Friday, December 23, 2005

Sir Elton John


So, England gives me hopes and makes me wish I lived anywhere but Utah in the USA.... This week Sir Elton John and his partner tied the knot....check out the great headlines. You would think that Tony Blair could have a chat about this topic with George.....?


Sound of shifting ground
Cultural shifts can be hard to document. But sometimes they crystallize around an event. That seemed to be the case Wednesday as flamboyant rock star Elton John, 58, became one of the first people to take advantage of a new British law allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
John and longtime partner David Furnish, a 43-year-old Canadian, had their union made official at Windsor's Guildhall — where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles married in April. Any doubt about broad British acceptance of civil unions, which give the same legal rights as marriage does, was dispelled by London's tabloid press, which prides itself on having a finger on the nation's pulse.
With the headline "Elton's 'wedding' sealed with a kiss," the Daily Mail typified the warm coverage. Twenty years ago, such a celebration would have been unthinkable. Britain joins more than a dozen countries recognizing some form of civil union. Five, including Canada, have legalized gay marriage.
In the USA, the political debate over gay marriage — in which religious conservatives have pushed for a constitutional ban — has obscured a similar broad cultural shift.
A new Hollywood movie about two gay cowboys —Brokeback Mountain - might become a marker of that shift, if not as starkly as Sir Elton's civil union. Brokeback Mountain, based on an Annie Proulx novella, has already garnered high praise from critics and seven Golden Globe nominations. In its limited release so far, it has been a box office hit. Its breakthrough appeal is that it is a poignant love story, one in which the characters happen to be gay. A similar trend has been seen on TV for the past few years.
In polls, most Americans oppose gay marriage but are far more accepting of civil unions, sometimes with a slim majority. State laws are all over the map. Massachusetts allows gay marriage. A handful of states accept or are considering allowing civil partnerships; others have moved in the opposite direction.
Last year, running for re-election, and with a keen awareness of the broader public mood, President Bush parted ways with the Republican platform: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union," he said. Sir Elton would no doubt agree that such rights are part of what Philadelphia freedom is all about.
Tony Blair: Why we should all share in these celebrations
Much of the opposition to equal rights for gays was downright spiteful
Published: 21 December 2005
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Inspiration

I don't have anything meaningful on my mind lately.... But I have been reading the blog that gave me the inspiration to start this one and I decided I should share it with you... So check it out and get a good laugh. The blogger is a 20something American who has been living in Shangi and is on her way out.... In about 5 days...
Check it out and Enjoy.
http://nicoleandmsg.blogspot.com/

Monday, December 05, 2005

Maybe Arnold's Not SO BAD?

So, Arnold is in political trouble...So he has appointed a new Chief of Staff....A Democratic Lesbian named Kennedy (no she is not related to "the Kennedy" family). Of course, the conservatives are having a fit...See the website at the bottom of this post...But it seems that Arnold made Maria happy!
All I can say is...Don't sell out Susan! Be true to your beliefs and values and do not let Arnold co-opt you...We will see???

By Adam Tanner Wed Nov 30, 7:24 PM ET
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California's Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger' named a Democrat in a same-sex marriage as his chief of staff on Wednesday in an apparent political shift on the heels of a major electoral defeat.
Susan Kennedy, 45, was the confidant and number two to ousted Democratic Gov.
Gray Davis' whom Schwarzenegger beat in a bitter recall election in 2003. She married her lesbian partner in 1999.
"I love Susan, I think the world of her," Schwarzenegger told a news conference at the state capitol. "She is willing to take her Democratic philosophy aside and implement my vision."
Despite his celebrity as a former Hollywood star and champion bodybuilder, Schwarzenegger faces a challenge in convincing a state in which Democrats are the largest party to re-elect him in 2006.
Voters rejected him across the board when he sought support for ballot initiative measures opposed by Democrats earlier this month.
The appointment of a woman who once served as the California Democratic Party executive director and has led campaigns for abortion rights angered some Republicans.
"The appointment of Susan Kennedy as chief of staff to the governor is a betrayal of the hard-working activists that supported the governor during the recent special election," said Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly.
Another opponent immediately set up a Web site www.stopsusankennedy.com where visitors were urged to sign a petition seeking to rescind the appointment.
"BRILLIANT CHOICE"
Although reaching to the opposing political party for senior staff appointments is relatively rare in American politics, Schwarzenegger's top advisor is his wife, prominent Democrat Maria Shriver.
He also says his mother-in-law, Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- sister of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy -- frequently offers him political suggestions. Susan Kennedy is not related to the family.
Former Gov. Davis, under whom Kennedy served as cabinet secretary and deputy chief of staff, called Schwarzenegger's choice brilliant.
"Susan is a remarkable public servant -- she believes in governing from the center," Davis told Reuters. "She processes information more quickly than anyone that I have ever known."
Kennedy, who served most recently on the California Public Utilities Commission, described herself as a moderate Democrat willing to put aside party differences.
"I'm tired of the partisanship," she said. "I felt it was time for me as a Democrat to put up or shut up."
Schwarzenegger said that he had heard protests from about five percent of those he told the news, but said he would not change his political program.
"This is not about drifting anywhere," Schwarzenegger said. "It doesn't change my direction at all."

The stupid website set up to STOP her appointment
http://www.stopsusankennedy.com/

Life or Death




Life or Death for Tookie Williams? What do you think? For those of you who are not up on this story, he is one of the men who started the "crips" gang in LA. He has been convicted of killing four people, but there were no eye witnesses to any of his crimes, only the testimony of other gang members who were also at the scene. Since being in prison, Tookie says he has changed...He has learned empathy and has remorse for his behavior. He has written books targeted to keep kids from joining gangs and has spoken, via phone, to many groups about gangs. SO, should he be put to death on 12/13/05?

I have worked with a group of about 12 men in a central Utah prison for the past 4-5 years. All of these men are incarcerated for murder, and many of them are in on a life sentence. I think the one thing I have learned from them is the idea of judging someone for one moment in time in their life. I don't know a lot about Tookie, he obviously had years of crime behind him prior to his incarceration....But for many of the men I work with, their crime was one of passion...An out of control moment they will pay for with the rest of their lives. This idea of punishing someone for one moment in time in their life makes me think.... Are their times in my life when I have acted or done things I am ashamed of??? Yes..... Would I want the label of that time and those actions to define me for the rest of my life? NO.... So, do we as a society allow people to change? To grow? If not, what is the point????
If you want to get involved in this issue more check out www.savetookie.org
For more information an article from the SL Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3277156

Friday, December 02, 2005

Red v. Blue

This has been around awhile, but it was recently sent to me and I like it...

Dear Red States,
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of New California
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opry Land.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids that are apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, vitrully 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, and Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you @#$%^ &*&@#)( believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too
You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.