Jack & Jill Politics

Oh. My. God.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


***Sigh****


Miranda, did you see that?? OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw the move "MILK" this afternoon. Has anyone else seen it? It was released last month. In the 1970's,the fight was for Prop 6

Academy Award nominee Gus Van Sant directs Academy Award winner Sean Penn as gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Mr. Milk (1930-1978) was an activist and politician, and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in America; in 1977, he was voted to the city supervisors’ board of San Francisco.

The following year, both he and the city's mayor George Moscone were shot to death by another city supervisor, Dan White. Mr. Milk was previously the subject of the Academy Award-winning documentary feature "The Times of Harvey Milk," but "Milk" is the first non-documentary feature to explore the man's life and career.


http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/movie/milk/

I saw it for the second time this Saturday. It was great! I give it my thumbs up!

Why did white shoot milk?

Did you check your email?

Check your email. :-)))

EVENING THREAD IS UP

I just have to leave this link to Akon's new single called Freedom. I am not a big fan of his, but this song is beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKT8F2eFKMQ

Thanks Lilytiger! I'm not a Akon fan too much, but this is one is pretty cool!

110-year-old Bastrop woman dies 2 days after birthday
By GARY SCHARRER and CINDY TUMIEL
San Antonio Express-News
Dec. 19, 2008, 10:36PM

AUSTIN — The 110-year-old daughter of a slave who lived long enough to vote for the first African-American president died in her sleep Thursday — two days after her birthday.

Amanda Roberts Jones of Cedar Creek, a community near Bastrop, had just received a new dress that she was looking forward to wearing on Sunday to a birthday reception honoring her long life.

The party will go on as planned.

"We are still going to celebrate her life," granddaughter Beverly Shaw said Friday.

It was a life that lasted through an entire century and parts of two others.

Construction of the Titanic had not yet started, the Wright brothers had not yet taken flight and electricity for the Texas Hill Country was still about 45 years away when Amanda Roberts arrived as a newborn baby in Bastrop on Dec. 16, 1898.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolita...

Wow.......Amanda Roberts got her wings.

-Oh no he didn't! (snark)

Obama short on Southerners in Cabinet appointments
By BEN EVANS - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- The South may have inched toward Democrats in November, but that progress isn't showing in President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet selections.

Obama hasn't nominated a single Southerner among his 15 Cabinet secretaries. So far, Obama's only pick from the region is a borderline Southerner in a relatively low-profile position: former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk for U.S. trade representative.

The disparity isn't an accident - critics already are calling it a snub - and that perception could slow the pace of recent electoral gains Democrats have made below the Mason-Dixon line.

"Southerners need not apply," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "It's hard to believe that there wasn't anybody qualified for something from the South."

http://www.thestate.com/statewire/story/627026....

Lisa Jackson is a Southerner...she is from New Orleans

Works for me.

Souterners need not ever vote for a Republican president again either.

Yeah. Right.

Actually Jack, there aren't any to be honest.

Gates is a native of Alabama, methinks...

T.

Oh.......boo hoo.

They're not serious?! Can't be?!

Lawd have mercy.........................

If I hear one more person, especially a white person, equate Black people's 400 some odd year struggle for equality to that of gays not being able to marry, I do believe I will rip out every strand of my hair and run baldheaded and screaming down the street.

IT'S.NOT.THE.SAME........

I hear ya, BAP. The past few days have been very frustrating.

I'm sick and tired of people always trying to ride the coattails of the Civil Rights Movement and demanding that black people take up their causes, but they never want to reciprocate. Heck, many times these are the very same perpetrators of racism against us.

"...many times these are the very same perpetrators of racism against us."

And will continue to be after we help them to achieve their desires. I'm all for human rights and believe people should be able to marry whomever they choose, mine is not to judge or impose, but your blues ain't mine and never will be when you don't recognize and cease participating in my suffrage.

BAP,

I'm gonna have to follow Carolinagirl and step back from this because I'm starting to get mad from just thinking about some of the things my poor hard working parents had to go through just because they were wearing black face. And then having some wanting to ride on the backs of that struggle? Whew Lawd...

I KNOW that's right.

Last hired and first fired was particularly hard on families.

I am all for gay rights and am sad that Prop 8 failed as I don't like to see hate and religious views put into law, but, I have to say, I do get offended that the two struggles are the same to some people, especailly when it did not stop more than a few gays from calling blacks the n-word without a second thought. I still don't get why the gay's are on this marriage thing so much when they need federal hate crime laws and anti-job discrimination more, in my opinion.

Because most self-anointed white gay leaders are stupid.

That's why.

I'm so out of it I didn't even know there were gay leaders. Who are they?

They are nameless because they aren't leaders. They are agitators.

There are many. Do a little research or watch some of the news shows; they are everywhere speaking out against Prop 8.

'Cuz ya just know I'm tempted. ;)

It is NOT the same. It's probably a small miracle it hasn't somehow been compared to the tragic history of native peoples in this country.

It's not even so much about gay not being able to marry, per se. Many blacks take offense to black equality being equated with gay rights...period.. This was the argument long before gay marriage came up as an issue. Why?

Because being gay is something you do. Being black is who you are. One is inherent the other is an action or behavior.

Race is not a behavior.

I have one example Plantsmarx that sticks in my head.

I remember the mid-80's, I was in elementary school. And the actor Rock Hudson had passed away. Rock Hudson back then was like a modern-day Brad Pitt--one of THE leading men in Hollywood. And I remember my mom being shocked at his death, or so the cause. You see, Rock Hudson perished from AIDS-----but how could that be most people thought, many like her knew him as this leading man both on screen and presumably off. But it was later revealed that Hudson was a gay man who often went to great lengths to hide his sexual orientation....and became successful as an actor in the process, since revealing his sexual orientation at that time may have proved detrimental.

But I also think back to some of Black Hollywood's premier actors and actresses, who had an extremely hard time finding work, you know the sophisticated lead roles. Many of them faced outright discimination...Dorothy Dandrige's story is a prime example. Those same Black actors were looking for the roles and accolades that Rock Hudson had but unfortunately, they couldn't hide their skin tone at the door.

Fortunately there has been progress in both representation of POC and gays on television and in media. And for that I am thankful.


Let's be clear, though the pain hurts and bigotry stings....the struggle is not always the same. And I think the equivalence is what gets under the skin of some people.

No, it's not always the same. I think the comparisons are made when and where they're valid, and what's wrong with that? It's not as if any gay people are out there saying "We have to use seperate restrooms, just like they did". Come on. A comparison like that wouln'd get under my skin, but only because I'd be too busy being nonplussed by the silliness of it.

I have seen that comment made numerous times on various blogs. An example:

"Do we have to sit at the back of the bus now, too?"

"Separate but equal is ok now?"

Any my favorite:

"Gay is the new black"

I totally support gay marriage. I'm all for anyone being able to ruin their lives by getting hitched (sorry, couldn't resist):

But not having full legal marriage for GLBT people here in San Francisco where I live, and CA as a whole, but to have civil unions instead; is not a black civil rights era level assault on freedom, and I say this as a black, gay man myself.

I'm with you on the back of the bus comments, and especially the "Gay is the new black" ones, but I feel like I have to defend the use of separate but equal because- what other way is there to describe civil unions? Straight people get marriage, gay people get civil unions. Separate institutions that are in theory equal.

And one more thing.....even though I am a heterosexual married woman who wishes for eqaulity for all people on Earth, I can almost guarantee you that Gay or Lesbian POC also find discrimination among others in the LGBT community...and that is also just as disgusting as any other bigotry.

It is a known fact that homosexuals are some of the biggest racists. The gay scene has lots of 'separate but equal' theatre groups, restaurants, bars, and networking ...where folks of color are looked at with disdain and are treated dismissively if not derisively.

Please don't tar us all with the same brush. SOME homosexuals are some of the biggest racists, yes I'd agree with that, just like some heterosexuals are some of the biggest racists, but don't refer to the community like its a monolithic racist group, because that is just insulting, especially to those of us who have to navigate both queer and minority communities.

You do speak the truth.

I guess what is happening is that Obama is being blamed for every ill that has befallen this country by, what appears to many of us , the same people.

Clintonistas. The wording, the arguments, the tone and tactics. I am sure there are many who are newly upset but really, it is hard to find someone who will give a prayer that isn't against gay marriage. If he did chose that person then there would be another argument on his making a political and divisive statement on a day for all Americans. And it would comprise of right wingers and Clintonistas.

So as I believe in human rights I say that the day we can have a non christian give the prayer then it will really be a great day for religious rights.

See, there is no pleasing everyone.

Still, we do need to dial down the sweeping statements but we can point out the very vocal subgroup and comparisons they are making that don't ring true or right.

Personally the comparison does not get under MY skin.

But when you have one community essentially blaming the passage of a proposition on another ,that does.

And when members of the same group are upset and feel the need to call the P-E Obama and other blacks the n-word in their frustration, i also have a problem with that.

So really, you need to "Come on" You asked a question and i gave you a different prespective, which in my opinion is NOT offensive.

My example is a clear message that throughout history, and even now, you can be a gay individual and still possibly be able to navigate to certain heights than say a black or brown person would----that is simply the truth in some instances.

Of couse gay individuals face discrimination as well...I am just showing that the dynamics of discrimination permeate and affect individuals differently...and that is why our perceptions are also different in some cases.

This is a great example. While there has been progress in representation of POC and gays in entertainment....its a shame that every single black male that is supposed to be perceived as gay is always the hair stylist with the most exaggerated mannerisms since Flip Wilson was Geraldine.

I'll just write what I wrote a little earlier:

Last time I checked, the cops did not stop anyone because they were Driving While Gay. Dillard's Dept Store has not, to my knowledge, had Gay shoppers marked for scrutiny. On what application for a job, apartment or loan does it ask about sexual orientation? Newsflash: NONE - So please stop the illogical comparison with racial discrimination.

,,,and I'll just (sort of) reiterate, too- that's like saying a black person who can "pass" doesn't deserve the same "protected class" status as other blacks because they can hide their blackness.

That doesn't make sense because if a black is able to pass, they ususally don't suffer from discrimination.

No, that is like saying that 99.9% of blacks need the same 'protected class' because they can't pass, and Miranda itemized ways in which they can't.

If a black person who can "pass" chooses to be White on their driver's license, loan applications, job applications, etc..then hell no, they DON'T deserve the same "protected class" status - whatever the hell THAT is. (and dont bother with an explanation).
Now again....where on any of those do you classify your sexual orientation?

What about the black person who doesn't choose to be "white"?

You don't classify your sexual orientation anywhere on any of those. However, that doesn't mean that discrimination against a gay person after it is known he/she is gay is somehow more acceptable than it is against a black person. It also means that they shouldn't have to feel compelled to hide who they are any more than a black person who can "pass" should.

Seriously...the whooshing sound over your head...was the point.
"what about the black person who doesn't choose to be "white"? Who? The one who gets stopped for a ticket, was about to get a warning until the cop saw his driver's license? That person? Or the one who was all set for a pretty good interest rate until the loan officer saw where the little "X" was marked in the Racial Classification category (you know that's just for EEOC purposes, they don't really look at that...wink wink). Or how about the WHITE person that just so happens to have graduated from Clark Univ in Atlanta...you think there are HR personnel out there that still don't reject resumes based off perception of blackness ALONE?? Get real....there is NO FREAKING COMPARISON.

Yes, because 26 year old Sherika Watkins who attended Spelman is a shoo in for the position

Miranda,

Break. it. down.


(I couldn't help myself)

There is no comparison? Come on. No, their struggle is not exactly like ours in every way. How could it be? No other group's struggle has been exactly like ours. I don't think they make the comaprisons they do to try to say "Our struggle is exactly like theirs". I think they do it to get the point across that their struggle is just as valid as ours. That's it. At one time or another, many oppressed groups of people all over the world have compared their struggle with our civil rights movement, and we haven't rejected the comparisons. Why reject this one?

I think it's because some of us question why the LGBT community has to find every opportunity to compare their struggle with ours. There are other examples like the women's movement, the illegal immigration movement, the labor movement, etc. But the first comparison that comes out of their mouths is to the civil rights movement.

I am for gay rights and I do believe their struggle for equality is similar, but it's not the same, especially for white LGBTs. They don't have a history where their ancestors were chained and ripped from their way of life to live in a foreign land. Their names, their languages, their original religions, their entire humanity were stolen. They couldn't even be allow to read without the risk of getting killed.

Yes, it's wrong to deny the LGBT community to marry. But if you want the best way to compare it to the black experience, why not equate it with interracial marriage? It was also outlawed overwhelmingly across the country.

I'm just saying, for the LGBT community to compare one issue with an entire racial struggle comes off as insensitive (some might say opportunistic) and it feels forced upon for us to just accept these comparisons.

Therefore, I do want to ask, why is it so important for the LGBT community to always want to bring up the civil rights movement more than any other struggle?

"But if you want the best way to compare it to the black experience, why not equate it with interracial marriage?"

They do. That's one of the (I think) valid ways in which they do compare.

"Therefore, I do want to ask, why is it so important for the LGBT community to always want to bring up the civil rights movement more than any other struggle?"

Well, in response, I would ask YOU why it is so important for the Latino movement, the womens' movement, the labor movement, the Australian native movement, the Native American movement, the Indian Dalit (formerly Untouchables) movement, and others to bring up the U.S. black civil rights movement more than any other struggle? I would also ask why having all these other movements bring up our civil rights struggle doesn't seem to be a problem. Heck, I'd even ask why there seems to be LESS of a problem with having right-wing fundies and even white supremacists compare their "struggles" with ours.

" I would also ask why having all these other movements bring up our civil rights struggle doesn't seem to be a problem."

It did irk me during the primaries when feminists were saying it was "Hillary's turn" because women (white women) were more discriminated against than black men. Also, the Latino movement are consisted of different movements. The Latin Kings (Puerto Rican group) were alongside The Black Panthers. Mexican Migrant workers had Cesar Chavez as their leader, just to name a few examples.

I NEVER said I was more of a problem for the LGBT community to compare, it just seems as though they ONLY compare our struggle with theirs. It's almost as if they are relying on it to get what they want. "Gay is the new Black." Really?

Just because I don't entirely agree with their tactics for fighting injustice doesn't mean I'm intolerant to their cause. Like I said, I'm for gay marriage. But what's going to happen when they do get what they want? Will they cast us aside like the feminist movement did?

This is why identity politics should cease. No matter what I or anyone else says, you believe I'm slighting the LGBT community. I can't have any view other than agreeing with you 100%. That's why I see what Obama had in mind when he invited Rick Warren and Dr. Joseph Lowery. We can't keep fighting the same battles over and over. I'm black and I'm a woman. Which group am I supposed to align myself to more? Why do I have to? Why is it that I question one thing about the LGBT community that I'm considered insensitive? Why is it that if a black person points out some racist attitudes in the LGBT community it's swept aside?I'm not saying that specifically, it's what I've read on several blogs. WE ARE ALL HUMAN, but does that mean we have to condone every group's actions? Hell, there's a lot of things in the black community I don't agree with. For all groups to move on we have to find a way where we can disagree sometimes and still listen and work together. The key word is LISTEN.

There have been times, when I leave Jack & Jill Politics to head back to my blog, when I felt like Fred G. Sanford shuffling around his Watts junkyard.

But no more, because Poppa's Got A Brand New Bag. Brown Man has taken the plunge and braved the hazards of HTML and CSS to get himself some a new home base.

Brown Man Thinking Hard Gets Early Xmas Present

No you didn't say "like Fred G. Sanford shuffling around his Watts junkyard".

ROFLMAO!

Is the latest: Overturn Prop 8. by CA's AG, Jerry Brown, a cheap stunt to distract from the fact that the State of California is going Bankrupt? I mean, I cant help but question the timing...and ask: When will our politics become about serious matter affecting the well being of all us and not just certain constituencies?

as a resident of this BANKRUPT, #3 in UNEMPLOYMENT, and i believe #2 in home FORECLOSURES state, i am agreeing with you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!!! jerry brown needs to grab a clue, QUICKLY! we are living in serious, serious times...i don't give a fuck about who does (or does not) get married.

who was it that said "romance without finance is a nuisance"...???

On a lighter note, I think I just found my new holiday drink:

Ingredients:

1 oz. Belvedere vodka
1 dash Grand Marnier
1.5 oz. cranberry juice
.5 oz. fresh lime juice
1 twist orange
1 oz. Palais sparkling Brût champagne

Preparation:

1) Shake vodka, Grand Marnier, cranberry juice and lime juice over ice.

2) Strain into a chilled champagne flute.

3) Top with champagne.

4) Garnish with an orange slice.


http://www.fineliving.com/fine/entertaining/art...

Yummy.

Well.....its not like I really need my liver...do I? LOLOL

Those are some DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGEROUS ingredients.

Thanks! I love danger.

How can the NBRA seriously not see the flaw in that line of thinking? So the whole outreach program is to just pound away with why the Dems are bad? That's the plan?? Basically they're gonna run a negative campaign? OMG......well obviously they dont have intentions to actually increase their numbers...not like that they dont. Well.....you gave it a good shot!

I apologize if anyone has posted this before, but I wanted to know how people feel about this report from the Nation, excerpted on thinkprogress.org, about how white vigilante groups blockaded small town in post-Katrina New Orleans and murdered blacks.

Earlier this week, A.C. Thompson of The Nation revealed that after Hurricane Katrina, white vigilante groups patrolled New Orleans, blockaded streets, and shot at least eleven black men. It “was like pheasant season in South Dakota. If it moved, you shot it,” said one vigilante. Color of Change is organizing a campaign to tell Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and state officials to investigate the shootings, as “Louisiana’s broken law enforcement agencies have refused to investigate these crimes.” Watch Thompson’s video on his report:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/20/the-nation-...

"With fuel prices dipping to a five-year low, trucks are becoming popular again. From the Ford F-150 to the Toyota Tundra, see which trucks are most researched at AOL Autos. 15 Most Popular Trucks at AOL Autos"

http://autos.aol.com/gallery/most-popular-trucks

*facepalm* When are we gonna grow up and learn from our mistakes?

We don't learn from our mistakes because we never think its our mistake. Americans are pretty arrogant in that way.

Geraldine Ferraro has weighed in to urge the NY Governor to pick anyone but Caroline.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12202008/news/polit...

STFU Geraldine! You don't matter anymore! Race-baiter! How's that!

That woman is out of her mind; she still hasn't stopped drinking the Kool Aid since Billary lost.

I'm of two minds about Caroline (CaroLINE, not CaroLYNN) Kennedy. On one side, I think I know one reason why she's going for it--to keep the name of Kennedy on the radar for awhile after Unca Ted is dead. I have no problem with this.

On the other hand, Caroline has even less experience in government than her predecessor, who had more time to listen to N.Y. residents as well as having the support of the departing bloviator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But that still doesn't disqualify her from the job.

I'm rather disturbed at some of the liberal radio hosts like Ron Kuby dissing and dismissing the woman. Yes, she is the daughter of the late JFK. Yes, she's the only one left of that illustrious branch of the family. But you would think that there is something evil and underhand about her wanting the job.

I wish her well whether or not Patterson gives her the word.

We all know that Hillary became Senator all on her own. Certainly not via her family name or political connections. And of course she has "35 years of experience" or I guess back in 2000 that would have been 27 years of hard core political experience to be a Senator. She faced a very tough, well known opponent who wasn't just picked out of a hat after the only real competition found out he had cancer (Read: Mistress). So I can understand people being angry. Only women who have been first lady or know-nothing Wasilla Mayors/Alaska Gov should be able to run for Senate. Everyone else has to have massive resumes to even be considered, cause we sure don't want no political Dynasties, america is vastly opposed.

Just asked the Bushes, the Clinton's, Patterson's, Jackson's, the Murkowski's up in Alaska, etc

LOL....well said.

I read a comment on another blog that no one dared to respond too...there have been many occassions where a senator died in office or a sitting senator died while campaigning for re-election...and their spouse was appointed to the position or won in the election. No one questions the experience of the widow/widower......why is that? Is it out of sympathy only? Does being married to a senator (or former president) give you experience by osmosis?

Co-sign. I also think it disgusting that people are comparing her to Sarah Palin.

I'm back from the ER ya'll it didn't really take that long. After my post I was out of there in about 1 hour.

The PA told me I have tonsilitis. I've actually had strep throat and tonsilitis before, but it's been a long time since I had an active case.

The prescription for me is lots of fluids, soups, and R&R. Lucky for me, you don't need to swallow to type or surf the internet.

Thx for all the well wishes guys. I appreciate it.

lamh31: Yaaaaaa! :>) :>) :>)

Waiting for the day when you say - - - -

I Feel Good (James Brown Live 8 )


ENJOY!!!! :>) :>)

I'm glad it wasn't too serious. Getting a true diagnosis helps stop the imagination. Don't you get a lot of ice cream too?

I hope you're feeling better.

lamh31


Just a little something for the sick!

http://www.chocolates-uk.co.uk/images2/2008-14.jpg

I'm glad its nothing more serious. I so feel for you though....because every single Feb, I get strep throat/tonsilitis.........and I'm too afraid to have my tonsils removed so I just suffer for my week.

Good Day JJP Peeps. Digging out from the snow, and Im going to build a Snow President -Elect Obama and First Lady -Elect Michelle in my back yard. I grateful for the snow! What Blessings are you aware of today?

Words to inspire:

"SOMETIMES LIFE CARRIES US ALONG SO FAST THAT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THE MOMENT. OFTEN WE OVERLOOK THE BLESSINGS OF THE DAY."

-------------- Harold Klemp, The Slow Burning Love of God

Al Sharpton on Warren hullaboo:

"I think that from my understanding, President-elect Obama is trying to reach out to people that don't agree and do agree with him, to unite the country. I certainly don't agree with Reverend Rick Warren. I'm sure Reverend Warren doesn't agree with me on certain things. But I think there's room for everyone and I think that is what President Obama is trying do. I thought it was a very gracious thing. I think Warren said it was courageous. I think it was both," said Sharpton. "I think that President-elect Obama showed a lot of graciousness extending this to him, showing that he's trying to pull the country together even with those he disagrees with and [those that are] frankly... less than gracious to him."

About Rick Warren. I note that PE Obama has offered a response to our objection of the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremony. It could be that my anger is clouding my reason, but I couldn't decide whether he was being sincere or patronizing, "Aw shucks! You crazy kids are so 'noisy and opinionated'; I've made my decsion so live with it."

Today, a few days removed, I am still disappointed that PE Obama chose to give such a prominent platform to a man whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, and many others. Many here have suggested that the reason many white Democrats are upset is that they think that they gave the black man a chance and now he is not doing their bidding. Look, blacks like myself, are truly flabbergasted by this choice as well. Of course, we are pleased that Dr. Lowery will present another kind of voice at the festivities but that doesn't take away the core point: I, we, fought hard to make this man our president - through snow, sleet, rain and sunshine - and we loath to share our moment of joy with an unrepentant bigot.

Of course, I appreciate PE Obama's desire to create a climate for reasoned dialogue among people with opposing viewpoints but I, personally, am not confident that Rick Warren and his ilk are open to viewpoints other than their own. Maybe, I am being too pessimistic, but when I look at it from that perspective, Rick Warren's presence at the ceremony is an exercise in futiltiy, and, therefore, extremely frustrating. I hope I am wrong. Maybe this will open some hearts and minds to issues that I, and others in the Democratic Party, care about. We'll see.

As for the question that was posed here: What will happen after Rick Warren says the invocation? My answer? Well, certainly, the world will not come to a crashing end but that shouldn't discount the displeasure that many feel about having him there. It also does nothing to quell my growing fear that this may, MAY, become a first in a series of accomodations that the Democratic leadership are willing to make in order to appease the Right, at the expense of the base, with nothing to show for it.

Just my 2 cents.

T.

ps. sorry for the grammatical errors...I have no idea how to edit after I post...

T.

T: Eh-hemmmm: AFTER you post, there are 4 OPTIONS at the BOTTOM of the post. Click on edit [Option #2]

Click on it; make your edit; then click on SAVE CHANGES

Annnnnnnnd, guess what? The EDIT option[now, the ONLY one] will still be available. :>)

"WHYCOME" I know this? I have had to make MANY "EDITS!" :>) :>)

NOW, you try this! Respond to me. Post. Then SCROLL DOWN and find EDIT "Make that CHANGE" [Michael Jackson] :>) :>); then SAVE CHANGES. :>) ::L)

Sincerely,

"TECHNOLOGICALLY-CHALLENGED ----GLH :>) :>)

T:

Besides from Culture war issues (gay marriage and abortion): What's your beef with Rick Warren? And to continue on something started by other JJPers regarding this Warren thing, let me ask you something: What do you think will happen when he gives the invocation?

I wanted to repost this from Andrew Sullivan's site, because it succintly sums up a lot of what I feel about this whole Rick Warren issue"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

Posted under the headline "Reality Check"

"At the risk of sounding completely daft, I don't see the big deal about Rick Warren. I mean, here is a preacher who will give an invocation for a president who is in favor of repealing the DADT policy, the DOMA act, and wants to pass the Matthew Shepard Act. A president who is not in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution, who believes that gay marriage is a state issue, opposed Proposition 8, and has indicated that that their administration will be completely gay friendly.
If there is anyone in this equation who should be uncomfortable about being at the inauguration, it should be Rick Warren."

Oh, and if I never here the words "Rick Warren" "thrown under a bus" and for good measure "Geraldine Ferraro" ever again, it will be too soon.

I am so with you. Especially 'thrown under the bus" That one is long past useful.

"What will happen after Rick Warren says the invocation? My answer? Well, certainly, the world will not come to a crashing end but that shouldn't discount the displeasure that many feel about having him there. It also does nothing to quell my growing fear that this may, MAY, become a first in a series of accomodations that the Democratic leadership are willing to make in order to appease the Right, at the expense of the base, with nothing to show for it."


I'm not discounting your displeasure, but not everyone is going to be pleased about the choices he makes. I haven't been happy about some of the Cabinet picks (Hillary Clinton in particular), but I don't make threats about witholding my support before the man can even get sworn in. To me that reeks in pettiness.

You also point out that you have a fear of democratic leadership appeasing the right at the expense of the base. That makes more sense to me versus saying you are getting slapped in the face or all these other platitudes. My take is a wait and see approach, b/c in the end, no one knows what is going to happen, but we all know that there will be policies that we wont' agree with. I can't get all up in arms until I see the results of the Cabinet picks and see what he does w/ the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. I just can't.

versus saying you are getting slapped in the face or all these other platitudes

I just want to thank you for saying/highlighting this.

These metaphors of physical violence have been common in some online discussions about the Warren thing, and every time I read one of them it feels somehow wrong to me. But I can't pin down in words precisely why.

Because the use of physical violence as a metaphor for feelings about the Warren thing, is an INSULT to those who actually endured physical violence in their quest for racial justice. Some of the commenters are purposefully trying to draw upon scenes of being physically assaulted. I wouldn't be surprised if they stoop to images of water hoses and dogs.

Gay and trans people - of all races - are routinely assaulted physically or murdered because they are queer. It's called gay bashing and sometimes, sometimes, registered as a hate crime, if they are "lucky."

In what universe is this a competition? Racism is ugly and dangerous. Homophobia is ugly and dangerous. Anti Semitism is ugly and dangerous. All hate is ugly and dangerous.

Yes, all hate is ugly and dangerous.....even moreso when that hate turns into violence which turns into death which is SANCTIONED BY THE STATE. Please understand, I believe all hate crimes are equally repugnant - but law enforcement officials and judges and politicans participated in and legislated hate against African-americans in a way that will never EVER happen to any other group in this country EVER again and it took a lot of LIVES to get it that way...PERIOD. Yes, Prop 8 passed...but Prop 8 doesn't dictate where you will live, it doesn't dictate where you will go to school, it doesn't mandate that you recite the Bill of Rights before you can vote, it doesnt make it illegal for you to READ. I saw the protests regarding Prop 8, I saw a scene of angry white people that terrified a little old white lady who was protesting against them - and I didn't see anyone get arrested....guess what? You think a bunch of black people could pull that off?? You really think hundreds of black people could protest anything, surround a little old white lady and no one end up DEAD? No...Not yesterday, Not today...and Not tomorrow. It is what it is.

Because the use of physical violence as a metaphor for feelings about the Warren thing, is an INSULT to those who actually endured physical violence in their quest for racial justice. Some of the commenters are purposefully trying to draw upon scenes of being physically assaulted. I wouldn't be surprised if they stoop to images of water hoses and dogs.

THANK YOU! for putting that to words.

Thank you.

Yes.

Reminds me of how there was a dkos diary a couple of weeks ago that was like a parody to me because it was (seriously and with no apparent comprehension of the reality) comparing what the diarist clearly described as a totally undangerous cops-not-attacking-us "family morning out at a Prop 8 protest" with Selma and Stonewall.

There is a lot of unreal deeply disrespectful rhetoric going on.

BTW. Thanks for actually answering the question. I'm still waiting on everyone else.

There are many blacks, as well, who are not flabbergasted by the choice. who see nothing worth ranting about for this sustained amount of time. It just is not anymore significant than McClurkin being on the gosepel tour.

Well since there are many blacks that don't engage in group think, yeah they don't have a problem with it and I'm one of them. We can't kick people out and expect to have our own say. My parents don't support gay marriage and would vote yes on prop 8 if they could. They also heavily supported and donated to Obama's campaign. So I guess they aren't allowed to be part of this thing too right? We need to stop persecuting people for believing in a opposite opinion.

Is Rick Warren being "presecuted" because some are objecting to his appearence at the inauguration? Is J. Philippe Rushton being persecuted because some object to his ideas about race and intelligence?

Is Rick Warren being "persecuted" because some are objecting to his appearence at the inauguration?



Umm...Yeah! Because of his beliefs!

Is J. Philippe Rushton being also persecuted because of his beliefs?

At some point, Obama will "reach out" to the white racist equivalent of Rick Warren. I can't wait to see how y'all will handle that.

Well, there are at least 30+ Republican senators and about 80 Republican congressperson BO will have to reach out to........that, in my book, is having to reach out to some of the most hardened folks out there in terms of race relations.

Yes, with the key word phrase being "having to", although even that is arguable.

What I personally want to see is more outreach by the LGBT community to other communities.

Now I do not reside in CA, so of course I don't know the full scope of the campaigning on behalf of LGBT. But others have commented that outreach was NOT widespread. And matter-of-factly , it is almost no-existent until we have an initiative on the ballot.

In my opinion, the gay rights struggle has to remain at the forefront....engage with other civil rights organizations...publish their stories of struggle in other minority publications....just like I can see a commercial about the Latter-day Saints, I should also see a commercial about the human rights issue of gay marriage. It may not change everyone's mind, but at least the LGBT are making their cause visible, they are giving a "human" side to their story.

And also, when they have the next widespread immigration march, let the LGBT show their presence there too....or when the civil rights of blacks are being challenged, show their presence there too.

I have to say, today I see more examples of the lives of LGBT in media and in television than I do Black representation...and I think that has helped open the dialogue on what has long been a taboo subject in America. But LGBT should not get mad at other groups and blame them for the passage of legislation when often they virtually shut others out.

The Black civil rights movement surely didn't gain the progress it did overnight...you and i both know it took about a hundred years after slaves were freed to actually outlaw outright discrimination....and that still hasn't eliminated it entirely. But when the civil rights movement was at its peak...no one rested...the message stayed out front and center...and because of that, Blacks and many other minorities who stood alongside and behind them made inroads.

"The imagine "if the blacks were being spoken about like this" also presupposes that there are no black members in the group in question. There is no standard black identity which means that within any group that is currently undergoing marginalization it quite possible in fact highly likely that there are black members."

Yes, and the same thing can be said of any group that is currently engaging in marginalization. What's your point?

Those are not my words, I got that quote from womanistmusings. However, the point is comparing sexual orientation discrimination to racial discrimination is comparing apples to oranges. This is not an argument of who gets discriminated more, but it is different discrimination. One is not like the other.

It also goes against the argument of "what if it was the blacks" like that is all there is to black people. Like we're just a monolith. The fact that we are having this debate shows that we are not. Black people are made up of men, women, children, fathers, mothers, students, professionals, young, old, gay, straight, etc. The fact that you have to ask what my point was seems disingenuous.

No, I was not being disingenous, because I really don't see your point. No, blacks are not a monolith, but they do get discriminiated against in a pretty monolithic way, don't you think? The marginalizers don't spend a lot of time fine tuning their bigotry to fit each subset of black people. Bigotry is bigotry.

comparing sexual orientation discrimination to racial discrimination is comparing apples to oranges.


There you go! Now that's what I'm talking about!

When it really gets down to it, what's the difference between sexual orientation discrimination and racial discrimination?

Gay marriage is a human rights issue.

Stop trying to make it out to be a civil rights issue! It's not! Big difference.

When I was a little girl, I had to watch my parents go into the back door of restaurants if they wanted to eat. I also saw 2 separate waiting rooms at the Dr.'s office...One for whites.....One for blacks (Colored). I witnessed my parents being passed over in the check-out line and had to wait, so Whites could be waited on first. Has that ever happen to someone just because they're gay?

Comparing sexual orientation discrimination to racial discrimination is off the mark! Like Apples & Oranges!

So, what you're saying is that you would have chosen to be white if you had the choice, right? Oh, and you would pass for white if you could too, right? After all, under that circumstance, it would be your choice to endure the anti-black discrimination. Why would you if you didn't have to?

Okay~ Somebody.....Anybody....Is this person for real? I mean, come on..?

(Rolling My Eyes)

So you put the words in Justice's mouth that YOU wanted to be there? Is that how it works now? Or are you projecting your own internal feelings?

No, I wasn't putting words into her mouth. I what I meant is "Even if you could hide your blackness, I'm sure you wouldn't. Why expect gays to want to hide who they are?"

I don't expect nor ask that gays hide who they are....now I guess the fight should include adding sexual orientation as a classification at the DMV, SSI, Mortgage applications, credit card applications, job applications.....

Justice58: Please, Please Stop making sense!

I'll entertain this, but I'm really going to step away from it after this b/c we are not going to see eye to eye.

I used the apples and oranges analogy for a reason. They have many similarities, but just b/c they are similar DOESN'T mean they are the same:

1. They are both fruit, but not the same fruit.

2. They are both sweet, but they do not taste the same.

So lets go to the two discriminations:

Both groups get discriminated against in similar ways (same fruit):

1. not allowed in clubs or bars

But there are also differences (different taste):

1. gay people don't get followed around in the department store

The point isn't that one is worse than the other, but they are also not the same. You can't make comparisons. Now, I'm off to talk about holiday drinks. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you Plantsmantx.

Sight.

Sight? I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to be presumptious. What do you mean by "sight"?

I guess I'm going to have to presume, lol. I guess that blacks who can "pass" have only themselves to blame for racial discrimination that happens as a result of them telling people they're black, right?

I'm wondering if that's better or worse than that other argument. You know, the one that goes "Gays can choose to be gay, but my blackness was not a choice". That's like saying "I'd be white if I had a choice, but I don't".

I dont think sexuality is really a choice, but please dont try and compare the obvious diffrences in discrimination of homosexuals vs minorities. Last time I checked, the cops did not stop anyone because they were Driving While Gay. Dillard's Dept Store has not, to my knowledge, had Gay shoppers marked for scrutiny. On what application for a job, apartment or loan does it ask about sexual orientation? Newsflash: NONE

IIt's just that it's sometimes a little hard to accept complaints of anti-black discrimination from blacks who are against gay rights. And I say that as a heterosexual black man.

carolinagirl....you can keep writing it...but they'll keep ignoring it. Its too much truth, and apparently they just can't handle it.

Agreed!

He had a meeting with rival John McCain, who ran one of the most race-baiting and dishonorable campaigns. I didn't like it, but I'm still here. And Mccain still gets to have a say in the legislation that affects our lives

He selected Hillary Clinton as SOS, and I also thought she crossed some lines but hey, he extended an olive branch to her too.

And even though Ahmendinajad (sp?) has said some very disgusting things about Israel, I also hope Obama and his administration engages Iran diplomatically because continuing to ignore other nations will NOT make us safer.

Look at what being a freakin know-it-all and carrying out selfish agendas have gotten us...millions of iraqis dead or displaced, thousands of Americans dead and maimed...all because ideologues didn't want to fuckin listen.

Neither McCain nor Clinton has said the kinds of things about blacks that Warren has said about gays. They haven't even come close. And neither of them can be said to be staunchly opposed to the aspirations of blacks. There's no real comparison. Again- at some point, Obama will "reach out" to someone who really is the white racist equivalent of Warren. Will y'all be as sanguine about that as you are about Warren?

I suppose you heavily object to Rachel Maddow giving Pat Buchanan any airtime on her show....seeing as he has said much worse about everybody that isn't a straight conservative white man.

Miranda, that is an excellent point!

For two days, Rachel has been criticizing PEO for choosing Rick Warren to give a 2 minute prayer, yet she forgets that she has allowed "Uncle Pat" spout his ignorance on her show. Neither she nor KO have come out to denounce Pat's hateful remarks about how blacks should be thankful for slavery. When she was on The Today Show with Geraldine Ferraro, she said NOTHING when Gerry whined about PEO. And IIRC, Rachel didn't call out her fellow GLBT peeps when they blamed black people for Prop 8 passing.

I like and enjoy Rachel's show, but I can't stand her selective civil rights protesting.

Sepia, do you recall when Mike Huckabee waso Rachel's show? Not one question to him on his Prop 8 stance.

She's using the bully pulpit to whine about PEO for her own selish gains. Town summed it up nicely on another thread. They want him to lick and suck!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/21/maddow-huck...

Spirit, no, I didn't see that show. Well, well, well. So, not only did Rachel have Huckabee -- someone who has made anti-gay remarks -- on her show, but she didn't call him out on it or his stance on Prop 8.

And to add insult to injury, here's her reason why she didn't ask him:

I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

So, she doesn't consider it important "interesting" or "newsworthy" to question those who want to run this country and implement policy, about their anti-gay views, but she's complaining about PEO inviting a pastor -- who will not and cannot implement policy -- to his inauguration.

Rachel, you disappoint me.

Sepia:

NICE DOCUMENTATION!! :>)

I recall that "EXPLANATION."

Annnnnnnd, I raised my eyebrows!! That's when I began to look sideways at Dr. Rachel and say hmmmmm! :>)

GreenLady, WHYCOME she didn't AXE the Huckster the tough questions???!!!!

spirit:


IFFF one doesn't want ta hear the ANSWERS annnnnnd, do a FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

I guess. . . . :>)

EXACTLY!! And she's supposedly smart
enough to know where PEO stands on the issue too.

MANIPULATION!!!

"Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt"

Heartfelt?? huh.......so all Rick Warren has to do is prove his views come from the "heart" and it'll be okay? Yeah, Rachel jumped the shark with that comment. I cant take her venting over Rick Warren seriously after that statement.

As far as I'm concerned, Rachel's just another TALKING HEAD who gets paid.

She's using the show as a platform for GLBT issues. My issue with that is she's not neutral.
Shes too close to it, because she'sgay.

Yes, I do, even though Rachel Maddow isn't the President Elect.

"Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said."
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803281265.html

"When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding--and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archiv...

"Much worse", you say?

Well...since you ask:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
On Dr. King/Civl RIghts
Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. "We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283).

Justiying Apartheid
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90)

On Immigration
In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."

On Gays and AIDs
On AIDS, Buchanan wrote in 1983: "The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution (AIDS)." (Los Angeles Times, 11/28/86) Later that year, he demanded that New York City Ed Koch and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo cancel the Gay Pride Parade or else "be held personally responsible for the spread of the AIDS plague." "With 80,000 dead of AIDS, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide," Buchanan wrote in 1990 (syndicated column, 10/17/90). In the 1992 campaign, he declared: "AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature." (Seattle Times, 7/31/93)

You really don't want to get into a tit-for-tat when it comes to the bibotry that comes out of Pat Buchanan's mouth...he's a pro at it.

I still ask...much worse? Or do Buchanan's comments just seem much worse to you because they're aimed at blacks?

Did you read the comments? Buchanan's comments are aimed at everybody that's not a straight conservative white man.

Well, as I just said in another comment, bigotry is bigotry. I don't grade it according to whether or not it's aimed at the group I belong to. Warren is no less a bigot because (in this case) he's aiming his bigotry at gays.

You can hide your gayness, you cannot hide your race. You blanch over the struggles of blacks in this country and expect sympathy for gaining the right to marry? I really don't think so.

Tell it, Oxygirl!

Props... Miranda!

So where do you think Mccain got all of these ideas about creating this "he's not one of us" meme from---it was Hillary Clintion. DOcuments show that Hillary strategists and ,in essence, her wanted to cast this doubt over Obama...since he wasn't all-American , he's "foreign", he doesn't share our values(and you know what that means)

Whose staff was forwarding the ubiquitous "Obama is a secret Muslim who is going to destroy America" e-mails---oh yeah, it was some of Hillary's staff whom she later had to fire.

And most importantly whose policies helped enact "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which essentially told servicemembers that if you are gay, you have to hide it because if it becomes known, your ass will be kicked out.....Oh yeah, that also came from Bill Clinton whose wife conveniently used his platform as hers. Ain't it amazing how sooo many people forget about that one.

And in case you didn't know before, Mccain has also had associations with known bigots. John McCain hired Richard Quinn, twice in 2000 and 2008, as a political strategist for his campaign. Richard Quinn wrote in a column for his magazine that the MLK holiday was "vitriolic and profane" while also applauding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, diaparaging Nelson Mandela and praising David Duke.

And in 2000, while asked about Quinn's words, McCain defended him and said Quinn was a "respected" and "fine man"

ANd all the while, more gay voters left Democratic ranks and voted for McCain than they did previously for Bush.

I am a supporter for Gay rights, so don't think I am being dismissive. But what I do know is that Obama is not going to make every single decision that will fit MY position perfectly...hell, no politician can't.....my own husband can't!

They aren't against the aspirations of blacks until they run up against them.

I've mentioned it before...I feel bad about the pain the Warren pick is causing....and so I am not being dismissive of the response even though i feel it is over-the-top.

But my real question is "How come the LGBT community keeps allowing the opposition to make make the first moves and challenge them instead of vice versa?"

Now we see that Ken Starr is going to try to retroactively void the legality of same-sex marriages that preceded the Prop. 8 passages. Why wasn't there a suit placed before the courts by LGBT community to uphold these marriages immediately following Prop 8's passage, to prevent more rights from being taken away? They had to know proponents for Prop 8 were coming for more.

You can only get sucker-punched so many times before you learn that you have to anticipate the next move.

I am not a legal buff...but I hope this issue will one day, at the right time, will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Because as long as it stays up to states, there will be this back-and-forth ideolgical fight. And right now, proponents for Prop 8 are getting what they want while simultaneously fracturing the Democratic party...which I think at the end of the day is their ultimate goal.

But my real question is "How come the LGBT community keeps allowing the opposition to make make the first moves and challenge them instead of vice versa?"

I have the same question. I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

You can only get sucker-punched so many times before you learn that you have to anticipate the next move.

My suspicion is that this may have something to do with the privilege (race, class and possibly also gender identity) of who is at the center in publicly defining what the "LGBT community" is and should care about.

One thing I have seen in recent discussions at dailykos -- about Prop 8 specifically -- is that some of the people who are speaking loudest about how upset they are also seem to think that they are somehow ... not in a deep long fight in which power doesn't concede without a struggle.

Like, in my experience there is a certain required discipline and vigilance that seems to come with a deep understanding that the system around you is not there to serve your needs, that it is in some way (related to the struggle) hostile to your humanity. Such understanding shows the need for a certain kind of strategy, thoughtfulness, etc. It's a battle that requires hard careful long work, not a canvass for individual self-expression.

What I see instead is movement people acting as if this system surrounding them is somehow by definition here to take care of them -- and then feeling angry when it does not, and speaking/acting out of that space. IMO the most common reason for such feeling is because of a sense of privilege and entitlement.

I think that there is hard work to be done (that doesn't always stem from "I feel this, let me directly act from that feeling without considering what is around me") but that from this space of entitlement, that hard work looks like a form of oppression that should be resisted because "it's so unfair!" If you come from the perspective that you should get things handed to you without a struggle in this system, then to me it seems like that's the kind of thing it would feel like.

I don't know if this is the most accurate answer to your question, though.

Great slideshow...from the slavehouse to the white house

I found the picture of X and Ali with their daughters on their laps very poignant and powerful.

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/gallery-f...

Town mentioned how nasty it has been on Daily Kos regarding the Warren pick. I've also seen some nastiness towards Caroline Kennedy. I have a feeling some Clinton followers are behind it.

I do not understand the Caroline nastiness either. It just makes we wanna scream at this stuff that is being spewed over at D. Kos. I mean for pete's sake...are those folks overthere even 'qualified' to write articles?

Why are they not calling this woman Bristol baby's grandmother?

"Wasilla resident Sherry L. Johnston, mother of Bristol Palin's boyfriend, faces a Jan. 6 court date for an oxycontin-related arrest at her home by Alaska State Troopers."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/58245.html

I bet those Johnston wish they had never heard of Sarah Palin, the way they have put the spotlight on all of their lives.

Limbaugh is an oxycontin addict too...so now we will be treated to endless stories of how horrible this woman's life was and then 'snap' before you know it, she will be on the speaker's circuit telling others how they can turn their lives around and she will be a guest on DeGenere's show. Or maybe Couric wil grant her a BarbaraWawa type interview.

Names for the baby
Girl-Crystal
Boy- Metthew

Let's hope for Bristol's sake that the baby she's carrying isn't sick or deformed. If this nutty mom had ever exposed her own kid to some drugs and dope...

He seemed a few bricks short of a load anyway, but this would take the cake if the baby is effed up as badly as with Trig Palin.

You are so wrong on so many levels! LOL!!

Okay, new thread:

"What do you think will happen as a result of Warren doing the invocation?"

So far, I have the following answers:

1. Barack Obama will become the President of the United States of America

2. The sky won't fall.

3. *crickets*

carolinagirl: GREAT SURVEY!!! THANK YOU for "axing" the appropriate question!! :>) My response was on the other thread. :>)

Perhaps THIS question should GUIDE our thinking regarding all of his decisions. I know that I will use it. THANK YOU, AGAIN.

Gotta "raise up" for most of the day. C U'ALL L8R. :>)

No, I answered too.

History will be made as Obama will finally officially be the POTUS

I know WRB. Your answer was #1.

good morning jjp. Right now I'm lying in a hospital bed waiting to see the ER doc. My throat was bothering me last night & I woke up this morning with my throat enflamed, and my ear feeling infected! So I decided to go to the ER, why pay insurance premiums if you're not going to use them. I just hope I won't be here all day!

Hope ya'll have a better morning.

Jewish Pencillin= Chicken soup

lanh31: OMG I'm praying for your recovery! FEEL BETTER! God bless you! :>)

I hope you feel better.

Eat healthy, get some rest and eliminate the stress....it'll help you physically and mentally.

Take care.

Hope you feel better soon, lamh31!

I know the feeling~~My throat was like that a few days before Thanksgiving & I felt horrible.

The ER can be slow but hope your stay isn't!

Get well soon!

Get well soon lamh31. I hope everything turns out okay.

Hope you're OK!

NASCAR settles $225M bias, harassment suit filed by ex-official

NASCAR has settled a $225 million lawsuit filed by a former official who sued for racial discrimination and sexual harassment, The Associated Press is reporting.

The suit was filed by Mauricia Grant and settled Dec. 3, AP says. Settlement terms are confidential, and there was no immediate comment from Grant's attorney.

She was a technical inspector who certified cars in NASCAR's second-tier Nationwide Series from January 2005 until she was fired in October 2007. In her lawsuit she alleged 23 specific incidents of sexual harassment and 34 specific incidents of racial and gender discrimination