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.
In a recent column, columnist Dan Savage took aim at a comparison I have often made (just this week, in fact) about the similarities and differences in the fight for gay civil rights and the end of the drug war. I've always said it is an inexact comparison, but helpful for making strategy and understanding the political climate.
(Savage Love) I am a high-functioning regular heroin user (not quite an addict), and I feel constantly compelled to hide my drug use. I feel that there are similarities between being a drug user and having an alternate sexual orientation in the sense that both users and gays are constantly confronting judgmental opposition from an ill-informed and puritanical American public. I wonder whether you have any thoughts on this matter. Do you believe that drug users are deserving of the same kind of empowerment and liberation as gays, or do you view drug use as a "disease" that needs to be "cured" the same way that the Carrie Prejeans of the world believe gays need to be "cured"?
I realize that one significant difference between heroin use and sexual tastes is that heroin use is illegal, but of course gay relationships were illegal until relatively recently. Am I just rationalizing? Or could drug use be the next civil-rights frontier?
-Dude Requests Understanding Gay Sensibility
Uh... gee.
I don't believe that all drug use is abuse, and I believe that recreational drugs can be used responsibly. And I believe a person should be able to use a drug regularly without being labeled-by himself, by others, by court order-an "addict." I also wish that more people were open about their drug use-but, in the hypocritical fashion of most Americans, only when we're talking about drugs that I like and have used myself, e.g., caffeine, sugar, pot, and my boyfriend's pheromones.
Recreational heroin? Heroin seems kind of extreme, DRUGS, as recreational drugs go. I've known a few people who've self-medicated with heroin and functioned well enough to get by-just-and I think that all drugs should be legal, your drug of choice included. We need to end the war on drugs, a failure and a waste of money and lives. And the quickest way to end it is for successful drug users-people like you, me, Michael Phelps, and the president of the United States of America-to be open about our past, present, and future drug use. But I don't think "drug user" is an identity that's really comparable to sexual orientation. Using drugs is something you do, DRUGS, it's not something you are.
Look at it this way: If you stopped doing drugs today, DRUGS, you'd no longer be a drug user. If I stopped inhaling my boyfriend's pheromones-and cock-today, DRUGS, I'd still be a big homo. Because gay is like Cats ("now and forever"), while heroin is like Twitter (fun at first, sure, but you'll regret it one day). See the difference?
But, yeah, the freedom to use drugs can certainly be viewed as a civil-rights issue: It's about the right to control what you do with your own body, and that argument resonates with others advanced by gay-rights advocates and advocates of reproductive choice. But different drugs carry different risks-risks of harm, risks of overdose, risks of death-and, legal or not, heroin is a highly dangerous drug. It's a drug that's made more dangerous by its prohibition, sure, but it's dangerous even when it's pure. But I think you have a right to use it, if you want to use it, and that you should have access to safe, medical-grade heroin and clean needles. But I don't think you should use it, not when there are other, better, safer drugs available.
Like my boyfriend's pheromones.
Savage makes good points, many I've made before, but his post led me to thinking about this comparison in a broader context.
In the letter released by the McCain campaign, attorney John Dowd notes that Cindy McCain's battles with drugs and the management of her charitable life have been long reported and then he wonders why the paper has not plowed more new ground with Barack and Michelle Obama.
"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father, Dowd wrote.
"Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here. Chicago Sun Times
This being said, the rest of the report in the Sun Times indicates that an overly aggressive reporter, Jodi Kantor, went trolling for dirt on the McCain family using facebook to contact a friend of McCain's 16-year old daughter Bridget. McCain's spokesman described the final NYT profile as gutter journalism and Kantor's atempt to contact the teen as an attempt to
dupe the unsuspecting minor by soliciting 'advice' on how best to approach the story, as if a top-flight investigative reporter at the New York Times would need the assistance of an underage girl in writing a hit piece.
Crossposted at the lovely new Radical Writ, eagerly awaiting interested Blenders to bask in its radically progressive glory...
We're going to play a little game to help illustrate why the War On (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs is destroying America and needs to be ended immediately. It's an easy game; I just tell you two stories from the Dallas Morning News, and you try to guess which man's picture, Tyrone Brown on the left, John "Alex" Wood on the right, fits which story:
How do you feel about the government deciding the legitimacy of various religions? Does someone who believes in, say, Buddhism, believe sincerely in the doctrine, or are they just doing it "in order to justify their lifestyle choice" of wearing comfy orange robes and sandals? Is Mormonism a "sincere" belief; it's only been around less than 200 years and was originally conceived by polygamists to "avoid prosecution for illegal conduct simply by transforming their lifestyle choices into a 'religion.'"? What about Scientology -- it's even newer -- and its prophet wrote some pretty "disjointed, poorly supported, illogical ramblings."
Well, normally there's supposed to be a wall separating church and state. But we all know that the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs is the golden exception to our Bill of Rights. It was with that exception that a judge decided that some religions aren't "real" religions because they aren't old enough, their prophet doesn't write very well, and their sacrament is an unpopular federally-prohibited herb that isn't hoasca and they were using it before forming the religion.
A federal judge has ruled against the founders of a Southeastern Arizona church that deifies marijuana and uses it as a sacrament, saying they don't have a "sincere" religious belief.
In her refusal to dismiss charges against Dan and Mary Quaintance, U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera in Albuquerque wrote that evidence indicates the pair "adopted their 'religious' belief in cannabis as a sacrament and deity in order to justify their lifestyle choice to use marijuana."
