Tuesday, September 04, 2007

try gay sex

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

On being gay

What is it? What is it Ive got? It’s a hunger, a desire, an overarching and compulsive need and want for something that is put to one side and ignored by a mind which cant fathom the possibility that it could happen to me. I don’t want it, I used to say, don’t think about it. You have to marginalize, subside and bring to the front of your mid what everyone else thinks about. What ten thousand years and more of human culture has told us is right. It’s the weight of our species, the crucible of a hundred million and countless poems, a thousand billion plays and books and stories, from great orator to a secret to your closest friend, the very existence of our civilisation is based upon a mans unbending, all consuming, for ever adoring love of a woman.

To be excluded from civilisation by something beyond our control. Left out of the joke, not told the story, I don’t get it. I can’t comprehend it. Why not? What’s wrong with me? Its sick and gross and perverted and a disease and will destroy our very way of life. That’s how they stop you from thinking about it, no not from thinking about it, they force you push it down so far in the depths of your soul, so far that if you ignore it for too long it will begin to consume you and then you will be dead. Or they scare you with what they have scared everyone in all of history with, the fear of forever damnation. You’re going to burn, all eternity in the depths of hell and you will never see God, so don’t ever do it. Don’t ever act upon that thing. Don’t even listen to it. See the man you want, fantasise about everything about him, his lips and body and the love he could give you for all the time you have together, but keep it all in here because we don’t want to think about it. They don’t want to see something so different, which is so obviously against all of our collective past. So desperately not right.

But I want it. I have to have it. You see I cant live without love. Who on earth can live a life not theirs, but one of being completely devoid of a tender and caring lovers touch, either never to experience it, or to be so fleeting and wrong that to convulse in shameless guilt and despair and despise that you let that vicious monster out of the box. How on Gods earth can you live with a giant crunched down inside you? It cannot be shoved down beneath your consciousness for the rest of your breaths. How can it, how could you do that. Actively live a life of death. Just a shell, just a broken can of a shell that is going to crumble under the weight of illicit thoughts one day.

Or it will, just like a devilish monster in a fairytale; it will rip its way out through your gut, and catch and kill the nearest thing it can get its hands on. People must have tried for all time to control the beast. Let it out once in a while; let it out, but only when no one is watching. Don’t let anyone see the monster. Because when someone sees that you have a monster, then you are singled out, feared and hated and despised by all sorts around this world that this monster picked you. People can say it is going to go away, or they can say you have to ignore it, or they can try and tear the beast out of your sinews, but it never goes away.

There is only one way to survive. You have to let the beast out. Have is not strong enough to describe how much of a necessity it is that this monster is let out to do its own thing. You see the moment you acknowledge you have monster, the sooner you realise its there, and not going anywhere, ever, and no matter what the people say around the planet, some people have monsters and some don’t, but you do. And you see, the very second you say hello to the beast, and acknowledge that it is there, it goes away, never to return as something you should be afraid of.

It is gone forever, the monster, the beast, the all consuming hatred and rage and fear and want, the disgusting want that tears and scratches at your mind till it drives you to insanity, it just goes away, slips into your being, when you say its there. Not a monster no more, not a sin or a cruel trick, just you, what you are and forever will be. Just a part of you. Just nothing else to worry about, its just that you had a beast, but you defeated it invincibly just by knowing it was there. You aren’t giving in to it, you aren’t letting it win, lying down for it to tramp all over you, the exact opposite, you beat it, you win because you control it. You are gay. Everyone knows it now. So what does it matter now. You’ve won the battle for your life. Everyone can say anything, a million things and a half about a thousand and a half centuries of a civilisation about a man that loves a woman. They can say it all, but it doesn’t matter. All of them are completely and utterly afraid. They do not know this beast, they have absolutely no idea what it is or how to control it, so they fight it forever, they shout at it and thy call it a sin, this beast. Or they have the beast, somewhere deep inside them, and they think they can win by attacking it head on, with words and fists and laws, but it wont go away for them, because the beast has beat them. But for us, us who have conquered the shadowy fear of lies, know we are winners, we know we have won our own personal battles, and unlike the millions who fear it, unlike a million decades of our way of life, we know who we are, and we can never be afraid to say so, we can never shake or waiver from the one true thing we know. We have it, a love to give, an amazing life to live with someone who is of our same sex, and we know it because one day, a little while ago, we won the war for our minds. And I can never forget that, you must always remember that we are stronger. Love, a necessity of life; that we are proud of the battle we have won, and we know who we are, and I know who I am and I know who I love and I am the same as you so let me live, a million years gone and a million more to come, and all the grace of God and all the power of collective humanity is screaming let me be, for I have won, for I am proud of what I have accomplished, and just let me live.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Jesus Camp and the Second American Revolution

There is a story on abc about young children being indoctrinated in 'Jesus Camp.'
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/play...ndex? id=2456227
Very young children are being taught to worship George Bush, and are being trained to die for some sort of 'Christian Army.' It is very sick, and very wrong, and reminds me of a story I read about Iran recently.

During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), sawthes of young children had a fundamentalist brand of Islam taught to them, I suppose simmilar to this fundamentalist brand of Christainity, and the children were then told to walk across minefields laid down by the Iraqis, to clear the way for Iranian troops.

Surely there has got to be a lawyer, somewhere, who could argue a decent case against this in court? Is there no legislator who can propose a law to stop very young, very vulnerable kids being taught extreme political views? But I guess killing people for Christ isnt considered extreme anymore.

As a first year American Studies student at University, it seems to me, that the people who forged the ideal of America, were a small band of radicals for their time, fighting against the injustices and attacks on liberty of an Imperialist superpower, who forged a concept of Democracy without the intolerances of religion or the feroucious hatred of a moral police anywhere to be seen.

Now to have a President whoes colonial ambitions strech the world over, who brings extreme religion to the front and centre of eveything he does, and who is worshiped by cults, is surley not quite in line with what the framers had in mind?

The one question which the public, nor the media, asks potential leaders, and one which should be the most important in regards to the continutation of the American Experiment:
"What would the Founding Fathers think of your policies?"
If there is a politician out there who can merley repeat the words and ideas of Washington or Adams or Jefferson or even Lincoln, then surley that will be the begining of the Second American Revolution.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Civil Rights

I read an article today on Foxnews.com by a former Democratic representative called Martin Frost, about how great America is because of the civil rights movement and oh, how much freedom people of all colours, races genders and lifystyles now enjoy in the United States. I reminded the poor, dillusional man with an email.
(article - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174090,00.html)

Dear Mr Frost

The United States may have come leaps and bounds in trying to end racial prejudice against the African American community, but America still seems intent in pushing ahaead with prejudice against the Gay community. I believe at the last count 18 states have constitutional amendments against the right of gay people to marry; the President tried to introduce a constitutional amendment which would bar gay people from their rights of equal treatment, as guaranteed under the 14th amendment. The arguments used against gay marriage are the exact same as were used against interracial marriage.

It is not acceptable to be openly racist towards black people, but it still seems to be open season on the Gay community. State after state, judge after judge and pastor after pastor try and make life untolerable for gay people; they take away their rights and their libertys which the African American community experienced 50 years ago.

You may say the traditional civil rights movement cannot be compared to the struggle for acceptance of gay people, but I say injustice is injustice. Civil rights movements are not begining to end struggles, they are endless campaigns to take those remaining behind the lines of inequality to freedom.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Henderson

Monday, October 31, 2005

Now Comes the Fight

A few minutes ago, George Bush announced that Samuel Alito is his new nominee to replace the deciseve swing vote held by Justice O'connor. In this nomination, Bush has shown his hatred for all Americans who do not subscribe to his neo-facist, extreme far right Christainity. He has reduced the number of women on the court by 50%, refused to nominate an ethnic minority, and has nominated someone whoes philosophy is one of hate. We must begin the fight to have this 'Scalia clone' withdraw his nomination as soon as possible. He is under-qualified in the fact that his opinions and rulings are immature, offensive and derogatory to women and minorities.
We succeeded in removing the nomination of Miers, whom Bush nominated so that he would have a friendly face on the court should he be impeached, which he obviousley thinks could happen.

A Justice on the Third circuit court of Apeeals, out of New Jersey, here is a round up of his far right charachter, such as demanding that women tell thier husbands if they are to have an abortion.

Samuel Alito
Age: 55
Graduated from: Yale Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.
He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).
His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it.
As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State

For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)
For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 2001)
Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law

Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)
Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

Habeas Corpus

Granted the habeas claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)


Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Victory, but for who?

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court today, with whoops of 'got the bitch' from myself, but who is this a victory for?

Harriet Miers nomination confused a lot of people. There was definitely no clarity on the issues at hand. One could see evidence of her being a staunch right winger, then there was hints of gay rights, or at least no fire and brimstone comments against gays.

Right wing conservatives certainly did not like her nomination. They didn't like the fact that they couldn't prove she was a conservative through a paper trail, and Bush told the country we 'had to trust him' in picking someone who shared his political and judicial philosophy, which obviously many far righters were not prepared to do.

But are we to take from this, however, that she was not a clear cut far right conservative? Bush said she shared his philosophy, which has been proved to be of the far right persuasion, ala the now dead Defense of Marriage amendment, the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich. However, Democratic Minority leader Senator Harry Reid praised her nomination, and even today blamed far right religious fanatics in the republican party for trampling on Harriet Miers nomination. So was Harriet the best liberal appeasement we could have expected from the Bush White House? Will Bush now appoint a clear cut Far Righter such as Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen? Or will Bush take this as the opportunity to appoint a real consensus candidate such as Edith Clement or even possibly Alberto Gonzales, who has shown to be moderate in teen abortions anyway, but has been criticized by Democrats for his approval of torture and of the unconstitutional 'Patriot Act'?

The shortlived Harriet Miers nomination, however, could also highlight the complete incompetentcy of the Bush administration in proposing a candidate which angers his base, has absolutely zero judicial experience, a limited knowledge of Constitutional law, and an inherent bias and questionable independence in dealing with any case which involved the Bush administration.

Miers owed just about every job she has had to George Bush, and would also have owed her place in US history and to become one of the most important women in America to Bush, thus compromising her ability to be independent should a case arise involving Bush, or should Bush ever appear before the Supreme Court after being impeached.

Could Bush have been so stupid? It is almost unbelievable that Bushes brain, Karl Rove, would have let him pick a person like this. Rove must have known that she would have been contentious to the Republican base despite Bushes' continued pleas that she believes the same things as him, and her being religious. Puting aside the total uncostitutional factor in nominating someone because of their 'religious belief's' why on earth would he have wanted to have someone controlling the Swing Vote on the Supreme Court who's only qualification was that she was an ally?

In a seemingly unrelated story, Washington is waiting to hear who is going to be indicted in the CIA-Plame case. Karl Rove, the man behind Bush and Scooter Libby, Cheney's CoS, are likely to become criminal defendants. It may become clear during their trial, if they are indicted, that it was the Vice President himself who authorized the leak, as it seems unbelievable that Libby or Rove would be able to authorize this, and as Libby received information from Cheney just before he met with reporters. It seems even more unlikely to me that Dick Cheney would have leaked the name without even informing the President.

So if we hypothetically follow this leak up the chain of command, there is the possibility that Bush was aware of, or authorized the leaking of Plames name as a CIA agent to discredit her husband, a harsh critic of the Presidents Iraq policy. Therefore were this to come out in any criminal case involving Rove and Libby, the President would face impeachment at the hands of the Supreme court, and of course, it would be in the Presidents intrestes to have an Associate Justice who owed everything she had to Bush.

Now of course this is all just an idea, but it is an idea that makes sense to me. I don't understand why Bush would nominate someone who so angered his base, and got approval from Democrats otherwise? Where is that Political Capital he promised to spend in appointing a hardline ideologue? But an ideologue who is against abortion is possibly not someone who is in favour of Presidents breaking the law to discredit political opposition.

In summary, I believe the President, George W. Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plames name, and then nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to protect his back as the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, closed in on the top White House staff.

The withdrawal of Miers nomination may not be directly related to this, however, as conservatives disliked her anyway, and many people questioned her experience, or total lack of. But I think the withdrawal does represent a huge blow to the safety of Bush in the CIA case, and a President in trouble. A Victory, perhaps, for all the Bushwhacker Liberals out there who want to see Bush exposed and convicted for the criminal he is.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Sooner or Later...Iran

President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad today called for the State of Israel to be "wiped of the map" on the same day that suicide bombers again struck the Jewish State. These comments are horrid and evil, and a totally obvious incitement for Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Iranian group Hezbollah to attack Israel and its people with all the ferocity it has seen in the past. This is completley and totally unnaceptable. For a head of state to say that another sovreign nation to be destroyed is a public warning in the straightest of terms to prepare for war, and another holocaust of Jews in their own nation, by a hardline controlled Iran.

When Ahmandinejad won the election, a man whoes opinion I greatly respect, Sky New's foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall, said that although this man was a hardliner, we shouldnt expect to see him declaring war on Israel right away. Well it looks like the time has come.

As we all know, Iran has had some Nuclear problems. It says it is for peaceful purposes, but I had my doubts, as did many, many people. I truly believe this is why Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, to attack Israel, and as the President has so openly stated, to wipe it off the map.

So what can actaully be done about Iran? It is a very difficult issue. There is no chance of action in the UN. Bush wouldnt think about it, and Putin is still playing cold war politics in supporting Syria and Iran.

I highly doubt the world could stomach another Iraq in its neighbour. Britain could not go to war with Iran. It could not be done by the Labour party without Labour destroying itself. Just rember the opposition we had in the UK to involvement in Iraq, and the protests would be doubelled, they would certanily bring down the government. If Blair was still there when the Iranian issue reachd a head, he really couldnt put his name to another of what people would see as 'Bushes wars.' Indeed, Jack Straw has said that action against the Islamic Republic is 'inconcievable.'

However, I think Iran, unlike Iraq at the time, represents a great danger to the world, as well as its people. Iraq was a threat to itself, and i still think we did the right thing in going into Iraq, allthough totally for the wrong reasons. To say that we should get rid of Saddam because he is an evil dictator, yes, i agree, but the 45 minute claim, and everything else, well, lets not get into that, but in short, Britain, and Europe especialy, will not follow America into a pre-emptive war against Iran

Iran does represent a danger to its people through its hardline government. I saw a picture of two young boys recently being hung for homosexuality. Disgusting. I cant bring myself to talk anymore about that issue, its too, too horible.

Iran represents a dager to the world, and more specificly, Israel. If Iran got the bomb, that would certanily be extremley dangerous, although I am confident Isreal would do everything in its power to prevent that, and I have no doubt that Isrealis and Americans are working tirelessly in Iran to prevent that.

There is a limit to what can be done through espionage and diplomacy however. And the latter seems to be getting us nowhere. We then have to come to the conclusion that Iran will eventually become nuclear capable, which then leaves us with few options.

The most obvious I think, would be Special Forces targetting Nuclear facilities, possibly with Isreali air strikes to surgically cripple Irans nuclear arsenal, but this could prove a diplomatic nightmare, possibly full scale war with Iran, and if even one missile was not destroyed, it would leave Isreal vulnerable. However I think this sort of action might propmt Iran to invade Irag, or at least the Shia areas anyway, and be possibly welcomed by the overwhelming Shia majority there. Iran has already proven a tit for tat ideaology to foreign affairs. Diplomatic pressure vis a vis the nuclear issue resulted in the deaths of British soldiers at the hands of Iran, and then the bombings in south western Iran, which their government acused the UK of involvement in, which is certanily a possibility. Therefore a crippling of Irans nuclear weapons program could see the Revolutionary Guard rolling across the oilfields of Basra, with pictures of cheering crowds on the TV.

The second option is a full scale inviasion of Iran, and thus another Iraq. This could in no way be done untill Iraq is stabilised, which could be a long way away. The British and Americans just dont have the non-consciption manpower to launch that kind of inviasion. And as I doubt we would get involved anyway, America would have to go it alone, and I cant see Bush getting away with introducing conscription to pre-emptivley invade Iran, i think it is inconcievable. The backlish would be astounding. It would just prove that all opposition has been stamped out in America if Bush could pull that off. The only way we could handle Iran millitarily is through a totally worldwide coalition. With UN, Russian, European, even Chinese support, and the only way I can see that happening is if Iran attacks Israel with Nuclear weapons. By then it could be too late, and Isreal may have been wiped off the map, as Mahmoud Amedinejad wants. However I am sure Isreal would respond in kind, which would blow up the powder keg that the middle east has been every day for so long.

I cant see anyway to peacefully resolve this issue soon. The Iranian president has fired off a warning shot, and we have to respond in kind. Jack Straw is going to give an Iranian diplomat a telling off, but Nato should admit Isreal in, thus giving Iran a clear signal that if they were to attack Isreal, then the force of the free world will bear down on it.

However things, as they usually are, will be far more murky than that, with Iran supporting more terrorist attacks against the Jewish State and British troops, while Jack Straw gives them a right seeing too, but, sooner or later, we have to deal decisevley with Iran.