One day before the inauguration - Happy MLK Day!!
My birthday yesterday was nice and quiet. I received no gifts but a lot of well wishing from online and personal friends.
Thank you all for your kind words.
As you can tell in the days leading up the Obama's inauguration, I have been flying on one wing i.e. not doing any serious posting.
So why should today be any different?
Seriously though, the following links are things I found very interesting:
HBO, Presidential Inaugural Committee still pointing fingers over invisible Robinson invocation - Geez is there someone on Obama's team who is attempting to sabotage his relationship with the lgbt community? First the Donnie McClurkin thing, then the Rick Warren thing, and now this.
Obama's people need to handle their business. They need to stop tripping over their feet when it comes to dealing with the lgbt community. Despite all of the mess, Obama seems to be doing well by the lgbt community in terms of picking us to serve in the White House. It's a nice start but I want to see more.
But Obama's people need to understand that the visual perception of things are important too. Regardless of how many lgbts Obama appoints to serve in the White House, he is going to catch hell if his people keep giving the inference that they are going to backdoor us in public.
Having said that, I really wish (and I know some folks are going to give it to me for this) that some my fellow lgbt bloggers would stop getting all apoplectic. There is a difference between noticing a problem and throwing in the chips at the first sign of a small roadblock.
And most of all, when you post comments and then feel the need to insult your one-time online friends simply because they disagree, then you have anger issues. Perhaps you need to sit down with some soft music and a pint of mocha fudge ice cream instead of portraying a low-budget online version of Jean-Paul Marat.
I certainly think we should be vocal when we are treated wrong, but I don't like how some of us get so strident that we turn on each other. It's not a vigorous disagreement when someone accuses you of selling out simply because you don't agree totally with their ideas.
Remember, it was that "you are either with us or against us" bullshit that screwed up Bush.
The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever - That new Dixie Chick album is looking more and more like a best seller.
Inaugural Committee will rebroadcast Robinson on Mall - Just thought I would mention that. By no means am I saying that we need to lighten pressure when we are treated wrong. And I am NOT giving Obama's people any pass. If there are any screw ups here, we got problems.
Obama naysayers speak out - WAAAAAH! You didn't give Bush a chance. What bullshit. He was elected president twice. THAT was his chance and he screwed it up. But to serve notice - if we implode, it will be these jackals who will be picking our bones.
Obama 'clueless' to shut down Gitmo - Oh no! Obama shouldn't shut down 'Gitmo.' It wouldn't be the Christian thing to do, unlike torture.
Saturday Night Live: A Couple of Homies - In Superbowl 39, singer Janet Jackson accidentally shows a bit of her breast and the country went nuts. Now comedian Will Forte shows a full view of his ass (2:23 - and what a nice ass it is) and no one says a word.
My, we have come far!!
3 comments:
14-1/2 hours. I might be able to relax soon.
In other news, can you point me to anything that discredits Rekers' review (http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf)? I simply do not have time to chase down all the crazy right now. Much thanks in advance --
P.S. I'll make you even more cookies than I already owe you.
P.P.S. Oops, just outed myself :)
It's an 80 page hot mess. Thanks for sending it to me because it can be of some use.
I see a few things.
In the paper, Rekers admits that while the paper was prepared for the 2004 Arkansas case against gay adoption, the person defending the policy, Kathy Hall, wouldn't use it. That in itself says a lot. I read somewhere that Rekers and those who support him was accusing Hall of engaging in some type of conspiracy. But I doubt it.
I noticed that the paper used the Theo Sandfort study as proof that lgbts are mentally unfit to be foster children. But I already talked about that study. It dealt with lgbts in the Netherlands and Sandfort has gone on record (this blog) accusing folks like Rekers of distorting his work. One thing that's interesting about Sandfort's study is that I don't think it had anything to do with lgbt parenting at all.
Subsequently, I see that as huge problem with this paper. It seems to have a lot of sources but how many of those sources had to do with the question at hand - i.e. lgbt parenting. I see a few CDC (Centers for Disease Control) citations and studies done looking at gay in social venues but based on how Rekers used them, a racist could make the same case against African-Americans adopting children.
Or make the case against Native Americans adopting children - something that Rekers tried to do in the recent Florida case.
Also, I see that the studies by Ph.D.s Gary Remafedi and Robert Garafalo is cited. Both have gone on record accusing folks like Rekers of distorting their work. You can look do a search on this blog to read the details of their complaints.
Right now, those are just a few of the things I see wrong with this paper. And I haven't even touched the fact that Rekers not only uses but approves of the discredited studies of Paul Cameron. This alone would have a huge detrimental effect on the credibility of any work he publishes.
And remember, I like chocolate chip ;p
Post a Comment