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 first, this ruling implies that ONLY gay men have a potential risk of acquiring hiv, merely perpetuating outdated stereotypes that hiv is not just a gay disease, but a gay man's disease.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?

good god...seriously?

if you are redeeming yourself from a thieving past, have a potty mouth, a bad attitude and are catholic, today is your lucky day!

that's right, the movie the blues brothers was officially sanctioned by the catholic church this week, with the vatican's official newspaper calling it a "catholic classic" and recommending it for catholics everywhere.

the movie, which celebrates it's 30th anniversary this year, is about two blues performers (john belushi and dan ackroyd) from a catholic orphanage who grew up to a wild life of crime (the characters started as a skit on snl). throughout the film the lead characters repeatedly say that they are on a "mission from god" to save the orphanage. (for those keeping score, another notable religious reference from the movie includes: "jesus h. tap-dancing christ! i have seen the light!") the official vatican newspaper l'osservatore romano devoted no fewer than five articles to the blues brothers, anointing it as a film with a catholic message.

it is worth noting that the church did not always find this movie to be quite so pious. in a review of the movie 30 years ago by the united states conference of catholic bishops, they referred to it as having "rough language and crude situations" as well as saying that certain scenes were "spectacularly unfunny and uninvolving."

there are some in the church that take issue with this recent cinematic endorsement saying that by increasing their use of pop references, l'osservatore romano is trivializing the vatican. a web-columnist for the national catholic register says they should instead be "devoting its pages to more spiritual and lofty matters related to the faith."

the blues brothers now joins the ranks of other vatican-endorsed films such as the ten commandments, jesus of nazareth, and it's a wonderful life.

my point, and i do have one...is that the catholic church never ceases to amaze me! drinking, debauchery and violence is a "catholic message?" no wonder they are dragging their feet when it comes to abuse within the church! additionally, when did the vatican become the siskel and ebert of religion? ("i give this movie three crosses" or "the maker of this movie need to say ten hail marys and ask for forgiveness.") what's your point?

to tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

phil corbett, the latest standards editor at the new york times, issued a memo to staff asking writers to abstain from using the word "tweet."

while acknowledging that new words are created all the time for our ever-growing technology, he noted that not everyone uses twitter and therefore may not be familiar with what a "tweet" is. he said it isn't standard english, "and standard english is what we should use in news articles." he went on to say that the new york times doesn't "want to seem paleolithic and favors established usage and ordinary words over the latest jargon or buzzwords." (ok - quick show of hands…how many of you reading my blog, excluding my mom, know what "tweet" means, but need to look up what paleolithic means? mom - we all know you know what they both mean :) click here for an article highlighting the top words nytimes.com readers looked up in the last year using the site's online dictionary tool).

but i digress, corbett went on to say that should the new york times choose to make an exception to the no "tweet' rule, it will be for special effect. he said: "we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. and “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on twitter — is all three. yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections...but let's look for deft, english alternatives: use twitter, post to or on twitter, write on twitter, a twitter message, a twitter update. or, once you've established that twitter is the medium, simply use 'say' or 'write."

my point, and i do have one...is with this story being in the news, and the new york times being a newspaper, how are they going to be able to report that they have stopped using the word "tweet" without using the word "tweet?"(deep thoughts). what's your point?

i've thought this was (pea)nuts for years!

the department of transportation is considering a ban of all peanut products served on planes. the prevalence and the potentially deadly consequences of severe peanut allergies have prompted them to consider this under the agency’s disability rule.

peanut allergies can be more serious than many of us realize, especially for children. while not all peanut allergies are serious enough to keep a sufferer off airplanes, when airlines serve peanuts on board as an in-flight snack, severe allergy sufferers may not even have to eat the peanuts to have a reaction. for these travelers, including many children, just the presence of peanut particles in the air can bring on a life-threatening allergic reaction. the dot believes that a severe peanut allergy counts as a disability and federal law prohibits air carriers from discriminating against individuals with a disability, so they are left wondering whether it should require specific steps for handling severe peanut allergies and what those steps should be.

congress has given the dot mixed signals on this issue over the years. the air carrier access act prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities by u.s. and foreign air carriers and requires airlines to accommodate travelers with disabilities unless doing this would cause an “undue burden” or require the airline to “fundamentally alter its services”. but in 1999, when the dot informed airlines that this applied to peanut allergies, congress withdrew dot funding for any restrictions on airline peanut practices. this ban lasted only one year, congress hasn’t re-imposed it since.

so what options are the dot considering? here are three:

* an outright ban on airlines serving peanuts and peanut products
* banning service of peanuts and peanut products only on a flight where a passenger with a peanut allergy requests a peanut-free flight in advance
* requiring the airline to provide a peanut-free buffer zone around a passenger with a medically-documented severe peanut allergy if the passenger makes a request in advance

my thought, and i do have one...is how did it take so long for this to become an issue? i am sure that the peanut lobby is doing what they can to make sure they keep their spot on planes, but i have to tell you i think it's just nuts! people with peanut allergies can have quick, violent and sometimes deadly reactions when coming near a peanut, so much so that stores that serve food (like my folk's store) and restaurant menus have to indicate when peanuts or peanut remnants can be found in their food. now, i do think that people who have allergies have to take extra steps to ensure their own safety, but i have always thought it was silly to introduce a known, common allergen, like peanuts, into a confined space! you would think that the airlines would think so too, if for no no other reason than to cover themselves. what is your point?

shoplifter steals the heart of shopkeeper

a curly-haired seven year-old was in the trendy williamsburg boutique catbird when he saw a locket in a candy dish he thought it would make a perfect mother's day gift, so he took it and brought it home. (happy mother's day!) when his family realized that the gift was as hot as it was heartfelt they made the boy bring it back, which he did along with a note:

"dear catbird people. sorry I took the locket. my sister said what is a good mother's day gift? that day i thought that the locket would be a great present, so i picked one and i didn't know they cost anything so i put it in my pocket."

staffers said the youngster handed over the $15 locket when he came in with his dad, who nudged him toward the sales counter where, standing three-feet tall and a little teary-eyed, he told the clerk "i have something for you." the store clerk said : "thank you for doing the right thing."

according to the store's blog (where they posted the apology letter) they won't be pressing charges. "sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. or, at least the cost of a $15 locket," they wrote. "have you seen anything sweeter?" the owner said that indeed the necklace was in a candy dish on a table and the kid could have mistaken for something free. additionally, he feels that this is a valuable experience the boy won't soon forget.

the neighborhood has had some recent issues of shoplifting and some co-workers at the boutique hope that their forgiving nature will not come back to haunt them. "we do have some shoplifting in here, but it's usually adults. it's not a major issue...but after people find out about this, every shoplifter in the city is going to come to the store because we are so lenient."

my point, and i do have one...is, i think that this scenario showed the best in all involved. the boy for wanting to do something nice for his mom, the parents for first identifying that the gift was stolen and then making him bring it back, the store owner for keeping it all in perspective and not pressing charges and then, hopefully in the end, the boy learning a valuable lesson. (that all being said, dude...you totally threw your sister under the bus in that note, like if she didn't make you think about what a good gift was you wouldn't have stolen it - ha!) what is your point?