your rainbow connection

someone i put on my flist posted this independent article about somali pirates. and how not all pirate are bad. the article doesn't dispute that some, in fact, in the article's words :"gangters", it simply adds to the picture that other 'pirates' are in it to protect their country.

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

....

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."

i'm inclined to believe the contents of the pirate article/post because, well, the whole bits about those from "civilized" nations being the ones plundering is more than believable.

but i must admit my own ignorance here.

p.s. i had this post writ and queued for review when this article from the unapologetic mexican came along on the f-list via feed and seems to confirm.

it's not that i'm not happy. i am. it's not that i'm not proud. yes, i am. it's not that i don't want to believe. trust me, i do.

but i'm tired. not tired from too much celebrating. tired from too many promises; tired from too much failed optimism.

but ralph nader, what the fuck*? get back to being a consumer advocate and shut up.

ok, obama has been my preferred democratic party candidate, for the most part, this whole time. but what does that mean, really? it's not like they've been my friend. saying i liked him better than clinton (either one) means nothing. if i'm going to go by (my perception of) the content of a candidate's character - yeah, obama's got it.

i'm not looking for a messiah. or a rock star. or a demigod to fix the economy, or racism, or stupidity. i trust enough that when it comes time to nominate someone to the supreme court, i won't cringe. but i don't trust that i will be excited with joy, either.
i look at the states where homophobia won out and i don't know that he will be any different than any of the other viable candidates in pursuing rockin' supreme court nominees. (note to dan savage: get over your gay self. homophobia is not greater than racism. get back to pretending like you are a good advice columnist.**) clinton gave us the defense of marriage act and don't ask don't tell. do i really want to be satisfied with more of the same? i'm not a settler.

*i'm not linking. if you want to see/read about him calling obama racist names, it's not that hard to find.
**i know he hasn't said anything against obama, that i'm aware of, here. but that whole poutfest deserves a major asskicking.

http://belladonnalin.livejournal.com/844336.html

belladonnalin wrote a most-excellent voter disenfranchisement post. she beat me to mine, a variation of which does exist out there.
but hers is awesome

5 million Americans are expected to be banned from voting because of a felony conviction in the 2008 elections.

According to the Human Rights Watch, more than 1.9 million of those will be black men. That 1.9 million represents more than 13% of the total population of adult black men and more than 1/3 of the total number of adults banned from voting.

According to the HRW, as of 1998, ten states disenfranchise more than one in five adult black men; in seven of these states, one in four black men is permanently disenfranchised.

i am supposed to writing and/or researching. i could also probably be sleeping since i have nyc nanny duty for the new nephew in the am. researching is so ridiculously distracting and i keep catching myself reading articles which, while awesome, aren't going to help me at all with either of the two papers due this week.

so i decided to break and read lj. always an awesome idea.

which brings us to the gimp parade's link to this (close-captioned) video illustrating the ridiculousness of mccain's claim that he doesn't use a computer becaue of his (POW related) physical disabilities



which i like in a political irony sort of way since everyone else seems to be expected to possess boot straps, except mc cain.

there's another election post in the works that needs more hyperlinks...
in the meantime.... the last line here made me lol. the article itself is poorly written and otherwise makes me cringe on a number of levels.

Obama's remarks give Clinton an opening

By JIM KUHNHENN and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press WritersSat Apr 12, 9:08 PM ET

A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.

Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.
( blah blah blah )

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.

( more blah blah blah )

Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis.

"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."
( still more blah blah blah )

Bill Clinton was the featured speaker of the rally but avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=obama+remarks&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

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.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=18688,

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:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/04/HIV.TMP

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04suit.html

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Jul03/0,4670,DisclosingHIV,00.html

i have mixed feelings on this.

WARNING:rape/abuse triggers.

this is an attempt to make bill napoli become the next santorum

as seen here

but i'm bored enough to share.

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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11475776/

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.

hillary clinton sent me another money request. (update: i sent her an unlaminated (too much added cost. i now have the laminating supplies, however) $1 bill.)

this time, she included a "survey".

( portions of survey below. trust me, you really do (not) want to peek )

umm yeah.

my survey is full of added writing. minimal cursing. she stated in the current letter, "you can't let the opposition set the terms of the debate". um. abortion is what?
tell me again, ms. clinton, your precise stance on universal human rights?

If you are one of the millions of Americans who are saying, "no one's listening to me," and if you believe the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have turned a deaf ear to the issues that are important to you, now is the time to help us change things.

change is what?


she wants money, again. and a laminated piece of change or two* is what she can expect to receive.

*kudos to brienf for the inspiration.