Still ruminatin'...

UPDATE I:  Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants - Oh it's going to be interesting how the Changeling and his crew spin this! And if they can't stop it, I'll bet you a nickel they'll say this was their plan all along - to get those midterm votes. {smdh}

UPDATE II:  U.S. Military Moves to Accept Gay Recruits - Knowing how "media conscious" the government and the military are, the face of Lt. Dan Choi coming through the door of the Times Square recruiting office (along with all the cameras and people outside!) certainly must have had them on their toes (this is what Frederick Douglass was talking about below)!

 But if we're talking treating people "equally" - doesn't the article also show how one must have some modicum of "fame" and/or clout in America before people do what they're supposed to do?:

Another former service member was not as successful in his attempt. Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, who is the president of the Log Cabin Republicans’ San Diego office, showed up at a recruiting station in El Cajon, Calif., on Tuesday afternoon to see if he could rejoin the Marines after being honorably discharged two years ago.

The visit was brief. The Marines, the recruiter told him, had very few slots for prior-service Marines to return to duty, and the current quota was filled...Omar Lopez, who served four and a half years in the Navy and was honorably discharged in 2006 under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tried to re-enlist the day after Judge Phillips issued her injunction. He was rejected by recruiters who said they had received no instructions about the injunction, or about accepting gay recruits. 

I'm thinking, with the "contempt of court" threat from the Log Cabin Republicans to Holder's DOJ, young Mr. Lopez - and others, not so famous - might also have a shot at getting back in.  Given this exchange,



I wonder if Ole Harry will bring this up on the campaign trail in the next two weeks? Just a thought...

~#~

After reading - Global ban ordered on 'don't ask' - I wasn't sure if this was megalomania, or a serioius case of punk-assed-itude on the Changeling's part. I'm still not sure.

But, based on these paragraphs - could be a little of both:

The White House has said the Justice Department is defending the law because of a long-standing executive branch policy defending Congressional enactments – even if the current administration may disagree.  However, gay activists have pointed to instances where the Justice Department has declined to defend laws that might not pass constitutional muster.

On the other side of the debate, conservative Republicans in Congress have accused the White House of mounting a less-than-vigorous defense of the “don’t ask” policy. The GOP is expected to loudly object if the administration decides not to block Phillips’s order and overturn her ruling that “don’t ask” violates the First Amendment and due process rights of military members.

This "constitutional lawyer" is saying, "Screw the Constitution!  I'm playing follow the leader?" (I know, I know - after the May 31 RBC meeting, that whole "constitutional" thing really means nothing - but still!).

As it turns out, the GOP had nothing about which to "loudly object" according to this:  On DADT, justice served, then stalled:

But this victory in the courts may be very short lived, given that President Obama has decided to appeal Judge Phillips' decision that declared "don't ask, don't tell" to be unconstitutional. His Justice Department has decided to seek a stay of her injunction halting enforcement of the law.

Ma-a-a-n, if I'd given him as much love, money and support as my LGBT brothers and sisters did, I sure wouldn't be talking about:

...then we will have to circle back to the legislative branch and hope that it puts politics aside and does the right thing on "don't ask, don't tell" and the National Defense Authorization Act during Congress' lame duck session. (emphasis mine)

After all that, "Wink-wink, I'm witcha," from inauguration day, to now - were it me(?), I'd be mulling this over:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Frederick Douglass, 1857

But that's just me.

Here's another link on the subject - from a military point of view: Judge Acts While Others Debate DADT Policy (check out the damned comments!).

And I can't help but feel great sorrow and - that Mr. Douglass was talking directly to the "Air Force officer" in this piece at HuffPo:  Pentagon To Gay Troops: Stay Silent Or Trouble Could Find You.  Reminds me of Anthony Hopkins in, "The Human Stain":

~#~

I was listening to OnPoint on NPR earlier this week and this discussion on the Food Stamps & Nutrition Controversy just blew me away!  This is just as crazy as Bloomberg, et al deciding they can "own the air" (a measure on which crazy New Yorkers and increasingly, residents of other states following suit have signed off - all the while jacking up prices on smokes to benefit whom? Their corporate benefactors)!

How disingenuous of the Councilman and others who talk about the obesity and diabetes problems in AMERICA - yet limit their "concern" to SNAP recipients!

All of America is suffering the same problem! Isn't he concerned about the health and welfare of EVERYONE?  Why is it right to single out SNAP recipients here?  Answer:  Because they are the only ones who can be CONTROLLED with their threats (yes, absolute power corrupts...).  If Mayor Bloomberg is so worried about obesity and diabetes in America, then try this crap countrywide - OUTLAW SUGAR-SWEETENED DRINKS FOR EVERYBODY - and see what happens!

But just as with cigarettes - that won't happen, because those "bread-butterers" of his won't have it (Oh, and all you oh-so-health-conscious, caring hypocrites - if you care so much about  the effects of  first/second-hand smoke so much - get to marching and protesting the MAKING of cigarettes why don't you?  Maybe then, I'll believe you really give two shits).

Bloomberg is the equivalent of Tuskegee's John Cutler, experimenting on the most vulnerable, without their consent (his current, inglorious, white supremacist "homeless experiment" is another prime example).  I guess if one receives SNAP, you deserve to have other, "alleged" human beings, treat you as a somehow flawed human being, incapable of deciding for yourself, while they enjoy the luxury of making those decisions for themselves.  (And please, don't start spouting, "It's my tax money!"  That's a non-starter if you want to to claim "American exceptionalism" and talk about our "benevolent society").

But, just as he gave crime a definitive Black/Brown face and enjoyed the adoration of many a New Yorker for reducing crime (all while the lily-white faces on Wall St. robbed - and continue to rob - us blind and then were rewarded for doing it) - so will he get their support for this foolishness.  The vast majority of my lemming-like "countrymen" don't/won't take one moment to critically think about whether, or why this is a good/bad decision. They instead, just jump right on the bandwagon - 1) because they are not the ones being "experimented upon" and/or told what to do; and 2) because they can, and have always been able to - until of course, the shoe is on the other foot (and given the current state of our economy, I suspect there are, and will be, plenty sliding of the "other foot" into that shoe - but I digress).

As he has in the past, he'll more than likely get his way. And other states will follow suit (that whole "states rights" thing that tends to generate beaucoup cash for the haves, and unending misery for the have-nots) - further eroding those "inalienable rights" they like to tout so loudly.

~#~

I just watched this show - "My Child is a Monkey" - on National Geographic and all I could do was shake my damned head and say W-T-F (it airs again on 10/22)!  "People, these are not babies!!"





Where's Bloomberg when you need him?? These spaghetti-slurping "monkids" really need him!

~#~

Oh! I almost forgot! On a lighter and more absolutely ridiculous note, I ask you - "What the hell??!!"

I have got to stop watching late night TV because the commercials are just getting weirder and weirder!

When I was growing up, the Sears Catalogue was full of all kinds of "foundation garments" (created by men) to hold in women's stomachs and give their bodies a certain - "lift" (click on photo for a better view of this ass-flattening contraption!)

Okay, I'll buy the stomach thing - but I'm convinced the white "ladies" of the day, were trying to make sure their rumps weren't jumpin' like the more ample, "jigglin' Baby" posteriors of those loose, whorish Black women. Hell, they even convinced us that our naturally generous behinds needed to be contained too!

But times have changed. And now, white women (as well as some of our less naturally endowed sisters) have figured out some crazy ways to get them some "back" too!



Lawd have mercy!  Why does this makes sense??!! When you go home and pull that bad-boy off - you're left with the same no butt you had before!  Then what are you gonna say to that dip you brought home who thought he was squeezing on you in the club or wherever?  Also, seems like you'll be spending plenty on those panties - unless, of course you're wearing the same one or two everyday (that could get a little gamey!). And please with the "booty-licious!" (Damn! Learn somethin' new and wear it the hell out.)!

Or, for a more permanent, raised-butt look, I understand from an episode of that show, "The Doctors," one can opt for back scooping plastic surgery (Never watched this one before but, I was flipping through the channels and stopped - because I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. They were showing the before and after photos of Heidi Montag, about whom one of the doctors said, "She didn't look like she needed that to me." Me either). Apparently, doctors lipo out that back fat just above the butt and it gives it a concave look, making the butt look - higher (or something!). Cost: $3,000 - $10,000 bucks. {smdh}

Thank you Lord for my nice, round, natural behind...