Shocking, SHOCKING News From Mississippi

From Think Progress

By Ryan Powers on Jan 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Mississippi, A Hotbed of Abstinence Education, Now Boasts Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate In America»

The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.

While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:

Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]

If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.”

A reporter for ABC News’s Jackson, MS affiliate explained, “The Mississippi Department of Human Services says abstinence is the only birth control that is 100 percent effective. And that’s the only message teens need to hear.” Unfortunately, numerous studies show that abstinence-only education is not effective. As one study found:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

Further, a review by the House Oversight Committee found that “80% of the abstinence-only curricula…contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”

Pregnant teens in Mississippi face few options. Access to facilities that provide abortions in that state is extremely limited. Indeed, because of an unusually effective anti-choice campaign in the legislature, only a single abortion clinic remains open in the state.

Update: The report also found that the teen pregnancy rate is rising fastest in Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a strong proponent of abstinence-only sex ed.

No surprise here. Anybody out there surprised?

DOMA Sponsor has changed his mind...

On a slightly different, but similar note...

From the L.A. Times

No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays.

By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.


The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.
I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.

Not sure if I want to applaud Congressman Barr's about face or roll my eyes. Right conclusion, wrong reasoning.

Gay marriage can't and shouldn't be left up to the states to decide. It's a civil rights issue, and that means the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clauses must be applied for the right of all consenting adults to be validated. Furthermore, we can't count on fifty individual state governments to do the right thing, here. It's got to come from the highest levels, in the same way desegregation had to come from the U.S. Supreme Court and from Congress's passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Still, if DOMA were repealed it'd be a great first step in the ultimate legalization of gay marriage, and it does count that one of the far right's biggest spokesmen is reconsidering his position.

The Battle over California's Prop 8 goes on...

Back to the courts...

California gay marriage battle turns to court role

By Peter Henderson Peter Henderson – Mon Jan 5, 9:46 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The legal battle over gay marriage in California turned on Monday to whether the state's top court could strike down a change in the state constitution that was approved by voters.

Gay marriage opponents said overturning a same-sex marriage ban would change the nature of California government by gutting the people's right to make law.

Giving such power to the court would create "a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," they said in court papers filed on Monday.

"It is essentially changing the constitution-making function from the people to the courts," lawyer Andrew Pugno, a supporter of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, said by telephone.

Gay marriage proponents, led by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution limiting it.

Unfortunately, this is where the issue will ultimately be decided. Gay marriage is highly unlikely to be accepted through the ballot box. To my knowledge, no state that has permited gay marriage or same-sex unions has done so by a vote of the state's voting population; they've all come through the courts.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has it pegged right, though. It's not just a personal preference or privacy issue, or even an issue of "common decency"; the debate has to be framed as one of civil rights. Simply put, it has to be argued that the states have no good reason to deprive homosexual couples of the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Stay tuned.

News Out of New Hampshire

From the SeaCoastOnline.com website.

Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House
By Karen Dandurant
kdandurant@seacoastonline.com
December 29, 2008 6:00 AM

PORTSMOUTH — When legislators meet in 2009, there will be several bills to consider that deal with civil unions and gay marriage.

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill asking that civil unions, which are currently recognized by the state, be changed to allow marriage. State Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, is co-sponsoring the bill.

"The bill would essentially provide for full marriage equality," Splaine said. "I submitted the bill because I think it's important that we keep this dialogue going."

Splaine said the bill will be presented on Jan. 7 along with the other bills introduced for the session. He said then it will be scheduled for a public hearing or sent to a committee.

Splaine said that although civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire, gay marriage is not. He said a bill introduced by state Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states as civil unions here.

This is generally good news, IMHO, as "civil unions" have served only as a foot in the door with regard to the legalization of gay marriage. Rep. Splaine is trying to break down that barrier, and I applaud that.

What gets me is the quote from Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.

(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Emphasis is mine.

Every once in a while, the homophobes let slip a tiny little bit of truth that somehow amazingly avoids detection. Everybody get that? Marriage isn't about love or companionship, it's about procreating. Making babies. Gay people don't do that, so the concept of gay marriage is therefore abhorrent.

Of course, it's an easy step to extend that logic. If marriage is about procreating, shouldn't heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (or are somehow unable to do so) therefore be required to divorce?

Rep. Hess? Hello?

Is this thing on?

Part of my humble apology...

In keeping with my practice of a little gratuitious nudity to make up for being away so long...




And actually, a few months ago I got a comment wondering why all my gratuitious nudity was so blatantly oriented toward the feminine gender, and I honestly couldn't think of an appropriate response, so...

Speaking of New Mommy Bristol Palin...

This just came down the pike as I was sending the last post...

Sarah Palin's daughter warns against teenage pregnancy

In a statement issued by the family, Bristol said she "obviously discourages" teen pregnancy and understood her previous plans had now been changed forever.

"Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn't ideal," she said.
"But I'm fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can't imagine life without him now."

Hm. Now it occurs to those two crazy kids that maybe unprotected sex wasn't such a hot idea.

Better late than never, I suppose.

I have to preface this next statement by adding that I have in fact no idea what sort of sex ed Bristol and new daddy Levi got in their respective homes and/or their schools (or lack thereof), so I'm only speculating.

However...

In light of the fact that for most of the neo-cons and Holy Terrors out there, premarital sex is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

made even worse by the fact that preventing pregnancy as a rule is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

worse still by the notion that EDUCATING teens about AVOIDING unexpected pregnancies is just bad, bad, bad, bad...

Small wonder these two crazy kids had this happy little "accident"...

And I echo Bristol's sentiments in the above quote. She's lucky to have such a supportive family. Not all the girls in her situation are quite so lucky.

But again, better late than never when it comes to unexpected pregnancies, right?

Abstinence Pledges Don't Work---What A Shock

No surprise at all. The pledges seem to work as well as does ignorance-only sex ed.

(Excerpted. The emphases are mine).

New study finds that abstinence pledging teens still have sex

December 29, 11:58 AM
by Michele Johansen & Lexie Tigre, Seattle Eastside Parenting Examiners

For several years, teens pledging abstinence until marriage have been on the rise. While this may give their parents some peace of mind, a new federal study announced today that teens who pledge abstinence are just as likely to have premarital sex than teens who do not pledge abstinence. Even more unsettling is the finding that teens planning to save themselves are less likely to use birth control when they do have sex. Well, moms and dads, you might want to put a hold on that abstinence party you were planning for your teen. Looks like that peace of mind was really just a false sense of security.

***

The federal government has spent over $100 million dollars on abstinence education and the question of whether or not they are effective is now in the spotlight. Adding to the frenzy is the discovery that students that had taken the pledge were less likely to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they did have sex. Rosenbaum says this is due to the difference of what youths learn in abstinence-focused programs. 'They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control' in such programs, a statement that Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association vehemently disagrees with. "Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she says.

First, I'm not sure if Ms. Huber is drinkin' the Kosmic Kool Aid or if she really believes that tripe, but it's absolutely not true that abstinence only sex ed tells kids the truth about what they need to know.

A blast from the past...

To recap...(from one of my 2007 columns) documenting the findings of Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman's 2004 report

Abstinence-only sex ed programs have “educated” teenagers that:

Condoms have little to no effect in preventing pregnancies, HIV/AIDS, or other sexually transmitted diseases. (Bullshit. When properly used, condoms have a success rate of greater than 97%).

Abortions render one woman in ten sterile and increase the risk of fetal birth defects in subsequent pregnancies. (More bullshit. The most common abortion procedures have no impact at all on subsequent pregnancies).

The HIV/AIDS virus can be spread through human sweat and tears. (Unbelievably outrageous bullshit, here. There’s never been a documented case of HIV/AIDS contracted through tears or sweat.)

One program stated that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create” a new individual. The correct number is twenty-THREE chromosomes, Dr. Science. Even Wikipedia got this one right. This same program also proclaimed that “boys produce both male and female sperm,” which should be news to biologists and physicians the world over.

And the abstinence-only programs aren’t just perpetuating scientific myths, either. They’re telling our teenagers that “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success through their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.” Women are more concerned with financial support and men are more concerned with domestic support. Women are naturally weaker, more emotional, and need more protection from the world while men are naturally more aggressive and emotionally shallow.

But where was I? Oh, yeah.

So, abstinence pledges don't work any more effectively than does abstinence only sex ed. That is to say, not at all.

I just think it's fitting this story came down just as G.O.P. Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced she'd just become a grandma at the ripe old age of forty-four. Palin's eighteen year old unmarried daughter and the girl's teenaged boyfriend Levi Johnston had a baby boy on Dec. 30th. It hasn't been talked about much, but Gov. Palin's as Holy as any Holy Terror in politics today, so while the neo-cons have been applauding Bristol's decision to keep the baby, they haven't made much of the fact that these two teenagers sure as hell didn't plan to have a baby, nor that they could have avoided this whole mess if they'd invested seven bucks in a box of condoms.

Ah, well. Youth.

To make up for the lack of posts lately...

A Semi-serious analysis of porn...sort of

Does it help or hurt?

Having a few troubles keeping the link up...just so you know.

Porn: When It Helps & When It Hurts
Some couples use it to sex up a relationship. For others, it spells the end.
by Anne Marie O'Connor

Nowhere do you find stranger bedfellows than in porn—and I’m not even talking about the performers. Seldom do feminists, fundamentalists and the federal government find themselves on common ground, but all three are currently united in an anti-porn ménage a trois. On the other side of the issue are free-speech advocates, porn stars and the 40 million Americans who, according to Internet Filter Review, regularly visit X-rated websites.

The only thing everyone agrees on? There’s more porn now than ever, thanks to the wonders of technology.

Like most things, porn was a lot harder in the old days. Back then, getting your hands on anything steamier than Playboy required donning a pervy-looking raincoat, driving to the seamy side of town, skulking into a shop with blinking “XXX” neon lights, browsing the wares in the company of some scary characters before getting up the courage to bring your purchases to the cashier. And then you still had to sneak the plain brown bag into the house.

Now, porn is delivered instantly at the click of a button, steaming hot, right into your living room.

The thrust of Ms. O'Connor's article is an analysis (from a woman's perspective, of course,) of the pros and cons of open discussion and sharing of porn in relationships. Good sides and bad sides, fairly even-handed but falling back on a few old cliches here and there.

From my own (admittedly male) perspective, I'm pro-porn, and that includes within my own relationship. When my Lovely Wife first discovered my stash, she hit the roof, not because I was a porn afficionado, but because I was HIDING the stuff from another aficionado. Turns out my Lovely Wife likes porn as much as I do.

Well, maybe not as much as I do. 'Cuz I really, really like porn.

But the point is that it was the hiding that was so bad. Now that we share our mutual enjoyment of pornography, it makes it easier for us to share other things, as well.

Just my pair of copper engravings of the Great Emancipator.

John McCain..Adulterer? Hypocrite?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex Toys Legal in the Lone Star State!!!

Earthshattering news, IMHO

Texas scraps ban on sex toys

By STAFF REPORTER

Published: 14 Feb 2008

A US appeals court has overturned a ban on the sale of sex toys in Texas.

The state was one of the last in the US South to keep the ban - punishable by as many as two years in jail.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Companies which sell the toys sued in 2004 over the constitutionality of the law.

They appealed after a federal judge dismissed the suit and said the Constitution did not protect their right to publicly promote such devices.

“The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex.

"It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct.

"This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence,” the appeals judges wrote, referring to a past case.

The Texas attorney general’s office, which represented the Travis County district attorney in the case, has not decided whether to appeal, said agency spokesman Tom Kelley.

Phil Harvey, president of Adam & Eve Inc., said the 5th Circuit Court’s decision was a big step forward.

He said: “I think it’s wonderful, but it does seem to me that since Texas was one of three states in the country - along with Mississippi and Alabama - that continued to outlaw the sale of sex toys and vibrators, that it was probably past time.”

I just can't get over the fact that this happened in TEXAS.

What'll they think of next?

In the spirit of the last post...

See? That's not so bad, is it?

The Porn Hypocrisy

Just thought I'd post something I found interesting.

The hypocrisy of porn
Matthew Melnyk
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: Opinion

In public we cringe at the thought of pornography. We turn our noses up to this supposed perverse form of entertainment and present ourselves as being somehow above the low lifes and creeps who view that stuff.

Unfortunately for our mythologized public image, it is more likely than not that we have at some time viewed pornography.

Perhaps more interestingly, it is likely that the person beside you, the professor at the front of the class, your parents or maybe even your girlfriend or boyfriend are avid consumers of pornography.

There are numerous disconnects between the realities of the market for adult entertainment and how people discuss it. It would be hard to find someone who would publicly admit to viewing porn on a regular basis, yet all statistics show that it is popular beyond the scope that most of us realize.

The amount of money people pay to see others frolicking in the nude is staggering. Canadians spend about a billion dollars on pornography a year. Worldwide it is almost a $98 billion dollar industry. To put that in perspective; that is more money than the top technology based companies combined (eBay, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo!, Google, Apple, Netflix). For an industry that nobody seems to be consumers of, it seems to be doing well for itself.

*****
People often decry the pornography industry as exploitative, and there are often concerns raised about children and contact with this industry. What people rarely realize is that our own repressiveness is what allows for the industry to be that way it is.

We live in a society that has an identity crisis. In the public sphere people are expected to live by some abstract and impossible moral standard. This expectation comes with certain assumptions about their sexuality that are usually fairly repressive. We aren't comfortable imagining other people as sexual beings, nor are we comfortable with others thinking of us that way. Despite this tension it seems undeniable that the cliché "sex sells" is fairly accurate.

Products of all kinds are sold to us using sexual imagery. Every major form of entertainment emphasizes sexuality, regardless of its relevance to the medium. Businesses do this because it works. As the popularity of pornography shows, people are interested in sex.

Our public denial of this creates the conditions where salacious advertising is both pervasive and effective. It is also why people are driven to seek out sexual entertainment and are willing to pay billions of dollars for it.
I think that before we stand on our soapboxes and denounce the adult entertainment industry for all of its problems we need to take some responsibility.

First, we need to be honest about how we may have directly contributed to it. Secondly, as well as realize that by being sexually repressive we are creating a demand for pornography that rivals or surpasses almost every other form of entertainment.

I agree with Mr. Melnyk up to a point. It's amusing that on the surface, nobody says they consume pornography, but SOMEBODY'S gotta be doing it. As hard as I try, I can't hit all those porn websites that number hits in the millions.

The problem I have with Mr. Melnyk's analysis is that despite his acknowledgment most people are hypocrites when it comes to porn, he seems to fall back on the old stereotype that porn is automatically bad.

I don't quite agree. I've posted here on several occasions about the possible social benefits of porn, (reduced crime rates, empowerment of otherwise sexually repressed segments of society), not to mention the fact that every single consumer or producer of porn is a stand-up supporter of freedom of speech and expression. Not sure what else to say except that more people ought to talk about porn a lot more often.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

FUCK YOU, MITT ROMNEY

I told a Romney fan last year he wouldn't make it to Valentine's Day, and it's nice to be right again, but I still almost wish this fucker'd been the G.O.P. nominee so his humiliating defeat would be all that much more enjoyable. (These are excerpts. The emphases are mine)

Asshole.

Mitt Romney Suspends Campaign Published: February 7, 2008
The following is a transcript of Mitt Romney's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., during which he announced he is suspending his presidential campaign, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges: challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future.

I'm convinced that unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st century.
*****

Perhaps the most fundamental of the challenges that we face is the attack on America's culture.

*****

(APPLAUSE)

The threat to our culture comes from within.

In the 1960s, there were welfare programs that created a culture of poverty in our country. Now, some people think we won that battle when we reformed welfare. But the liberals haven't given up.

*****

ROMNEY: The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography, even celebration of it, and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare, have led to today's grim realities: 68 percent of African- American kids born out of wedlock, 45 percent of Hispanic kids, 25 percent of white kids.

How much harder it is for these kids to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

(APPLAUSE)

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and a father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of the nation.

I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history.

It's time for the people of America to fortify marriage through a constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.(APPLAUSE)

Europe -- Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality.

And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America, and for that matter facing the entire civilized world: the threat of radical, violent jihad.

(APPLAUSE)

As you know, in one wing of the world of Islam there's a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These jihadists will battle any form of democracy because to them democracy is blasphemous, because it says that citizens, not God, shape the law.

Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

Now, I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know.

But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, and finding and executing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

And I agree with him on eliminating Al Qaida and terror worldwide.

Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention...

ROMNEY: ... I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.(APPLAUSE)

Thank you so very much. I love you. Thank you.

Fuck you, Mitt Romney.

Where shall I begin?

The France of the 21st Century? Let's see, France has a higher standard of living, lower costs in virtually every aspect of life, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, lower crime rates, and national health care.

The only thing France has going against it is they were too smart to get involved in our grand adventure in Iraq.

Most people are up in arms about Romney's crack that voting for Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is surrendering in the war on terrorism.

I'm just as pissed off as anyone about that, but there's more. The stuff about embracing pornography is a cheap shot, but that's no biggie. As usual, Mitt isn't letting facts interfere with a good soundbite. Nor does it bother me that he's digging the whole "marriage is for making babies so gay marriage is bad" schtick. Same shit, different day.

What gets me is the rant on which he went about religion. America's turning away from religion, and that's bad. We're becoming just like Europe, and that's bad. (What's going on in France, for example. All that healthy living and cowardly common sense). (And what the hell's a "demographic nightmare?" Sounds like something Ralph Reed would rant about. "Not enough white people out there! That's bad! Bad!")

And yet, a few paragraphs later, he's ranting about how evil the jihadists are because they hate democracy. What was it he said?

These jihadists will battle any form of democracy because to them democracy is blasphemous, because it says that citizens, not God, shape the law.

What was that, Mitt? Less religion is bad, but jihadists are bad because they want more of God in government?

Make up your fucking mind!

But you can't, Mitt! You're the main entree at the Waffle House! You were pro gay rights before you were against them, you were pro choice before you were anti-choice, and you were a middling-average governor before you decided to whore yourself out to Dobson and his ilk and turn yourself into a hypocrite. Or, I should say, a bigger hypocrite.

You're one of the reasons the Dems are going to win this year, Mitt. You're an example of how the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has become a cabal of neo-pseudo-fascists who want to turn back the clock to when religious zealots ruled Europe (remember them, Mitt? The Dark Ages? The Inquisition? Feudalism? The Black Plague? The Hundred Years War? The Divine Right of Kings? The Crusades?)

The people didn't want to believe anyone could be so stupidly anti-American, but now that they've seen you and your ilk for what you are, that'll be the end of it.

Like I said before, I almost wish you'd been the nominee so you could suffer even more humiliating pain this November.

As it is, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Fuck you, Mitt Romney.

High Heels Are Good For Sex??

Sweet! My lovely wife hates wearing them, but hey! Science!

High heels 'may improve sex life'

An Italian urologist and self-professed lover of the sexy shoe set out to prove that high heels were not as bad for women's health as some suggest.

The shoe has been linked to a range of problems - from corns to schizophrenia.

But in a letter to European Urology, Dr Maria Cerruto said her research showed it was time to stand up for the heel.

She said her study of 66 women under 50 found that those who held their foot at a 15 degree angle to the ground - the equivalent of a two inch heel - had as good posture as those who wore flat shoes, and crucially showed less electrical activity in their pelvic muscles.

This suggested the muscles were at an optimum position, which could well improve their strength and ability to contract.

The pelvic floor muscles are an essential component of the female body. As well as assisting sexual performance and satisfaction, they provide vital support to the pelvic organs, which include the bladder, bowels and uterus.

But they often weaken after pregnancy and childbirth, and as the woman gets older. There are exercises to strengthen them, but Dr Cerruto hopes her findings may eliminate the need for these.

"Women often have difficulty in carrying out the right exercises for the pelvic zone and wearing heels could be the solution," she said.

"Like many women, I like high-heeled shoes," she added. "It's good to know they have potential health benefits."

Gill Brook, a women's health physiotherapist in Bradford, stressed the findings did not suggest that stilettos were a good thing for those keen on improving their pelvic floor function.

"But for women who like a slightly higher heel, these are reassuring findings - although we haven't yet done away with the need for regular exercises to maintain what is such an important part of the female body."

Not that I need a pretext to show images of women in high heels...
















but it's nice to have one anyway.

Conventions Are Good For The Local Service Economy

I don't have much to add to this. Speaking as a resident of the Mile High City, I'm looking forward to this summer.

DNC boost for sex biz
Denver can expect prostitution spike during convention
By Daniel J. Chacon

Originally published 12:30 a.m., February 4, 2008
Updated 03:33 p.m., February 4, 2008

Political tricks may not be the only ones turned during the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

The sex and adult entertainment industries are expecting a boom in business when an estimated 35,000 visitors descend on the Mile High City for the presidential nominating bash.

At the Pepsi Center, the focus will be on a single nominee.

But outside the event, the choices available to the delegates, journalists and others are unlimited, giving new meaning to the term "conventional sex."

More than six months before the convention comes to Denver, the offerings already online range from Claudia the "she- male porn star" to Erin the "adorable college cutie," whose $300- an-hour services are guaranteed to "leave you breathless."

Surprised?

Don't be.

Denver is, after all, home to Mike Jones, the beefy male prostitute who claimed to have bedded the Rev. Ted Haggard in his Capitol Hill apartment.

Jay Watson, who promises an unforgettable milk bath and lotion massage for $125 an hour, said he's expecting to be busy during the DNC Aug. 25-28.

Why?

"Because look at me," said Watson, a 25-year-old Aurora man with a Mohawk. "I'm cute. I'm sexy and I deliver it all."

'More business' from GOP

Too bad for Watson and others like him that Denver didn't land the GOP convention instead, said Carol Leigh, a San Francisco prostitute "over 50" who has traveled to previous Democratic conventions in Los Angeles and Atlanta.

"It would be a lot better for the sex workers if it was the Republican convention," she said.

"We get a lot more business. I don't know if they're just frustrated because of the family values agenda," she said.

When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, some sex workers offered limited-time discounts, according to New York Magazine, which ran a feature story titled "The Girls in Their Summer Hot Pants."

Officer Ana Aguirre, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles police, which hosted the DNC in 2000, said there's "definitely a spike" in prostitution during large events like political conventions.

In Denver, said police spokesman Sonny Jackson, "We're preparing to handle a variety of issues that may come up."

Even though they attract a lot of people, political conventions aren't the most profitable for the men and women in the world's oldest profession, Leigh said.

"Computer conventions can be lucrative," she said. "There's a lot of nerds that don't get out much."

But money is money, and the Democrats are expected to inject millions of dollars into the metro area when they flock into town.

"We're preparing to be busy for that convention," said Tracy, a manager for Bare Assets, a Denver-based adult entertainment agency that does everything "from singing telegrams to novelty acts to topless to nude."

Tracy declined to give her last name or say whether the agency had any DNC-related bookings.

"Whether it be because of the convention or because it's somebody's bachelor party, it's just private (information)," she said.

Jumps in advertising

Beverly Chastain, a door girl at the Diamond Cabaret & Steakhouse, a gentleman's club downtown, said reservations should start picking up this month.

"When it comes to conventions and stuff, we do free entry for it and then we just plan on advertising our lunch buffet and stuff more," she said.

Taylor Wheeler, classified sales manager for Westword, a weekly that includes an escort and body rub section, said his staff is expecting an increase in personals as the DNC approaches.

"I can't say it didn't cross our mind with all the delegates in town that they might be kind of on their own," he said.

Advertising for escorts and other personals jumped when the NBA All-Star game was in town, he said.

Oregon Joins The Cause

What a difference four years makes. Last Presidential election cycle, states were running away from the idea of giving gay couples their rights. Now they're running in the other direction.

Domestic Partnerships Allowed in Oregon
By JULIA SILVERMAN – 2 days ago

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A state law allowing gay couples to register as domestic partners belatedly took effect Friday after a federal judge ruled the state's process of disqualifying petition signatures was consistent enough to be valid.

The state quickly announced that the domestic partnership applications were available online, and jubilant gay-rights activists predicted hundreds of couples would line up on Monday morning at county offices to register.

"We're a family. We've been waiting for this for a long time," said a beaming Cathy Kravitz of Portland. She said she and her partner of 21 years will be among those registering on Monday.

The law passed by the 2007 Legislature was to take effect when the new year started, but U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman suspended it to hear testimony about a petition drive that sought to put the law before voters.

*****

Oregon becomes the ninth state to approve spousal rights in some form for gay couples, joining Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.

One thing to keep in mind is that all this good news won't go very far until states start honoring reciprocity agreements with each other on this issue.

For example, Colorado recognizes common law marriage. New Mexico doesn't. However, if a common-law married Colorado couple goes into New Mexico, New Mexico will consider the Colorad marraige valid through the states' reciprocity agreement.

In other words, for now a Massachusetts gay marriage is valid only in Massachusetts. Once other states start recognizing valid gay marriages from other states, then we've got progress.

Dial-A-Porn

Yet one more way porn is good for society...it's on the cutting edge of technology.

Pornographers thinking small
By Sinead Carew, Reuters
January 31, 2008

NEW YORK -- Size matters in pornography, except when it comes to tiny mobile phone screens, the next frontier for erotica.

If the adult entertainment industry has its way, Americans will soon get a choice of free porn on cellphones, or at least some photographs of good-looking girls in bikinis.

Unlike in Europe, mobile porn has yet to take off in North America as carriers have been afraid of offending political and religious groups and parents concerned about children being exposed to adult content.

That might change this year as phone companies plan to relax control on their networks to allow a wider variety of gadgets and services, while introducing tools to shield minors. More advanced phones with better Web browsers like Apple Inc's iPhone also offer higher quality pictures and video.

"It will be impossible to stop the adult business exploitation of mobile entertainment," said Gregory Piccionelli, a lawyer specializing in adult entertainment at legal firm Piccionelli & Sarno.

He predicted that U.S. consumers might soon be offered free porn on mobile phones alongside paid services like live video or "adult dates," a term for prearranged sex with strangers.
*****
surfeit of free online porn sites has cut into profits that have come mainly from DVDs, videotapes and pay-per-view or subscription-based websites.

To survive, adult entertainers need to be on top of phone trends, said Jay Grdina, president of adult entertainment provider ClubJenna Inc., which he co-founded with his then-wife, world-famous porn star Jenna Jameson.

"If you don't evolve you're going to die. . . . We need to make sure we're ready," Grdina said in an interview before his keynote speech at this week's conference, where adult entertainment and technology companies are brainstorming over how to make mobile porn a viable business.
*****
Pornography has made inroads on cellphones in Europe, where it was a $775-million industry in 2007 that is projected to grow to $1.5 billion by 2012, with the global market reaching $3.5 billion in 2010, according to Britain-based Juniper Research.

By comparison, North America generated just $26 million last year as carriers shied away from porn sales. Canada's second-largest phone company Telus Corp., for example, withdrew a mobile porn service last year after complaints from hundreds of customers and criticism from the Catholic Church.

Analyst Michael King of technology research firm Gartner said he expected mobile porn to be more prevalent around 2009, when there will be more phones that can display high-quality graphics.

Porn is "one of the bigger pieces of Web revenue. You would assume the natural extension would be on mobile," King said.

One of the little-known truths about technology is the fact that sex is usually on the cutting edge of advancement. Digital film, videotape, the internet, VHS over Beta, DVDs, film itself, (one of the first-ever motion pictures was in fact pornographic), all the way back to when the first men started painting on cave walls. If there's a technological advancement, porn is there to (pardon the term) exploit it.

The whole thing gives "phone sex" a new meaning, doesn't it?

Wanna See a 1.4 million dollar ass shot?

FCC fines ABC over 'NYPD Blue'; network to appeal
LOS ANGELES, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission on Friday said it plans to fine the Walt Disney Co's ABC network $1.4 million for airing an episode of "NYPD Blue" in 2003 that showed a woman's nude buttocks.

The company said it opposes the fine and plans to appeal.

In a notice filed on Friday, the agency said 52 television ABC stations in the Central and Mountain time zones had aired the scene at 9 p.m. in violation of federal restrictions against broadcasting "obscene material" between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The whole story is here.

Obscene? Hardly. I think Charlotte Ross has a damn fine ass, IMHO. Once again, the Powers That Be apparently have nothing better to do than to hound the mass media for displaying the human body in its purest form. Violence? No problem. War images? No problem. (Okay, maybe the coffins of U.S. soldiers are a problem) The rantings of various sociopathic politicians and talking heads? No problem. A lovely set of buttocks? Problem! Does it even matter this show's been off the air for years?

Why do I bring this up now?

Well, the Super Bowl is this weekend...

BOOK REVIEW--"Cream, The Best Of The Erotica Readers and Writers Association"

What can I say about this book?

Not nearly enough! In 1996, visionary Adrienne Benedicks hooked up and plugged into the internet and discovered that while there was loads of porn on the World Wide Web, there wasn't much GOOD porn.

Okay, she decided. If I can't find any, I'll put some up myself.

Thus was the Erotica Readers And Writers Assocation born, the most high-class, most sophisticated, most intelligent, most raunchy, most smutty, most dirty, most bear-down-fuck-your-brains-out kickass website for quality porn (excuse me...erotica) on the internet.

After ten years of asking for and delivering the most high-quality literary and non-literary smut on the internet, Adrienne decided it was time to expose the print world to what the rest of us have discovered. The ERWA is home to some damn good writers, and it's time to put some of their work onto the printed page.

Thus was CREAM, The Best Of The Erotica Readers And Writers Association born. With the indispensible help of Lisabet Sarai, literary smut writer and editor extraordinaire, (may her red-ink pen never run dry), Adrienne sifted through the ERWA vaults for some, (not all....there are only so many trees to devote to the cause) of the website's best works, and CREAM is the result.

One of the most entertaining elements of this book is the diversity of the writing, and of the smut contained within its pages. The exotic elegance of Lisabet Sarai's "Mad Dogs," the culturally uplifting kink of Cervo's "An Evening at Katzenspieler's," the darkly noirish "What Was Lost" by Robert Buckley, the just plain hot "Challenger Deep" by Kathleen Bradean...I could go on and on.

Suffice it to say, part of the problem with erotica is the stereotype that erotic writing has to be crap. CREAM is proof positive that it's not. If you haven't done so yet, check out the Erotica Readers And Writers Association here. If you haven't yet picked up CREAM, it's still on sale at Borders and other fine bookstores, or you can go to Amazon here.

Well worth your time.