When I first thought up this topic I was going to go on a diatribe about how women send mixed signals to men because they are playing a certain role of being coquettish and hard to get which puts us in an awkward position of having to determine whether we should just give up and leave, or continue trying. As I’ve tried to write about it for the past two days, I find myself just as frustrated about not knowing what direction to go.

So, instead I’ll write about the current trend of negative optioning which is so prevalent nowadays. Record clubs, book clubs, even magazine subscriptions nowadays are sucking in people to join up using a promotion and including in the fine print that you are agreeing to receive regular shipments or renewals unless you specifically inform them you do not want to receive something.

For example, every three weeks I get an email from BMG that my featured selection will be mailed to me in 10 days unless I inform them I don’t want it. If I don’t do anything, they’re going to send it to me along with their high priced shipping and handling charge tacked on. If I want to tell them no, I have to go to the weblink and find the tiny print link that says “no don’t send” and click it. Sure, I can just mark refused and return it when it gets here because I haven’t provided them with my credit card number, but that takes effort. Why should I have to tell them I don’t want something instead of them asking me if I would like it?

I admit that negative optioning does have its perks. I just recieved an email from Men’s Health magazine that they have renewed my subscription for another year because of my accepting that automatic renewal option a few years ago. I don’t have to do anything, but keep them informed when my credit card number changes and I’ll never miss an issue.

In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on negative option abuses and sued nine companies for charging customers’ credit cards for products or services without gaining their express approval. The FTC found the companies, as part of a transaction with consumers, offered “free offers” or “trial offers” of other products and services, without disclosing that consumers would be billed for additional products or services unless they exercised the negative option.

Unfortunately Congress took no action when presented with the evidence of a systematic fleecing of consumers, and in the last four years, negative option marketing has increased, and so has its abuse. In 2001 the FTC logged 204,000 complaints about deceptive magazine sales. Two years later, the number of complaints was about 500,000.

So is there anything that we can do about it? Our only option is saying no to begin with when the marketers tempt us with promotional offers. And hopefully they’ll understand that no doesn’t mean yes. 5 years ago

It’s Thanksgiving this week here in the United States (Canada had theirs last month). It used to be that the big push for Christmas sales started the day after Thanksgiving, but not any more. Christmas items were already on the shelves before Halloween, pushing the Halloween stuff out a week before that holiday. Some stores have already had their Christmas sales due to a declining economy as well as a push to get more of the ever dwindling consumer dollar.

With gas prices now over $3/gallon consumer planning for gifts is down 5% from 2006, and is the lowest level of planned spending recorded by the American Research Group in the past 10 years. That being said, they still plan on spending an average of $859 for gifts this holiday season.

Now I admit that I spend a lot on my friends and family for Christmas, but I have a job that can afford it. Even so, I have cut back on actual gifts instead giving lump sums that can help them pay off their debt or splurge on things that they wouldn’t buy on their own. Some of my favorite gifts in years past were things that were made by hand, or given for sentimental value like the cow creamer that had been my great great grandmother’s.

So on Thursday let us all be thankful for the things we have that are important like friends, family, health and safety, and as we enter the shopping season let’s invest in ourselves instead of buying yet another bottle of cologne or box of turtles that no one really needs. 5 years ago

We just celebrated or at least acknowledged Veteran’s Day. The Post Office was closed was the only real indicator that I noticed during my day as I traveled through three states. In fact, I even forgot that this was the topic for this week’s entry, so I’m a day late this week. That’s endemic of what we do in our country. Sure, people will picket and petition against the war, but when it comes time to acknowledging the veterans who have given of their time and lives, unless it’s our spouse or child, do we even think about it?

The National Alliance to End Homelessness reported that veterans make up 26 percent of homeless people (while as a whole they are only 11 percent of people over 18). That means that on any given night in 2006, there were 195,000 US veterans homeless.

According to a report in the American Journal of Public Health in 2004 there were 1.8 million veterans who were uninsured and not getting care from the Veterans Administration. The fact of the matter is that the VA only automatically covers veterans that are disabled by military service. All other veterans have to apply for coverage. (It should be noted that once they reach Medicare age, veterans are covered by Medicare, so the uninsured veterans are from the Vietnam War and later.) In fact a 2002 memo ordered VA regional directors to “ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur,” citing “demand for health care that exceeds our resources.” We’ve all seen the news stories about the horrible conditions of the VA hospitals.

And that’s what it all comes down to—funding. President Bush wants us to continue to fund his war on terror, but when it comes to spending money to support the soldiers when they come home no one wants to spend even a fraction of the money being asked for the war. The best time to help the soldiers is immediately following their return from war so that mental health issues can be addressed as well as any physical ones, so that these veterans can return to the workforce and get health care on their own.

A recent report titled “Shock And Awe Hits Home” by Physicians for Social Responsibility estimated expected health-care costs for returning Iraq veterans to be as high as $660 billion. The same report noted that up to 30 percent of these returning soldiers will meet the criteria for serious mental health disorders.

So next time you see a homeless person on the street wonder if he might not be one of our veterans who risked his life for our country only to be screwed over for it when he returned home. 5 years ago

Laws have their place. Without them, we would be living in anarchy as people did what they wanted to without repercussion. I think most of us would agree that people shouldn’t be permitted to kill other people, or beat them up for that matter. But when the law only impacts individual liberties is it truly something of value?

Take the drinking age. It used to be that you only had to be 18 before you could drink alcohol before the government decided to tie federal funding to get states to increase the limit to 21. This same government is sending 18 year old men and women to fight in a war and die without giving them the right to drink a beer before giving their life. How fair is that?

Growing up alcohol was not a big deal for me. If I wanted to sample something I could, so there was never any temptation for it. It wasn’t taboo or forbidden fruits, so while many of my classmates were sneaking off to the woods to get drunk, I never saw the value in doing that. Over in Europe where wine is had with meals regardless of age, statistically there isn’t the problems that we have in the States with “underage drinking”. You’d think people would realize by now that if we forbid teens from doing something, they’re just going to want to do it more out of spite.

Speed limits, marijuana, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, jay walking, all of these laws are essentially government oppressing the rights of the individual. Maybe we would be better off without some of these laws, don’t you think? 5 years ago

Remember the good old days when you were out in public and were having conversations only with the people who were there with you? Now you can be sitting at a table with three other people and all four of you could be talking to someone else on the phone ignoring the people you’re actually with.

Don’t get me wrong. Cell phones do have their place and purpose. They are great in case of emergency, or when you are on call for work. But do you really need to be able to be reached 24 hours a day, no matter where you are?

Working at movie theatres, I am constantly having to go in and yell at people for using their phones during a movie. It’s like their conversation is more important than everyone else in the theatre, ignoring the fact that those other people paid to get in to watch the movie too. It’s not just in movie theatres too. I’ve seen it during weddings and church services, and let’s not even talk about at the urinal in the bathroom. (Do people really need to listen to you pee?)

I see these people with their bluetooth in their ear or their cell glued to their hand and wonder if they realize what idiots they are making of themselves, while in their mind they’re showing off how important they think they are. I’ve watched as someone’s gotten to the front of a line and continued to talk on their phone making the person at the counter wait for them, as well as delaying the rest of the line behind them. I’ve also seen people open the door for someone who is talking on a cell phone and that cell phone user not even acknowledging the door holder with even a nod or wave. It’s like politeness has gone out the door.

And what is it about a cell phone that makes people raise their voice? Do we all need to hear your side of the conversation, since you aren’t getting up from the table and going somewhere private? At least if you made it obvious that you’re on the phone, I won’t think you’re talking to me.

Do I even need to bring up the obnoxious ring tones that people have nowadays? Cell phones vibrate for a reason. I don’t need to hear the William Tell Overture or Ice Ice Baby while sitting in a meeting.

Maybe some scientist will develop an implant that can be placed behind the ear so that it will only ring for you. Then maybe I can go back to my peace and quiet, at least until I think someone on their cell is actually talking to me. 5 years ago

It’s that time of year again when we’re starting to get bombarded with those don’t-vote-for-this-person ads. This negative campaigning has become the norm thanks to mudslingers like Rove. Shouldn’t a person’s own record stand for itself, so that you don’t have to drag your opponent through the mud?

I think this is endemic of the whole problem with our political structure nowadays. With the two big parties in control, it’s an us vs. them battle where whoever has the majority blocks progress instead of working together to better society as a whole. Even with Rove having stepped down, I expect that we’re going to see an increasing set of antics leading up to next year’s presidential election. How many more times is Mitt Romney going to change his stand on the major issues? How many more funding scandals are going to be brought up by Republicans against Democrats or vice versa?

So who do I think would be the best ticket for next year’s election? Clinton/Obama. Hillary has proven herself as a Senator, and it’s time for a woman to take control of the country so that we can stop having the testosterone warmongering. Obama doesn’t have the experience to step right into the Presidency. He’s naive. I think that eight years as Vice President would get him the experience he would need to lead the nation. Plus it’s time for a minority in the White House.

Will my ideal ticket happen? Only time will tell, but it’s something to think about while ignoring all the mudslinging going on. 5 years ago

There’s been a lot of anti-gay marriage talk lately, yet what’s so great about marriage to begin with? Currently in the United States only one in three marriages won’t end in divorce. Shouldn’t the focus be on what’s wrong with those marriages instead of preventing people who want to be married from getting married?

Here’s my view on marriage and how it should be handled. First, we need to enforce the separation of church and state. The benefits bestowed on a married couple by law and government are already a contract. It deals with things like property ownership, inheritance, taxes, medical decisions, etc. These rights are already in place, and can be duplicated for the most part through legal documents. The benefits of marriage under the church has no legal standing in secular governments.

Next, we need to recognize the contract of marriage. Many people nowadays are already establishing a prenuptial agreement where they state up front what will occur if the marriage dissolves. This should actually be set up for every marriage contract. The terms of the contract should be defined and outlined up front, along with the term of the contract. I suggest five years.

By establishing a finite contract that can be renewed at the end of that term, you would find that people would be more willing to stay with the marriage through the term of the contract. At the end of the contract, they can choose to renew the contract for another five years or dissolve the contract. There wouldn’t need to be divorce attorneys or drawn out battles, because everything would have been defined up front.

I’m sure some of you are still back on the whole separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. The easiest solution is to change the name of marriage to one thing for religious marriage and something else for the secular marriage contract. Partnership would work just fine for the secular arrangement. 5 years ago

October 11 is the 20th anniversary of the 1987 Gay and Lesbian March on Washington and the unfurling of the AIDS Quilt on the National Mall. National Coming Out Day was established 19 years ago on the one year anniversary in order to continue the spirit of openness, honesty and visibility that began with that march. Back in 1987, only 11% of those polled reported that they associated with a male homosexual on a regular basis according to the Washington Post. Today 72% of Americans say they personally know or work with someone who identifies as gay or lesbian. What a difference 20 years makes. The Human Rights Campaign is continuing the theme of “Talk About It” which has been the theme the last two years. While I applaud and support everyone who has chosen to come out in their own terms, I really have to wonder why sexual orientation is such a big deal to us in the States.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey first published his scale of sexual orientation in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male back in 1948. It presented a range of seven values that range from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. Kinsey wrote:

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).

“While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history… An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life…. A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist,” (pp. 639, 656)

Since there is this range of sexuality, and that it can change throughout a person’s lifetime, isn’t it possible that we’re all a little bit queer at some point or another? (Unless you fall into that asexual category that places you off the scale entirely.) White males aged 20-35 had 11.6% of them being rated a 3 (equally homosexual and heterosexual) during that period of their life. 7% of single females and 4% of married females in the same age range had the same rating of 3, while 2-6% were given a rating of 5 (predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual), and 1-3% were rated a 6 (exclusively homosexual).

So unless I’m trying to have intercourse with you, or you want to have intercourse with me, what does it matter where I identify myself on the Kinsey scale? Isn’t it just labels to begin with? And if you love the one you’re with, like the song says, isn’t that between the two of you?

For the record, as I write this tonight I put myself as a 2. So even though I oppose the labelling associated with this scale, in the spirit of National Coming Out Day, where do you fall?

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual 5 years ago

There’s a whole slew of evangelical Christians going about saying “hate the sin but love the sinner” nowadays. It doesn’t matter what the sin may be from homosexuality to atheism, from supporting abortion rights to worshipping non-Christian religions. This concept is arrogant and condescending, and has no foundation in the Bible. In fact, the phrase was said by Mahatma Ghandi. The Bible has been very clear that God hates sin and doesn’t separate the sinner from the sin. It also states very clearly that people are human, are fallible and will sin. We are to love our enemies, not judge them, and in so doing we aspire to being better human beings.

Unfortunately too many people think that they can separate the sinner from the sin and love one while hating the other. This just isn’t humanly possible. At some point, the hatred of the sin will seep through and be taken out upon the sinner. This is what is being sought to be avoided by following this fallacy. Instead it only serves to foster the ill-will and separatism.

H.G. Wells once said “moral indignation is just jealousy with a halo around it.” It’s an apt sentiment that mirrors what is really going on with these groups. They are taking upon themselves to judge others, when that is to be left to God and God alone. Instead we are meant to embrace those who are sinners and show them how to be a better person through the example of our own lives. Going out and picketing or doing other things that cause division is not what Jesus taught.

So the next time someone uses the phrase of “hate the sin but love the sinner”, call them on it. Help them see that they are the sinner when they judge others. 5 years ago

The politicians are at it again, wanting to cut funding for programs like SCHIP so they can spend more money on warmongering. While I’m not pro-welfare by any means, I do see a value in using it as it was originally intended, a hand-up in a time of need. So what would I do to make welfare better here in the United States?

First, I would create jobs for the people on welfare. Unless they are disabled or have some other reason why they cannot work, people receiving welfare should be working for their money. That work can range from watching other welfare recipients’ children to teaching skills to other people on welfare. How can we expect these people to find and get a job if we don’t provide them training in skills that are needed in the workplace? People on welfare should be working 40 hours a week like everyone else, though their job could be learning a new skill. Yes, this will cost money, but we would be teaching people a way to get out of the system instead of perpetuating it.

Second, and here’s where I know there will be controversy, I would institute mandatory sterilization during the time on welfare. There are reversable methods available today that could easily be implemented as preventative health care. Why would I want to do this? Because by preventing the addition of another child into the family unit, we would be saving the expense of health and child care, as well as helping break the cycle of welfare especially among young unmarried mothers.

How would you reform welfare and help break the cycle? 5 years ago

As a paramedic I am called to the scene of domestic conflicts. It’s our policy not to enter until the scene has been secured by the police. Our own safety is our top priority. While treating what many of us would deem the “victim” of domestic abuse, we have to remain on guard not just because the abuser may still be in the area, but also because the supposed victim may turn on us or the police as well. I watched as the “victim” has gone on to attack the police who are trying to arrest their husband for battering her. I hate domestic calls for this reason. You never know whether the “victim” will be cooperative or will be combative.

By definition a victim is a person who alleges that an act of domestic violence or sexual assault has been committed against the person. Now as an observer, I can witness the bruises and bleeding, the aftermath of a battery. (Note battery is the act of hitting, while assault only needs the fear.) I can make my own interpretation of what occurred, but unless that person states that he or she was assaulted, they cannot be legally classified as a victim.

I know that many of the resources for battered women (or men) fail to accomplish what the women really need. At the same time, by choosing not to press charges or to make up lies to cover the abuse, the abused person is perpetuating the abuse and therefore is an accomplice, not a victim. I’m not saying that I don’t feel for them, but I don’t condone staying with someone just because they don’t know what they would otherwise do. This is the United States, and there are always options. Yes, you may not like those options, but they are options. 5 years ago

On Thursday night, President Bush is going to speak to the United States about his continuing plans for Iraq. He’s going to talk about how much progress is being made with his surge, and that things are improving by leaps and bounds in Iraq. Of course we’ve heard it all before, and this link will show how many times he’s said it in the past four years.

The fact of the matter is that progress is not being made. Senator Bob Casey recently returned from Iraq and this was his assessment:

“After recently returning from a trip to Iraq, I am more convinced than ever of the need to transition the mission in Iraq and change the Bush policy. In February, I voted against President Bush’s decision to send more U.S. troops to Iraq. Seven months later, the signs are clear that the Bush troop surge did not achieve its goal of buying time for the Iraqis to get their country in order.

While in Iraq, I met with troops and U.S. officials including General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as well as top Iraqi leaders. The troops I met were in the Green Zone and at a forward patrol base. Their bravery and commitment was inspiring.

Unfortunately, I had a very different impression of the Iraqi officials.

They demonstrated no sense of urgency to undertake the political reforms that are needed to stabilize Iraq. Even as their country is torn apart by civil war and, as I write this email, 3,754 American troops including 175 Pennsylvanians have lost their lives, the Iraqi government has not stepped up to take control of their country.

While in Iraq, the security problems are clear to see. Baghdad is a city of massive concrete barriers erected to restrict access of suicide bombers. The streets were too dangerous to travel on so we were transported by helicopter that flew close to the ground and very fast to avoid missile attacks. And while I was at a patrol base, one of my meetings was punctuated by the sound and explosion of a rocket landing a few hundred yards away.

Assessments of the progress in Iraq have been grim. The Bush administration’s own assessment in the National Intelligence Estimate says that al Qaeda has regained strength to pre-9/11 levels. And governmental reports give failing grades to progress by our own Department of Homeland Security to improve security at home and to progress by the Iraqis on key military, political and diplomatic objectives.”

Unfortunately assessments like this will not be forthcoming from the White House. Instead they are cherry-picking facts, rewriting reports and using misleading data to claim progress. (For more on this see the Washington Post article “Experts Doubt Drop In Violence In Iraq” here.) This is nothing new for this group of politicians and spin doctors. War is big business and makes a lot of money at the cost of human lives. Any time there’s scientific reports that don’t support the behind the scenes business agendas, those reports are ignored or lied about such as with the reports on the environment.

How are they doing this? It’s easy to manipulate statistics or find people with conflicting theories to “debunk” actual science. Even though there is evidence of ethnic cleansing in Iraq along with increasing numbers of US Troop deaths as well as a doubling of Iraqi casualties since the “escalation”, the White House is touting numbers that show a decrease. They are excluding things from their calculations. For example, they are not including deaths by car bombs in their count (ref. here) and as reported in the Washington Post article, assassinations are only counted if you’re shot in the back of the head not in the front.

Isn’t a lie by omission still a lie? I fully admit that I’m putting my own spin on this like any good debater would. I’m not sending people to die though. The people making those decisions should be setting an example for us, not trying to persuade us through manipulation and half-truths that their way is the only way. 5 years ago

When I was 13 I bought a set of Italian lights for my own Christmas tree. I put them on it and was showing my cousin. She made a joke about them saying “when dago out, dago wop.” Being half-Italian, I immediately took offense to this statement even though I knew she meant it in jest. It made me angry at her. I love her dearly, but it really affected me. I imagine that the girl’s basketball team had the same reaction as I did when they were called “nappy-headed hos”. Words have power.

In the field of semantics, the definition of words can be broken down into denotations and connotations. Denotations are the literal meanings of words, while connotations are the subjective meanings of words. Connotations can have an emotional component to them and therefore can be deemed positive, negative or neutral. Words like “Negro” and “crippled” became deemed negative and were replaced by more neutral terms like “black” and “handicapped”. Now there’s a push to turn things that are disadvantages into advantages or at least put a positive slant on them, and so we have terms like “African-Canadian” or “Differently-Abled” being bandied about. But why do we need these tongue-twisters?

Is someone who is “vertically challenged” not “short”? My mom hated the song “Short People” when it came out, because she’s short. She found it offensive, while I liked the song and would sing along with it when I heard it. Still do today. What benefit do we have by calling short people “vertically challenged”? It doesn’t change who they are. It just sanitizes their condition.

It seems as though society is trying to mask our own imperfections and cast our bigotry in a positive light by using politically correct terminology. When I was little, the derogatory term we used was “queer”. We’d play “smear the queer” and none of us wanted to be called queer. By college, the term of choice was “gay”, and anything that wasn’t considered fun or popular was called “gay” as in “that’s so gay.” Nowadays, it’s nothing for me to hear tweenagers bandying the term “fag” about. Of course they’re also using “fuck” like we used to use “like” during the whole Valley Girl era of lingo. Twenty years ago you never would’ve heard that word on the street in every day language, but now it’s commonplace. I think that’s why there’s this whole culture of political correctness right now, to help sanitize the growing vulgarity of everyday language.

And that’s the problem I have with political correctness. PC people are trying to cover up the fact that our society has gone potty mouth. Furthermore they’re continuing to segregate people into categories instead of recognizing them as equals. It shouldn’t matter if someone is differently-abled as long as they can still do the job. It shouldn’t matter that I’m a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, though people would take offense if I went around saying “Hi, I’m Todd, a WASP.”

On the other hand, black people are calling each other “nigger” all the time now. They’re even using it in rap songs on the radio. While I recognize the value in claiming a negative word for your own (like homosexuals did with “queer”), you can’t have it both ways. If black people can call each other “nigger” and not take offense, then they shouldn’t take offense when a white person calls them “nigger” either. Sure the context matters (especially if the white person is wearing their KKK robes), but if the word is truly offensive then why use it in the first place?

So the next time you find yourself going for the positive spin of a Politically Correct term, consider what you’re really doing. Are you just putting a positive spin on your own judging of others? Are you trying to be overly polite? Or shouldn’t you just tell the person that they’d be better off on the short bus with the rest of the speds? What’s the worst that can happen if you call a spade a spade, or gook, or spic, or cocksucker, or See You Next Tuesday, or whatever term really applies but you’re just too chicken-shit to say it? Just do it. Our language is already vulgar enough that one more pejorative is not going to cripple our already crumbling society. 5 years ago

What is love? Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that Haddaway song.

I was having a conversation with someone I think highly of and she revealed to me that she was very concerned about a friend of hers who was going down a dangerous path that was only going to lead to trouble. I was thinking that it was drugs or alcohol or something equally dangerous. It wasn’t. It was that he was gay, which goes against her personal religious beliefs.

I was stunned. While I fully support her right to her own religious beliefs, I also fully support an individual’s right to live their own life without the interference of others. She was wanting to intervene in his life and let him know that he was going to hell for living this life of sin. That crosses the line for me.

You may be wondering what this has to do with gay marriage (or adoption or rights in general). The principle is the same as far as I’m concerned. Unless you plan on sleeping with someone yourself, it’s no business of yours what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom (or bathroom or kitchen or…)

People are arguing against gay rights based on their own personal religious beliefs or morality. I ask these people what business is it of theirs to impose their beliefs on others. Would they want the Taliban coming in and imposing their beliefs on them? Of course not. So what makes it right for the religious conservatives to want to impose their beliefs on the rest of the United States?

Marriage is a public recognition of a bond between two people who have chosen to live their life together. If two women want to live together in marriage, then more power to them. With divorce rates hitting record highs, obviously heterosexual couples are not doing something right. Why exclude people who want to be married to each other from having that possibility? The United States supposedly has a separation between Church and State, but not in practice when it comes to things of this nature. That’s sad.

People argue on financial impact of having to give benefits to people’s partners, and all those other perks that married couples get. That’s just a cover up for their own prejudices against homosexuals. Companies that have offered domestic partner benefits have not gone bankrupt. What they have done is retained key employees who feel their company recognizes them for their contributions. These employees will be more dedicated and work harder for the company.

In regards to gay adoption, people say stupid things like the gays are recruiting or will convert the kids. Some even say that they’re child molesters looking for victims. Statistics show that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, but you don’t see people picketing straight guys who want to adopt or be foster parents. More and more evidence is coming forth to show that sexuality has a genetic foundation. Just like you as a heterosexual cannot choose to change to being gay like flipping a switch, a homosexual cannot choose to be straight. Sure lots of them will live straight lifestyles out of fear or shame or just to fit in, but their true nature is always a part of them. There are so many children who need a good home, and if someone is willing to take them in, shouldn’t they be given a chance to make a difference in a child’s life? Isn’t love the most important thing anyway?

Back in the 90s, I was visiting a friend in DC and we went to see the AIDS Quilt which was being displayed on the Mall in it’s entirety. It was a very moving experience as we located the piece that was made by friends for the brother of a mutual friend. While we were there, there were people picketing. It really pissed me off that these people would want to inflict their beliefs on people who are trying to remember those who were lost. That wasn’t the worst part though. Among those picketing was a little girl. She couldn’t have been more than 8 years old. She was holding a sign that read “God Hates Fags” and she smiled as I took her picture. Of everything I experienced that day, that little girl is what made me the saddest because her mind has been so corrupted by her parents. It’s people like that who shouldn’t be permitted to have children, not loving homosexuals.

Back in the early part of this century, women didn’t have the right to vote. Eventually that changed as a few outspoken women stood up for their rights, and fought until they got them. Blacks were once slaves with no rights, and even after Lincoln freed them, they still were treated separately. That was until strong individuals like Rosa Parks stood their ground, and eventually things changed. Heck, the thought of a black man and white woman would have gotten people lynched even just a few years ago, yet that is now accepted by most. Now is the time that gay people are beginning to stand their ground, to fight for their rights. Yes, people are going to fight against them, but eventually they should get the same rights as heterosexuals, shouldn’t they? I mean weren’t we all created equal? Isn’t our nation based on that assumption? Isn’t it “We The People” not “we the majority” nor “we the select ones”?

So I started with the question of what is love. Love is not who or what you have intercourse with. Love is not imposing your beliefs on others. Love is compassion, and accepting people for who they are. And isn’t that all we should hope for in our lives? So if two people love each other (or love a child) then let’s not stand in their way. Let’s let that love blossom and grow openly, instead of behind closed doors. You never know, maybe that gay couple will teach the straight couple how to make a marriage work. 5 years ago

Christianity is the world’s largest religion with an estimated 1.9 billion followers across the globe. Unfortunately, Christianity is divided into so many different sects that believe so many different things, that I find it hard to truly group them together as one. Would a Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and Jehovah’s Witness all accept that they are the same religion with just different doctrine? Or would they espouse the belief that they are the one true religion?

At the foundation of Christianity is the Bible, specifically the New Testament, which combined with the Old Testament (or Jewish Tanakh) form the inerrant Word of God. That is, these scripture were written by God through man and are therefore to be held as his law. Each denomination of Christianity seems to have their own interpretations as to what the Bible means. Some take each passage literally, while others treat it as allegory.

The Bible talks of acceptance and forgiveness, loving thy enemies as well as all mankind, and how everyone is equal under God. Yet, some denominations of Christianity don’t put into practice these fundamental teachings of Jesus. Instead they promote isolationism and segregation. So I pose this question to those of you who believe that the Bible marginalizes women, Jews, homosexuals, or other minorities, do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God and as such do you follow all His laws?

The Gospel of John associates Jews with darkness and the devil. How much of this is actually his own anger at Jesus’s treatment and execution? Yet it is Jewish Law that makes up the Old Testament. (It should be noted that in Acts 15, it was decided that gentile converts did not need to follow all of Jewish law.) If we are to believe Mel Gibson’s movie version, then Jews are to be reviled and not loved which goes against the teachings of Jesus. How are we to decide what to do when the Bible contradicts itself?

In Corinthians, Paul instructs them to follow the Biblical feasts and keep the Passover as well as the Sabbath. In Romans, Paul apparently dismisses the Sabbath and other Biblical Holy Days. Which section is to be believed? Must the high Holy Days still be observed, or are they optional by personal belief through our own covenant with God?

Another important thing to consider is the number of passages that support both an equal and unequal role for women. A key verse espousing equality is Galatians 3:28 which reads “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Yet verses like 1 Peter 3:1–6; Eph 5:22, 25; Titus 2:4; Colossians 3:18–19 essentially state that men are to lead while women are to submit. These contradict 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 which state that women have authority over their husband’s body while men have authority over their wife’s body. So again, what is the Law?

1 Corinthians 11 suggests that women should not cut their hair. Is that Law that should be followed if a woman wants to go to Heaven? Deuteronomy lists many laws that are to be followed from women not wearing pants or the color red, to not eating pork, to not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool. Do these laws still apply to us today? Or can the Old Testament be completely thrown out by the New Covenant that was put in place through Jesus’s sacrifice?

I don’t have any answers that will change the mind of people who mindless follow their doctrine. I just pose the question, if the Bible is the Word of God, then shouldn’t every law be followed or how do you pick and choose which ones apply? Who should we believe? Fred Phelps or Billy Graham? Martin Luther or Martin Luther King? Jehovah’s Witnesses or Latter Day Saints? Who is right, or can they all be right at the same time? 5 years ago

Anyone who has been reading me for a while knows by now that I’m not afraid to speak my mind, especially on controversial topics. At various points this year I’ve gone toe to toe with the Robots regarding their poorly defined terms of use where it basically comes down to arbitrary decisions based on the feedback of a few. It would be one thing if we were provided with specifics as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t. Why can some users get away with posting things while others who post the same thing get banned from the system? And why are the people who attack people for speaking their minds not getting punished for their threats?

I know that the Robots won’t respond or react to my questions. They aren’t going to define a set of standards that can be followed and enforced. And frankly I don’t believe there should be a detailed definition either, though I do think once a precedent has been set it needs to be followed across the board with no exceptions, even for a Robot.

So here’s my intention with adding this goal. Every Monday I’m going to post an entry where I utilize my freedom of expression. The current standards of law state that as long as my speech does not cause immediate harm to another person’s rights, then it is protected. Furthermore, if my speech is offensive to some, it is still protected because those individuals have an ability to easily avoid such speech. 43Things gives you the option to block a person, and you can choose not to read my entries as well. Both of these options serve to ensure legal protection for my freedom of expression.

So here is an initial list of topics which I will be voicing my freedom of expression on in the coming weeks. Feel free to utilize your freedom of expression and respond to my posts, or feel free to ignore them entirely. Just be aware that they will push buttons, so if I get deleted from the system, you can reach me at toddschoonover (at) yahoo (dot) com.

August 20: If The Bible is the word of God, you can’t pick and choose which verses to follow

August 27: Unless you plan on sleeping with him yourself, his sexuality is none of your business

September 3: PC-bull crap: Why it’s okay to call a spade a spade… or why is it okay for them to use that word, but not us?

September 10: Bush Roves Around and starts a war abroad to distract you from his agendas at home

September 17: If she stays with her abuser, she’s not a victim.

September 24: Welfare Reform: Put them to work, and mandatory sterilization

October 1: Can you really hate the sin, and love the sinner?

October 8: Coming out on the Kinsey scale, we’re all a little bit queer

October 15: Marriage as a contract instead of a commitment

October 22: The benefits of a Hillary/Obama ticket, and why it won’t matter since Bush’s cronies are going to taint the election results

October 29: Why cell phones should be illegal: The growing culture of rudeness

November 5: Age limits and laws create alcoholics and drug abusers

November 12: The fleecing of America, what it really means to be a veteran

November 19: Rampant commercialization of holidays

November 26: When No means Yes 5 years ago