|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
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.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 00:11:27 AM EDT
|
| From the October 13, 2000, edition of the Texas Triangle (once again...just in time for baseball's post season - and the same unreasonable reasons for a non-inclusive ENDA, though this time under a Democratic Congress) Conservaqueers Not Been Vedy, Vedy Good To Us By Katrina C. Rose It's baseball playoff time. Here's a baseball story. Twenty years or so ago, the Chicago White Sox (then owned by one of the legendary characters of the game, Bill Veeck) had a special event night called 'Disco Demolition.' It involved reduced admission for a doubleheader versus the Detroit Tigers in returnfor bringing a disco record to the stadium. And it also involved detonating a huge pile of disco records on the field between games. Disco wasn't very popular in Chicago, apparently. A huge crowd showed up to demolish it - and got a bit exuberant. The sum total of the between-game festivities left a crater in the field that prevented the second game from being played. White Sox management announced that the game would be made up at a later date, the game having been postponed due to an act of God - that playing the game as scheduled was impossible. Indeed, you can use impossibility as a defense to a contract: if what you're required to do has become impossible, then you are excused from performance - but not if you create the impossibility yourself. Tigers manager Sparky Anderson correctly noted that 'Disco Demolition' was not act of God but an act of Bill Veeck. Baseball officials agreed. The White Sox forfeited the game. I'm going somewhere with this, really. I've frequently stated, for the last six years, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has had as much chance of passing as the Astros and Rangers have of meeting in the World Series this year: none. Now, I have to admit that I've been wrong. It's actually been for the last 25 years. Before ENDA, there were Proto-ENDAs (Title VII gay rights bills) and one or the other of these types of bills have popped up almost every year in Congress since Bella Abzug's 1975 proposal that would have added "affectional or sexual preference" - but not gender identity - to Title VII. I've often looked at the three Congresses since 1994. Only recently, however, did I look at all of the Congresses (and Presidents) since 1975 - and an ENDA's or a Proto-ENDA's chances of being approved by any of them. Since 1975, Democrats have controlled Congress and the presidency at the same time for only six years, four of those being the Carter Administration. Now, follow the bouncing District of Columbia… In 1975 (and certainly not in the election year of 1976), Gerald Ford was not about to sign a bill adding "affectional or sexual preference" to Title VII. And, let's get real: not even the freewheeling liberal Congress of the mid-to-late 70s was going to pass such a bill because too many of its members would have had to face Anita Bryant-addled voters. Then came 1980. For the next 12 years, the conservative religious elite controlled the White House (and for the first six of those years they controlled the Senate as well.) Between the end of that dark reign and the beginning of the religious elite's current control of Congress were but two years when both Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats were in control of Congress. Two years: 1993 and 1994. Two years out of a quarter-century when there was any chance whatsoever of passing anything like an ENDA - with or without transgendered people being included in it. Two years which were pissed away with the gays-in-the-military fiasco (and Clinton didn't help by expending so much political capital on NAFTA.) I don't know what NAFTA is, but are you saying that gays don't deserve to serve in the military? No - I'm simply asking a question: Why did the 'incremental progress' mantra that transgendered people hear in response to demands for inclusion in ENDA disappear when it came to forcing the issue of gays in the military? Why didn't gay activists start with professions whose current and former members don't have as much clout in Congress as do militaryoids and whose members are not as likely to fight to the death to prevent homosexuals from serving openly as a part of it as is the military - you know, like, perhaps, every other profession known to humanity?!?! Yes, exclusion from the military is an unconstitutional slap in the face to gays and lesbians (and transgendered people) and I've said so here on many occasions. But, If transgendered people can be forced to wait for employment protection as to all employment, then gays and lesbians can damn well wait for protection as to one specific profession. Oh yeah - and then came the Contract on America. And, essentially, that's where we stand now: a religious elite Congress that will never pass any version of ENDA, a gay rights lobby that says that ENDA must remain transgendersanitized until Congress is more educated on transgenderissues, and the resultant ENDA that is transgender-sanitized. If there's a lack of education in Congress as to transgender issues, and if that lack of education is allegedly an impediment to inclusion of transgendered people in ENDA, then its an impediment that is the product of a quarter-century of homosexuals and their supporters in Congress excluding the T-issue from the best vehicle for education: inclusion in bills that had no chance whatsoever of passing anyway. Inclusion is impossible, the 'more education' sayers sayeth. If there's an impossibility now, then they are the ones who created it. On behalf of all transgendered people in the United States of America, I hereby declare that, for pissing away 25 years of chances to educate Congress, conservaqueers have forfeited the right to use 'Congress needs more education' as an excuse for exclusion of transgendered people from ENDA. Now, play ball! And play inclusively. |
| KatRose :: Everything That's Seven Years Old is New Again: Conservaqueers Not Been Vedy, Vedy Good to Us |
|
|
|
