More Homo-Panic In the Press, This time with a Twist!

Drew’s site has done it again. If you aren’t a Fark-er, become one. Quickly. It will make your day every day. Fark.com. Live it!

This time we have a lovely story from The Ladies Monthly where Ms. Ann Thrope gently advises moms who may not have done their matronly duties sufficiently enough to prevent their burgeoning young debutants to avoid becoming lesbians. Apparently to Ms. Thrope’s line of logic any girls who go hunting with their dads, eschew their pink clothes, and play basketball are destined to become gay. Her article, gently titled “Setting Your Gay Daughter Straight”, is chock full of bizarre advice to prevent such a tragedy. Link it:

http://www.theladiesmonthly.com/2010/07/how-to-set-your-gay-daughter-straight/

She begins with what one might construe as reasonable: remind her of her moral obligation to God and family. Grandma wants grandkids, and she can’t get what she wants if Suzie likes girls. Next we go to the pretty princess routine by the suggestion that mom’s paint their pumpkins up like little doll babies. That ended up well for Jon Benet Ramsey… Also music selection is apparently crucial: according to Ms. Thrope Lady Gaga and Britney Spears are guaranteed lesbian morphing artists. Just one listen and they’re out of the baby business for life.

Now comes the killer: Ann advises moms to set up her potential lesbian with what appears to be an attractive young girl as a homecoming or prom date. The first impression will be of love, acceptance, and respect for her apparent lifestyle, but ah-ha! Once the amorous notions of teen sex kick into drive her suitor will reveal himself to be a transvestite ready to woo her in the natural way. You know it’s so much better to have a cross dresser as a son-in-law than a lesbian for a daughter. Don’t you agree?

No I’m not kidding.

Ms. Thrope’s final solution is to have a cross-dresser have sex with a potential lesbian teenager to convince her that heterosexuality is the proper way to be a lady. I’m also wondering if Ms. Thorpe has a list of potentially available attractive young transvestites to provide this service. My goodness…

It will be a fine day indeed when we can cease being panicked by the potential of having a homosexual child. Articles like this demonstrate the ignorance of people and flat out stupidity inherent in the lengths some would go to prevent what is apparently described as a tragedy of all tragedies.

I hope when you follow the link, the same related ads appear on the side bar. I like that the randomizer but ads for meeting hot gay men and gay gospel selections attached to an article designed to prevent such behavior from girls. Now that’s a good use of technology.

The comments section only makes this article better. The author actually engages in debate with posters who take her idiotic stance to task, but only reveal what must be her true colors in the process. Here’s a beaut:

From Soy Latte:

You are a selfish, or at the very least ignorant person. What you try to do isn’t caring for girls, it’s frightening. I’ve had all of these tried on me before, thankfully not by my mother, but aunts and uncles and such, or as horrible pranks. They are some of the most traumatizing things you can do to someone, especially the “bait and switch.” That there is not a “surprise (sic)”, it is rape. Just because you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean you should do something as horrible as rape or even what would feel like castration to your daughter. If she’s straight, she’ll straight up and put those sexcapades behind her. If she’s not, there is not one s*** you can do in the world to make her straight.
Also: I don’t know why you should consider a skank like Britney Spears a role model for ambitious young women, or what kind of atheist decides to “Remind [their] daughter of the MORAL atrocity she is committing, as well as the ramifications of her decisions to her GOD.”

Reply from Ann Thrope:

Oh believe me, if you hire the right transvestites it is not rape. Its pretty hard to refuse a 15 year old Vietnamese ladyboy with supple, hormone-encouraged breasts, minimal male sex organs, and a jasmine-scented anus. Reguardless of your gender, they are pretty hard to pass up, so they fetch a high price… and they are shrewd barterers. I once traded an entire Tommy Bahama bedroom set for just 3 hours of service to two fine gentlemen/ladies. It was worth it, after that point my daughter totally stopped watching Sailor Moon with her bedroom door closed.

 So who’s the freak now? I don’t think I have ever before read the phrase “jasmine scented anus” in any legitimate work of literature. And by the way, watching Sailor Moon with her door closed might have been so she wasn’t seen watching such crap, not an excuse for a quiet moment with one’s thoughts.

Something tells me Ms. Thrope has a whole crypt full of fetish skeletons in her closet to come up with this line of argument. She apparently has a lot of experience with Vietnamese “ladyboys”. I would find them very easy to pass up. And she doesn’t stop there. Here’s another exchange:

            From MissAmerikka:

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that by deterring homosexual tendencies, you are promoting pre-marital sex. Isn’t that an abomination too?

Your plan is flawed on so many levels, but I wish you luck in converting your children.

Reply from Ann Thrope:

Why do you automatically assume I don’t believe in pre-marital sex? If my daughter would get knocked up it would save me a lot of time and money hiring transvestites. They aren’t cheap, especially when you need 3-4 Vietnamese lady-boys just to make her wet.

And, just to cover all the bases, we can use this to discredit the genetics argument:

From Steffanie:

If your child is homosexual it is because they were made that way. Their brains literally work like that of the opposite gender. As much as it “inconveniences” you, there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot pray it out, or trick them into being straight. The only thing you can do is love and accept your child for who they are.

Maybe your daughter is experimenting, maybe she isn’t. Either way, if you try to force her to be someone she isn’t you will ultimately push her away from you.

Reply from Ann Thrope:

I personally made my daughter in my womb, and I can tell you firsthand that I didn’t make her gay.

Somebody grab this lady and find out how she has mastered the art of embryonic gene manipulation. We could use her to mold and shape a new generation of like-minded pure youngsters… oops sorry. This has been tried before. A couple of times, I think.

I’m shocked this didn’t appear on Christ Wire with the “pedo-Teacher” article.

America, people are going to be gay. I’m not going to minimize the impact this has on family life. I haven’t had to deal with a child who tells me they are homosexual, so I can neither empathize nor sympathize. What I can do is tell people like Ann Thrope that to psychologically traumatize children using other sexual weirdoes just to have them make “wholesome” lifestyle choices is barbaric and tantamount to child abuse.

Jasmine scented anus. I just wanted to write that again. Has a certain literary flair to it, don’t you think?

Chip Grefski

The Tide Is Turning!

A group of motivated citizens in Missoula did it right. If you don’t think a few “buds” is enough to support a marijuana conviction, there’s no better place to express your opinion than in a jury pool. Link it:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

A man was on trial for a distributing marijuana charge, but the only evidence presented was 1/16 of an ounce of marijuana. Let me put that in perspective: there are 28.35 grams to the ounce. A gram is about the weight of two fat raisins. Now, take one of those raisins and divided into 8 equal pieces. And there you have 1/16 of an ounce.

So we have a jury trial, and that means the use of ordinary citizens away from their jobs, time for prosecutors and court personnel, and money to pay for it all particularly the defense if the accused had appointed council: a lot of resources for a handful of weed. And that was the point the jury pool made. And to do so, they staged a mutiny.

Only 5 of the 27 potential jurors felt it was right to prosecute the defendant for the trivial amount of marijuana officers found in his house. Granted, the small amount was part of a much larger felony charge (the details of which are not known by this article), but the attitude of the citizens called to do their civic duty were clear. With a smaller pool, the defendant took an Alford plea, where he accepts the guilt without admitting to the charge.

I cannot agree more. People who have a personal amount of marijuana on them should not be subject to a jury trial. At the most, how about levying a fine? How about a few hours of community service? How about not wasting time, money, and effort for a tiny amount of dope when the resources could be better spent elsewhere?

Not all illegal drugs are created equal. Even though many anti-drug activists feel it is hypocritical, there is a substantial difference between harder drugs and marijuana, and there should differences in prosecution and enforcement. Meth? Hammer them. Cocaine? Get them treatment and a punishment that will stick. A dime bag of shake? Don’t give it a second thought.

I realize that I’ve used this soapbox before to express my feelings about this issue, and I am resolved o continue to do so until we start being smarter about using our resources, especially in a time of need as we are now. Municipalities are struggling to make ends meet, yet we continually push to spend revenue and resources to punish folks with a handful ganja.

21 years old. No driving. Don’t act intoxicated in public. You can’t grow it, and you can’t sell it without a license. Sound familiar? Regulate and punish marijuana like alcohol, and spend the time finding crooks doing much more insidious damage to others.

Let me be clear: as an enforcer of laws, I will do so until it is changed. But I will continue to argue for that change until it happens. I hope we have more Missoulas in the future, and maybe we’ll get over our fear of weed.

Chip Grefski

Putting the "Civil" in Civil Rights...

Finally, Congress makes a vote that matters. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is gone. Link it:

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/2010-12-19/gays-see-repeal-civil-rights-milestone

Even though I’m primed to pontificate on this issue as usual, a quote from the link says it all:

"I don't see what difference (sexual orientation) makes in the fighting military," said Melnikow, a public health researcher. "What's the big deal?"

I don’t see the difference either. During my four proud years as a soldier at Ft. Stewart, Ga., I am certain that a handful of my fellow soldiers were homosexuals. None of them gave any overt outward appearances, but there were a few situations- some with them talking about it in strict confidence- that cast aside all doubt. Did it matter to the others in my unit? Not at all, at least not to me. There may have been a few knuckleheads (well, maybe more than a few) who if they knew for sure would have made a move for their discharge, but it wasn’t my business, so I just served alongside them.

The downside of the policy was the abused “escape hatch” clause in it that would allow soldiers to be discharged by claiming they could no longer hide their homosexuality. A quick few meetings with the chaplain and you were gone. Your discharge was dishonorable, but if you wanted out, you got it. I know a female soldier who was briefly (very briefly) assigned to my unit that used it. She was a good worker, very pleasant, but after a few weeks began subtly asking how you can be chaptered out from her enlistment. She didn’t like and couldn’t adapt to Army life, and it was apparently too far into her contract to be sent home for her inability to do so. So, she told the chaplain she was having lesbian thoughts and tendencies, and for such she was quickly ushered home.

But those days are soon to be gone. And thank God they are. I said God. Yes I did.

The time has come to understand that it is God who is the ultimate judge of heavenly worth for His children, not us. This issue screams that fact very clearly. If a homosexual man or woman wants to serve their country with honor, let them do so. The whole concept that homosexuality is ruining the fabric of America is ludicrous. Homosexuality has been around longer than our country has existed, and I wager it will be here long after we’re gone, and I doubt that future historians will point to the gay population as the cause of it. Hate the sin, love the sinner may be an apocryphal anecdote, but it speaks to the crux of true Christianity.

Why is it we find radical Islamists who convert and oppress by spewing hate and violence distasteful, but yet say nothing when Christians love to do the same to homosexuals?

Not every gay man wears women’s clothes and works as a hairdresser. Guess what? There’s a bunch of heterosexual males who do the same thing, but because they have the ability to procreate no body lashes out against them. We just shudder at all that wasted sperm out there. And there are just as many heterosexual men out there who couldn’t handle the stress of rigorous training and combat, so please don’t labor under the notion that straight equals tough guy.

There are tough, motivated, and brave men from every walk of life, and since our nation’s defense lies in the decisions of volunteers to step up and make a commitment, we shouldn’t be in the business of limiting the pool of available candidates.

We used to sing a marching cadence with the phrase “pick up your weapon and follow me.” If any man or woman is willing to faithfully hear that call, I would be proud to be followed by- or follow for that matter- anyone who had the courage to muster.

Thank you, Congress. Now apply the same common sense to the rest of the docket, and we may get somewhere.

Chip Grefski

The After-Birther

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is either very resolute for his cause, or he is really ignorant. I propose the latter. Link it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/terrence-lakin-sentence_n_797906.html

A commissioned Army officer who posts videos challenging the authority of his Commander In Chief by nature of the status of the president’s birth certificate, then defies a deployment order issued under the authority of same Commander In Chief deserves what he was sentenced to: six months in prison then a discharge. So you’re going to put all the 17 years of work, time, and sacrifice that it took to raise your career to the rank equivalent to a Battalion Commander on the line for some conspiracy theory belief that Obama isn’t a naturalized citizen.

You’re also going to go so far as to say that you’re “inviting your own court martial” on a YouTube video.

Then you’re going to say that you’d like to push the reset button and start over. It’s a little late to wait for direct examination by your attorney to say that the Army was the wrong place to air his version of the president’s qualifications.

Really?

The right to your opinion is one not to be taken lightly. We as Americans are incredibly blessed and fortunate to have the right to express your opinion without fear of reprisal from the state. That is, unless you decide to express your views in highly questionable circumstances and situations. Like, for example, If you are a youth group pastor on a field trip, wearing a t-shirt promoting hardcore pornography may not be a good idea.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/12/15/Swedish-pastor-wore-porn-T-shirt/UPI-40601292406300/

Okay, he’s not a protected American, but it still shows the point of context. If he wore the shirt while housecleaning or hanging out with close, like-minded friends, nothing would have come of it. Same with Lakin. If he was expressing himself in a room full of his fellow “Birthers”, nothing would have come from expressing his position.

Take the cases of Charles Schenk and Benjamin Gitlow. The Supreme Court overruled their right to free speech when during World War I Schenk publically told draftees to resist service and Gitlow in a written pamphlet advocated the violent overthrow of the government. During a time of war is not the time to tell people that the government should be shaken and overturned. Lakin’s situation here probably wouldn’t have made so much of a stink if he wasn’t being ordered to deploy in a time of war.

Sorry, Dr. Lakin. Your service to our country is over. You made the conscious decision to make a claim about your commander very public, and now you need to leave the armed forces and go into private practice. I’m sure there’s a hospital somewhere that would be happy to have a man of your talents and beliefs on staff.

Chip Grefski

Yes, Virginia, There Are Clear Thinkers!

Common sense prevails!

A Columbia Falls, Montana teen was expelled from school after officials found a unloaded rifle in the trunk of her car. The .243 caliber rifle was inadvertently left in the trunk after a hunting trip the previous weekend. Link it:

http://dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_96a4baac-073d-11e0-a8e8-001cc4c002e0.html

Here are the details: when school administration announced that a contraband sniffing dog would be conducting a search and the school was locked down, the student immediately remembered the rifle being left in her trunk. The student, a high performing honor roll cheerleader, went to the front office and notified the secretary. About 15 minutes later, the student was being escorted out of the school by an administrator and was told she would be expelled. After a large outcry from the public and a huge attendance at a school meeting, the student was to have her expulsion modified. She has returned to school, and is now making up her work to get back to her usual 3.0 status.

Okay- I am all about protecting kids from violence, especially in schools where they are a captive audience and a barrel of fish to any lunatic with a gun and a mission. That being said, there needs to be a common sense application to the zero tolerance philosophy. Yes, we don’t want weapons in our schools, but a forgetful student who left an unloaded rifle with no ammunition is sight is not grounds for labeling them a potential danger.

If you have a weapon on your person inside the school buildings or directly outside on the grounds, game over. You get the book thrown at you and a special place in the local lock up. If you make an honest mistake and own up to it like the student in this story did, there should be a mechanism to ensure that your mistake doesn’t become fatal.

Knives in pockets are one thing. Empty rifles from weekend trips are another. BB pistols in school bags are one thing. Unloaded, lawfully purchased, and properly secured owned long guns in a truck mount are another.

Regarding the search, I’m all for them. Anything we can do to make a school even 1% safer is worth it. The Supreme Court did us a favor in New Jersey vs. TLO (495 US 325, 1985) where a teenager who denied smoking in a restroom ended up having her purse searched to disprove her story where the administrator found marijuana and the proceeds and records of sales of same. The Court of Appeals and New Jersey Supreme Court said the administration had no right to search her purse, but the US Supreme Court disagreed. We’re talking about kids. Even the possession of cigarettes which by itself was not illegal was considered totally relevant to the reason to search since TLO denied smoking at all. The administrator obtained the right to search in this instance since smoking in school was a violation of school rules.

Rules are only good if they are enforced, and enforcement is only reasonable if based on common sense and the totality of circumstances. We don’t want concentration camps just as much as we don’t want a free-for-all. The big picture tells the story, and it’s more than 1000 words.

Chip Grefski

Prison Strikers Want Better Wages?

Hey now! Here’s the best news yet…

My great state of Georgia does it again. Georgia prisoners coordinated a seven-prison strike to complain about unfair labor practices, poor conditions and human rights violations.

No, this didn’t happen at a Vidalia onion processing plant. Nope, nor at a Fort Valley peach farm either. Prisons. Striking workers from seven Georgia prisons. That’s what I said. Link it:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/geor-d13.shtml

I’ll save you the paraphrasing and let you read it yourself:

In a press release, the prisoners listed foremost among their demands a wage for their work. Inmates under the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) are forced to work without pay.

Prisoners are demanding access to educational opportunities beyond General Equivalency Diploma (GED) certification, improved living conditions, access to medical care, fruit and vegetables in their meals, family visitation and telephone communication rights, just parole decisions, and an end to cruel and unusual punishments.

Okay- let me see if I’m seeing this right: men who made bad life decisions and wound up in prisons now want to have good nutrition, reading-writing-‘rithmatic beyond the high school level, and a good wage. Really? I think you waited a bit too long, Bubba. No pun intended…

The parole decisions and any cruel and unusual punishment complaints are obviously legitimate and even the fruits and vegetables argument is sensible. Prisoners should be given a relatively healthy diet like anybody else. But this list of demands seems like they want prison to become a fast track to college and a part time job. Pull off a few armed robberies and you too can get a college education and a low wage job. If education and a good wage were so important, why did you decide to commit a crime? Somebody somewhere in your life advised you not to be a hood and to pay attention in school. Why didn’t you listen then?

I’m all about rehabilitation. I don’t think all criminals are destined for the recidivist revolving door. But it’s called punishment for a reason. Prison shouldn’t be a fun and engaging place to go, learn, and meet new friends. It’s the place you go to pay your debt to society and come out with your $25 and a bus ticket a changed man. If that means while you’re there you’ll be a cook, janitor, maintenance man, landscaper, trash detail picker, whatever, so be it. It’s prison, not Camp Whattajoy. You’re not supposed to be treated to creature comforts there. Three squares and a work detail. That’s the breaks.

I also realize that some of the prisoners do have educations and made mistakes. Georgia does have some pretty harsh sentences for drug users and dealers that would benefit from a good dose of decriminalization. But wow, c’mon dudes, its prison. You made the first step, and it was a wrong one.

Instead of making prison a vocational-technical school, let’s have a transitional program that helps these guys find their stride after they did their time. AFTER, mind you, not during. That’s a big difference.

I am compassionate for the imprisoned, but not to the point that we rebuild their lives during their time in punishment when they may have shattered another’s.

Chip Grefski

Hispanics: The Conservatives Just Don't Get It

They would staunchly deny it if asked directly, but the pure racism being spread by many conservative commentators has reached a point of flat out racism directed at Hispanic people. They don't use that word, because they have termed the narrative for their racism as "protecting our borders," or "halting illegal immigration," and "saving American jobs." But in the context of the DREAM act, which opens paths to citizenship for undocumented minors, the conservatives have openly displayed their real agenda, and against children at that:

Many in the conservative media are trying to block the DREAM Act by driving a wedge between Hispanics and white Americans. That, at least, is how Glenn Beck is doing it. "If you are white, or you're an American citizen, or a white American citizen, you are pretty much toast," Beck observed, as he joked with a caller who sarcastically suggested he would need to pretend to be an "illegal alien" in order to qualify for in-state tuition for his MBA program. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the legislation was Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) way of "thanking Hispanics for stealing the election for him."

Elsewhere in the right-wing press, pundits are asking whether a bill aimed at assisting Hispanics will be a "nightmare for hard-working Americans," calling the bill "shamnesty," and raising the specter of criminality, calling it "reckless illegal alien amnesty" and that "incentivizes illegality." Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher even compared the beneficiaries of the bill to bank robbers. (compiled by Media Matters)

See, I'm confused. For years the mantra from the right has been that undocumented workers absorb state services illegally because they are not citizens, and do not contribute meaningfully to the economy because they avoid income tax. Both premises have some truth to them, certainly. But when legislation is introduced to fast track or ease the path to citizenship, we get the above kind of rhetoric. They reveal themselves. They don't care about "legal" or "illegal" citizenship status, they simply don't like Hispanics. Period. There's no other way to spin this.

And this racism clouds a very obvious campaign strategy that is being totally ignored. Pundits like Limbaugh have accused President Obama of being elected mostly by minorities and illegal aliens. Well if that's the case, Mr. Obama has totally failed to live up to the promises of eased citizenship regulations and normalized relations with Mexico. For crying out loud, President Bush the second made more of an effort in his first term to accomplish these things. So what the conservatives are missing is this: they may be kicking a potentially very large voting block in the butt. Mexicans are acutely aware of the president's lack of action, and will be skeptical of further promises from democrats, which, rest assured, will be forthcoming and likely also to fall flat.

The conservatives need to capture this base. C'mon already. It's 2010. The days of most Americans regarding race as proof of bad behavior are over. Mexicans and other Hispanics are coming to this country to work, especially at jobs that most Americans, frankly, consider beneath them. Chili peppers rot on their plants in Texas, because no one wants the job of picking them. If the republicans extend a welcoming hand to Hispanics and get behind well written citizenship programs that uphold the law without punishing the applicants beforehand, they will gain esteem and trust from this community, justifiably. Moreover, they will steal this block from the dems, who have proven themselves to not only be long on talk and short on action over the issue, but also feel that they have the Hispanic voting block in their pocket, with no need to even worry about it. The fact that liberals take the black and Hispanic vote for granted creates a huge opportunity for republicans to steal them. The democrats will never see it coming.

But if they continue on in this way, the will lose the opportunity and continue to look like the caricature they so staunchly deny: a bunch of fat, old, racist white men.

Mike Grefski



One Judge, Two Judge, Wrong Judge, Right Judge

The third time is the charm, right?

According to the Associated Press, US District Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down Obamacare as Unconstitutional. The ruling focused on the key provision that citizens will either have to buy insurance or pay a penalty. I can’t disagree, in fact I applaud him for actually applying the Constitution to the argument. The sad thing is two other judges previously disagreed with him.

Now comes the next part of the story. The judge was a Bush appointee, the article makes clear, and apparently the White House knew they would lose this case. Was this really necessary? Sure if you still want to portray Bush as still dictating the pace of America. But I digress…

Back to the point: America is the land of the free. We have the ability to choose. I realize that some of these choices, particularly the one to have medical coverage or not, can present costs to unintended victims (read: taxpayers). But it is still out right. Those of us who work for organizations who provide healthcare are fortunate. Those who buy their own have a tough row to hoe. Those who chose to have none whatsoever are rolling the dice. But it is their dice, and they’re hand shaking the old bones.

The government should not provide healthcare. Period. The problem lays more with the fact that our runaway litigiousness has malpractice insurance so incredibly high and the red tape and hoops pharmaceutical companies have to go through to put a drug on the market. The costs are so high on the front end that the consumer is left with the burden on the back. This is not to say that a negligent doctor should not be responsible for his mistakes nor should a completely untested drug be put into use without due diligence. What I am saying is multi-million dollar jury awards for infected hangnails have soiled the water for the entire country.

How do we reign in health care costs? Simple! Interstate competition: give the consumer choices, and let the companies fight it out to provide the best coverage at the lowest price. Why should it matter that my insurer is in another state?

What do auto insurance companies do to attract new policy holders? Insurance companies champion lower rates and deductibles than those of their competition. Let’s face it, the government forces us to have automobile insurance, and there are a ton of companies- national and extremely local- that provide coverage.  Why can’t health care be the same? The more costumers sign up the company can offer lower premiums.  Offer discounts for good checkups and exercise. Like a good driver discount, give a bonus to folks who are healthy and don’t need to see a doctor. That might encourage healthier lifestyle choices from those who frequent their doctor’s office.

Face it: the minute we let the government into the health care trade, the more intrusive they can be with our lives and choices. The government needs to regulate commerce, not force it where it need not be enforced.

Chip Grefski

Who's Saying "No-No" Now?

Now we’ll see if bipartisanship is achievable.

Pres. Obama used his radio address to describe the new tax plan as the best opportunity for America. He didn’t like the leniency on the rich, but the Republicans stuck to their premise that it is these individuals that pay the lion’s share of taxes and run the concerns that employ others. There’s an increase in jobless benefits and a trim to Social Security. Sounds like this coalition boiled the bones and got a decent soup stock for next year’s recipes.

BUT… Obama had to appeal to his own party to pass the measure and start 2011 off right. The Democrats have already made it clear they didn’t like the deal, and they won’t pass it. Funny- isn’t that what they constantly accused the Republicans of when they were the minority party? The Republicans were the party of no, right? Everything a Democrat suggested was argued down. The Republicans had little toehold to really stop anything.

We could have had a super-quasi-socialist reorganization of wealth in this country rammed down our throats with the way the numbers were last election cycle o those long two years ago. They didn’t. Why? We acted like free citizens. As wacky as some of the Tea Party rallies were, they showed that he average conservative and the Libertarians (HOORAY!) of the country were out there and not hiding. They rallied PEACEFULLY and demanded a righting of the ship of state more towards the middle. Health care was a serious stain on Obama’s first attempts at a redefined presidency. It is so clear that we Americans don’t want what they offered. So we citizens told Congress that we were watching. They held their moves and perhaps purposefully hoped the tax cuts from the Bush administration would simply expire with excuses and accusations as to why.

We are still watching. If the Democrats want to regain or retain something of what they had, particularly the Oval Office in 2012, they need to listen to the country. The republicans need to as well. Neither party has the answers, but the people do.

Keep the heat on, folks. Whatever your ideology, keep DC honest and listening.

And, DC… do what we tell you. The days of us drinking the Kool-Aid are over. The motivated American voter is back!

Chip Grefski

The Ugly American Rides Again

Here we go again.

I must give a plug for Drew Curtis and Fark.com. his wonderfully eclectic and humorous anecdotes regarding the news of the day are a daily source of pleasure for me. I often don’t get my news any other way. Kudos, Drew…

It is from Fark that I found my latest subject matter to espouse my firm belief that if this country is to progress from our current doldrums, we must first recognize the responsibility of the individual to respect the rights of others and contemplate them as they express their personal views. Whether or not you agree with a person’s beliefs, lifestyle choices, or opinions is simply immaterial. We all have the right to agree to disagree unless someone is being harmed. Then we have a responsibility to restore order, and the actor should pay the appropriate consequences.

That said, we find a story from San Francisco where a transgender woman was harassed by an agent at the local Department of Motor Vehicles when the new she went to apply for a new driver’s license. The agent took the woman’s address and wrote her a letter admonishing her for her decision to change genders, making the point that it was a “very evil decision”. Link it:   

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/12/09/san-francisco-transgender-woman-files-privacy-claim-against-dmv/

Please tell me why this individual put their governmental organization in the path of a litigious freight train for this issue. Why was it so necessary for the agent to make their displeasure with this woman’s decision to radically alter her life? Why was it their business? Who was harmed, besides the person who received such an assault? Yes, she was assaulted. Like it or not.

The best way to express displeasure for a lifestyle choice is to not engage in its practice. It is none of the individual’s business what a complete stranger does to their own body unless the action places others in jeopardy of life, limb, or liberty. There is no cause for the community to rise in anger over a sex change. The was no right for anyone to subject this woman to anonymous scrutiny- almost voyeuristic to a degree- when she is simply doing what needs to be done to stay in compliance with the law.

In her suit, she claims her privacy and civil rights were violated. I totally agree. If the agent in question saw fit to disparage Ms. Yust’s choices, they should have saved the editorial for their own circle of friends. There is no law against being intolerant, but there exists a requirement for intolerance to be saved for one’s own circle and not spread it like a miasma.

This brings to my mind a Supreme Court case, People v. Rokicki, where the defendant referred to a Pizza Hut employee as a “Mary” amongst other homosexual epithets when he expressed displeasure at the employee handling his food. After his tirade, he actually went to a local police station to make a complaint against people who aren’t “normal” to handle his food. He was charged with hate speech, and the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. You can believe what you will, but you cannot spread bile for general consumption.

Grow up, America. Everybody is different. That’s what makes us great. Intolerance is the match that lights the fuse.

Chip Grefski

The Better Mousetrap

Let me tell you a story...when I was 18 in 1987, I went to work for an independently owned video rental store in Oak Ridge, NJ. It was owned by a man named Ed Malvey, and for 4-5 years off and on, myself and his other employees helped grow the business to be, at least to my perception, quite successful. There was only one other video store in town, which had bad customer service. We, however, had a popcorn machine, a killer candy counter, and since everyone who worked there loved to watch movies, we gave great customer service. Our customers trusted us to help them choose movies for them, and to let them know what the stinkers were. It was not only a good job, it was a fun job.

A couple of years after I'd left the business, the owner heard a Blockbuster was coming to town, and made plans to close the video store and do something different. He believed there was no way he could compete, and he may have been right. Back then, Blockbuster was seen as the diva of the video rental world, better than any other such company. Personally, I felt the stores to be horribly common denominator, only stocking tons of the most obvious titles, while customer service simply devolved into asking if they had a particular title or not. But as I clearly am not a typical consumer (not a boast) I was wrong about Blockbuster, and for many years the chain floiurished, putting indie stores out of business with their lower pricing and copious concessions. It reminded me of the times I spent with Musicland Inc., the company that owned Sam Goody, Suncoast Video, Musicland, and Media Play stores. That company was the top music retailer in the nation in 1991, and it didn't look like that was going to change any time soon.

But, as with all evolutions, things change. And in the case of video rentals and sales, the change that altered the industry forever and will continue to do so, is singular: the internet.

It started slowly, with online video retailers popping up, mostly catering to speciality genres that video stores tend to be unkind to, like horror and foreign film. Blockbuster's selection looked shoddy and lazy alongside these competitors. And then in 1999...Netflix. I have been a Netflix subscriber for about 7 years now, so I'm kind of a veteran. While deciding to join, I logged onto the site and checked to see if they had some obscure titles I was interested in. They had them. Other titles I checked were unavailable anywhere at the time, and when they became so, I emailed Netflix to advise them. With about 6 weeks, they were stocking the titles. I was being given better customer service by an unseen phantom at the other end of my modem than I'd ever gotten from Blockbuster.

The other factor that is the bigger bugaboo for the rental industry, is the exponential increase in computer processor's speed and the velocity of the internet itself. Remember trying to download video clips online back in '99? More frustration than it was worth. Today, I watched two documentaries for free on Netflix without a buffering message in sight.

Now it may sound like I'm rooting for Blockbuster's demise, but I'm not. Netflix built the better mousetrap, and Blockbuster will struggle to work their way out of bankruptcy and fight back. But thinking back to my personal vdeo store employee days, I miss the one thing I also miss about downloading music or buying books online: human interaction. We laughed and joked with our customers, and got into talks and debates about the movies. We waited to see what a customer would think of a film we'd recommended to them. My boss and I would debate what titles we ought to stock. Netflix is great, but I feel like I'd need to form a film society to get back the kind of anima that was so easily obtained back then. The same is true of music stores nowadays (less so of books). The personal touch is virtually vanished. Now some people don't care about that. They want convienience and the top ten titles at their beck and call and have no desire to dig deeper. But some of us do, and a computer is, ultimatley, far worse at helping with that than an actual person.

I hope Blockbuster survives. I think by using far less retail outlets with sizably improved selecions, they might. Maybe just have Blockbuster Supercenters that strive to be the best damn video store in a given major city, and throw the rest of their business into video on demand and online renting. That's just my thought, for what it's worth. For now the better mousetrap is Netflix...how long will it be before someone re-unlocks the human interaction aspect of the business, and we all get to glare at a new one?