2 unrepentant about sale of Katrina home
By WOODY BAIRD, Associated Press Writer
A church that wanted to do something special for Hurricane Katrina victims gave a $75,000 house, free and clear, to a couple who said they were left homeless by the storm. But the couple turned around and sold the place without ever moving in, and went back to New Orleans.
"Take it up with God," an unrepentant Joshua Thompson told a TV reporter after it was learned that he and the woman he identified as his wife had flipped the home for $88,000.
Church members said they feel their generosity was abused by scam artists. They are no longer even sure that the couple were left homeless by Katrina or that they were a couple at all.
"They came in humble like they really needed a new start, and our hearts went out to them," said Jean Phillips, a real estate agent and member of the Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ. "They actually begged for the home."
The church was also shocked by an ungrateful interview the couple gave with WHBQ-TV in Memphis.
"I really don't like this area," said Delores Thompson. "I really didn't, and I didn't know anybody, so that's why I didn't move in and I sold it."
Thompson, reached at a New Orleans phone number by The Associated Press on Tuesday, thanked the church for its generosity but said she saw nothing wrong in selling the three-bedroom, two-bath house.
"Do I have any legal problems? What do you mean? The house was given to me," she said. "I have the paperwork and everything."
She refused further comment and hung up.
The church had decided that it would do something special for one Katrina-displaced family, in addition to its other efforts to help evacuees. The church set up a committee to find the right family and conducted several dozen interviews.
Delores Thompson, who did most of the talking for her family, told the committee that she had lost her job as a nurse and that her husband had lost an import-export business in New Orleans, committee member Joy Covington said.
The committee also heard how the family had lost its home and most of its possessions and how the children, a 14-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy, were eager to get back in school. The family said it wanted to resettle in Memphis.
After the church settled on Thompson, real estate agent Phillips helped her pick out the house she wanted, and it was bought in Thompson's name. She took possession in February and sold it in September. Property transfer records for the resale list her as unmarried; the papers from the original sale list her as married.
"I feel like it was a sham or a ripoff," Covington said.
The church hasn't discussed legal action, but the members are upset because the house could have gone to a more needy family, Covington said.
Thompson claimed she and her family were living in an apartment supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but did not invite Phillips over during the house search.
"She didn't want me coming over there," Phillips said. "She'd say, `I'll meet you.'"
Covington's husband, Edward, said the family had been listed by FEMA as displaced. But he said the church took Thompson's word for it that their house was destroyed.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Christians Now Boycotting Walmart
Its funny how alliances switch back and forth ... Walmart has long been targeted by the more 'liberal' members of society for various reasons, but now, many conservative people are taking Walmart to task because of that company's (thought to be) 'friendly attitude' toward gay vendors, and we are seeing some of the 'traditional enemies' starting to become friends and some of the long time friends becoming hostile. Odd, isn't it? PAT
Conservative plan to protest Wal-Mart By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Long under fire from the left, Wal-Mart is now a target of Christian conservatives urging shoppers to boycott the huge retailer's post-Thanksgiving sales because of its low-key outreach to some gay-rights organizations.
One group, the American Family Association, is asking supporters to stay away from Wal-Mart on Friday and Saturday — two of the busiest shopping days of the year. Another group, Operation Save America, plans prayer-and-preaching rallies outside many Wal-Mart stores on Friday.
The corporate actions that triggered the protests were little different from those taken by scores of major companies in recent years — Wal-Mart paid $25,000 this summer to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and donated $60,000 to Out and Equal, which promotes gay-rights advances in the workplace.
Conservative leaders viewed these actions as a betrayal of Wal-Mart's traditions, which have included efforts to weed out magazines with racy covers and CDs with explicit lyrics.
"This has been Christian families' favorite store — and now they're giving in, sliding down the slippery slope so many other corporations have gone down," said the Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America. "They're all being extorted by the radical homosexual agenda."
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spokesman David Tovar said the company's outreach to the gay-rights groups was part of a broader effort to best serve its diverse customer base.
"We take pride that we treat every customer, every supplier, every member of our communities fairly and equally," Tovar said Tuesday. "We do not have a position on same-sex marriage. ... What we do have is a strong commitment to diversity. We're against discrimination everywhere."
Justin Nelson, president of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, said conservative activists had misrepresented his business-oriented group as a leading advocate of gay marriage in order to tarnish Wal-Mart.
"Their campaign has not been to educate, but to mislead," he said.
Wal-Mart ranks in the middle among companies rated by the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group, for workplace policies toward gays. Scores of companies now have a perfect 100 rating, while Wal-Mart's rating has risen from 14 in 2002 to 65 this year as it added sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination code and offered some domestic-partner benefits.
Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said he spoke with a Wal-Mart executive Tuesday and came away confident the company would continue efforts to promote workplace equality for gays.
Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president, said he and his allies had not ruled out extending the boycott against Wal-Mart, depending on how the company responded to the weekend protests.
"They are so gigantic, it's hard to make a dent," he said. "We're just trying to see if there's some measurable effect this weekend, see if we can get their attention."
Wildmon said Wal-Mart had been responsive to conservative pressure on a different issue, approving use of the word "Christmas" in advertising and employee greetings this season after shifting to a "happy holidays" phrasing last year.
That campaign was one of the first times Wal-Mart came under sustained criticism from the right. Far more often, it has been a target of left-of-center groups, such as WakeUpWalMart.com, complaining that the company pays low wages, skimps on employee benefits and outsources too many jobs.
The company has responded by adding low-cost health care plans, launching environmental programs and increasing diversity among employees and suppliers.
Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, sent a letter Tuesday to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott urging the company not to cede to the boycott.
"We not only look forward to Wal-Mart remaining steadfast in its support for equal rights, but to the coming day when Wal-Mart will do what is truly right — become a better employer," Blank wrote.
Gary Chaison, an industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the conflicting pressures on Wal-Mart are "the price of being big and having many constituencies."
"Everyone expects Wal-Mart, because it has so many stores, to set the moral tone for America," he said. "The company has been trying to find a middle road, and it's had a great deal of difficulty doing that."
Another major corporation, Ford Motor Co., already is the target of an American Family Association boycott because it advertises in gay publications and supports gay-rights groups.
The Tupelo, Miss.-based AFA says 550,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Ford and it takes partial credit for the company's financial problems. Ford spokesman Oscar Suris declined comment; an industry analyst, University of Detroit professor Michael Bernacchi, was doubtful the boycott was having much impact.
___
On the Net:
Wal-Mart statement: http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4617.aspx
American Family Association: http://www.afa.net/
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Conservative plan to protest Wal-Mart By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Long under fire from the left, Wal-Mart is now a target of Christian conservatives urging shoppers to boycott the huge retailer's post-Thanksgiving sales because of its low-key outreach to some gay-rights organizations.
One group, the American Family Association, is asking supporters to stay away from Wal-Mart on Friday and Saturday — two of the busiest shopping days of the year. Another group, Operation Save America, plans prayer-and-preaching rallies outside many Wal-Mart stores on Friday.
The corporate actions that triggered the protests were little different from those taken by scores of major companies in recent years — Wal-Mart paid $25,000 this summer to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and donated $60,000 to Out and Equal, which promotes gay-rights advances in the workplace.
Conservative leaders viewed these actions as a betrayal of Wal-Mart's traditions, which have included efforts to weed out magazines with racy covers and CDs with explicit lyrics.
"This has been Christian families' favorite store — and now they're giving in, sliding down the slippery slope so many other corporations have gone down," said the Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Save America. "They're all being extorted by the radical homosexual agenda."
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spokesman David Tovar said the company's outreach to the gay-rights groups was part of a broader effort to best serve its diverse customer base.
"We take pride that we treat every customer, every supplier, every member of our communities fairly and equally," Tovar said Tuesday. "We do not have a position on same-sex marriage. ... What we do have is a strong commitment to diversity. We're against discrimination everywhere."
Justin Nelson, president of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, said conservative activists had misrepresented his business-oriented group as a leading advocate of gay marriage in order to tarnish Wal-Mart.
"Their campaign has not been to educate, but to mislead," he said.
Wal-Mart ranks in the middle among companies rated by the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group, for workplace policies toward gays. Scores of companies now have a perfect 100 rating, while Wal-Mart's rating has risen from 14 in 2002 to 65 this year as it added sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination code and offered some domestic-partner benefits.
Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said he spoke with a Wal-Mart executive Tuesday and came away confident the company would continue efforts to promote workplace equality for gays.
Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president, said he and his allies had not ruled out extending the boycott against Wal-Mart, depending on how the company responded to the weekend protests.
"They are so gigantic, it's hard to make a dent," he said. "We're just trying to see if there's some measurable effect this weekend, see if we can get their attention."
Wildmon said Wal-Mart had been responsive to conservative pressure on a different issue, approving use of the word "Christmas" in advertising and employee greetings this season after shifting to a "happy holidays" phrasing last year.
That campaign was one of the first times Wal-Mart came under sustained criticism from the right. Far more often, it has been a target of left-of-center groups, such as WakeUpWalMart.com, complaining that the company pays low wages, skimps on employee benefits and outsources too many jobs.
The company has responded by adding low-cost health care plans, launching environmental programs and increasing diversity among employees and suppliers.
Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, sent a letter Tuesday to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott urging the company not to cede to the boycott.
"We not only look forward to Wal-Mart remaining steadfast in its support for equal rights, but to the coming day when Wal-Mart will do what is truly right — become a better employer," Blank wrote.
Gary Chaison, an industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the conflicting pressures on Wal-Mart are "the price of being big and having many constituencies."
"Everyone expects Wal-Mart, because it has so many stores, to set the moral tone for America," he said. "The company has been trying to find a middle road, and it's had a great deal of difficulty doing that."
Another major corporation, Ford Motor Co., already is the target of an American Family Association boycott because it advertises in gay publications and supports gay-rights groups.
The Tupelo, Miss.-based AFA says 550,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Ford and it takes partial credit for the company's financial problems. Ford spokesman Oscar Suris declined comment; an industry analyst, University of Detroit professor Michael Bernacchi, was doubtful the boycott was having much impact.
___
On the Net:
Wal-Mart statement: http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4617.aspx
American Family Association: http://www.afa.net/
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Are They or Are They Not Chnstians?
"He said I wasn't a Christian": teaching confirmation class at a liberal Episcopal parish
Yesterday afternoon (after the long run, before going off to Borat), I spent a few hours with our 2006-2007 Seekers Confirmation Class at All Saints Pasadena. We've got about 19 kids this year, and it looks like another wonderful group. The dear Susan Russell came to talk to us, and she was, as always, a hit with her candor, her humor, and her knack for turning the perfect phrase to appeal to adults and youth alike.
In our discussion, one topic came up that always comes up, and one that I haven't blogged on before: the common experience All Saints youth have of being told "you're not a real Christian." Especially in recent years, as All Saints Pasadena has gained national prominence for its fight with the IRS and our bold stance in favor of gay marriage, I've heard from many, many of the teens I work with that they have been subjected to some fairly hurtful remarks from school friends and classmates.
"You're not a real Christian"; "That's not a real church"; "You're the gay church"; "You don't follow the Bible"; "People at All Saints are going to hell" --every one of those comments was uttered to one or another of the kids in my confirmation class in recent months after telling people they attend All Saints Pasadena. Some of our teens met the scorn and derision with pride and defiance; others responded with a shrug; others were genuinely hurt; still others were frankly bewildered.
Few things make me angrier than to have the youth I call "my kids" told that they aren't real Christians. Kids may not be particularly interested in theology, but they are intensely sensitive to judgment -- and to be on the receiving end of so many unkind, cruel remarks is hard for many of them. The church in which they've been baptized, the church in which they are preparing to be confirmed, is under attack -- and for most of them, that means that their parents and many of the grown-ups they know and trust are also under attack. As a thirty-nine year-old, I'm quite happy to cross swords with a fellow believer who questions my salvation or my theology because I endorse same-sex unions; I'm less happy when my fourteen year-olds are told they are going to hell because they worship where they do.
Still, like most of my fellow adult youth leaders, I have no intention of instilling a "martyr complex" in our teens. I'm not going to give them the pathetic "the world hates us for our commitment to Christ" song and dance. One of the least attractive strategies employed by Christian conservatives is to insist to their youth that by adhering to antiquated social mores they are somehow being boldly counter-cultural; I'll be darned if I'm going to foist the left-wing version of that nonsense on to my teens. In a world where real suffering is omnipresent, being told "you're not a Christian" because you worship at an inclusive church is hardly a major form of oppression.
On the other hand, we don't simply encourage a "stiff upper lip". We reminded our kids yesterday that no one issues "Christian credentials." There is no agreed-upon litmus test. While some evangelicals insist that Catholics aren't Christians, and others refuse to acknowledge Mormons as our brothers and sisters in Christ, most sensible believers choose to see all who follow Jesus as authentic Christians. While part of being Christian is certainly holding the person of Jesus Christ as central in one's faith, it is absurd to suggest that only those who believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, are actual Christians. "Being a Christian is about being willing to be on a journey with Jesus", I said, "even if you aren't quite sure who exactly Jesus is and even if you are very unsure of where it is you are going."
Mind you, I think there are limits to who gets to call themselves a "Christian." My mother regularly told my grandmother she wasn't a Christian. My grandmother had been an atheist since she was a student at Berkeley in the 1920s; she read Lucretius (De Rerum Natura), and that did it for her. She rejected the whole idea of a loving God who took an interest in human affairs. Yet she insisted on calling herself a Christian because in her childhood, to be "Christian" was simply to be kind and good. It wasn't a theological statement to her -- it was a statement about how one behaved towards one's fellow citizens. "Doing the Christian thing" referred to taking an active interest in the well-being of others, and had damn all to do with a belief in Jesus. To the end of her life, she was both "atheist and Christian".
While I adored my grandmother, I think she was outside the realm of what a Christian is. A specific belief about the inerrancy of Scripture or sexual morality is not a prerequisite for calling oneself a Christian, a recognition that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is central to one's faith does seem to be essential to using the term accurately. As a youth leader and confirmation teacher, I want to bring my kids closer to Jesus. I want them to love Him not merely as a great role model for righteous praxis but as the greatest of friends, the best of brothers, the most intimate of lovers. That is how I know Him, and that sweet, intimate, spiritually erotic relationship is the most exciting and enriching of my life.
But whatever relationship this year's confirmation crop chooses to develop with Christ, I want them to know that their right to call themselves Christians, their "claiming of the name", is not contingent on any one particular worldview; any one particular political allegiance; any one understanding of how, when, where, and with whom it is good and right to be sexual. And this year, our confirmands will learn that no narrow-minded classmate or friend can rob them of the right to embrace the Holy Name.
Yesterday afternoon (after the long run, before going off to Borat), I spent a few hours with our 2006-2007 Seekers Confirmation Class at All Saints Pasadena. We've got about 19 kids this year, and it looks like another wonderful group. The dear Susan Russell came to talk to us, and she was, as always, a hit with her candor, her humor, and her knack for turning the perfect phrase to appeal to adults and youth alike.
In our discussion, one topic came up that always comes up, and one that I haven't blogged on before: the common experience All Saints youth have of being told "you're not a real Christian." Especially in recent years, as All Saints Pasadena has gained national prominence for its fight with the IRS and our bold stance in favor of gay marriage, I've heard from many, many of the teens I work with that they have been subjected to some fairly hurtful remarks from school friends and classmates.
"You're not a real Christian"; "That's not a real church"; "You're the gay church"; "You don't follow the Bible"; "People at All Saints are going to hell" --every one of those comments was uttered to one or another of the kids in my confirmation class in recent months after telling people they attend All Saints Pasadena. Some of our teens met the scorn and derision with pride and defiance; others responded with a shrug; others were genuinely hurt; still others were frankly bewildered.
Few things make me angrier than to have the youth I call "my kids" told that they aren't real Christians. Kids may not be particularly interested in theology, but they are intensely sensitive to judgment -- and to be on the receiving end of so many unkind, cruel remarks is hard for many of them. The church in which they've been baptized, the church in which they are preparing to be confirmed, is under attack -- and for most of them, that means that their parents and many of the grown-ups they know and trust are also under attack. As a thirty-nine year-old, I'm quite happy to cross swords with a fellow believer who questions my salvation or my theology because I endorse same-sex unions; I'm less happy when my fourteen year-olds are told they are going to hell because they worship where they do.
Still, like most of my fellow adult youth leaders, I have no intention of instilling a "martyr complex" in our teens. I'm not going to give them the pathetic "the world hates us for our commitment to Christ" song and dance. One of the least attractive strategies employed by Christian conservatives is to insist to their youth that by adhering to antiquated social mores they are somehow being boldly counter-cultural; I'll be darned if I'm going to foist the left-wing version of that nonsense on to my teens. In a world where real suffering is omnipresent, being told "you're not a Christian" because you worship at an inclusive church is hardly a major form of oppression.
On the other hand, we don't simply encourage a "stiff upper lip". We reminded our kids yesterday that no one issues "Christian credentials." There is no agreed-upon litmus test. While some evangelicals insist that Catholics aren't Christians, and others refuse to acknowledge Mormons as our brothers and sisters in Christ, most sensible believers choose to see all who follow Jesus as authentic Christians. While part of being Christian is certainly holding the person of Jesus Christ as central in one's faith, it is absurd to suggest that only those who believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, are actual Christians. "Being a Christian is about being willing to be on a journey with Jesus", I said, "even if you aren't quite sure who exactly Jesus is and even if you are very unsure of where it is you are going."
Mind you, I think there are limits to who gets to call themselves a "Christian." My mother regularly told my grandmother she wasn't a Christian. My grandmother had been an atheist since she was a student at Berkeley in the 1920s; she read Lucretius (De Rerum Natura), and that did it for her. She rejected the whole idea of a loving God who took an interest in human affairs. Yet she insisted on calling herself a Christian because in her childhood, to be "Christian" was simply to be kind and good. It wasn't a theological statement to her -- it was a statement about how one behaved towards one's fellow citizens. "Doing the Christian thing" referred to taking an active interest in the well-being of others, and had damn all to do with a belief in Jesus. To the end of her life, she was both "atheist and Christian".
While I adored my grandmother, I think she was outside the realm of what a Christian is. A specific belief about the inerrancy of Scripture or sexual morality is not a prerequisite for calling oneself a Christian, a recognition that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is central to one's faith does seem to be essential to using the term accurately. As a youth leader and confirmation teacher, I want to bring my kids closer to Jesus. I want them to love Him not merely as a great role model for righteous praxis but as the greatest of friends, the best of brothers, the most intimate of lovers. That is how I know Him, and that sweet, intimate, spiritually erotic relationship is the most exciting and enriching of my life.
But whatever relationship this year's confirmation crop chooses to develop with Christ, I want them to know that their right to call themselves Christians, their "claiming of the name", is not contingent on any one particular worldview; any one particular political allegiance; any one understanding of how, when, where, and with whom it is good and right to be sexual. And this year, our confirmands will learn that no narrow-minded classmate or friend can rob them of the right to embrace the Holy Name.
Fairy-Winged Pledges Raped by Frat 'Big Brothers'
Fairy-Winged Pledges Raped by Frat 'Big Brothers'?
11.13.06
By Walter Armstrong
Florida frat boys say they were just being "Big Brothers," but local cops call it a possible case of male-on-male rape.
Responding last week to "loud aggressive screaming and moaning" from the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity on the campus of the University of Central Florida, Orlando police reported finding seven or eight men crawling on their hands and knees and wearing bras, fairy wings, and other bizarre getups.
Three of the young men were so drunk that they had to be hospitalized. One, in a rainbow-colored wig and a diaper, was found sobbing on the floor, and another—wearing a blond wing, pink tank top, and women's panties—was puking. A third, who was wearing pink fairy wings, could not walk (or fly, for that matter).
College hazing is a crime in Florida. That may be one reason that SAE members say the party was a Big Brother event, during which "a fraternity member hangs out with a pledge assigned to him," according to Central Florida News.
But neither the police nor the university is buying it. "The university is looking into three possible concerns: misuse of alcohol, possible hazing, and possible disorderly conduct," spokeswoman Linda Gray said.
In recent years, SAE has taken the school's storied tradition for marathon drinking to new heights. In 2000, four people overdosed on the illegal drug GHB. In a 2003 hazing, pledges were found duct-taped inside a truck—an incident that led to the frat's one-year suspension.
Now their serious partying may land frat members in court for serious crimes, including rape. During a search of the SAE house, the cops reportedly confiscated evidence indicating that numerous sexual assaults may have taken place. Is that any way for a Big Brother to act?
© 2006 RealJock.com; All Rights Reserved.
11.13.06
By Walter Armstrong
Florida frat boys say they were just being "Big Brothers," but local cops call it a possible case of male-on-male rape.
Responding last week to "loud aggressive screaming and moaning" from the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity on the campus of the University of Central Florida, Orlando police reported finding seven or eight men crawling on their hands and knees and wearing bras, fairy wings, and other bizarre getups.
Three of the young men were so drunk that they had to be hospitalized. One, in a rainbow-colored wig and a diaper, was found sobbing on the floor, and another—wearing a blond wing, pink tank top, and women's panties—was puking. A third, who was wearing pink fairy wings, could not walk (or fly, for that matter).
College hazing is a crime in Florida. That may be one reason that SAE members say the party was a Big Brother event, during which "a fraternity member hangs out with a pledge assigned to him," according to Central Florida News.
But neither the police nor the university is buying it. "The university is looking into three possible concerns: misuse of alcohol, possible hazing, and possible disorderly conduct," spokeswoman Linda Gray said.
In recent years, SAE has taken the school's storied tradition for marathon drinking to new heights. In 2000, four people overdosed on the illegal drug GHB. In a 2003 hazing, pledges were found duct-taped inside a truck—an incident that led to the frat's one-year suspension.
Now their serious partying may land frat members in court for serious crimes, including rape. During a search of the SAE house, the cops reportedly confiscated evidence indicating that numerous sexual assaults may have taken place. Is that any way for a Big Brother to act?
© 2006 RealJock.com; All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 06, 2006
A Double Standard When Homosexuals Get Arrested
Double Standards for Homosexuals
When it comes to the legal system, everyone is treated fairly and equally. That is unless you are gay, then you find yourself in a witch hunt of the worst kind.
By Kathie Gouraly
Posted Monday, October 2, 2006
They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
Readers of this web site are probably aware of the cases of Ken Gourlay and Tim Richards, both of whom are being prosecuted because of allegations by Justin Berry, who is making his accusations in exchange for U. S. Federal immunity from his own numerous crimes, not least of which is producing child pornography with himself as the child star.
Ken's case is being prosecuted by the Michigan Attorney General, while Tim's is being prosecuted in Tennessee by the U. S. Department of Justice, but both are being prosecuted with overwhelming unfairness and with the hysterical tone of a witch hunt.
Ken's case in particular seems to be fodder for the reelection campaign of Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox. Democrat Amos Williams is running against Cox. We believe that if Williams were the Attorney General now, Ken would not be under state prosecution.
Regardless of whether Ken is guilty or innocent, the Attorney General's office has handled Ken's case unjustly in the following ways:
1) They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
2) They set a half-million dollar bond for this non-violent offender with no previous criminal record.
3) In September after discovering that Ken's family had managed to combine resources and pay the bond, they re-arrested Ken with new charges based on information that they had had for 6 weeks but had chosen not to use before.
4) When Ken turned himself in they again alerted and had tv news there.
5) This arrest was coordinated with arrests of seventeen other alleged sex criminals on the same day, an event which the Attorney General publicized with a press conference.
6) This distorted publicity might prejudice thousands of potential jury members, and prevent Ken from getting a fair trial,
7) Ken's new charges were most unusual, 20 charges instead of 1, all for 3rd degree (consensual) sexual conduct with the same person.
8) Instead of a normal sized bond for these charges, and after Cox's prosecuting attorney repeatedly said he saw no need for more bond money, at the arraignment the A.G.'s office asked for an additional one million dollar bond (appearing to be violating the 8th amendment of the Constitution). The purpose of bond is not to keep someone in jail, but to assure that he/she appears in court. All Ken's charges require a bond, ie. they are "bondable".
9) Although Cox has disclaimers on his website saying that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, the words and actions of his office negate this.
Although we feel that child sex crimes can be very serious, not all of them are equally so. The obsession of the Michigan Attorney General's office with this issue is working to Michigan's detriment.
Instead, we believe Michigan should be moving forward on a more effective path. We desire a Michigan Attorney General who:
1) Gives attention to ALL types of crimes. In particular, those crimes that extend beyond the bounds of a single local judiciary or involve the local government itself - corporate crimes, utility company crimes, environmental crimes, crimes by the police.
2) Sets the highest ethical standards for fairness, due process, and civil rights.
3) Respects and defends an accused person's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. Does not hold press conferences announcing arrests and does not parade arrested people in chains before television cameras.
4) Does not use high bonds deliberately to detain people.
5) Does not prosecute homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals accused of the same type of crime.
6) Prosecutes offenders of hate crimes against gays and perceived child offenders, both inside and outside prisons, whether perpetrated by inmates or guards, and educates the public to reduce hate crimes.
7) Encourages judges to take into account the circumstances when creating a sentence.
8) Recommends safe, but less severe punishments to encourage sex offenders and their acquaintances to voluntarily come forward.
9) Uses best known sex therapies and electronic monitoring instead of prison to keep society safe, while at the same time saving taxpayer money, minimizing disruption to families, and allowing sex offenders to contribute to society as much as possible.
10) Does not use stings to create criminals.
11) Does not grant immunity in exchange for incriminating evidence.
This is unfair and produces unreliable evidence.
Other issues raised by Ken's case:
1) The media are sensationalizing the case: by using terms such as Ken "lured" Justin to Ann Arbor; calling criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree, which is consensual sex, a "rape"; and by reporting Ken's age as a year older than it is.
2) Ken is being treated as guilty before being convicted. Did you know 60% of the people in Michigan jails are there pre-trial? The UN recommends holding such people, if they must be detained at all, in separate facilities from convicted criminals.
3) Ken is being charged with various crimes, and also being charged separately with using the Internet to facilitate those crimes. The Internet charges actually have harsher penalties than the crimes themselves. Why should use of the Internet to plan a crime have a harsher sentence than the crime itself? Why is using the Internet different than using the phone, or using the mail?
4) The U. S. has extremely long sentences and harsh penalties compared to other countries in the world. Did you know that of the 9 million people in prison in the world, 2 million of them are in the United States? Google "The Sentencing Project".
5) The U. S. is schizophrenic about sex. Almost everything is
sexualized: movies, music, clothes, magazines, even cars. Sex is on teenagers minds more than anything else. If two 15 year olds have sex it is considered "sexual experimentation", however if a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex it is a 15 year felony. Neither of these situations are necessarily good, moral, or appropriate, but they are not very different from each other.
6) Sex offenders are subject to unique, unreasonable, lifetime penalties. Shouldn't it be possible at some point to say someone has been punished enough? Why should former sex criminals have to register for the rest of their lives, when murderers and other assaultive offenders don't have to? Why should former sex criminals be prevented from living near schools or playgrounds when murderers and assaultive criminals can live there. Why should these penalties extend even to someone who was found to have pornography or to have consensual sex with someone they shouldn't have? Why should former sex offenders be forbidden from holding more and more kinds of jobs?
When it comes to the legal system, everyone is treated fairly and equally. That is unless you are gay, then you find yourself in a witch hunt of the worst kind.
By Kathie Gouraly
Posted Monday, October 2, 2006
They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
Readers of this web site are probably aware of the cases of Ken Gourlay and Tim Richards, both of whom are being prosecuted because of allegations by Justin Berry, who is making his accusations in exchange for U. S. Federal immunity from his own numerous crimes, not least of which is producing child pornography with himself as the child star.
Ken's case is being prosecuted by the Michigan Attorney General, while Tim's is being prosecuted in Tennessee by the U. S. Department of Justice, but both are being prosecuted with overwhelming unfairness and with the hysterical tone of a witch hunt.
Ken's case in particular seems to be fodder for the reelection campaign of Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox. Democrat Amos Williams is running against Cox. We believe that if Williams were the Attorney General now, Ken would not be under state prosecution.
Regardless of whether Ken is guilty or innocent, the Attorney General's office has handled Ken's case unjustly in the following ways:
1) They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
2) They set a half-million dollar bond for this non-violent offender with no previous criminal record.
3) In September after discovering that Ken's family had managed to combine resources and pay the bond, they re-arrested Ken with new charges based on information that they had had for 6 weeks but had chosen not to use before.
4) When Ken turned himself in they again alerted and had tv news there.
5) This arrest was coordinated with arrests of seventeen other alleged sex criminals on the same day, an event which the Attorney General publicized with a press conference.
6) This distorted publicity might prejudice thousands of potential jury members, and prevent Ken from getting a fair trial,
7) Ken's new charges were most unusual, 20 charges instead of 1, all for 3rd degree (consensual) sexual conduct with the same person.
8) Instead of a normal sized bond for these charges, and after Cox's prosecuting attorney repeatedly said he saw no need for more bond money, at the arraignment the A.G.'s office asked for an additional one million dollar bond (appearing to be violating the 8th amendment of the Constitution). The purpose of bond is not to keep someone in jail, but to assure that he/she appears in court. All Ken's charges require a bond, ie. they are "bondable".
9) Although Cox has disclaimers on his website saying that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, the words and actions of his office negate this.
Although we feel that child sex crimes can be very serious, not all of them are equally so. The obsession of the Michigan Attorney General's office with this issue is working to Michigan's detriment.
Instead, we believe Michigan should be moving forward on a more effective path. We desire a Michigan Attorney General who:
1) Gives attention to ALL types of crimes. In particular, those crimes that extend beyond the bounds of a single local judiciary or involve the local government itself - corporate crimes, utility company crimes, environmental crimes, crimes by the police.
2) Sets the highest ethical standards for fairness, due process, and civil rights.
3) Respects and defends an accused person's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. Does not hold press conferences announcing arrests and does not parade arrested people in chains before television cameras.
4) Does not use high bonds deliberately to detain people.
5) Does not prosecute homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals accused of the same type of crime.
6) Prosecutes offenders of hate crimes against gays and perceived child offenders, both inside and outside prisons, whether perpetrated by inmates or guards, and educates the public to reduce hate crimes.
7) Encourages judges to take into account the circumstances when creating a sentence.
8) Recommends safe, but less severe punishments to encourage sex offenders and their acquaintances to voluntarily come forward.
9) Uses best known sex therapies and electronic monitoring instead of prison to keep society safe, while at the same time saving taxpayer money, minimizing disruption to families, and allowing sex offenders to contribute to society as much as possible.
10) Does not use stings to create criminals.
11) Does not grant immunity in exchange for incriminating evidence.
This is unfair and produces unreliable evidence.
Other issues raised by Ken's case:
1) The media are sensationalizing the case: by using terms such as Ken "lured" Justin to Ann Arbor; calling criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree, which is consensual sex, a "rape"; and by reporting Ken's age as a year older than it is.
2) Ken is being treated as guilty before being convicted. Did you know 60% of the people in Michigan jails are there pre-trial? The UN recommends holding such people, if they must be detained at all, in separate facilities from convicted criminals.
3) Ken is being charged with various crimes, and also being charged separately with using the Internet to facilitate those crimes. The Internet charges actually have harsher penalties than the crimes themselves. Why should use of the Internet to plan a crime have a harsher sentence than the crime itself? Why is using the Internet different than using the phone, or using the mail?
4) The U. S. has extremely long sentences and harsh penalties compared to other countries in the world. Did you know that of the 9 million people in prison in the world, 2 million of them are in the United States? Google "The Sentencing Project".
5) The U. S. is schizophrenic about sex. Almost everything is
sexualized: movies, music, clothes, magazines, even cars. Sex is on teenagers minds more than anything else. If two 15 year olds have sex it is considered "sexual experimentation", however if a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex it is a 15 year felony. Neither of these situations are necessarily good, moral, or appropriate, but they are not very different from each other.
6) Sex offenders are subject to unique, unreasonable, lifetime penalties. Shouldn't it be possible at some point to say someone has been punished enough? Why should former sex criminals have to register for the rest of their lives, when murderers and other assaultive offenders don't have to? Why should former sex criminals be prevented from living near schools or playgrounds when murderers and assaultive criminals can live there. Why should these penalties extend even to someone who was found to have pornography or to have consensual sex with someone they shouldn't have? Why should former sex offenders be forbidden from holding more and more kinds of jobs?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Delighted Snickers:
I suspect that this will be a rather uncomfortable weekend at the Ted Haggard tax-free mansion. You see, Reverend Haggard is a vociferous spokesperson against gay marriage and, until yesterday, his wife probably had no idea she was actually in one.
Oh, I can hear some of you gals used to being around florists and Governors of New Jersey -- and Texas -- cackling. You think I'm selling the woman's intuition for pushily obvious queenery short. But if Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance. Because if you can't tell that Haggard is not just gay, but marabou mules wearing gay, you must have bought your refurbished Gaydar at the same kiosk Tom Cruise got his E-meter.
But before everyone piles on with protestations of shock and awe, allow me to pause for praise where it is due for this man Harper’s claimed to hold more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than any pastor in America. It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality.
Haggard famously claimed that "the only difference between me and George Bush is that Bush drives a Ford and I drive a Chevy." And from what I can tell, this may be the only honest thing the man has said. Let's compare, shall we?
Against gay marriage?
Check.
Fondness for sniffing illegal white powder?
Check.
Association with gay male prostitutes?
Jeff Gannon meet Mike Jones.
But I guess it is no more difficult to be a homosexual who purports to dislike homosexuality than it is to be a strike-first warmonger who purports to follow the Prince of Peace. Indeed, if only lying were a car, instead of a way of approaching the world, maybe one of them would have finally traded it in for something else by now.
But Mr. Haggard shows no more knack for honesty than he does for picking discrete prostitutes. As an evangelical preacher, he is clearly too used to getting up in front of people who believe anything he says to lie convincingly to those still fettered by thought. Indeed, his lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it.
For example, Haggard claims he visited the man he previously had never met simply to get a "massage." The chaste, innocent purpose of this endeavor must explain why he used a pseudonym. (As Marge Davis asked, "Well what is it that they are massaging is what I want to know!").
Haggard is also claiming that he purchased a "first time customers only" introductory sample of crystal meth (meth dealers are notorious for their promotions). But threw it away. This must be our GOP version of the implausibility of "not inhaling," but, in typical Republican fashion, seems rather more blatantly wasteful. Did he not think of the consequences of this lie? Why, poor Nicole Richie is probably combing the side of every road out of Denver for that tiny baggie as I type this. But the talent-free waif searches in vain. Anyone who listens to Haggard's insistent voice messages can tell that this was someone jonesing for a fix, not a mildly curious man given to impromptu middle-age hard-drug experimentation like another 50 year-old might finally try a Mojito. Listen to the recordings: we're talking "Lindsay Lohan down to her last kilo" desperate here.
It's become almost an axiom of American unctuousness that the more preening the public scold, the more inevitable the public scald. A public paradigm usually has a private paramour. Once pompous glutton William Bennett set himself up as an arbitrator of our virtues, it was only a matter of time before the arbitrariness of his own virtues was laid out like a losing twosome in blackjack.
While this type of cynical scorn of one's own words might strike the naïve as galling, there has always been a disconnect between private men and their public protestations. But for the miracle of vote tampering and activist Supreme Court judges, evangelicals would have been as essential to Mr. Bush's election as they like to assume. And every pandering appearance near a cross or coded reference to scripture stuck like a clumsy, phosphorescent Post-It into a State of the Union address reminds us that the President is keenly aware of this perceived debt. But David Kuo, in his book Tempting Fate, tells us that such overt supplication is done with patronizing perfunctoriness. Evangelicals are actually mocked behind their backs at the White House.
The White House might have found this revelation embarrassing if people like Haggard didn't routinely prove that Evangelicals don't take anything they say seriously either. Jim Bakker got caught with his secretary while she still had her own breasts. Jimmy Swaggart got caught in a motel on a urine-stained mattress littered with unsavory streetwalkers. And Paul Crouch had to pay off his gay lover. (Mr. Crouch, appears to have been forgiven, if only because even those most strongly against homosexuality understand the urge to look for sexual outlets that don't involve Jan Crouch being naked.)
Mark Foley campaigned against legalizing gay marriage. Almost inevitably, we then find out that this was probably only because he would never tie the knot with someone old enough to legally marry. Haggard, perhaps in response to how Foley's crude, after-the-fact attempts to link his unacceptable homosexual indiscretion to a perfectly acceptable addiction, was rather smart to have a sex scandal prepackaged with an even better addiction. Well played!
Not to be outdone, Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Attorney General Charlie Crist, much like Ted Haggard, has not allowed his actual participation in homosexuality to get in the way of speaking out against the idea of homosexuality. And, frankly, I'm not sure what more readily impugns his boyfriend Bruce Carlton Jordan's character: being a convicted thief or working for that crazy sex kitten Katherine Harris. But what can you expect from the state that gave us not only the odious Miss Harris but also aquamarine appliances?
While Jesus was appallingly lax in neglecting to mention His disgust with homosexuality, He did take Republicans (for some reason, called Pharisees back then) to task for being hypocrites. As any modern Republican can tell you, Jesus, of course, had it all backwards. Homosexuality is to be despised. And lying (even about despising homosexuality) it just a quirk, something you tell people to get their money or vote. Ask Ted Haggard's best buddy James Dobson.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Delighted Snickers:
I suspect that this will be a rather uncomfortable weekend at the Ted Haggard tax-free mansion. You see, Reverend Haggard is a vociferous spokesperson against gay marriage and, until yesterday, his wife probably had no idea she was actually in one.
Oh, I can hear some of you gals used to being around florists and Governors of New Jersey -- and Texas -- cackling. You think I'm selling the woman's intuition for pushily obvious queenery short. But if Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance. Because if you can't tell that Haggard is not just gay, but marabou mules wearing gay, you must have bought your refurbished Gaydar at the same kiosk Tom Cruise got his E-meter.
But before everyone piles on with protestations of shock and awe, allow me to pause for praise where it is due for this man Harper’s claimed to hold more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than any pastor in America. It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality.
Haggard famously claimed that "the only difference between me and George Bush is that Bush drives a Ford and I drive a Chevy." And from what I can tell, this may be the only honest thing the man has said. Let's compare, shall we?
Against gay marriage?
Check.
Fondness for sniffing illegal white powder?
Check.
Association with gay male prostitutes?
Jeff Gannon meet Mike Jones.
But I guess it is no more difficult to be a homosexual who purports to dislike homosexuality than it is to be a strike-first warmonger who purports to follow the Prince of Peace. Indeed, if only lying were a car, instead of a way of approaching the world, maybe one of them would have finally traded it in for something else by now.
But Mr. Haggard shows no more knack for honesty than he does for picking discrete prostitutes. As an evangelical preacher, he is clearly too used to getting up in front of people who believe anything he says to lie convincingly to those still fettered by thought. Indeed, his lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it.
For example, Haggard claims he visited the man he previously had never met simply to get a "massage." The chaste, innocent purpose of this endeavor must explain why he used a pseudonym. (As Marge Davis asked, "Well what is it that they are massaging is what I want to know!").
Haggard is also claiming that he purchased a "first time customers only" introductory sample of crystal meth (meth dealers are notorious for their promotions). But threw it away. This must be our GOP version of the implausibility of "not inhaling," but, in typical Republican fashion, seems rather more blatantly wasteful. Did he not think of the consequences of this lie? Why, poor Nicole Richie is probably combing the side of every road out of Denver for that tiny baggie as I type this. But the talent-free waif searches in vain. Anyone who listens to Haggard's insistent voice messages can tell that this was someone jonesing for a fix, not a mildly curious man given to impromptu middle-age hard-drug experimentation like another 50 year-old might finally try a Mojito. Listen to the recordings: we're talking "Lindsay Lohan down to her last kilo" desperate here.
It's become almost an axiom of American unctuousness that the more preening the public scold, the more inevitable the public scald. A public paradigm usually has a private paramour. Once pompous glutton William Bennett set himself up as an arbitrator of our virtues, it was only a matter of time before the arbitrariness of his own virtues was laid out like a losing twosome in blackjack.
While this type of cynical scorn of one's own words might strike the naïve as galling, there has always been a disconnect between private men and their public protestations. But for the miracle of vote tampering and activist Supreme Court judges, evangelicals would have been as essential to Mr. Bush's election as they like to assume. And every pandering appearance near a cross or coded reference to scripture stuck like a clumsy, phosphorescent Post-It into a State of the Union address reminds us that the President is keenly aware of this perceived debt. But David Kuo, in his book Tempting Fate, tells us that such overt supplication is done with patronizing perfunctoriness. Evangelicals are actually mocked behind their backs at the White House.
The White House might have found this revelation embarrassing if people like Haggard didn't routinely prove that Evangelicals don't take anything they say seriously either. Jim Bakker got caught with his secretary while she still had her own breasts. Jimmy Swaggart got caught in a motel on a urine-stained mattress littered with unsavory streetwalkers. And Paul Crouch had to pay off his gay lover. (Mr. Crouch, appears to have been forgiven, if only because even those most strongly against homosexuality understand the urge to look for sexual outlets that don't involve Jan Crouch being naked.)
Mark Foley campaigned against legalizing gay marriage. Almost inevitably, we then find out that this was probably only because he would never tie the knot with someone old enough to legally marry. Haggard, perhaps in response to how Foley's crude, after-the-fact attempts to link his unacceptable homosexual indiscretion to a perfectly acceptable addiction, was rather smart to have a sex scandal prepackaged with an even better addiction. Well played!
Not to be outdone, Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Attorney General Charlie Crist, much like Ted Haggard, has not allowed his actual participation in homosexuality to get in the way of speaking out against the idea of homosexuality. And, frankly, I'm not sure what more readily impugns his boyfriend Bruce Carlton Jordan's character: being a convicted thief or working for that crazy sex kitten Katherine Harris. But what can you expect from the state that gave us not only the odious Miss Harris but also aquamarine appliances?
While Jesus was appallingly lax in neglecting to mention His disgust with homosexuality, He did take Republicans (for some reason, called Pharisees back then) to task for being hypocrites. As any modern Republican can tell you, Jesus, of course, had it all backwards. Homosexuality is to be despised. And lying (even about despising homosexuality) it just a quirk, something you tell people to get their money or vote. Ask Ted Haggard's best buddy James Dobson.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Betty Bowers Election Day/Halloween News Letter
Mrs. Betty Bowers' Halloween / Election Newsletter 2006
Dear Spooked-Out Voter:
I'm doing a joint Halloween Night and Election Day newsletter this year because, frankly, the two holidays are virtually indistinguishable. After all, political campaigning is all about pretending you're something you're not -- and then scaring people. Mr. Bush pretends he's competent; Mr. Cheney pretends he's sane -- and then they both run around our cities trying to frighten strangers.
The "Vote Because You're Scared!" drumbeat seemed to work well in the last election. It certainly worked more than the indolent blowhards we elected to the 109th Congress because of it! I fear, however, that such an alarmist mantra has lost its appeal and potency now that voters have had time to realize that the reason we're scared is because of who we voted for in 2000 and 2004.
Since the GOP has no verifiable successes to tout, I'm rather proud of how inventive our latest iteration of the "stick with the incumbent" message has been this year.
In case you haven't picked up on this delicately nuanced sophistry in the relentless stream of earnest blather coming every 30 seconds from you TV, allow me to break it down for you, dears.
The GOP message basically boils down to this: We have created a world so unstable and hostile with our unbroken string of blunders and unnecessary provocations, can you really risk electing someone new who will squander two weeks learning the screen-names for all the sluttiest pages?
I have to chuckle at all of the fear-mongering ads this year. No, it's not the ubiquitous, bland female voice, which would sound like a hammy attempt at "solemn" and "concerned" on the stages of even America's least persnickety-at-casting community theaters. And it isn't how often she earnestly intones, "Can we really afford to risk electing the other guy?" No, what makes me laugh is that congressmen who are throwing $200,000,000 each and every day down that insatiable drain called Iraq, money that could be spent on schools and health, have the temerity to ask us questions that start with "Can we really afford to . . ."
Speaking of that imploding, anarchical money pit, when the lights go out at a press conference to herald progress in Iraq, you know that crazy hellhole is falling apart quicker than Kevin Federline's rap career. As such, President Bush (truly the Carrot Top of silly political props) is left to chant "Presto Chango" and unveil -- are you ready for it? -- a timetable. In a nutshell, this "Timetable for Iraq" is basically arbitrary, un-agreed-upon dates when the impossible will not happen. While a timetable in Iraq is probably about as useful as a reservation in Burger King, it is Mr. Bush's gallantly wistful attempt to make it look as if he has actually accomplished something -- anything -- before the election. As you may have guessed, this timetable is just as likely to be successful after the election as the President's mother's recently penned "Timetable to be Smokin' Hot Again."
Speaking of the ever-charming Bar Bush, this campaign has been unusually ugly, hasn't it? But we can't expect an election to be genteel when a perfunctory congressional roll call nets more sexual predators than Dateline NBC.
And if we're not being frightened out of our wits that some Negro running for Tennessee Senator, Harold Ford Jr., might pick up the phone and call a white harlot, we are peeing our drawers that homosexuals may one day pick out china together in the sacred department stores of New Jersey.
Perhaps the scariest thing about this Halloween evening is that it is the last day of the month, and there is still no October Surprise! I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but isn't it time Karl Rove climbed out from under Jeff Gannon long enough to round up an Islamic coffee klatch that knew a man who met a woman who had a niece who once said something suspicious about a recipe for exploding hair conditioner -- or maybe it was tabouli . . .
Of course, nature, just like Mrs. Bowers, abhors a vacuum. When the Republicans fail to hurt the Democrats, we can always count on the Democrats to pull their weight. So, a week before the election the relentlessly clumsy John Kerry makes a comment that would seem to impugn the same troops that are being supported by magnetic car decals from coast to cast.
Yes, the White House has called on Senator John Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq because he may have hurt their feelings.
Even if Mr. Bush were wont to admit error, much less apologize, to the servicemen in Iraq he hurt, he couldn't.
They are dead.
Yes, it had been a sad and scary election year. As a Republican, I'd actually be quite scared if America still went through the arduous, quaint process of counting votes!
Dear Spooked-Out Voter:
I'm doing a joint Halloween Night and Election Day newsletter this year because, frankly, the two holidays are virtually indistinguishable. After all, political campaigning is all about pretending you're something you're not -- and then scaring people. Mr. Bush pretends he's competent; Mr. Cheney pretends he's sane -- and then they both run around our cities trying to frighten strangers.
The "Vote Because You're Scared!" drumbeat seemed to work well in the last election. It certainly worked more than the indolent blowhards we elected to the 109th Congress because of it! I fear, however, that such an alarmist mantra has lost its appeal and potency now that voters have had time to realize that the reason we're scared is because of who we voted for in 2000 and 2004.
Since the GOP has no verifiable successes to tout, I'm rather proud of how inventive our latest iteration of the "stick with the incumbent" message has been this year.
In case you haven't picked up on this delicately nuanced sophistry in the relentless stream of earnest blather coming every 30 seconds from you TV, allow me to break it down for you, dears.
The GOP message basically boils down to this: We have created a world so unstable and hostile with our unbroken string of blunders and unnecessary provocations, can you really risk electing someone new who will squander two weeks learning the screen-names for all the sluttiest pages?
I have to chuckle at all of the fear-mongering ads this year. No, it's not the ubiquitous, bland female voice, which would sound like a hammy attempt at "solemn" and "concerned" on the stages of even America's least persnickety-at-casting community theaters. And it isn't how often she earnestly intones, "Can we really afford to risk electing the other guy?" No, what makes me laugh is that congressmen who are throwing $200,000,000 each and every day down that insatiable drain called Iraq, money that could be spent on schools and health, have the temerity to ask us questions that start with "Can we really afford to . . ."
Speaking of that imploding, anarchical money pit, when the lights go out at a press conference to herald progress in Iraq, you know that crazy hellhole is falling apart quicker than Kevin Federline's rap career. As such, President Bush (truly the Carrot Top of silly political props) is left to chant "Presto Chango" and unveil -- are you ready for it? -- a timetable. In a nutshell, this "Timetable for Iraq" is basically arbitrary, un-agreed-upon dates when the impossible will not happen. While a timetable in Iraq is probably about as useful as a reservation in Burger King, it is Mr. Bush's gallantly wistful attempt to make it look as if he has actually accomplished something -- anything -- before the election. As you may have guessed, this timetable is just as likely to be successful after the election as the President's mother's recently penned "Timetable to be Smokin' Hot Again."
Speaking of the ever-charming Bar Bush, this campaign has been unusually ugly, hasn't it? But we can't expect an election to be genteel when a perfunctory congressional roll call nets more sexual predators than Dateline NBC.
And if we're not being frightened out of our wits that some Negro running for Tennessee Senator, Harold Ford Jr., might pick up the phone and call a white harlot, we are peeing our drawers that homosexuals may one day pick out china together in the sacred department stores of New Jersey.
Perhaps the scariest thing about this Halloween evening is that it is the last day of the month, and there is still no October Surprise! I don't mean to be an alarmist here, but isn't it time Karl Rove climbed out from under Jeff Gannon long enough to round up an Islamic coffee klatch that knew a man who met a woman who had a niece who once said something suspicious about a recipe for exploding hair conditioner -- or maybe it was tabouli . . .
Of course, nature, just like Mrs. Bowers, abhors a vacuum. When the Republicans fail to hurt the Democrats, we can always count on the Democrats to pull their weight. So, a week before the election the relentlessly clumsy John Kerry makes a comment that would seem to impugn the same troops that are being supported by magnetic car decals from coast to cast.
Yes, the White House has called on Senator John Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq because he may have hurt their feelings.
Even if Mr. Bush were wont to admit error, much less apologize, to the servicemen in Iraq he hurt, he couldn't.
They are dead.
Yes, it had been a sad and scary election year. As a Republican, I'd actually be quite scared if America still went through the arduous, quaint process of counting votes!
Catholic Woman Murdered by Gay Man; She 'Questioned' His Lifestyle
LAW OF THE LAND
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The Death of Mary Stachowicz
Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.
And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.
The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.
She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.
But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.
"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.
"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."
"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.
According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.
"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.
"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.
"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.
She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.
He later led police to the body and confessed.
National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.
According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.
The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."
Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.
Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."
"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."
LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."
"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"
Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.
"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.
He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.
"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.
One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."
"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The Death of Mary Stachowicz
Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.
And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.
The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.
She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.
But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.
"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.
"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."
"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.
According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.
"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.
"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.
"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.
She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.
"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."
Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.
He later led police to the body and confessed.
National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.
According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'
"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.
The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."
Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.
Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."
"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."
LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."
"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"
Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.
"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.
He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.
"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.
One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."
"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
