Предлагаю интересу почтеннейшей публики настоящие перлы, выданные на вступительных экзаменах в ВУЗ физкультуры.

Экзамен сообразно анатомии а также биологии.

Итак, наши абитуриенты серьезно задумываются, что:

- Чтобы ведущий мозг почивал, совершают обеды в магазинах.

- Сосуды посещают различные сообразно объемам, самый-самый узкий – волос.

- Углеводы, жиры, глюкоза, белки – это витамины.

- К бесполому размножению относятся растения, деревья: они сплетаются корнями, отраслями а также т. д.

- Биологический разряд – ЗАЕЦ. У ЗАЕЦА, как а также у человека, есть все органы.

- Каждый активный организм способен дышать а также размножаться, отдыхать а также действовать, выпускать типичные звуки.

- Тело человека состоит из большого колличества мускул, вязок, все это крепится к фундаменту.

- Вот этак а также развертывается у нас планета – чрез половой и бесполый акт.

- Вкусовые анализаторы работают для определения людей.

- Если шкура никак не станет разоблачать человека, у него будет кровоизлияние.

Оптимальная скорость

Купил известный в Америке большой внедорожник. Там он гонял на нем со скоростью 250 км/ч. Но как скоро внедорожник приволокли сюда, то вручать более 20 км/ч он категорически отказался. Джип был оттащен на сервис. Там-то а также выяснилась причина таких тормозной системы: ребордный комп внедорожника при разборе дорожного покрытия неизбежно прибывал к выводу – внедорожник въезжает на бровку, а также устанавливал автоматически оптимальную скорость.

Šodien sēžu un klausos. Klausos to, kas paņem prātu un sirdi. Paņem tā, ka var just katru vibrāciju caur asinīm izplūstot. Klausoties tā, ka balss liekas no iepriekšējās dzīves, no tevis nākam. Klausoties tā, ka nevajag redzēt, nevajag sataustīt. Tikai dzirdēt. Izjust to ar katru savu šūnu.
Un kas tad man ir mūzika?
Es jūtos neveikli un slikti, ja no mājām izeju bez ausīm. Ja dzirdu visu, kas notiek man apkārt. Dzirdu cilvēku sarunas, kuras izraisa riebumu. Dzirdu papēžu klakšķus un sieviešu īdēšanu, ejot pa Vecrīgas bruģi. Dzirdu omes lamājamies pieturā. Dzirdu veikalā strīdamies pārus. Dzirdu sīkus kvekšķus, kuru saimnieki nemāk tiem iemācīt klusēt un līdzsvarā būt. Man tas lielākoties riebjas.
Jā, es palaižu ik pa laikam skaistu dziesmu, ko spēlē kāds uz ielas, bet tas notiek reti, jo viņi jau sen kā nedzied un nespēlē ar dvēseli, tikai pirkstiem. Tas laiks ir beidzies. Ir pienācis rudens. Tumšums. Un spēlmaņu prasme tev iekustināt garu arī laikam sakusi ziemot. Vai pārcēlusies uz siltākām zemēm.
Tāpēc es uzlieku ausis un eju. Es eju ritmā ar katru dziesmu, ar katru bītu, kas atskaņots un ietverts manā ausī. Un tieši tas man lieka smaidīt. Pirmdienas rītā vai otrdienas vakarā. Mūzika, kas paņem.
Šobrīd es arī klausos. Klausos, ka plosa sirdi. Bet tā skaisti plosa, tā, ka ļauj tai spēlēt savas spēles.
Mūzika ir pārāk daudz, lai to aptvertu. Un katrs, kurš to piemirst, laikam arī aizmirst dejot. Dejot ar būtību. Dzīvot tā, lai katram saule sirdī un rokās.
aj, tas tā, laikam mūzikas ietekmē rakstīts. Šodien kaut kas atkal iekustināis mani.

Sanāca tā, ka šodien sākās runas par sabiedrību, par to cik tā ir slima.
Un tad es sāku domāt – ko tad man nozīmē “slims cilvēks”? Vai tas, kurš rij tabletes, lai varētu kaut nedaudz smaidīt, dzer alu vakaros, lai nedomātu par bijušo sievu vai draudzeni, par mirušiem draugiem? Varbūt tas, kurš dzīvo psihiatriskajā slimnīcā vai arī vienkārši ir iesprūdis savos prāta labirintos. Nezinu, vai viņi ir slimi, bet zinu, kurus es uzskatu par slimiem.
Tie, manuprāt, ir cilvēki, kuri truli skrien pēc kleitām, krekliem un kurpēm no modes žurnālu lapām, ēd dārzeņus, jo tas nāk modē, paņem sev suni kā aksesuāru, taisa savu uzņēmumu, jo tā lūk ir krutāk. Cenšas rosināt filozofiskas sarunas un izlikties par tiem, kas viņi nav. Tie, kuri akli skrien pēc tā, ko nosaka citi. Tie, kuri nezina, kas viņi ir. Tie, kuriem nav sajēgas un saprāta par to, kā darbojas viņu prāts un emocijas. Tie, kuri tic kādai ticībai nemaz īsti nezinot, vai tas viņus pārliecina. Tie, kuri meklē jaunās tendences, jo ta lūk ir labāk.
Tas ir muļķīgi. Un slimi. Perversijas veidot tāpēc, ka ir garlaicīgi, nevis tāpēc, ka tajā brīdī tu vari izkāpt to sabiedrības taisītās kastes tavam prātam un ķermenim. Tāpēc, ka kails ķermenis ir vairāk kā tikai sekss. Tāpēc, ka svarīgi, vai kails esi tu pats.
Slimi ir tie, kuri uz ielas noskatās uz mani katru reizi, kad stāvu ārā un pīpēju. Slimi ir runāt bullšitu iepazīstoties ar meiteni. Slimi ir runāt to, ko nedrīkst teikt, kad tu dzer. Slimi ir darīt to, ko tev nevajag un tu negribi. tas ir slimi.
Slima ir homofobija un tualetes papīrs pa 7Ls rullī. Slimi ir glamūra apģērbs un rēkšana par tiem, kuri iepērkas humpalās. Slimi ir nesaprast.
Tas ir slimi. Manuprāt.
Slimi ir pieņemt to, ko tev norāda sabiedrība. Pieņemt to tā, it kā tas būtu tavs, pat ja tu to nesaproti.

Man liekas, ka man nepatīk cilvēkos prastums. Tā izturēšanās, ka tu izliecies augstāk nekā esi. Ģērbies tā, kā nevari atļauties. Dzīvo tur, kur nevari atļauties. Kāpēc? Nezinu. Varbūt cilvēki par maz domā. Par daudz dzer un lāpa paģiras.
Es nezinu.
Slimi ir ļaut sev kāpt uz galvas tad, kad tev tas riebjas un nav vajadzīgs.
Slimi ir ļaut dzīvei un citiem tevi izdrāzt.
Slimi ir sapņot un nekad nenolēkt.
Slimi ir dzīvot kopā ar cilvēku, kurš krīt uz nerviem.
Slimi ir kniebties, lai nezaudētu.
Sex is not war.
Sex or War?
Slimi ir dedzināt savu dzīvi.
Slimi ir pīpēt tad, kad sāp sirds.
Slimi ir rīt ripas katru rītu, lai iztīrītu visus sūdus no asinīm.

Slimi ir nedzīvot tā, kā vēlas tavs gars.

An article FWLG found on Advocate.com (available here:  http://is.gd/52Obv) discusses some alarming figures for gay and lesbian couples when it comes to current federal estate taxes.  The article, which links to a report by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management, mentions that wealthy gay couples may face “an average of $3.3 million more in federal estate taxes this year upon the death of a spouse than their married heterosexual counterparts.”

The article continues by stating that if the estate tax penalty remain in effect, those gay and lesbian couples will be subject to a total of $237 million in additional taxes in 2009 alone, and more than $3.5 billion in additional taxes over the next few years.

That’s right – $3.5 billion.

As a side note, one billion is a difficult number to conceptualize, so here’s a useful trick.  Suppose that one dollar equals one second.  One billion seconds equals 31.668 years, and we can then calculate that 3.5 billion seconds would equal almost 111 years.  Yikes.

So why are gay couples subject to higher estate taxes?  The answer lies in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Gay relationships are not legally recognized by the federal government under DOMA, so tax protections available to married heterosexual couples simply do not apply to same-sex couples.

This is one of many reasons why FWLG encourages members of the LGBT community to research their legal rights, and to consult with an estate planning attorney in order to find out what protections are available for their family.

Don’t speak
don’t type
don’t write
rhythm,
poetic drivel
or rhyme.
Don’t quietly
sit there and whine
about the losses
and the fine
examples of failure
held over
our heads
like we were
already dead!

Don’t whimper
don’t simmer
don’t wait
in patient
supplication
gratification of
state to state
motivated by
the need to
seek peacefully
the things
we should already
have!

No

Take it
demand it
stop trying
to request it.

Because it’s not
a failure
to communicate
we’re not at a table
to negotiate.

Freedom is not a maze
to navigate
or a truce to appropriate.
Freedom is
demanded
commanded
and undeniably
branded on souls!
And from the first bullet fired
to the lantern lifted
setting the world on fire
to the shots on campus
ringing throughout memphis
to radicals walking
in masses
and women at the gate
facing threats
staring down hate
change was never
motivated, moved
or manipulated
by the bendable.
but by the immovable
irreversible
permanent
foot planted
and well cemented
resolve of voices
raised up
shouting
and undeniably heard

so what are we waiting for?

When it comes to social issues Europe seems like it wants to set us backwards and doom us for destruction and gives us a ticket straight to hell. How else can you explain the fact that the legal drinking age in European countries is 16, and you can even drink at home with your parents, and how you can allow the perversion of gay marriage to be legal? Yet with all this evil Europe and even Denmark – the first country to allow gay marriage – are still standing, are happier nations than the rest of the world and haven’t been destroyed by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the United States, Europe is usually admired because of its rich art history, but it’s mostly ridiculed and demonized in the media. However, europeans are happier than other nations. As expressed in the introductory paragraph, two major differences between the European Union (E.U.) and the United States (U.S.) is that gay marriage is allowed and the drinking age is far lower.

Drinking while intoxicated (D.W.I) and drinking under influence (D.U.I.) are two big things in the U.S. that shouldn’t be taken lightly. There are a lot of teens deaths because of these conditions, which has given groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) a lot of influence over the government. Not to take away from the seriousness of the issue at hand, but efforts to lower the drinking age to 18 have been impossible, much in thanks to MADD.

As The Washington Post noted the europeans place more emphasis in the driving rather than the drinking . As the article states, in Europe the legal age to drink is 16, however, you start driving when you’re 18. In the U.S. though, teens start driving when they’re 16 and binge drinking when they go to college. That’s why the incidence

“While most European countries issue driver’s licenses at age 18, the difficulty of passing the test, high insurance costs and wide use of trains and buses all mean that young people generally begin to drive much later than in the United States.” European Laws Place Emphasis On the Driving, Not the Drinking

In January 2004, a few days before my 20th birthday I went out with my parents to a Hard Rock Café restaurant in San Francisco, there I ordered a drink that had alcohol and the waitress refused to serve, even though my mom had told explained that she was my mother and it was okay. The waitress still refused, so I ended up having a coke. I come originally from a country where the legal age to drink is 18, however, in private gatherings and even in restaurants you can drink with your parents.

As a kid, I used to have sips of wine or beer and as a tween/teen I could even have one glass of rum and coke, or beer for myself. When I asked my mom, why they let me she explained that she wanted me to “learn how to drink,” so I wouldn’t go crazy drinking when I went out as an adult and I wouldn’t be in an accident. Most of you are probably thinking that’s bad parenting, but I can assure you that I have not once been in an accident that involves alcohol. Stupidity, yes, but alcohol no.

“Incongruously, the way to produce fewer problem drinkers is to create more drinkers overall–that is, to begin to create a culture in which alcohol is not an alluring risk but part of quotidian family life. Of course, that’s a mostly European approach to alcohol, but there’s reason to think it could work here. And it may be the best way to solve the binge-drinking problem.” TIME Magazine: Should You Drink with Your Kids?

If the drinking age were lowered and the driving age were raised, like those crazy europeans do, there will be far less accidents and untimely deaths.

“Eliminate the minimum drinking age, and kids could learn all about alcohol long before they turned 16 and got their driver’s license. Booze wouldn’t seem like some glamorous adult activity.” Alcohol: Problems and Solutions: Get Rid of the Minimum Drinking Age

Now, on another social and important front: gay marriage.

In the United States, gay marriage is a big topic. By not allowing it, U.S. citizens, residents and their foreign partners are being discriminated and treated like second class citizens. I’ve already expressed my feelings towards gay marriage and the reasons that are usually given to prevent it in the post: Gays are destroying the Sanctity of Marriage. Really?! In a nutshell: I’m pro-gay marriage and religious issues or themes shouldn’t be prevented from giving someone their civil rights. Same reasons were even used before with interracial marriage.

Even as recent as earlier this month, when voters in Maine voted against gay marriage, they used reasons as silly as: “they will teach our kids about homosexuality in schools.” In countries such as Denmark and Belgium, where gay marriage is legal there’s not even silly definitions of marriage or distinctions between gay marriage vs heterosexual marriage anymore. Saying that gay marriage is a threat to marriage is playing with people’s ignorance. How a gay couple getting married will affect a straight couple doing so?

“Not only have gay rights had no effect on constantly expanding population rates, but they’ve had no effect on traditional marriage in those European countries where they have the most extensive legal protections. . . This [gay marriages having effect on straight marriages] is relevant because divorce is the real threat to American families, having broken up more than fifty percent of all marriages since it achieved widespread acceptance.”LA NOW: Is gay marriage bad for family? Europe might have the answer

As ridiculous as it sounds when gays counter-attack those who say gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage (and they even dare quoting the Bible), they always say: “want to protect marriage? Outlaw divorce.” Yes, sounds ridiculous, but it’s true.

“Also, unlike gay sex, divorce is forbidden by Jesus himself: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” As we have seen with abortion and guns, the focus on gay marriage is turning out to be a dangerous distraction from the real problem.” Esquire: A Little Counterintuitive Thinking on Gays, Guns, and Dead Babies

Truth is Europe still stands – in one piece – , Armageddon hasn’t fallen on the world and population is not winding down:

“Concerns about the impact of gay marriage on heterosexual behavior are not unique to the United States, of course. European countries that recognize same-sex couples initially had their worriers, too. Over time, however, it became clear that civilization and family life would survive the recognition of gay couples’ rights. Even the conservative governments that came into power have not tried to repeal rights for gay couples in France and the Netherlands.” Slate: Prenuptial JittersDid gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?

We can’t let our emotions and own prejudices to blind our reason, that’s why we are different than animals, because we can put stupidity aside and think clearly. No one can replace a life that has passed away. A parent who has buried a child probably never moves on from this loss. It’s a tragic loss and one that can be prevented. But having emotions cloud judgement can put more lives at risk. We also can’t deny basic human and civil rights to a group of people based on out-dated texts where we pick-and-chose what we like and what we don’t; especially when it is in a country where there’s separation of church-and-state. Religious groups can chose to prevent gay couples to wed in their congregation, is their right. However, they can’t prevent them from marrying at a city-hall or privately and said marriage be recognized by their city, their State and their government. The fight for gay marriage has been a heated one recently in the U.S. and there have been more setbacks than anything else. President Barack Obama has promised to repeal DOMA and promote UAFA, a bill that will allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their partners for immigration rights, but any progress by him has yet to be done. And I know what you’re all thinking by now: “If you like Europe that much, then move there.” Really, is that your smart comment? I guess the U.S. is in trouble.

Queer Equality Revolution is a personal blog created by John Bisceglia;

Click on the LOGO above for access.

I wrote this Article for Lez Get Real and have received many anti-gay comments.:Feel free to go to LGR site and comment – thanks for your support   

UPDATED: By now we have all heard about the Manhattan Declaration put out by various religious right figures and groups urging, among other things, non-cooperation with laws that in any way recognize same sex couples. It has been condemned in many circles and for good reason.  Wayne Besen of Truthwinsout.org said the following: “This is a disturbing call for anarchy from a group of radical clerics and activists who believe they don’t have play by the same rules as other taxpaying Americans.”  And according to the blog Instaputz, there is another reason to not only oppose this document but also raise the alarm about it.   Some of the names those signing the declaration aren’t a surprise. They are the usual folks who oppose lgbt equality – Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Gary Bauer, etc.Bill, The Manhattan Declaration- where does it lead? Church’s Hate Gay Agenda, Nov 1940

You should read the whole article.

šodien biju lūzumpunktā. veterāniem neklājas salūzt, bet es jau to māku tā klusi un nemanāmi, kā katru dienu.

un es, naivā, cerēju, ka šoreiz būs savādāk.

Te ir ierakumi. Mēs karojam. Ar ko? Ar nāvi. Par ko? Par dzīvi. Kāpēc? Jo pasaulei nospļauties, ja tu rīt vairs nestaigāsi. Paslēpuši plaukstās seju, mēs ejam un cīnamies. Par spīti bezjēdzībai. Un iemācījies 5 reizes no jauna sgtaigāt, tu redzi vairāk, tu jūti dziļāk. Mūžam atcerēties sārtās debesis un katru garāmgājēju pielaist mazliet par tuvu. Novērtēt pirms tas ir zudis un izjust visu pāris mirkļu ietvaros. Te, tagad un uz vietas. Pateikties par iespēju, pirms tā pavērsusies. Mēs esam ieguvēji, jo mums ir liegts. Tas, kurš nav karojis, karu nesapratīs, tāpēc pietaupiet līdzjūtību un pamācības. Jums pašiem būtu vērtīgi pamācīties no tā invalīda, dīvaiņa, kropļa ratiņkrēslā, kā jādzīvo. Par dažiem varētu teikt, ka laimīgāku cilvēku nav. Viņi savu karu ir uzvarējuši.

Tas ir pavisam vienkārši, tāpēc sarežģīti- dzīvība ir brīnums un nekas nav tā pat.

Pārāk atkāti. ? AK, vai, piedodiet, lūzumpunkts.

If Democrats don’t want gays and lesbians to stay home in 2010 and 2012 (they don’t), they will pass at least a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) sometime next year. President Obama explicitly promised to repeal DOMA during the 2008 campaign, and the Democratic leadership in Congress has also expressed support for repeal. Republicans can and must get out in front of this issue and pressure Democrats into a bipartisan agreement that would still protect the essential spirit of DOMA.

We can do that by supporting a libertarian, populist revision of DOMA — by introducing a Let the People Decide Act of 2010.

Here’s how it would work. The full faith and credit clause that prevents same-sex marriages from being forcibly exported to other states would be left completely intact. The clause that excludes same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships from federal rights and benefits would be repealed if and only if voters within a state approve some version of same-sex unions through ballot issues.

More beneath the fold…

On a partisan strategic level, a Let the People Decide Act would effectively beat Democrats to the punch and allow Republicans to reach out to libertarian and conservative gays and lesbians, as well as social moderates, without betraying the base. It would level the playing field, allowing both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case directly to voters and then letting voters make the final decision. A Let the People Decide Act would effectively remove this issue from the Democratic campaign arsenal.

Within the party, it would allow the GOP to reclaim the mantle of the Big Tent by appealing to libertarians, conservatives, and moderates. What’s the appeal for opponents of same-sex marriage, you ask? In order for states to secure federal rights and benefits for same-sex unions, they would have to receive voter consent rather than bypassing voters through judicial activism or liberal legislatures beholden to special interests. A Let the People Decide Act would force states like Massachusetts to finally seek voter approval of same-sex unions.

While this would carry some risk for opponents of same-sex marriage, it must be remembered that in every state that has presented same-sex marriage to voters through the ballot it has been rejected. This most recently includes socially moderate Maine. While proponents of same-sex marriage would stand to potentially gain from a Let the People Decide Act, so would opponents in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere. Whatever the outcome, at least both sides would have to be satisfied with the fact that voters — not judicial activists or legislators — made the decision.

On an ideological level, a Let the People Decide Act meshes well with the libertarian strain within the Republican Party. It would make a great addition to a platform that emphasizes freedom first and state sovereignty, and it would emphasize the federal government’s Tenth Amendment responsibility to place the power to decide this issue directly in the hands of the states and the people. This proposal would be federalist and libertarian at its core, emphasizing a Republican commitment to respecting the constitution.

There is valid disagreement within the Republican Party and among the people of the fifty states about the proper degree of recognition for same-sex marriage. The best way to iron out those disagreements and reach consensus is to encourage vigorous debate among voters at the state level. Let’s demand the right of the American people to express their values on this contentious issue. Let the People Decide.

Cross-posted to RedState.

“Los espantapájaros”, guión de Carina Maguregui, ilustraciones de Muriel Frega. El centro gravitatorio del cómic “Los espantapájaros” es Ángela Zaño, paciente-víctima de un encarnizamiento terapéutico que la hace rebotar entre quirófanos y terapias intensivas. La protagonista —como otros pacientes que atraviesan este calvario con ella— cae en las manos de aquellos médicos que rinden culto al dios positivista de la curación del cuerpo-cosa y olvidan que el ser humano tiene una trascendencia, algo que excede las posibilidades económicas y tecnológicas: lo intangible, la sensibilidad personal. Las imágenes, al mismo tiempo bellas y traumáticas, de Muriel Frega nos presentan cuerpos en posturas que son el resultado de la metamorfosis quirúrgica que los dispara transformados, lejos de una posición natural: inmovilizados y enrollados en sí mismos.

El organismo no está enfermo sino convertido en enfermedad por los aparatos médicos: el cuerpo es enfermado por la imposición de un orden clínico. La animalidad natural —de los fluidos, de las sustancias, del instinto, de la muerte— ha sido desvitalizada.

En “Los espantapájaros”, como en su momento lo señaló Michel Foucault, el cuerpo humano es el lento resultado de acciones artificiales y represivas que incesantemente le imponen las tecnologías del poder. Para estas tecnologías incluso las funciones vitales, la sexualidad, la enfermedad y la muerte son factibles de ser sometidas a manipulaciones médicas, económicas y políticas, es decir, a unos procesos de control.

El tema ya lo había tratado en mi novela “Doma” —Alción, 2004— pero intuí que este material era extremadamente sensible y tenía el potencial para continuar desarrollándose en diferentes formatos. Así surgió la idea de hacer una adaptación para teatro de ciertos núcleos conflictivos de la novela. De este nuevo trabajo con un lenguaje completamente diferentes comencé a esculpir una dramaturgia y a gestar un concepto escénico que le permitieron cobrar vida a la obra de teatro “Tumbada blanca en blanco“.

Siempre me interesaron esa clase de obras que demandan sí o sí un compromiso, una fidelidad, una postura, tanto de parte del que escribe el texto como del que se apropia de él: el espectador o lector que lo hace productivo.

Eso es lo que me atrae del proceso creativo: diseñar un dispositivo artístico que haga posible la puesta en escena o puesta plástica de conflictos que desde lo particular nos llevan a lo universal y nos colocan en una posición activa, de movilización. Mi anhelo como escritora y dramaturga era/es desplegar un texto/obra/producción que, al menos, logre inquietar al espectador, jamás dejarlo indiferente.

“Tumbada blanca en blanco” se hizo carne, con una mención de Argentores en 2006 bajo el brazo, y tuvo su temporada teatral durante 2007 dirigida por Roxana Randon. En 2008 y 2009 nacieron, del trabajo conjunto con la artista Muriel Frega, las historietas “Los espantapájaros” y “Cabeza”.

Como tira unitaria, “Los espantapájaros” obtuvo una mención en el Concurso Nacional de Historietas Roberto Fontanarrosa 2008 y fue publicado en la revista Nómada, Año 3, No. 16, de la Universidad Nacional de San Martín.

Lo interesante de este crecimiento multiformato es que los tres productos son independientes entre sí y tienen su propio lenguaje. No es necesario leer la novela “Doma” ni ver la obra de teatro “Tumbada blanca en blanco” para comprender las historietas “Los espantapájaros” y “Cabeza”. Es un universo cuya mitología se ramifica en diversos terrenos.

Y la representación de este universo nos conduce a replantearnos qué significa verdaderamente “calidad de vida”. A reformular el derecho que toda persona tiene a decidir por su cuerpo, por sus tratamientos, por elegirlos o rechazarlos y dejar establecido cuándo y en qué momento no quiere continuarlos.

En lo personal, quiero y necesito saber que podré decidir qué hacer con mi vida en una situación de enfermedad de curso irreversible sin posibilidades de cura y no que los médicos decidan por mí. Sí que me aconsejen lo que es más adecuado y me acompañen en mi decisión. Esto conlleva una asistencia al morir que hoy no sólo no está arraigada y es poco difundida sino que encuentra duros oponentes en muchos sectores de la sociedad.

“Doma”, “Tumbada” y “Los espantapájaros” están atravesados por las preguntas y cuestiones fundamentales sobre el derecho a decidir, el grave deterioro de la relación médico-paciente y la crisis del sistema de salud que reclaman un debate urgente.

Como artistas, el desafío consiste en instalar el tema en todos los campos creativos posibles. El próximo proyecto que tenemos en carpeta junto a la talentosa Muriel Frega es “Modus operandi”, la novela gráfica, de la cual “Los espantapájaros” y “Cabeza” son el capítulo 1 y 6 respectivamente de un total de ocho.

En este momento estamos buscando interesar a algún sello editorial —podría ser mexicano ¿por qué no?— para que nuestra apuesta estética y ética pueda completarse. Tanto Muriel como yo tenemos la convicción de que “Modus operandi” será, sin duda, la novela gráfica de la épica del cuerpo en el siglo XXI.

Esta nota se publicó en la revista mexicana Replicante N° 21, noviembre de 2009 (versión gráfica y digital).

Ver también video sobre el making off de “Los espantapájaros”.

Will Phillips, a 10-year-old in West Fork, Alabama, gives me hope that some of our kids are learning the critical thinking skills that are utterly key to the survival of American ideals as expressed in the Constitution. He’s refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance because, as he told the Arkansas Times, “I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer. I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

Will sees that homosexuals do not have “liberty and justice” because of the disastrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, because of people like Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri, because of their inability to marry in the vast majority of states.

And he’s taken the most concrete action that a fifth-grader can against it, even in the face of juvenile and predictable peer pressure aimed at bringing him back in line with the ignorant masses. All at the tender age of 10.

You go, Will. I’m proud of you.

Photo by Bob Johnson

The Will Of The Majority v. The Rights Of The Minority
By Joshua Plant

The infamous Prop 8 was passed a year ago and, just two weeks ago, Maine voters repealed gay marriage by a 53 percent majority. These laws are a complete contradiction to several cases that have fallen before the Supreme Court over the past sixty years — cases that explicitly state that marriage is a fundamental human right under the Equality Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, according to The Principles of Democracy, “majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression.” Yet, in 31 states we have used majority rule to justify the oppression of LGBT Americans.

The Conservative Right has offered us an olive branch with a separate but “equal” system, marriage for them, and civil unions for us. Gay marriage has become the water fountains of the 1950s: LGBT individuals are separate but by no means equal.

Thanks, but no thanks.

If religious leaders and other naysayers want to keep the so-called sanctity of marriage intact, they should demand a constitutional ban on divorce. Such a ban would ensure that our country will preserve the sanctity of marriage. With a divorce rate higher than 50 percent, heterosexuals have shown us that unions cannot stand the test of time.

If the majority wanted to keep marriage strictly as a religious institution, then so it should be, albeit with the understanding that a marriage has no legal merit. Marriage would simply become a union of one man and one woman under God.

In order to receive the benefits that the LGBT community has been deprived of, all couples would be required to get a civil union. This would be equal. This would be fair. Because Churches and other religious institutions do not receive federal aid and will no longer be able to perform a ceremony with legal merit, our country would experience a genuine separation of church and state.

This, however, is only half the battle. Even if all 50 states pass laws allowing same-sex couples to marry, LGBT individuals will continue to be denied federal marriage benefits.

In 1996 when the United States Congress passed the ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ signed by President Clinton, the federal government started denying same-sex couples all federal benefits and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So, regardless of how tolerant our state government may be, our country will still have a separate and unequal system under DOMA.

How can the Supreme Court allow states to segregate by way of public referendum? They continue to do so even though Justice Antonin Scalia, a foe of gay rights, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: “What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry”

The U.S. had this same debate for another ‘class’ of individuals until 1967 when the Court unanimously overturned laws of more than 20 states that prohibited interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. There is no logical argument to justify the inequality that exists today for same-sex couples.

The LGBT community has suffered through relentless oppression, violence and inequality under the law for long enough. It is time to change this country and bring the U.S. out of a puritanical mindset and into the year 2009.

Joshua Plant is a New York City-based writer

From Google Images.

The Miami Herald is reporting that a technicality in the wording of the Texas Defense of Marriage Act may actually ban all marriages, not just those pesky homo ones.

In the state constitutional amendment it states, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”

But the huge issue is in following statement meant to block civil unions and domestic partnerships: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general. She also said the language effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas.”

Of course this language will not result in an overnight cancellation of all marriages in Texas, it is still quite hilarious. It seems that whomever wrote the Texas DOMA amendment was so worried about gays finding some sort of equality in civil unions or domestic partnerships that they accidentally eliminated marriage for everyone. Talk about irony.

Cue the cynical laughter.

When President Obama was elected last year I was ecstatic. Not ecstatic enough for it to override the disappointment I felt at the passage of Proposition 8 but still I thought to myself, “A smart, articulate, progressive politician is in the White House for the first time in my adult life. This might mean that Proposition 8 is moot when we repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and get marriage at a federal level this state by state stuff won’t matter.”

Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out like that. Obama was all but absent during the Proposition 8 campaign, which is understandable given that he was running for president at the time. Since then, however, his administration has defended DOMA, punted on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, didn’t lift a finger for Question 1 in Maine and haven’t even mentioned the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. Now though the challenge to Proposition 8 has reached federal courts and Equality California has a petition which states this:

President Obama, I urge you to immediately file a brief in the federal court challenge to Prop 8 and ask the court to rule that it is unconstitutional to allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority.

Obama promised he’d be a fierce advocate for LGBT equality, it’s time he lived up to that promise. Go here to sign it.

Hat tip to AMERICAblog.

When President Obama was elected last year I was ecstatic. Not ecstatic enough for it to override the disappointment I felt at the passage of Proposition 8 but still I though to myself, “A smart, articulate, progressive politician is in the White House for the first time in my adult life. This might mean that Proposition 8 is moot when we repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and get marriage at a federal level this state by state stuff won’t matter.”

Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out like that. Obama was all but absent during the Proposition 8 campaign, which is understandable given that he was running for president at the time. Since then, however, his administration has defended DOMA, punted on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, didn’t lift a finger for Question 1 in Maine and haven’t even mentioned the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. Now though the challenge to Proposition 8 has reached federal courts and Equality California has a petition which states this:

President Obama, I urge you to immediately file a brief in the federal court challenge to Prop 8 and ask the court to rule that it is unconstitutional to allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority.

Obama promised he’d be a fierce advocate for LGBT equality, it’s time he lived up to that promise. Go here to sign it.

Hat tip to AMERICAblog.

That’s right folks, the United States Federal Court system will decide the legality of the same-sex marriage ban in California, Proposition 8, which was approved by voter referendum on Nov. 4th 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that decided a same-sex marriage was legal.

So now the Federal courts are taking up the case which will most likely be one of the most controversial cases in some time, more than partial birth abortion bans, more than gun control, more than “God” in the pledge of allegiance.

This is a case that comes around the same time as the Goodridge DOMA challenge, in what may be tandem cases that could decide the legality of same-sex marriage in the next couple years.

The Prop 8 challenge is being brought to court on a 14th Amendment Violation, much in the same way as DOMA is. Both parties claim that Prop 8 and DOMA are violating the Constitutions equal protection guarantee.

The argument basically is “if straight people can get married and have benefits like tax incentives and hospital visitation rights, then why not gays?” The argument may come down to the inherent inequality of the imposition of benefits on straight couples allowing them to be in a ‘preferred position’ in society.

Ultimately, at least one of these cases will be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court which most likely will uphold the initial rulings in Prop 8 and the legality of DOMA due to the conservative balance on the court, so unless there are more vacancies during the Obama’s next three years, which there very well may be. Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas will most certainly dissent, so it is up to Kennedy to step up and be the swing vote. This will definitely be an interesting couple of years.

While it is specifically the issue of same-sex marriage that is currently grabbing the headlines, each state (as well as the federal government) accords a different set of rights to homosexuals. There are ongoing battles over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, over next-of-kin rights, over hospital visitation rights, and many others.

The LGBT community has won some battles via state legislatures, but have had much less success at the ballot box.

Should the state be allowed to deny gay couples the right to marry or should they be forced to grant it?
Does same-sex marriage harm or threaten any aspect of American society today?
Should LGBT applicants be allowed to serve in the armed forces?
What rights should be accorded to the LGBT community?

Over to you – and please remember our Rules of Engagement when debating!

GLAD, a public interest law firm representing LGBTIQ clients in New England has today responded to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Gill lawsuit which challenges section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”. The lawsuit, filed by the State Attorney General of Massachusetts, argues that section 3 of DOMA violates 10th amendment protection as it interferes into an area traditionally reserved by the states.

GLAD challenges DOMA section 3 (response) – GLAD
GLAD moves for summary judgment in Gill v. OPM, wants Section 3 of DOMA declared unconstitutional — AmericaBlog GAY

Jag är så trött på att människor alltid dömmer mig för att vara någonting jag inte är. Tillexempel när jag går så är jag väldigt rak i ryggen, det är den hållningen jag har helt enkelt och bara för det så tolkar människor det som att jag “går med näsan i vädret”. Det är så fel! Jag är inte alls sån som människa. Jag är väldigt tystlåten av mig i sällskap med människor jag inte känner och det beror inte på att jag tycker mig vara för fin för att prata med dem eller att jag ser ner på dem på något vis utan sanningen är den att jag helt enkelt inte VÅGAR! Jag är ständigt så fruktansvärt rädd för att folk ska felbedömma mig och därför är jag rädd för att säga någonting överhuvud taget. Jag vill inte att människor ska gå runt och tro att jag tror att jag är märkvärdig. Jag vill inte längre bli dömd för att vara konstig eller töntig eller vad man nu kan hitta på. Jag har social fobi och världens sämsta självkänsla. Det betyder inte att jag är töntig. Innan jag blev så här på grund av många hemska saker i mitt liv så var jag en människa som kunde säga vad som helst till vem som helst, jag var inte rädd, varken för någon annan eller för att vara mig själv. Det gör så ont i mig att alla dömer mig utan att titta efter vad som finns under mitt skal.

Please, don’t judge me before you have take a piece of my heart!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

President Obama has moved immigration reform to the top of his to-do list and well before the all-important 2010 midterms.

The New York Times reports:

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

But our “fiercest advocate” and members of his administration are simply too busy to make the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA, top administration priorities.

The multi-tasking, globe-trotting Obama (he’s now in Asia), who seems to have trouble staying in Washington for more than 72 hours a stretch, just can’t find the time to insist that Congress send him bills to sign repealing DADT and DOMA.

In March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had this to say about repealing DADT:

Any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow that law whatever it is. That dialog though has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the President and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now and let’s push that one down the road a little bit.

Frankly, Secretary Gates, I couldn’t care less how you “feel” about gay rights. LGBT equality isn’t something to push down the road like an Ford with a dead battery.

In September, Sen. Majority Whip Dick Durbin wimped out and told Politico:

“We have a very heavy, busy agenda and a few months left to do it. So it may not be now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be soon. Absent a big push from the Pentagon and Obama, key Senate Democrats are signaling that there is little appetite to anger some of their more socially conservative voters at a time when election forecasters are signaling a tough 2010 election cycle for the party.”

Got it, Dick. The Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate wouldn’t want to risk angering rightwing loons like Reps. Michelle Bachman or Joe Wilson.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is up for reelection in 2010 and is facing a formidable Republican challenger, amplified pressure on the White House and the Pentagon to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In letters to Obama and Gates dated Sept. 24th, the Nevada Democrat asked each to “bring to Congress your recommendations on DADT.”

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated that the president wants to see the policy repealed, but has other legislative priorities that must be addressed first.

508 gay or lesbian servicemembers have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since President Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. More than 13,000 gay or lesbian servicemembers have been discharged since the policy was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1993.

The Advocate: Ohio flash mob for gay marriage

The Cincinnati Enquirer: Flash mob for marriage equality video

The News Record: Flash mob protests Maine legislation

Out Gay Life: Flash Mob Protests Maine Gay Marriage Repeal

And some other videos onlookers made: