This is www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39507466's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39507466's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39507466
Recent Activity
Is anyone else just a little shocked that Rainbow PUSH's non-discrimination policy doesn't already include sexual orientation and gender identity??!
1 reply
It's a tricky situation, and there is a tightrope to walk. On the one hand, the militant in me wants to 100% agree with "kevjack"...it takes an extreme amount of cloudy thought to place yourself in a harmful situation and continuously defend your action as a virtue. As I see it, gay, black men in a "traditional" church environment are in a unhealthy co-dependent relationship. On the other hand, "Freelo" has a point. We do not know these men or what they've been through. And if our objective is to persuade them that it's okay to be gay, to free their mind, to live in truth...condemnation is not going to get it done. I've always contended that people need to feel safe if they're going to take the leap out of the closet. After all, why would you leave the "loving" arms of your abusive father and run into the "embrace" of an openly hostile community (for which you supposedly belong)? Suffering from co-dependency is not a black and white condition...and neither is this issue. While black, gay men who sit in these churches have a responsibility to themselves and their community to refute the hate, they do suffer from a disease. Thousands of men and women in abusive relationships attend actual recovery meetings for their co-dependency. These meetings foster a safe environment for them to cry-out if they need to, be encouraged and inspired, and gain education! Enlightened (if you will) black, gay men need to personify those meetings! Be a voice of encouragement, education, and understanding! Sure, you won't reach them all (after all, indoctrination is not easy to scrub out)...but getting to just ONE of these guys is a monumental feat.
1 reply
I'm not sure what the hoopla is about. She did an average jazzy rendition of the song. Not Whitney at the Superbowl, but not Rosanne either.
1 reply
Wait a minute, I'm confused...isn't Charles Djou rabidly anti-gay? I know it's been implied on this site on several occasions.
1 reply
It's really a shame the way some of my fellow black conservatives have chosen to run for political office these days. I don't know anything about Les Phillip, but this ad does nothing to bolster his campaign. Alas, I realize he's running for office is an undoubtedly ultra-conservative district in Alabama (the NRA hat at the end tells it all); so Bill Ayers and "bowing" attacks may resonate with the local electorate. Personally, I think it would be a better strategy to give folks a different look at what black conservatism represents. It stands for courage to believe what you feel is right, not what society expects you to co-sign. It's got nothing to do with being called a racist...true black conservatives really don't care! We understand that conservative principles are for the betterment of ALL citizens. He's dropping the ball with this anti-Obama tomfoolery. It may get him elected, but won't earn him any respect.
1 reply
I wish they would make a deal with WWE On-Demand...that would be great to watch all my old favorites from childhood.
Pawlenty and his team continue to surprise me. If they've devised a strategy to gain the governor some name recognition, it has been terribly inept. Pawlenty continues to provide no basis nor rationale for his presidential aspirations (outside of him just wanting to be in the White House). Vetoing this bill was foolish. Where does he differentiate himself from the slew of potential opponents who would've done the exact same thing? How does he continue to promote himself as a different-type of Republican (he ridiculously coins himself a "Sam's Club" Republican)? Silly political move. Not to mention morally vicious.
1 reply
Seriously? "Killed by Obama's Broken Promises"...the operative word being "killed". Come on folks, I've supported very few Obama initiatives since he hit the national stage, and I've been a vociferous critic of his policies as president, but those signs are the worst cases of hyperbole mine eyes have seen for quite some time. It's good to see my people holding him accountable (FINALLY) for his unmet promises, but can't we keep it classy?
1 reply
It's a tough thing, these measures. On one hand, do we really want HIV+ citizens spending 50% of their income on rent ALONE? On the other, is it really under the purview of city responsibilities? What does it say about a city's outrageous cost of living when citizens are spending so much just to have a roof over their head, not including clothes on their back and food in their mouths? What sort of message does it send to the young and decidedly reckless if they're aware that they can be "assisted" by city subsidy even if they get the disease? These are difficult things to deal with (and I'm glad it isn't me having to make the decisions)...if I'm forced to make a judgment, I'd side with Bloomberg...it isn't just the money (although that's reason enough), I just don't believe it is a city or even governmental responsibility to provide such subsidies.
1 reply
I was able to fall in love with "Dexter" through my Roku... We'll see about some other shows, I was thinking "Weeds" next...is it any good?
Instead of vilifying the man, why not now (since he's admitted his homosexuality) reach out to him? Not every individual who dwells in the closet is going to gracefully exit, especially when the community he's finally admitting to belonging to is persecuting him. This may be another issue as to why so many do not exit the closet. It isn't just fear of being judged by heterosexuals, but by homosexuals too. I don't think gays should be a haven for demonization either. If you want folks to come out of the closet, they're going to need to feel safe doing so. His anti-gay voting record can not be explained away. Surely for his own selfish reasons he wanted to vote against gays to deflect the albatross of rumor. But he is right on one account that I think is lost on most elected officials. They are REPRESENTATIVES, not ordained rulers. It is their duty to represent the views of their constituency in the Capitol. Not to be of their own accord.
1 reply