Lone Wolf

Your result for The What type of wolf are you test...

The Loner

25% Social-ness, 51% Leadership, 18% Morbidity, 53% Loneliness, 33% Inferiority and 11% Beta-ness!

You are the Loner (aka, the Lone Wolf). You don't seem to get along with others, so you prefer to keep to yourself and watch from afar.

Take The What type of wolf are you test at HelloQuizzy

(Honk to Ultra Dave for the idea)

P.S. - If anyone's keeping track, I'm also Dionysus, a Classic Lover, and a resident of Sexual Hell #2. Boy, they sure have got me pegged.

Please Do Not Fire Me

So just how fucking long is this stupid shit going to continue? Lt. Dan Choi has written an open letter to the President, as Rachel Maddow reports:

Compare the current President's silence on DADT with Truman's executive order ending segregation in the U.S. military.

How strange that we now have a black man as President, whose parents' marriage at the time he was born was strictly illegal in Texas and all the other Southern states; and who, had he been around during World War II, could never have served alongside white soldiers in our military; and yet he sure seems to be dragging his feet on equality for gay soldiers. WTF?

When Southerners in Congress questioned his civil-rights stand, Truman told them:

Whatever my inclination as a native of Missouri might have been, as President, I know this is bad. I shall fight to end evil like this.

Another time, Truman said:

You know that being an American is more than a matter of where your parents came from. It is a belief that all men are created free and equal and that everyone deserves an even break.

Mr. Obama, are you listening?

More cool stuff from Russ

Check it out.


create & buy custom products at Zazzle

Jesse Ventura Slams Bush, Cheney

Macho man Jesse Ventura - Vietnam vet, Navy SEAL, and former Governor of Minnesota - tells it like it is on torture and the Bush regime:

Give me Dick Cheney, a waterboard, and one hour, and I'll make him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

It's the Economy, Faggot

Obama walking away from his commitment to equal rights?

Um, remember that tall black guy last year who promised - on nationwide TV, no less - to be a fierce advocate for your equal rights? Lots of people are starting to think he's just dicking around like all the other pols have done for years. Andrew Sullivan holds Obama's feet to the fire in a slam-dunk post today, go read it. Here's an excerpt:

And obviously patience is necessary; and legislative work takes time; and there are real challenges on so many fronts, especially the economy and the legacy of war crimes and the permanently restive Iraqi and Afghan regions we are constantly in the process of liberating from themselves. No one expects a president to be grappling with all this early on, or, God help us, actually leading on civil rights. That's our job, not his.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more.

Straights Destroying the American Family

Unmarried breeders shamelessly flaunt their

immoral lifestyle on a public beach

Oh my. What would Ward and June Cleaver have said?

According to a report today in the New York Times, millions of straight guys are catching a free ride, and the straight girls are, apparently, loving it. (You see how those people are? No respect for traditional values, religion, or morality.)

Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday.

Before 1970, most unmarried mothers were teenagers. But in recent years the birthrate among unmarried women in their 20s and 30s has soared — rising 34 percent since 2002, for example, in women ages 30 to 34. In 2007, women in their 20s had 60 percent of all babies born out of wedlock, teenagers had 23 percent and women 30 and older had 17 percent.

Much of the increase in unmarried births has occurred among parents who are living together but are not married, cohabitation arrangements that tend to be less stable than marriages, studies show.

The pattern has been particularly pronounced among Hispanic women, climbing 20 percent from 2002 to 2006, the most recent year for which racial breakdowns are available. Eleven percent of unmarried Hispanic women had a baby in 2006, compared with 7 percent of unmarried black women and 3 percent of unmarried white women, according to government data drawn from birth certificates.

Titled “Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” the report was released by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55 percent. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare — just 2 percent in Japan, for example.)

But experts say the increases in the United States are of greater concern because couples in many other countries tend to be more stable and government support for children is often higher.

“In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.” . . .

The District of Columbia and Mississippi had the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births in 2007: 59 percent and 54 percent, respectively. The lowest rate, 20 percent, was in Utah. In New York, the rate was 41 percent; in New Jersey, 34 percent; and in Connecticut, 35 percent. Sarah S. Brown, chief executive of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a nonprofit advocacy group, said sex and pregnancy were handled far too cavalierly in the United States, where rates of unplanned pregnancies, births and abortions are far higher than those of other industrialized nations.

“These trends may meet the needs of young adults,” she said, “but it’s far from clear that it’s helpful for children.”

Conservatives, please note: none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with gay people or same-sex marriage.

It's all your doing, straight people. So leave us gays out of the conversation, please - you want a scapegoat, he's right there in the mirror, looking at you. Just zip it up buddy - your mouth and your pants.

In fact, a statistic often overlooked by conservatives is that gay sex actually promotes family values by reducing the chance of unplanned preganancy to zero.

And aren't you glad, fellas?

The Art Racket

If you were rich enough to pay $6 million for a painting, would you spend it on this monstrosity? Sorry, but it's just too sick and ugly to post on my blog.

And that was the price somebody paid twenty years ago; who knows what it would bring now. Barnum was like, soooo right: there's a sucker born every minute.

And there's lots of them in the art world. What a racket.

Especially when there are so many lovely things that nobody has ever heard of, and unknown artists who bloom and vanish without much attention from the world.

If I was rich as Brad Pitt, with wheelbarrows full of dough sitting all over the house, I might - but only just might, mind you - be tempted to spend that kind of cash on something enduringly lovely and mystical and thought-provoking like this:

Star Gazer by
Agnes Pelton

The Problem with Wikipedia

You do know it's riddled with mistakes and deliberate lies, don't you? Use only with extreme caution, and check for reliable sources.

Guest Suite

We had a visitor yesterday, who kindly sat still long enough for me to grab a camera and take this photo. Always nice to have company drop by the house.

Ed Koch: Daydream Believer?

Ed Koch sees a happy day fast approaching for same-sex couples across the nation, according to his opinion piece today in the Yonkers Tribune. But is the former New York City mayor a prophet, or just doing some wishful thinking?

I believe that same-sex marriage will be approved by a majority of the fifty states in the Union within the next five years. When that occurs, the federal resistance will end and the Congress will vote in favor of federal recognition of same-sex marriages with equal benefits to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds should know that no religious institution is now being coerced or will in the future be forced to perform same-sex weddings. The decision of whether to sanctify same-sex marriages is totally up to the religious leaders. It is a near certainty that the Catholic Church and Orthodox synagogues will continue to refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, while some Protestant churches and reform and conservative synagogues will continue to be open to the practice.

It is the right of all religions to determine their own responses. But the issue here is not religious, but civil marriage. As a matter of fundamental fairness, civil marriage must be made available for all consenting adults, irrespective of sexual orientation. And it will happen, more quickly than the public thinks. In the United States today, five states have approved the right of same-sex marriage, either through legislative action or court decree. They are: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine and Vermont.

The next state in all probability to legislatively approve same-sex marriage is New York. Currently, as a result of Governor David Paterson’s executive order, New York state recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and accords same-sex couples who were legally married in other states the benefits provided to married heterosexual couples that state agencies can do administratively. The New York Times reported on May 29, 2008, “Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.”

Mayor Koch has long been rumored to be gay himself, as the new documentary Outrage claims.

Well, mark your calendars, boys - tune in again in 2014, same time, same channel, and we'll see if his prediction comes true.

Wouldn't it be lovely if it did?

Bullshit Alert: General Jones on DADT

Damn, I can smell it all the way out here in Texas:



Jones is Obama's National Security Advisor. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has this to say:

There have been almost a dozen studies on the topic. Going back to 1993, RAND did a study on the impact of openly gay and lesbian soldiers on unit cohesion. Their conclusion: no negative impact. Every scientific, credible study since then has come to the same conclusion. SLDN had hoped this president would offer leadership, not give in to some throwaway study or commission. The right approach would be a presidential working group that focuses solely on implementation and reports back to the president with recommendations within 90 days.

Yeah, but don't hold your breath, guys. This topic is going nowhere fast, and that's a real pisser.