The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
The Iowa House today rejected procedural attempts by opponents of equality to advance an amendment to the Iowa Constitution seeking to overturn last April's unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling and to deny the protections of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in April 2009 that same-sex couples be allowed to marry for reasons of basic fairness and constitutional equal protection. According to Des Moines Register,
Both the House and the Senate this morning rejected efforts led by Republicans to push a resolution that would prevent equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Today's actions were procedural and not directly upon the issue of marriage.
What Republicans wanted was the right to pull House Joint Resolution 6 out of a committee so that it would be placed on the debate calendar and avoid a legislative deadline this week.
The effort failed in the Senate where a vote was not taken. However, all 18 Senate Republicans signed a petition circulated by Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, as well as one Democratic senator, Tom Hancock, D-Epworth. They needed 26.
The House spent almost 30 minutes on a rarely used "call-of-the-House" in which each of the 100 members were ordered into the chambers to vote unless they were previously excused. The House measure ultimately failed in a 45 to 54 vote that was mostly along party lines. ... It's unlikely that the resolution will be able to meet this week's legislative deadline.
** Thank those 54 Iowa representatives who voted with us by clicking here! **
"We applaud those legislators who voted to protect the freedoms of all Iowans and continue the job of balancing the budget and putting Iowans back to work," Carolyn Jenison, the executive director of One Iowa, said. "It's time to move on from the destructive politics of division and focus on what matters to a great majority of Iowans." Indeed, the majority of Iowans don't think the marriage debate is a worthy way for their legislature to spend its time.
An Iowa Poll taken last month shows that 62 percent of Iowans think the issue of gay marriage doesn't deserve lawmakers' time, rating below texting while driving, puppy mill legislation, gun control, payday loans and gambling.
We have more work to do, however. Every ten years there is a constitutionally-mandated question placed on the November ballot in Iowa asking voters "Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?" 2010 is one of those years. According to One Iowa's Justin Uebelhor: "this could potentially open up the Iowa Constitution to major revisions and is another way that opponents of equality could amend the constitution. There is hesitation to use this from both ends of the spectrum, as it could open up the constitution to special interests."
Thus, despite today's procedural victory, One Iowa's annual Lobby Day at the Capitol is still taking place tomorrow. Supporters will gather at the Capitol to share their stories with Iowa legislators, demonstrating the importance of civil marriage equality to Iowa families. Please contact Justin Uebelhor at 515-333-2525 to arrange press availability.
A week after calling for the "criminalization of homosexual behavior," the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has continuously attempted to justify his comments.
But he should have quit while he was ahead because yesterday, he finally hit the nadir of nuttiness with the following:
As the Family Research Institute reports, historian Paul Johnson has written that decriminalizing homosexuality, which was done beginning in the 1960s for ill-conceived reasons of supposed compassion, has left us now today with a "monster in our midst" - a powerful, vicious, and punitive homosexual cabal that is determined to overthrow completely what remains of Judeo-Christian standards of sexual morality in the West.
As he points out, the process took place in three stages. First, homosexual behavior was decriminalized, while still being regarded as a "great moral evil." But decriminalization enabled homosexual activists to openly organize, until they pressed for and received declarations that not only was homosexual conduct not an evil, but was in fact the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.
Then once this milestone was achieved, homosexual activists pressed beyond equality to privilege, where now today homosexual behavior has been given special protections in public life, protections which come at the expense of religious liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association and lead to the punishment, intimidation and harassment of any who oppose their agenda.
I'm totally unfamiliar with Paul Johnson but I am very familiar with the Family Research Institute. We all should be.
Many trans and especially transsexual Americans were relieved this week by the U.S. Tax Court decision to reverse earlier IRS positions and allow costs of hormonal and surgical transition care to be deducted as medical expenses. The ruling concluded:
Petitioner has shown that her hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery treated disease within the meaning of section 213 and were therefore not cosmetic surgery. Thus petitioner's expenditures for these procedures were for "medical care" as defined in section 213(d)(1)(A), for which a deduction is allowed under section 213(a).
However, this recognition of the legitimacy of medical transition came at a cost to the dignity of transsexual women and men. It relied on the flawed diagnostic nomenclature of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and its implication of mentally "disordered" gender identity. Paradoxically, this case fueled opposition to medical transition access, based on the current wording of the very same GID classification and its more virulent companion diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism. While the Tax Court decision underscored the utility of some kind of diagnostic coding for those who need access to hormonal or surgical transition care, it also illustrated the urgency of reforming the GID diagnosis and removing the Transvestic Fetishism category in the next revision of the DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
Ms. Rhiannon O'Donnabhain underwent corrective genital surgery in 2001 and claimed a tax deduction for surgical and hormonal treatment expenses as well as the cost of a breast augmentation procedure. Her courageous nine year battle with the IRS to affirm the medical legitimacy of her transition care took a tortuous off-again, on-again path among the potholes of politics and prejudice.
Although the IRS initially issued a full refund to Rhiannon, a tax examiner denied her deduction in July, 2002. He declared her surgical and hormonal care to be "cosmetic" and therefore excluded as a deductible medical expense under section 231(d)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code. She appealed, represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Attorney Karen Loewy argued that,
Any notion that medical treatment for a transgender person is purely cosmetic is based on misunderstanding and prejudice, not medical science.
In November, 2004, the IRS reversed the examiner's decision and allowed Rhiannon to deduct her surgical expenses as medically necessary and professionally prescribed. However, political extremist groups responded by pressuring the Bush Administration to deny tax deductions for all medical transition care. They based their arguments on the same psychiatric classification of GID that GLAD cited to win the appeal. The following month, Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), wrote IRS Commissioner Mark Everson:
With Oscar season and Black History Month rolling around at the same time, it's gratifying to see Lee Daniels get recognition for being the first black gay man nominated in the category of Best Director.
However, some media reports got it wrong when they claimed that he is the first gay black man to receive an Oscar nomination. The late actor Paul Winfield receives that honor because of his 1972 Oscar nomination for Best Actor for Sounder.
This error is especially poignant to me because it illustrates just how difficult it is for members of the black gay community to receive any type of recognition for what we have contributed to society.
Usually we are ignored during Black History Month. Or worse yet, our achievements are noted but our orientation is stepped over as if its dog dirt on a freshly manicured lawn.
This could happen for a number of reasons but I like to place a degree of blame on this ridiculous war that the black and gay communities find themselves manipulated into regarding who suffered the most. Regardless of the points made by either group, the one who receives the largest casualties in this battle for position is the gay community of color.
The richness of our lives and our contributions to America are diminished because we are seen as commodities in this tug of war.
Meanwhile, young black gays and lesbians are exploited and taught to hate themselves by either self-hating ministers or other black leaders with an agenda.
Update: The San Francisco Chronicle looked up the facts that NOM ignored: Democrats thought Walker was anti-gay and tried to BLOCK his nomination to the federal bench. Also, read Karen Ocamb's post on how the Prop 8 trial transcripts put fact to Brian Brown's lies.
The gaypocalypse has occurred. So what if the judge in the fed Prop 8 trial is gay? As far as I know, being gay hasn't stopped some gay people from being homophobic, or voting for Republican, or even liking vanilla over strawberry ice cream.
As usual, NOM's Brian Brown sees a homoconspiracy here where there is none. Note that there is no mention of the pitiful case and the ludicrous testimony of witnesses defending discrimination and Prop 8. And what about religion anyway - is a Christian judge not capable of rendering a pro-gay verdict?
That's a big fat accusation of unprofessional conduct NOM is lobbing, and it could turn around and bite them in the ass, after all, how many SCOTUS justices are Catholic? Is that relevant, Brian?
From: Brian Brown<bbrown@nationformarriage.org> Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM Subject: Got Bias? San Francisco Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay
Got Bias? SF Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay
February 8, 2010
Dear Friend of Marriage,
In a story this Sunday (Feb. 7), the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is gay and called his orientation, "The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage."
We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That's no secret at all.
Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.
But Judge Walker's bias from the bench includes:
A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant "fishing expeditions" into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn't six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
Even though the Prop 8 supporters were forced to turn over private, internal documents and emails, Walker has refused to demand the same from opponents of the measure. In fact, Walker has refused to even rule on a motion to compel the discovery of this information, even though he has already closed testimony in the case. That alone is an unbelievable tilting of the playing field.
Walker has presided over a show trial designed to generate sympathetic headlines and news coverage for gay marriage supporters. Witness after witness was allowed to testify about their "expert" opinion that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.
To show the lengths that Walker has gone to create a "record" favoring the plaintiffs, he even allowed one "expert" witness -- a gay man from Colorado who has never lived in California and was never exposed to any Prop 8 campaign messages -- to testify that his parents' efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.
But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker's rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker's efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules "at the eleventh hour" in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).
Judge Walker's bias has been so extreme, he's earned a rare judicial "twofer." Key elements of his "fishing expedition" rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.
It is highly unusual for a higher court to have to intercede in a trial judge's handling of a trial while it is going on -- yet Walker has had that "distinction" twice in the same case -- and we're not yet even at closing arguments.
There's only one saving grace to Judge Walker's bias. It's so big, and so obvious, not only the American public but the Supreme Court itself is already aware we have bias in the trial judge presiding.
Faithfully, Brian S. Brown Executive Director National Organization for Marriage 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242 Princeton, NJ 08542 bbrown@nationformarriage.org
Brown Man Thinking Hard has posted an excellent video to help non-Blacks step into the shoes of a Black person in this "post-racial" America and discover just how flimsy the term "post-racial" can be. I have long had my own fantasies of opening a summer camp for heterosexuals called "Gay Camp", where they have the opportunity to experience first-hand what it's like to live as a sexual minority in the United States. And so of course I love this video, which takes a similar approach to examining racism, white privilege and residual Black reticence.
Although I've been personally aware of and pissed off at racism since kindergarten (I can remember my moment of awakening to it, in fact), I still found that this video had an impact on me. In particular, the picture of the white stick figure placed in stark numerical minority to the black stick figures made the back of my brain squirm in unfamiliar discomfort. And I find this interesting. Here I am a person who not only has despised racism for a lifetime but also has a first-hand understanding of bigotry because I'm part of a sexual minority, and still I could be affected by the imagery. What does this mean?
I'm tempted to conclude that it means that experience with one form of oppression doesn't automatically and totally translate into complete empathy for another form. Because the truth is that as a white person, I've visited places where I'm a racial minority, but I've never lived as a racial minority in a racist society still struggling with a slavery legacy.
Perhaps the notion of "eternal vigilance" I was invoking last week in regard to the LGBT legal landscape applies to me as an individual as much as it applies to our community(ies) working for change on a broader scale. I'm glad this video pinged me. I will never know what it's like to grow up and live as a racial minority, but I can play the reality game and at least be reminded that my disapproval of racism doesn't mean that I can get lazy and forget the nuances of what racial minorities face daily.
Ok, enough about me. What did you think of the video? How did you respond to it on a gut level? Anyone willing to meander a bit further with me along my stream of consciousness can continue below the fold.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman John P. Murtha (PA-12) passed away peacefully this afternoon at 1:18 p.m. at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, VA. At his bedside was his family.
Murtha, 77, was Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in February of 1974, Murtha dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. A former Marine, he became the first Vietnam War combat Veteran elected to the U.S. Congress.
This past Saturday, February 6, 2010, Murtha became Pennsylvania's longest serving Member of Congress.
I think this is a brilliant idea, since our current relationship with our elected officials about the issues has devolved into a lack of accountability, with spinning and posturing and sound bites the norm. Constituent services has turned into a PR form letter generator.
It's time that these elected officials let the people see them answering questions about policy and legislation without all of the hired guns behind the curtain -- aides, consultants and pollsters ready to coach them on dodging a direct answer. We'll be able to see who the empty suits are on the Hill, and perhaps break through some of these legislative logjams.
We live in a world that increasingly demands more dialogue than monologue. President Obama's January 29th question-and-answer session with Republican leaders gave the public a remarkable window into the state of our union and governing process. It was riveting and educational. The exchanges were substantive, civil and candid. And in a rare break from our modern politics, sharp differences between elected leaders were on full public display without rancor or ridicule.
This was one of the best national political debates in many years. Citizens who watched the event were impressed, by many accounts. Journalists and commentators immediately responded by continuing the conversation of the ideas put forward by the president and his opponents - even the cable news cycle was disrupted for a day.
America could use more of this - an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives. So we call on President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner to hold these sessions regularly - and allow them to be broadcast and webcast live and without commercial interruption, sponsorship or intermediaries. We also urge the President and the Republican Senate caucus to follow suit. And we ask the President and the House and Senate caucuses of his own party to consider mounting similar direct question-and-answer sessions. We will ask future Presidents and Congresses to do the same.
It is time to make Question Time a regular feature of our democracy.
And this is not just progressives calling for QT. Leading this effort are folks like David Corn, Nate Silver of 538, Markos Moulitsas of DKos and on the other side of the fence -- Grover Norquist, Glenn Reynolds, and Brent Bozell III.
You can follow Question Time on Twitter (#QuestionTime)
"She is more concerned about her reelection than helping people. She actively discourages any government attempt to stimulate development. This may explain why only three of 12 counties in the 5th District are targeted for new broadband infrastructure and access funding. We need a representative in Washington who helps bring jobs back home, not someone who actively discourages that! ... [Foxx] cheer leads a business culture where the rich and well-connected get richer while employees, shareholders and customers get left in the dirt."
-- Billy Kennedy, who plans to unseat reactionary, ineffective Virginia Foxx from her U.S. House seat.
In my state's 5th Congressional district we are "blessed" with one of the worst possible human beings representing constituents, Virginia Foxx. She is not only ignorant, uninformed and an embarrassment to the entire state, but she lacks simple human empathy toward others. I called her evil to the core for her floor speech declaring Matthew Shepard's hate crime murder a hoax, and never truly apologizing for Judy Shepard, who was in the gallery to listen to the lying bile emitting from the Congresswoman.
But make no mistake -- this is unfortunately a conservative district, one that is ill-served by Foxx. She needs to go, and Billy Kennedy has stepped up to the challenge and he filed to run this morning.
Does he have a chance? The stars are aligning for change because she hasn't been able to garner the fringe teabaggers, a real one -- Republican Brad Smith (a big fan of Glenn Beck btw) is running as a third party candidate. That means all Billy Kennedy has to do is draw a small slice, maybe 10%, of GOP voters his way he will easily bump Foxx off of her wingnut horse.
Howie Klein did a great piece on Kennedy, interviewing him to show that unseating Foxx will bring the kind of change to the 5th that it needs. Howie on how the change is needed because of DEM strategists who think Foxx is a good foil for them -- enough to leave the residents of the 5th stuck with garbage in-garbage out Foxx.
As I mentioned in November when I first heard that Smith was taking on the wild-eyed hellion, there is no list existent of the half dozen most lunatic fringe members of Congress that doesn't include this homophobic sociopath. I have literally been in strategy sessions where Democrats have said that her bizarre and extremist presence in Congress does them more good than harm and that there's no reason to run any candidates against her since she is probably the single least effective member of Congress and a warning signal to moderates across party lines that, at its core, the Republican Party offers nothing but extremism, fanaticism and a world turned upside down by ignorance, hatred and fear.
This is the kind of "support" that tells you Kennedy needs and deserves netroots support if that is what Dems call "strategy." Kennedy:
Dishonest politicians try to divide us and pit us against each other in order to win an election on wedge issues. Politicians of both political parties emphasize wedge issues so they can distract us and avoid talking about the serious problems we face. It is a tactic used to confuse us in order to hide how they really vote about bread and butter issues.
More and better jobs, a commitment to Medicare and Social Security, real discussions about whether or not we should commit our young people and our nation to war, health care reform, and the failure of bailouts and subsidies to corporations are not wedge issues.
I will not run a wedge campaign. I want to focus on what all of us can do to improve our lives. I plan to listen to my constituents and hear what's important to them because I respect other people's points of view. I will not allow my opponent to play "gotcha" politics on these questions of individual liberty.
I want to make it clear. I support freedom and equal rights for all people. I will protect all individual constitutional rights, without allowing politicians to pick and choose which Amendments deserve to be taken seriously.
Even when a candidate or political party wins an election through the use of a wedge issue, once they arrive in Washington they do nothing to further its cause. That is when it becomes painfully clear that the candidate never had any real commitment to the issue itself. The candidate simply used the issue to try to fool the people and win the election at any cost.
And looks at this breath of fresh air:
Washington isn't working because people there are greedy. They've forgotten what real Americans learn every day of our working lives that we expect real value for the money we pay. So we're paying taxes, and not getting value back for our dollar. Instead of working on real reform in banking or health care or farm policy, Congress wastes time debating toothless laws, written by lobbyists, for the very industries the laws are meant to regulate.
I believe we must replace the culture of corruption in Washington with a renewed culture of service. That's why my campaign will tithe 10 percent of our volunteer hours directly to local charities.
I've worked all my life. I haven't spent time rubbing elbows with celebrities and paid lobbyists, and I don't intend to start now. This country has real problems that affect my family and my neighbors' families, and I want to go to Washington to work on real solutions.
As I said above, don't look for the DCCC to do ANYTHING to help Kennedy. I'm sick of pols up in Washington deciding to throw whole districts overboard as Red, particularly since districts will be redrawn and the general population in NC is growing more progressive, not more conservative. Is the DCCC incapable of long term strategic thinking?
It's time to stop the Beltway architects of failure. We've seen enough of that crap. That's why, if you feel so inclined, can donate to Billy Kennedy's campaign directly through ActBlue.
Billy Kennedy is a popular radio talk show host-- and a farmer and carpenter-- with a fiery populist message that sounds a lot like the saner noises coming from the Tea Party movement-- but without the racism, hatred, and Fox-stoked paranoia. Kennedy's speaking authentically for working Americans like himself-- and that could spell real trouble for Big Business shill Virginia Foxx.
Peter Sagal (Show Host): Duncan Hunter: He's a Republican Congressman and military veteran, He went on All Things Considered and he said...
Well, if you let the gays in, then you'll have to let in the quote 'transgenders and hermaphrodites.' Unquote."
Carl Kasell: Huh.
Peter Sagal: He said that. He was worried about the hermaphrodites. He doesn't understand that hermaphrodites would be a tactical asset: They can pursue enemies into both men's and women's restrooms.
Adam Felber: That's true. Yeah.
Julia Sweeney: Then maybe...
Peter Sagal: The Taliban would have no place to hide.
Adam Felber: I don't think we have any laws on the books preventing hermaphrodites from serving in our military, do we?
Peter Sagal: Well...he's afraid that they will figure that out.
Mo Rocca: They fall under the Don't Ask, Can't Tell policy.
Julia Sweeney: *Laughs*
What I don't like about this bit is fourfold. To begin with, i understand the quoting Rep. Hunter using the term "hermaphrodite," but I don't understand repeating the term when the North American Intersex Society had identified hermaphrodite as a term to avoid:
The words "hermaphrodite" and "pseudo-hermaphrodite" are stigmatizing and misleading words. Unfortunately, some medical personnel still use them to refer to people with certain intersex conditions, because they still subscribe to an outdated nomenclature that uses gonadal anatomy as the basis of sex classification. In a paper titled Changing the Nomenclature/Taxonomy for Intersex: A Scientific and Clinical Rationale, five ISNA-associated experts recommend that all terms based on the root "hermaphrodite" be abandoned because they are scientifically specious and clinically problematic. The terms fail to reflect modern scientific understandings of intersex conditions, confuse clinicians, harm patients, and panic parents. We think it is much better for everyone involved when specific condition names are used in medical research and practice.
...One more thing: While some intersex people seek to reclaim the word "hermaphrodite" with pride to reference themselves (much like the words "dyke" and "queer" have been reclaimed by LBGT people), we've learned over the years it is best generally avoided, since the political subtlety is lost on a lot of people.
So, media stylebooks generally take the tack of indicating reporters should only directly quote derogatory or problematic terminology, but otherwise these derogatory or problematic terms should be avoided. I personally believe the reporters and comedians on Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! went beyond just quoting terms the INSA identified as potentially stigmatizing. Certainly Rep. Hunter initially used the phrase "transgenders and hermaphrodites" specifically to stigmatize transgender and intersex people.
Secondly, I don't appreciate how that joke about the bathrooms intersexed people follows the Bathroom Meme. There has been much use of this Bathroom Meme -- that transsexual women, as well as other transgender people presenting as women, are potential bathroom predators -- in arguing against basic civil rights not just for trans people of all stripes, but also against basic civil rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Using the Bathroom Meme in a segement regarding intersexed people seems to me to be making intersex people as a public bathroom suspect class -- in a similar manner as trans people have been defined by the religious right as a public bathroom suspect class.
Thirdly, the Taliban reference. The host, the reporters, and comedians may think it's funny to link transgender and/or intersex people with terrorism, but this is actually serious subject matter. From a 2004 DHS Advisory to Security Personnel:
Previous attacks underscore Al-Qaeda's ability to employ suicide bombers - a tactic which can be used against soft targets and VIP's. Terrorists will employ novel methods to artfully conceal suicide devices. Male bombers may dress as females in order to discourage scrutiny. Al-Qaeda operative Richard Reid employed a novel and unique "shoe bomb" device in an attempt to destroy a transcontinental airliner in December 2001.
I would argue transsexual women, other transgender women, and intersexed people of all stripes aren't anymore likely to be terrorists than other people in the general public, so it matters when gender expression is tied into terrorism -- even in a joke.
Lastly, the "Don't Ask, Can't Tell" comment. There is an assumption that intersex people are gender confused because of genetics, ambiguous genitalia, or other biological factors. I would argue that just as transsexuals aren't gender confused about their gender identities, neither are intersexed people.
Gender confusion, as well as bathroom predation, are terminology and arguments by the religious right to stigmatize people for sex and gender variance; it's a way that has been used against intersex, transsexual, and other transgender people to be portrayed as less than fully human.
It would seem that NPR's Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! mocking of intersex people wasn't done based not upon the behaviors or character of intersex people as a group or community, but due to the human conditions of intersex people. We wouldn't find it acceptable to mock African-Americans for the color of their skin; we wouldn't find it acceptable to mock physically disabled people for their disabilities; we wouldn't find it acceptable to mock women for being women -- so why would the host, reporters, and comedians on Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me find it acceptable to mock intersexed people for being intersexed?
"Is this a broadside at the Democratic Party? Of course, it is. No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality."
-- Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality
And that is indeed a broadside, calling out parties that have been foot-dragging on LGBT issues. (PolitickerNJ):
Smarting over the state Senate's refusal to pass marriage equality and disillusioned at the moment with the Democratic Party majority, Garden State Equality's 85-member Board of Directors unanimously decided against giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees.
Under the new policy, Garden State Equality will make financial contributions only to individual candidates and to non-party organizations that further equality for the LGBT community, according to a release issued this morning by the organization.
...Infuriated with Democrats who shied away from the [marriage equality] vote during last year's lame duck session, including Senate President (then-Senate Majority Leader) Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford), Goldstein said the party floundered helplessly even when it came to basic courtesy.
This could gain momentum, since in states like NJ, it is possible to cultivate relationships with Republican candidates that are pro-LGBT. Skip the spineless party and earn promises of action for support directly with those seeking office.
Oh, and for the record- according to Sarah, Rush Limbaugh was being "satirical" in using the R word on-air recently...
CHRIS WALLACE (host): OK, but, Rush Limbaugh weighed in this week, and he said this: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards."
PALIN:He was satirical in that --
WALLACE: Wait, let me finish. "I mean, these people, these liberal activists are kooks." Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?
PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct --
WALLACE: But he used the "R" word.
PALIN: Using satire. Name-calling by anyone -- I teach this to my children. You teach this to your children and your grandchildren, too. Name-calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time. Let's speak to the issues and again, let's move on.
WALLACE: But you know what some people are going to say, Governor, and have said. They say, look, when it's their political adversary, Rahm Emanuel, she's going to call him out -- he's indecent, apologize. But when it's a political friend like Rush Limbaugh, oh, it's satire.
PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh call a group of people whom he did not agree with "f-ing retards," and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there.
Wow, congratulations Albania! From the aleancaLGBT press release (emphasis mine):
The Alliance Against Discrimination of LGBT persons enthusiastically welcomes the approval of the Anti-Discrimination Law and we consider the Law a powerful and solid legal instrument for the protection against any form of discrimination, direct or indirect.
As one of the categories that directly benefits from this law, we, the representatives of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, take the opportunity to express our gratitude to all the members of parliament who supported this legal initiative, as well as to the media that objectively covered it.
[snip]
This Law is not simply a fulfillment of requirements that Albania has undertaken for EU integration and visa liberalization. Above all, this law is a victory for democracy and for human rights for all Albanians.
This law provides strong protections for all people against discrimination based on: gender, race, colour, ethnicity, language, gender identity, sexual orientation, political, religious or philosophical beliefs, economic, education or social status, pregnancy, parentage, parental responsibility, age, family or marital condition, civil status, residence, health status, genetic predispositions, disability, affiliation with a particular group or for any other reason.
UPDATE: Follow-up email from Mindy Michels at end of post.
(Pam Tebow's voiceover)
"I call him my miracle baby.
He almost didn't make it into this world.
I can remember so many times that I almost lost him.
It was so hard.
Now he's all grown up now and I still worry about his health.
Everyone treats him like he's different but to me he's just my baby.
He's my Timmy, and I love him."
(Voice of Tim Tebow)
"Thanks mom, I love you too."
For the full Tim Tebow story go to FocusOnTheFamily.com
Celebrate family. Celebrate life.
"We applaud those legislators who voted to protect the freedoms of all Iowans and continue the job of balancing the budget and putting Iowans back to work," Carolyn Jenison, the executive director of One Iowa, said. "It's time to move on from the destructive politics of division and focus on what matters to a great majority of Iowans." Indeed, 
"She is more concerned about her reelection than helping people. She actively discourages any government attempt to stimulate development. This may explain why only three of 12 counties in the 5th District are targeted for new broadband infrastructure and access funding. We need a representative in Washington who helps bring jobs back home, not someone who actively discourages that! ... [Foxx] cheer leads a business culture where the rich and well-connected get richer while employees, shareholders and customers get left in the dirt."
But make no mistake -- this is unfortunately a conservative district, one that is ill-served by Foxx. She needs to go, and Billy Kennedy has stepped up to the challenge and he filed to run this morning.
Dishonest politicians try to divide us and pit us against each other in order to win an election on wedge issues. Politicians of both political parties emphasize wedge issues so they can distract us and avoid talking about the serious problems we face. It is a tactic used to confuse us in order to hide how they really vote about bread and butter issues.
Wow, congratulations Albania! From the aleancaLGBT 
