, I will be keeping you continuously updated on the outrageous disaster that is Michele Bachmann.
Michele Bachmann takes on "school based health clinics" in her most recent tirade on the house floor, where she took a firm stance in support to her right to not read the bills she's voting on.
According the Michele:
Here's reality:
(i) SBHC services will be provided in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws governing...
(I) obtaining parental or guardian consent; and
(II) patient privacy and student records, including section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act.
Reading must be tough for her, but thanks for giving something to laugh at you about Michele!
Common Sense
Michele Bachmann takes on "school based health clinics" in her most recent tirade on the house floor, where she took a firm stance in support to her right to not read the bills she's voting on.
According the Michele:
Here's reality:
(i) SBHC services will be provided in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws governing...
(I) obtaining parental or guardian consent; and
(II) patient privacy and student records, including section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act.
Reading must be tough for her, but thanks for giving something to laugh at you about Michele!
Common Sense
Neo-Con Agenda: New Target: Kevin Jennings
Oh, Neo-Cons...how you offend me.
![]()
Well, they are at it again. The nutjobs have found a new person to target in their wonderful little web of lies and slander. Kevin Jennings, current Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an expert in anti-bullying practices, and a major force behind the movement to make middle and high schools safer and more welcoming for LGBTQ students, is the new target of the neo-con war machine. How you can malign someone with such a distinguished record is totally beyond me, but let me try to sum up their arguements anyway, and then we can talk about how stupid they sound.
Arguement 1: He's gay and gays do nothing but harm children.
Arguement 2: He's teaching students about homosexuality.
Arguement 3: He supports the rape of minors and once encouraged an 15 year old student to have sex with an older man.
Now let's get some facts in here.
Arguement 1: This amounts to nothing more that the usual heterosexism. gays harm children. if you push any person who believes this, in the end they will inevitably reveal that its because they believe gay people are pedophiles, a fact we know empirically to be incorrect. In fact the rate of pedophilia among gay men is no different from hetersexual pedophilia. If you are talking numbers alone, statistically there are more heterosexual pedophiles in the world, than gay ones. So really, we should not be allowing heterosexuals to teach in schools, because there are more pedophiles in that community. =) I am of course being faceceous.
Arguement 2: Homosexuality should not be taught in schools. and neither should evolution, liberalism, or comprehensive sex education. I love how these parents have decided that we should not teach children about reality. we should raise them in a dream world where a mystical force created the world 6,000 years ago starting with man. you think that as a culture these people might be a little sexist and self-centered? Oh, and we should also not teach children how to use condoms, because if we don't tell them about it, they wont do it. Yeah, that works. what about the mountain of empirical evidence that says your an idiot? Here are some articles for you to read that summarize why I'm right and they are wrong.
The Content of Federally-Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs
Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs
Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among US Teens
What about the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and a former sergion general, who also seem to think these people are stupid?
The point I'm trying to make is that these people are nuts, and we should be teaching students about EVERYTHING. why not teach them about homosexuality. it's not like teaching them about it makes them gay. seriously...it doesn't... you're gay from birth (although I suppose they would dispute that too, again with no rational basis).
Arguement 3: Can we PLEASE get some facts here. First, the student was not 15, he was 16, which is also the legal age of consent in Massechussetts (where this incident occured). This fact was provided in a letter from the lawyer for GLSEN, and authenticated by the law firm Nixon Peabody. So, this was not RAPE! It is just kinda gross. Second, since he was of legal age to make that choice, and we don't know anything about who this older gentleman is, we are under no legal obligation to report what happened. In fact, Jennings acted in a manner that not only promotes safe practices and most likely ensured that students does not get an STD or HIV, but he also helped that student to cope with what could have been a very traumatizing experience if it had been mishandled (like if someone had broken confidentiality and his whole community had found out, which is essentially what the neo-cons are advocating)
Counselor 1, Fear-Mongoring Neo-Con Nutjobs 0.
Common Sense
Arguement 1: He's gay and gays do nothing but harm children.
Arguement 2: He's teaching students about homosexuality.
Arguement 3: He supports the rape of minors and once encouraged an 15 year old student to have sex with an older man.
Now let's get some facts in here.
Arguement 1: This amounts to nothing more that the usual heterosexism. gays harm children. if you push any person who believes this, in the end they will inevitably reveal that its because they believe gay people are pedophiles, a fact we know empirically to be incorrect. In fact the rate of pedophilia among gay men is no different from hetersexual pedophilia. If you are talking numbers alone, statistically there are more heterosexual pedophiles in the world, than gay ones. So really, we should not be allowing heterosexuals to teach in schools, because there are more pedophiles in that community. =) I am of course being faceceous.
Arguement 2: Homosexuality should not be taught in schools. and neither should evolution, liberalism, or comprehensive sex education. I love how these parents have decided that we should not teach children about reality. we should raise them in a dream world where a mystical force created the world 6,000 years ago starting with man. you think that as a culture these people might be a little sexist and self-centered? Oh, and we should also not teach children how to use condoms, because if we don't tell them about it, they wont do it. Yeah, that works. what about the mountain of empirical evidence that says your an idiot? Here are some articles for you to read that summarize why I'm right and they are wrong.
The Content of Federally-Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs
Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs
Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among US Teens
What about the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and a former sergion general, who also seem to think these people are stupid?
The point I'm trying to make is that these people are nuts, and we should be teaching students about EVERYTHING. why not teach them about homosexuality. it's not like teaching them about it makes them gay. seriously...it doesn't... you're gay from birth (although I suppose they would dispute that too, again with no rational basis).
Arguement 3: Can we PLEASE get some facts here. First, the student was not 15, he was 16, which is also the legal age of consent in Massechussetts (where this incident occured). This fact was provided in a letter from the lawyer for GLSEN, and authenticated by the law firm Nixon Peabody. So, this was not RAPE! It is just kinda gross. Second, since he was of legal age to make that choice, and we don't know anything about who this older gentleman is, we are under no legal obligation to report what happened. In fact, Jennings acted in a manner that not only promotes safe practices and most likely ensured that students does not get an STD or HIV, but he also helped that student to cope with what could have been a very traumatizing experience if it had been mishandled (like if someone had broken confidentiality and his whole community had found out, which is essentially what the neo-cons are advocating)
Counselor 1, Fear-Mongoring Neo-Con Nutjobs 0.
Common Sense
Thursday, October 1, 2009
CA Politics: September 24, 2009 Rasmussen Poll
So here are some statistics from the most recent Rasmussen Poll on the Governor's race. unfortunately, things are looking bleak for my favorite candidate Gavin Newsom. In a hypothetical match up, he ends up behind any of the three republican candidates, while Jerry Brown (the other democrat) ends up about 10 points ahead of any of the three. There is still a year for him to catch up! Get it Together Gavin!
Jerry Brown Vs. Republicans:
Brown (D) 44%, Whitman (R) 35%
Brown (D) 45%, Poizner (R) 32%
Brown (D) 44%, Campbell (R) 34%
Gavin Newsom vs. Republicans:
Whitman (R) 41%, Newsom (D) 36%
Poizner (R) 40%, Newsom (D) 36%
Campbell (R) 42%, Newsom (D) 36%
Common Sense
Jerry Brown Vs. Republicans:
Brown (D) 44%, Whitman (R) 35%
Brown (D) 45%, Poizner (R) 32%
Brown (D) 44%, Campbell (R) 34%
Gavin Newsom vs. Republicans:
Whitman (R) 41%, Newsom (D) 36%
Poizner (R) 40%, Newsom (D) 36%
Campbell (R) 42%, Newsom (D) 36%
Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
