discrimination is thicker than water

on friday, the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability (which makes recommendations to the food and drug administration) voted nine to six against lifting the ban preventing gay men from donating blood in the u.s., putting them in a category with other banned groups like intravenous drug users and people who have been paid for sex.

that's right, according to current fda rules, if you are a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977, you are banned from donating blood for life. this rule, which was put in place in the 80's, before hiv tests were available, is supposed to be a way to ward off potential hiv tainted blood. a study showed that if this ban was lifted, approximately 219,000 more pints of blood would be available each year.

the fda recognizes the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory. the national gay and lesbian task force doesn't quite agree with that: "the committee's decision today not only leaves a discriminatory practice in place, it also puts lives at risk." additionally, the red cross expressed disappointment stating: "while the red cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the fda, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."

my point, and i do have one...is, these stories of blatant government upheld discrimination, make me ashamed to be american. first, this ruling implies that ONLY gay men have a potential risk of acquiring hiv, merely perpetuating outdated stereotypes that hiv is not just a gay disease, but a gay man's disease. in reality. studies have shown that heterosexual sex is the fastest-growing means of contracting hiv in the u.s. and and the most prevalent method worldwide. does this mean we should also include heterosexuals in the ban? if we do, we better line up a bunch of non iv drug-using lesbians who were never prostitutes, because they seem to be the only group still ok to donate! (also, i find it odd that someone who has been paid for sex is banned, but the person who paid them, not so much. what steps are we taking to protect society from the john who potentially gave the prostitute hiv? but i digress...)

here's another thought, you can't identify most gay man by sight (yes, i said most...come on now, you know i love each and every one of you over the top, make-up and boa wearing gay men, but lets be honest, some of you are a tiny bit easier to spot). is the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability therefore keeping us all "safe" by assuming that no one will lie when asked about their sexual history? yeah, 'cause that never happens, right evangelist ted haggard, senator larry craig, representative bob allen or national chairman of the young republicans glenn murphy jr.?

look, while current hiv tests are highly accurate, no test can yet detect the virus 100 percent of the time. that being said, donated blood is put through a battery of sophisticated tests to determine whether it is safe and disease-free.

it wasn't too many years ago that blood from a black person wouldn't have been able to be donated and now, the government (run by a black man with blood that can donated blood), is blatantly and systematically blocking gay right (don't ask don't tell, gay-marriage and now blood donation). nahh, that's not discrimination. god bless america.

what is your point?

the (military) code has been cracked

general stanley mcchrystal, president obama's hand-selected commander in afghanistan, along with his aides, made shocking comments to rolling stone. according to the washington post, they called the national security adviser a "clown," described the president as intimidated and disengaged, disparaged allies and top u.s. diplomats and converted vice president biden's surname to "bite me." the article, whose accuracy mcchrystal has not denied or challenged, has been called an "enormous mistake" by the white house. they also said mcchrystal showed "bad judgment."

at the time of this blogs posting, the president was awaiting mcchrystal's arrival at the white house. speculation has begun that he is prepared to give the president his letter of resignation.

my point, and i do have one...is, as a citizen of our country, we have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. i personally value and treasure this right. however, when you talk about the military, they live and die by a code of conduct and ethics. at its core it prides itself on honor, respect, order, chain of command and discipline. for any solider, let alone one as high ranking as mcchrystal, to outright and publicly criticize the commander in chief during a time of war goes against everything the military supposedly stands for. as a solider, it is not your job to agree with or even respect your commander in chief, it is however your job to respect his rank and carry out his orders. mcchrystal could have first retired or quit and then run his mouth, but he didn't. instead he made the conscious decision to do this interview while actively leading men into battle.

in my opinion mcchrystal's alleged resignation should be rejected so that the president can outright fire him. additionally, i think mcchrystal should be court-marshaled. according to article 88 of the u.s. uniform code of military justice, “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice-president, congress...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

at the end of the day the president needs to be able to trust his commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. how is that possible any more? many are saying that it could do the operation more harm than good by replacing him. but if they don't, what message does that send to the rest of the military? if a general at mcchrystal's level can blatantly disrespect the commander in chief with no consequences, it sets a precedent that others, at every rank, can disrespect their commanding officer and expect no repercussions. i am not sure that is something i would be comfortable with.

general mcchrystal should feel ashamed that by granting an interview with rolling stone, he has smeared what, to this point, was a highly respected military career. (and if i can speak directly to the general for a sec... really? rolling stone? that is the publication that you choose to give the story that will haunt you the rest of your life? my friends and i have played the game, "if you are the lone survivor of a plane crash, who would you give your interview to?" i gotta tell you general, rolling stone never makes anyone's top ten. do you not have any media advisers around you at all? i'm just sayin'...)

what is your point?

taking a bite out of crime

almost forty years ago, sonnet ehlers, a then 20-year old medical researcher, met a devastated rape victim who looked at her and said "if only I had teeth down there." ehlers promised that one day she would do something to help victims like her...and today she has made good on that promise: rape-aXe.

according to cnn.com, this female latex condom, which is inserted like a tampon and has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks inside to attach on to a man's penis during penetration, can only be removed by a doctor once it lodges on. ideally authorities will be on hand to make an arrest at that time. ehlers, who sold her house and car to launch the project, plans on distributing 30,000 free devices during the world cup in south africa. taking drastic measures to prevent rape is nothing new to women of south africa, which has one of the highest rape rates in the world. some women have gone so far as to insert razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.

a man who finds himself on the receiving end of a rape-aXe (which was designed with the consultation of engineers, gynecologists and psychologists to make sure it was safe) will find himself in, what one can only assume will be, at the least, discomfort. according to ehlers: "it hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on...if he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

ehler, a mother of two daughters, said blind dates and traveling in areas a women may not feel comfortable, are examples of times to wear the rape-aXe. she visited prisons to speak with convicted rapists who, according to her, said a device like rape-aXe may have made them rethink their actions. after the trial period at the world cup, rape-aXe will be available for about $2 a piece.

not everyone is sold on this product. some critics say it's not a "a long-term solution and makes women vulnerable to more violence from men trapped by the device." victoria kajja, from the centers for disease control and prevention in uganda, said it is a form of "enslavement" that reminds women of their vulnerability. "the fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." she does say however that "it allows justice to be served."

my point, and i do have one...is, i don't think this device reminds a woman of their vulnerability anymore than when she puts mace in her pocketbook. sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't need to worry about being sexually assaulted, however, we live in the real world, so if this is what some women need to feel safe and secure, more power to them. i wonder how long it will be before we see this item on law & order svu? what's your point?