Tuesday, October 19, 2010
There should be an ongoing investigation in the courts and in Congress about who are the real Latinos For Reform. This is just another tactic by republicans to silence and to marginalize the Hispanic electorate from exercising their voting rights. I want to know who the Latinos for Reform really are and who is supporting them. Fucking hypocrites, the same people that are advancing in all fronts against the Hispanic Community now claimed that they are vested in the future of Latinos. When is it going to end?
This add is skillfully design to work in two aspects while it appears as benign and in favor of the Hispanic community, it also serves as a scare tactic to those Latinos that even with their citizenship are feeling the pressures of deportation fearing the intense racially profiling that is going on in Nevada and Arizona. I truly hope that this backfires and that the entire Latino community presents a new front and declare this unconstitutional. This tactic also, even though is presented locally in Nevada can emerge all around the entire Nation. The intention is simple keep the Latinos silent and afraid.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
I have posted before about NPR, but now I can validate some of my skepticism about their political programming. I listen to it constantly I am addicted to it but for a political junkie like me I've been feeling shortchanged about my fix. They have a wide variety of programs that stimulate my mind. But I have noticed that since 2008 election their coverage was less than impartial. I claimed that they are skewing their views. Now I can prove that they are doing so.
The latest is the memo sent warning any NPR staffers showing up for the John Stewart rally in Washington DC on October 30, as reported by the Huffington Post. And here are some of my other concerns. How come the memo now and not before Glen Beck’s charade?
When ever they make a reference to a political candidate they start by given air wave to the republican ones, and then they have a rebuttal from the democratic one and just when you think that the argument is settle, the republican one gets the last words. Even Christine O’Donnell gets this preferential treatment. Even though she has no substance what so ever, to a passive listener, she is right only because she has the last word and comes from NPR.
But it goes further than that. The other day while stock in traffic, I was listening to a segment in were one of Bush’s administrators came in favor of the Chambers of Commerce and their anonymous donors, so I am listening to this hoping a good come back to his BS, and their was none. The last statement I recalled was he saying it does not matter where the funds comes from, as long as the massage is of substance. Are you fucking kidding me this is coming from the mouth of one of the worst perpetrator of public interference? Is he one to validate me that I am supposed to be OK with corporations stealing our political process? Isn’t him a member of a gang that paid no attention to Wall Street yet let the market crashed to then give corporations a bail out for their failures? Should I be reaffirmed that there is no valid point to any accusations against Cross Roads and Karl Roves maneuvering?
Another issue that increased my Eyebrows is why are they getting money from an organization that is opposing our elected government like American for Prosperity who launches serious attacks on our government? Isn’t NPR supposed to stand for National Public Radio? Why are they so bested in debunking our present government?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
I do not get to watch much TV therefore I am illiterate when it comes to reviewing TV shows. But Wonder Man posted this video and I had to respond.
I could not finish watching this BS. Here you have Oprah living in the “down low” asking sexual identity questions to a black man that is now comfortable with disclosing his Identity as a gay man. My problem with her assumptions is that straight versus gay are encapsulated into the same binomials as black and white, rich and poor, healthy versus sick, norm versus abnormal, right versus wrong.
Here is my problem, the trap behind gay versus straight binomial is that it proposes that sexual identity like being gay equals sexual acts, equals gender, equals sexuality. And all or those terms need to be openly discussed when dismantling the homo versus heterosexual domains.
When I was young I used to have sex with another man who got married and created a live within the so-called “norm.” On an occasion we met at a billiard bar and he popped a fag joke and I asked him, have you told your wife that we used to have sex? And his response was I have never being gay I love pussy. So I asked him how would she feel if I were to disclose to her that you got off on my rim jobs? He told me I love pussy, should I be condemned for that? To which I responded we are on a public space and you feel is OK to belittle my identity but think nothing of the fact that you enjoyed it.
Weather he is or not on the “Down low”, I do not give a shit. Because the way I see it, he having sex with me does not make him gay, perhaps horny. I must confess that he used to come to me after caressing his girlfriend for long hours in her father’s balcony. In some cases it was easy for him to get his rocks off with me than with a chick, because of fear of being expose of infidelities. He knew that I was on a disadvantage if I ever broadcasted to anyone about our sexual relationships.
And why because if I were to do so we were both going to be outcast as fags; neither one of us wanted that, especially me with a high pitch voice and a history of being called a "fag" since I was five.
He was in the army, an athlete, and a boxer. I on the other hand, hang out with the girls, dance disco, and had a ponytail. You got the picture! In my social group sexual acts were not disclosed if they were not with in the “norm.”
And this is my point! No, I do not think that all men that have sex with men are gay. No, I do not think that sexual identity is easy, especially if you are identified or belong to the fringe; which in this case can cast anyone as sick or having aids. And no, not all sexual acts can be define as procreative acts, or solely confine to couples to only perform acts of copulation. I just recently heard of a close relative of mine who is a republican, who is straight, who goes to church, and who straps a dildo to please her man. Is she and her husband gay? I choose to not care. Honestly I do not give a shit. But what I am more interested is in dissenting from the narrative of the “norm.” Sexuality, sexual acts and sexual identity are far more complex to be boxed in the straight gay domain.
And Oprah discourse in this matter is, only benefiting her pocket. She loves the surprised gasps and the laughter of her audience for her ratings. I give her a d- for attempt. Perhaps she wanted to jump in the bang wagon of the “Long” saga where millionaires have a frenzy to debunk each other. But to me is not interesting nor it gets my rocks off. Because the way I see it, with all the bucks she has, she could have hire some extra researchers to make a solid point other than the domestic framework she presented.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Linda McMahon claims that we can solve our financial problems by lowering the minimum wage. Yet for someone that knows the business she did not know what the minimum wage is? But of course not, for someone that has 50 million dollars to spend on negative adds, why should she care about the minimum wage. And she is supposed to be speaking for all of us?
Take a look at her opponent records. Richard Blumenthal He “asked a state court to freeze all home foreclosures for 60 days. Doing so "should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents."
And guess what? McMahon is loved by Republicans in my town. Some of them are my neighbors, the idiots!