rkt: (intersection)
so, christian pharmacists don't have to supply medication to women who need it, but a muslim businesses owner can lose his franchise for not wanting to supply bacon? really?
ok. that really is really a rhetorical question.
and i must say, the timing is....well...a little obvious.

Dunkin' Donuts operator gives up franchise in pork battle

An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.

A lawyer for Walid Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the company.

Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary materials.

The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.

The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib's Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin' Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.

For nearly 20 years, Dunkin' Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, "No meat products available," Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.

oh, dunkin' donuts..... )
rkt: (columbus.sisterselu)
one of the blogs on my feed informed me that as of october 1, ICE has changed their US naturalization test. ICE claims it was just a simple re-writing, no biggie.
however, i'm less certain and, quite frankly, call shenanigans.

not only is the new test linguistically more complex, it's down right more ridiculous.

in the spirit of happiness and testing, let me reach out to you, dear readers, and ask a few not-so random questions from the new test to see how you do.

36. What are two Cabinet-level positions?

61 Why did the colonists fight the British?

67. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.

68. What is one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?

88. Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.

answers and full test

previous test

answers in the comments
rkt: (angry sakuradolly)
Bronx 8th-graders boycott practice exam but teacher may get ax
Juan Gonzalez

Students at a South Bronx middle school have pulled off a stunning boycott against standardized testing.

More than 160 students in six different classes at Intermediate School 318 in the South Bronx - virtually the entire eighth grade - refused to take last Wednesday's three-hour practice exam for next month's statewide social studies test.

Instead, the students handed in blank exams.

Then they submitted signed petitions with a list of grievances to school Principal Maria Lopez and the Department of Education.

oh, yes, it goes on )
one of the biggest drives i had when i wanted to be a teacher wasn't to give back to the teachers who had done it right, but for all the ones who were doing. it. wrong.

(pump up the volume? yeah...)

and this guy? sure seems to have been doing it right. i mean, in a social studies class, his students organized for change? peacefully. without any actual chaos.
psh. silly man. he should never have taught them to believe. he should have taught them how to fill in circles with their number 2 pencils.

this response? seems to categorize the guy with those teachers who encourage peer abuse.
Not. The Same.
At. All.

and why is it so hard to believe they would have done so on their own? what does that say about the faith in the future?
should that not be the actual point of their education? and not just to grow up to to be worker drones?
i wonder, too, would the reaction have been the same if
the school had a different track record and/or population?

i feel for these kids, and for avella. and for all of us.
but i'm also proud for them.
rkt: (lesbian satan.verylisa)
Guess who's a gay?

nooo. i'm not talking about lance bass! (that's soooo old news, anyway...)

it's BILL CLINTON! (thanks to [livejournal.com profile] hardvice for the info; my life was not complete without this knowledge.)

just ask ann coulter.

see? )

isn't it amazing?
rkt: (image)
How much do you need to know about your spouse's previous sex life?

Published: Tuesday, 4-Jul-2006

Under a new ruling by the California Supreme Court, a person who has reason to believe he or she has HIV may be sued by sexual partners should they become infected. To knowingly pass on HIV is already illegal in California and people who do so may be sued for damages in state court, but the new ruling extends the state's view of when liability arises from the disease.

The chief issue before the court was whether an HIV-positive person who hadn't yet been tested for the virus could be held responsible, in a civil suit, for infecting a partner, and the answer is yes, at least in some circumstances.

text saved below cut for educational purposes )

The court has ruled that the husband must disclose when and how often he had sex with men, because it might indicate whether he should have known he was infected.


this article did give the most comprehensive information, and helped calm me down a wee bit, i'm still calling bullshit.

look, this whole situation sucks. if the husband spread hiv knowingly, he's an ass and then some. he'd be a case in which i wished i believed in karma. and i really don't justify willingly transmitting hiv to someone who doesn't know what they might be getting themselves into, which means, i'm not talking about "bug chaser" situations (wherein gay men try to get infected), of which i don't presently have commentary. but i'm not even sure if i'm *comfortable* with the prosecution of willful transmission to the unwilling. from the way things are looking, the guy had a negative hiv test. "high-risk" behaviour be damned, he had at least some reason to believe he wouldn't be transmitting hiv.

the government really just needs to stay the fuck out of my pants. THEY'RE MY PANTS!11!! they should stay out of yours, too. unless you want to let them in, but ONLY YOUR PANTS then. nobody else's. not your parents'. not your partners'. NOT MINE. and that's really, as far as i'm concerned, is what a lot of this is all about.

yes it really is..... )
let me finally clarify that i do not blame the woman if she is, in fact, the victim of an asshole here. again, her situation is sad and tragic. and if she infected her husband, that, too, is sad and tragic. my statements would remain the same if she were a sex worker and not his wife. but the government still needs to stay out of my pants.

[the case is john b. vs. superior court, S12824]

see also:


rkt: (operatingroom)
i read the msn.com article on the supreme-court-abortion thing.

i kept reading the word scary in there, although nowhere does the word actually appear.

i'm just saying...

the 'scary' article for educational purposes only )

let me crawl under my desk and cry.

rkt: (wicked little town)
so, the strike is over.

the mayor (who has publicly declared he will not run for office next term) has managed to call the strikers "selfish" and "thuggish" and, like damn near all the media outlets called the strike "illegal". nope. he ain't racist, how dare you suggest that? there's nothing racist in the term "thuggish". i'm quite sure if i tried hard enough, i could find quotable proof that bloomberg's colourblind. he's also not classist. he knows what it's like to be a commoner. he walked across the bridge!

bloomberg has also asked all new yorkers to pray for a fire fighter who was hit by a car as sie biked hir way to work. the implication being, of course, that sie would not have been biking had it not been for those twu strikers.

it should be interesting what comes forth later. the media love to say the strike is illegal according to The Taylor Law, without ever mentioning that the sole reason the strike commenced was that mta was trying to fuck with the pensions, which is illegal according to said Taylor Law. it's much easier to just say Taylor Law. maybe the theory was if you say it 3 times fast, a miracle will happen. Taylor Law. Taylor Law. Taylor Law.

and maybe it worked. i'm actually kinda' disappointed in toussaint in giving in. though, with the media blackout, i don't know what i'm missing. and i'm not in any kinda union, so i'm really clueless. i tried once, and i theoretically had a union willing to take us in. only "us" was just me and nobody else wanted to and/or had the luxury to take the risk of following me to The so-called Dark Side.
rkt: (angry sakuradolly)
so, apparently, both target and american girl are wankers.

both have caved to x-ian pressures.

a)target... they've opted against the vibrating cock ring. they're still selling the "stimulating" gels. i mean, really, what afa originally got their panties in a bundle over is the product line is aimed at OMG NO women's pleasure.

and target still "bans" all religious money handlers from their property, including the anti-gay salvation army.

so they could be worse. like, ahem,

b) american girl this back pedaling SEVERELY pissed me off...

from afa's email: Within hours of our email alert, American Girl changed their website and removed the link to Girls Inc. from their site. They then moved all references to Girls Inc. from the homepage to a secondary webpage.

News reports state American Girl has no plans to drop their close association with Girls Inc. and will continue giving the group financial donations.

In addition, American Girl changed the text of the "I Can" bracelet program, stating the donations are "earmarked" for non-lesbian, non-abortion promotional activities. This financial support designation simply frees up others monies at Girls Inc. for political and social advocacy activities.

EMAILS: target AND american girl

i'm waiting until i get to the point of something beyond "for fuck's sake people" before emailing. (though, with target, that's not all that bad of a response....)
rkt: (lesbian satan.verylisa)
the subject line reads: American Girl teams with pro-abortion, pro-lesb--n group

(because we all know LESBIAN is a 4-letter word.)
and OMG our girls might learn about their bodies! and "safe and effective birth control!" we can't possibly even consider allowing that, now can we?
heavens, no. and allow them to question their sexuality? well, now, we must lock them up and hide the key.

or not.
i am the italics.
American Girl teams with pro-abortion, pro-lesbian group
Dear Friend of the Family,

Possibly some of you have daughters who play with the American Girl dolls or read their books because only *daughters* play with dolls. You may even be thinking about buying a doll or books for Christmas because *everybody* celebrates xmas with full consumer style. Well, it turns out American Girl (owned by Mattel) is partnering with a group called Girls Inc.warning- they are of the devil to sell a bracelet, the "I Can" band, which financially supports Girls Inc. Seventy cents of every purchase goes to Girls Inc. The band is sold on the American Girl webpage with a large ad and a link to the Girls Inc. webpage. In addition, the webpage says American Girl is giving $50,000 to Girls, Inc.
there be information here )
and you thought target was bad!
rkt: (wicked little town)
if one is to believe condoleezza rice, kanye's wrong and ain't no way in hell george the worst is a racist. this is apparently because, well, nobody could be racist at such time as katrina.

which, i suppose, is fine. according to barbara bush, things will turn out right as, well, ok i'll say it, rain, for those folks holed up at the astrodome since, you know, they were underprivileged anyway.

nope. we're all equal here. even if some are more equal than others.

seriously. i've never been a big tv watcher. and now, this seems to be especially so. but i'm addicted to the wwltv web-blog because they keep feeding me these gold mines, which, in reality, are incredibly sad. but i never said i wasn't addicted to trainwrecks. my own life attests to that much.

ETA: i am NOT commenting on daddy bush and clinton tag-teaming, again.
rkt: (jesus._jessicus_.)
apparently, falwell has decided teh gays do deserve to work and have shelter, after all. just not in his backyard.

Jerry Falwell Has Gay Epiphany
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

(Lynchburg, Virginia) The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who once blamed gays and feminists for 9-11, now says he supports basic civil rights for gays and lesbians - but with conditions.
of course there are conditions. what did you expect? yes, the rest of the story is within. click to be educated. )

i suppose i'm supposed to be happy and start turning cartwheels.
fuck that, i say. have i ever mentioned that i despise hrc? no. no. no. no. i will NOT be grateful for such bullshit. a pox on both men.
and i never knew that the right to housing was an "american value". never mind, i've been working in the homeless systems of nyc for three years. (where "shelter" is a guaranteed constitutional right, in theory, and seen women sent back to their batterers, despite orders of protection/restraining orders, so they can "work it out"... or something.) i must just be slow.
and recruiting? how can this man ignore the severe social pressures placed on people to adopt "straightness"? i'm not talking ex-gay brainwashing, but the heterosexual normative that so permeates falwell's "america". if anyone does recruiting, it's the hets, not the homos.
oh well, i have a (metaphorical. not literal.) terrorist group to join so that i can further destroy falwell's america.
rkt: (button)
dear self:

when you ask the particularly great (and never mind fine)
author whose book reading you just attended to sign _your)_ book, and said author asks you if you two have met before, the answer is not "um, i don't think so?".
goddamnit girl. i'm just saying.... for fuck's sake, you can do SO much better than that.


with all my love,
rkt: (rights)
Court Strikes Down Equal Benefits law

Manhattan A state appeals court yesterday struck down the city's equal benefits law, which barred thecity from doing businses with companies that provide benefits for employees' spouses but not for their gay* domesetic partners. The Supreme Court's Appelalte Division ruled 5-0 that the statute, Local Law 27 of 2004, was illegal because it "runs afoul" of state laws by imposing more conditions on competetive bidders for munincipal contracts. AP.

Metro 3/16/05


* i don't remember the "gay" part being inherent for the domestic partner part.

EDIT to let mayor bloomberg know what an ass awesome leader he is, call 311* (in NYC) 212-new-york (639-9675 - outside new york).
mail: hon m.r. bloomberg
city hall
nyc, ny 10007
i'd give you the email/website but nyc.gov is currently requesting i "log in", even to "contact them". 311 has no idea how i can address this, except writing a letter and sending it usps.

*be prepared to have to call back if the person is a bit too...special... to understand your request.
rkt: (intersection)

without using any of the "search" options (beyond control-f), how long does it take to find anything gay-related on either of the following sites:


caveat1: both have the potential to be triggering across the board.
caveat2: this is also where you can learn: The best way to protect your reproductive health is to wait until you are married to have sex because condoms don't work for all infections and only reduce the risk of others.
rkt: (angry sakuradolly)
in honor of starofthecircus's fund rasing campaign, i bring you this "letter".
and, to be honest, this "letter" has been sitting on my hard drive since last year. the entire situation makes me quite rageful. because i work in a contracted homeless shelter and have a per diem gig at a domestic violence shelter, i see the effects live and in person regularly.
it's fucking depressing. and i have NO idea how those who make the decisions sleep at night. THE SYSTEM SUCKS!

but what do i know? like i said, i just work there.

my so-called letter to the wonderful mayor bloomberg, my hero )

rkt: (male)
dear feminist mens:

thank you ever so much for being men and feminists! you all deserve cookies; i will soon return to the kitchen and bake for you. you have my undying gratitude. i'm ashamed of anyone who would make you feel bad. that women-folk would even think about asking you to be quiet and let women talk -thus creating a "safespace" - no matter how brief the timespan, is nothing short of stupid.

i apologize that there are those evil(man-hating-hairy-lesbianic, etc.) feminists who think that maybe you shouldn't be leaders of The Movement. they're just bitter. all this reverse sexism makes no sense, i'll tell you what. and besides womens need to be taught a lesson as to how to talk back. it's their fault if they don't!

we can talk about privilege all we want. that doesn't matter. privilege is as priviledge does. what matters is keeping you guys interested. i don't want any of you to feel ignored; we need your penii lest we perish! we must fight the oppression of the almighty penis at all costs!

also-feel, before i forget, free to mock woman-kind all you want. making fun of a disadvantaged group, of which you are not a part, is perfectly fine. anyone who says anything to the contrary is only trying to oppress you further.


a concerned feminist (who isn't one of *those* feminists)
rkt: (blood)
the ny blood center's been calling me every day again. i answered it for a change. contrary to my most preferred poll results, i told them the truth- i'm getting over infections that i took antibioitics for.
call again later.

i think i got suckered because he started off the request by telling me i helped 5 people last time and they're really i need now because of this weather.

so, tell me lj-world, how much of a poseur am i?

[Poll #427425]

feel free to elaborte. etc.
rkt: (angry sakuradolly)
recently, i told [livejournal.com profile] brienf about an article i remembered reading in which a judge threw out tom cruise's lawsuit where the actor was suing someone for stating he (cruise) was a gay. the judge's logic was that to accept such a lawsuit would be to accept there was something defamatory about being gay.
I CAN'T FIND IT. i swear, i didn't dream this one up. and i'm trying to figure it out.
in the meantime, however, all i can find are articles from his "wins" in 2001 and 2003. in 2003 he was awarded TEN MILLION dollars because some gay "erotic wrestler" claimed to have had an affair with him.

now how, praytell, is the stamp of heterosexuality worth 10 mil-lion dollars?

and why must this actor be so insecure that he runs around suing anyone who calls him the gay? really, there are worse playground names to be called than for someone to claim you're a homosexural. cruise says he's trying to protect his "reputation". say what? ahhh. so rather than attempt to fight the homophobia permeating hollywood, you want to cash in on your (supposed?) "straight rights"? rather than teach the ignorant it's ok to be gay, you'd perpetuate the myth that it's BAD.

fuck that. why must we put up with this shit? oh.. right, he's against AIDS. he can't possibly suck that much.
grrrrr. so much for the liberal hollywood elite. . .

2003 article (with added commentary) . HE'S NOT GAY!!11! )

April 2017

2 345678
910 11 12131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 03:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios