http://www.reverbnation.com/suejeffers
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Dr Sues Talking Fracking Blues
We are here from oklahoma to frack up your town
to poison your water, shake up your ground
buy up you statehouses, and EPA , news
the attorney general and governor too
and write laws that say
you can't know what we do
we're chesapeake.
Vampires
thanks for inviting us in!
what's in the water? Don't worry your head
chances are good that you won't end up dead til
our profit's been made and we've
pulled up the stakes
left you with land that our work has disgraced
left you with underground toxified lakes
olympic sized
environmentally friendly!
And perfectly safe to drink.
car-cin-o-gens and some mutagens too
and more that we just don't know what they will do
all mixed together and floating about
shoved underground, well, until it comes out
no realtor will touch it, it won't pass inspection
the banks that we own will not give grant an exception
but the profits we make
mmm, it's enough to give us all an erection
and there's still some left over to buy the election
what's in the water? Do you still persist?
It would damage our image to give you a list
we will tell a few if you're going to insist
listen closely
it's balderdash
a little thing we like to call public relations
tetramethyl ammonium chloride is one
and napthalene. Napthalene always is fun
and a lot of these chemicals are found in your house
and just like the poison you put down for the mouse
you always drink everything found on your shelves
ammonium persulfate is good for your health
petroleum distillate, hydrotreated lite
you may well be having with dinner tonight
we'll frack up your farmland and frack up your woods
and all that complaining will do you no good
cuz we've bought up you statehouses, the EPA ,news
the attorney general and governor too
and write laws that say
you can't know what we do
and you can't talk about it if we've done it to you
we'll lie and we'll lie and we'll lie and we'll lie
and your dr can't tell you what's making you die
five million gallons of water per frack
and we frack it so hard that there's no coming back
but we'll say its all the same
just like field irrigation
yeah, its just like watering the golf course
5 million gallons of water thats ruined
we'll conflate with the water new yorkers consume
in 8 minutes time and just hope that its clean
instead of being mixed up with Toluene
it's balderdash
it's marketing! Xylene, it's whats for dinner
come on down
we're here to create the "jobs of the future" for you frakin community! Yes, we're creating a demand, spurring new growth in exciting fields! You can never have enough radiologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, undertakers, toxic remediation teams. How would you fancy running a water bottling company? opportunities are endless! fire fighters for those emergency times when you try to use that thing that used to turn on the water- what was that again? A faucet?. We're helping make nebulizers and asthma medication a growth industry – our stockholders will thank us. And finally we are leading the way in spurring new growth in the construction industry. You're welcome for the earthquakes. This has been a public service announcement. With mandolin.
to poison your water, shake up your ground
buy up you statehouses, and EPA , news
the attorney general and governor too
and write laws that say
you can't know what we do
we're chesapeake.
Vampires
thanks for inviting us in!
what's in the water? Don't worry your head
chances are good that you won't end up dead til
our profit's been made and we've
pulled up the stakes
left you with land that our work has disgraced
left you with underground toxified lakes
olympic sized
environmentally friendly!
And perfectly safe to drink.
car-cin-o-gens and some mutagens too
and more that we just don't know what they will do
all mixed together and floating about
shoved underground, well, until it comes out
no realtor will touch it, it won't pass inspection
the banks that we own will not give grant an exception
but the profits we make
mmm, it's enough to give us all an erection
and there's still some left over to buy the election
what's in the water? Do you still persist?
It would damage our image to give you a list
we will tell a few if you're going to insist
listen closely
it's balderdash
a little thing we like to call public relations
tetramethyl ammonium chloride is one
and napthalene. Napthalene always is fun
and a lot of these chemicals are found in your house
and just like the poison you put down for the mouse
you always drink everything found on your shelves
ammonium persulfate is good for your health
petroleum distillate, hydrotreated lite
you may well be having with dinner tonight
we'll frack up your farmland and frack up your woods
and all that complaining will do you no good
cuz we've bought up you statehouses, the EPA ,news
the attorney general and governor too
and write laws that say
you can't know what we do
and you can't talk about it if we've done it to you
we'll lie and we'll lie and we'll lie and we'll lie
and your dr can't tell you what's making you die
five million gallons of water per frack
and we frack it so hard that there's no coming back
but we'll say its all the same
just like field irrigation
yeah, its just like watering the golf course
5 million gallons of water thats ruined
we'll conflate with the water new yorkers consume
in 8 minutes time and just hope that its clean
instead of being mixed up with Toluene
it's balderdash
it's marketing! Xylene, it's whats for dinner
come on down
we're here to create the "jobs of the future" for you frakin community! Yes, we're creating a demand, spurring new growth in exciting fields! You can never have enough radiologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, undertakers, toxic remediation teams. How would you fancy running a water bottling company? opportunities are endless! fire fighters for those emergency times when you try to use that thing that used to turn on the water- what was that again? A faucet?. We're helping make nebulizers and asthma medication a growth industry – our stockholders will thank us. And finally we are leading the way in spurring new growth in the construction industry. You're welcome for the earthquakes. This has been a public service announcement. With mandolin.
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
so you're planning out the budget
for the coming fiscal year
and your workers are complaining
that their rent is in arrears
and their dr. bills and gasoline
to get their ass to work
is more than you've allotted
so now food is a perk
they're talking bout a living wage
and refuse to understand
it isn't in the books to fill their
grasping greedy hands
the CEO won't stand for it
and neither will the board
so they upped his pay 9 million more
as his cost cutting reward
ch:
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to e member of the corporatocracy
a living wage would break you
and your stockholders would scream
a whole 15 bucks an hour
that just seems a bit extreme
and you had to pay the lobbyists
and lobbyists ain't cheap
300 bucks an hour worth
to fight the workers' greed
your congressman he gets it
and he's going to help you out
a million here, a million there
can really buy some clout
he says leave it to the market
and to keep that market free
to keep the workers insecure
and keep them on their knees
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to be member of the corporatocracy
you think that they'd be happy
with their generous compensation
18 thousand bucks a year and
half a week vacation
Your child's 7th birthday only cost you
twice that much
you think that they'd be happy
they get discounts buying lunch
so fight on you fearless warriors
against a u.s. living wage
fire the agitators and make sure
your lobby pays
some congressmen agree with you
and go farther even still
they say do away with minimum wage
and your coffers they will fill
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to be member of the corporatocracy
copyleft 2013 sue jeffers
all rights reserved, all lefts encouraged
for the coming fiscal year
and your workers are complaining
that their rent is in arrears
and their dr. bills and gasoline
to get their ass to work
is more than you've allotted
so now food is a perk
they're talking bout a living wage
and refuse to understand
it isn't in the books to fill their
grasping greedy hands
the CEO won't stand for it
and neither will the board
so they upped his pay 9 million more
as his cost cutting reward
ch:
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to e member of the corporatocracy
a living wage would break you
and your stockholders would scream
a whole 15 bucks an hour
that just seems a bit extreme
and you had to pay the lobbyists
and lobbyists ain't cheap
300 bucks an hour worth
to fight the workers' greed
your congressman he gets it
and he's going to help you out
a million here, a million there
can really buy some clout
he says leave it to the market
and to keep that market free
to keep the workers insecure
and keep them on their knees
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to be member of the corporatocracy
you think that they'd be happy
with their generous compensation
18 thousand bucks a year and
half a week vacation
Your child's 7th birthday only cost you
twice that much
you think that they'd be happy
they get discounts buying lunch
so fight on you fearless warriors
against a u.s. living wage
fire the agitators and make sure
your lobby pays
some congressmen agree with you
and go farther even still
they say do away with minimum wage
and your coffers they will fill
you net 300 times your average worker's salary
you're keeping out the unions and your tax bills close to free
20 billion yearly profits is the way it's s'posed to be
it's great to be member of the corporatocracy
copyleft 2013 sue jeffers
all rights reserved, all lefts encouraged
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Ex-Gray Pride Week
I think I've recycled my hair since the last time I put henna on my head. Perhaps this week will be my "Ex-Gray Pride!" week, in which I color my hair then demand everyone stop noticing that I am an ex-gray rather than a 32 year old.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
OH Officials ordered to recognize gay couple's marriage
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ohio-officials-ordered-to-recognize-gay-couples-marriage
Addressing the constitutional question, Black explained, “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”
Addressing the constitutional question, Black explained, “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Join my new group Americans for the Truth About Crayons
What is it with these crayons in this new box i just got? who the hell put all these fake "crayons" in my box. i know what colors they're supposed to come in - and i'm sorry, but Mauvelous Mauve ,atomic tangerine, banana mania? crayola can call them what they want, but they will never be real crayons. even worse, the color changeup line is shaking its fist at god- won't someone think of the children? insidiously, they even named one baby's blanket - have they no shame, using our precious baby's to push their perverse trans-color agenda. don't get me started on those glitter filled abominations some may call "crayons", but i know better. and those heads n tails "crayons" along with the extreme twistable colors don't even look like crayons. mark my words, if crayola continues to mock Minerva, she's going to destroy us all to avenge the marketing dept.'s hubris.
We need to fight this horrific slide towards artistic diversity and fake "crayons" being foisted upon us, but we're expected to simply shut up and let it happen. Don't worry, it won't impact you if there are freakishly long, twistable abominations being marketed as "crayons". Poppycock! You can tell the goddesses are pissed - if you need any more proof how it is impacting the entire art world, simply turn on top 40 radio these days and listen to what we are expected to accept as "music" - the movie companies have been recycling bad television series into even worse "movies" for years, and remaking classic films into "movies" from the land of thud. If you need more proof, it seems that the goddesses lifted their protection from the painting world as well, allowing Picasso’s 1971 Harlequin Head; Monet’s 1901 Waterloo Bridge, London and Charing Cross Bridge, London; Matisse’s 1919 Reading Girl in White and Yellow; Paul Gauguin’s 1898 Girl in Front of Open Window; Meyer de Haan’s Self-Portrait, around 1890; and Lucian Freud’s 2002 work Woman With Eyes Closed -- to be stolen and most possibly burned in a stove
I myself have been afflicted with lyric writers block - Brigit has teamed up with Eris and are punishing me for not having started this effort earlier. So what I need you to do is help me set the world aright. But don't get me wrong - we are not anti-Twistable "crayons" - just pro-crayon, like the goddesses intended. Even crayola knows what they've done - admitting that they have strayed from what we all know are TRUE crayons- describing them as " the classic kids' art tool. They are the colors generations have grown up with - from red, yellow, and blue to gold, copper and silver, too! Crayola Crayons are designed with a focus on true color, smoothness, and durability."
The most insidious part about this dangerous experimentation with children's art supplies, is that the purveyors of faux "crayons" are targeting our children! If you look at their website, they have pictures of youngsters all over the place, tempting them to stray from tradition - from what everyone knows, and what common sense dictates - that real crayons come in a 24-96 count cardboard fliptop box, are only one, solid color.
I need your help, and more importantly lots of cash to defeat the forces of multi-colorism, who are attempting to shove their abominable art sticks into our fingers, and more insidiously, into the hands of our children. Together we can make this right - Demand One Color, One Crayon! Just the other night, I was at a warehouse, and groups of long-haired men were unloading crates of dry erase "crayons", washable "crayons", and glitter filled sticks of doom - all destined for our children's school desks and even reaching into the sanctity of their playrooms at home!
Next thing you know, the muses will allow both Miley Cyrus, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake all in the Billboard Top 10 in the same week. Please - join the Americans for Truth About Crayons now, before Minerva puts down her traditional crayon, just like they have always been made, One Color, One Crayon - and picks up her spear and pokes america in the eye with it.
We need to fight this horrific slide towards artistic diversity and fake "crayons" being foisted upon us, but we're expected to simply shut up and let it happen. Don't worry, it won't impact you if there are freakishly long, twistable abominations being marketed as "crayons". Poppycock! You can tell the goddesses are pissed - if you need any more proof how it is impacting the entire art world, simply turn on top 40 radio these days and listen to what we are expected to accept as "music" - the movie companies have been recycling bad television series into even worse "movies" for years, and remaking classic films into "movies" from the land of thud. If you need more proof, it seems that the goddesses lifted their protection from the painting world as well, allowing Picasso’s 1971 Harlequin Head; Monet’s 1901 Waterloo Bridge, London and Charing Cross Bridge, London; Matisse’s 1919 Reading Girl in White and Yellow; Paul Gauguin’s 1898 Girl in Front of Open Window; Meyer de Haan’s Self-Portrait, around 1890; and Lucian Freud’s 2002 work Woman With Eyes Closed -- to be stolen and most possibly burned in a stove
I myself have been afflicted with lyric writers block - Brigit has teamed up with Eris and are punishing me for not having started this effort earlier. So what I need you to do is help me set the world aright. But don't get me wrong - we are not anti-Twistable "crayons" - just pro-crayon, like the goddesses intended. Even crayola knows what they've done - admitting that they have strayed from what we all know are TRUE crayons- describing them as " the classic kids' art tool. They are the colors generations have grown up with - from red, yellow, and blue to gold, copper and silver, too! Crayola Crayons are designed with a focus on true color, smoothness, and durability."
The most insidious part about this dangerous experimentation with children's art supplies, is that the purveyors of faux "crayons" are targeting our children! If you look at their website, they have pictures of youngsters all over the place, tempting them to stray from tradition - from what everyone knows, and what common sense dictates - that real crayons come in a 24-96 count cardboard fliptop box, are only one, solid color.
I need your help, and more importantly lots of cash to defeat the forces of multi-colorism, who are attempting to shove their abominable art sticks into our fingers, and more insidiously, into the hands of our children. Together we can make this right - Demand One Color, One Crayon! Just the other night, I was at a warehouse, and groups of long-haired men were unloading crates of dry erase "crayons", washable "crayons", and glitter filled sticks of doom - all destined for our children's school desks and even reaching into the sanctity of their playrooms at home!
Next thing you know, the muses will allow both Miley Cyrus, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake all in the Billboard Top 10 in the same week. Please - join the Americans for Truth About Crayons now, before Minerva puts down her traditional crayon, just like they have always been made, One Color, One Crayon - and picks up her spear and pokes america in the eye with it.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Honest, this proves we're not a hate group
More from the "if i say i'm doing this because of my sincere christian belief there is no way it could be wrong" crowd.
from the mission america website- (order of text is from the original) leaves me wondering what the author considers to be a "reasonable person".
Mission America is not a hate group, as claimed by the far-left SPLC. In fact, based on how the SPLC has begun listing respected Christian conservative groups as if they could be compared with the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, it seems that the SPLC would qualify for this label itself by using such underhanded and invalid tactics. Linda Harvey has pointed out many times that this is a deliberate and puzzling smear campaign, since there's no record of what reasonable people would consider...Read More>> Protecting Youth Against Homosexuality: A Plan for Churches
Friday, July 19, 2013
why does the illinois "family" institute hate adopted kids and their parents?
So. Now god hates adoptive parents. The ill-named Illinois "Family" Organization wants you to know that, and also, adoption is a form of child abuse. Any time a child is "intentionally deprived its biological mother or father", it is dooming that child to substandard results, and is the act of a selfish adult. It is a newly discovered outrage, now that they are aware of the FACT that families headed by non-heterosexual couples exist. Along with some other, um, interesting concepts - the outraged author asks - Does the Constitution prohibit citizens from having their religious beliefs shape their political decisions?
This question is not simply implying that the fact they are losing politically means they are being repressed - it also is a demand that this particular gang of evangelical christians be exempt from sanction if they claim religious motivation for any crime they may commit. Sounds ridiculous, but in california, their political cousins are attempting to raise enough signatures to put language on the ballot to make it legal to bash a sodomite for jesus. they don't like fornicators or furriers either.
What the author is saying is that religious freedom means he is free to do whatever he wants, so long as he blames it on his religion.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Denial and Delusion. Same as it ever was......
It is all about the children. oh, who will protect the children from the reality that their parents are kind of sort of assholes? the blight of those pesky feds telling people how to deal with their coloreds and homosexuals is nothing new.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Israeli PM threatens to strike Iran - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Israeli PM threatens to strike Iran - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
If all nations used the logic of the US & Israel, Iran would be perfectly within their rights to bomb Israel at any time now. clearly, a nation making threats of aggression on a regular basis, that has a proven track record of military aggression is an approved target using the faux-golden rule
If all nations used the logic of the US & Israel, Iran would be perfectly within their rights to bomb Israel at any time now. clearly, a nation making threats of aggression on a regular basis, that has a proven track record of military aggression is an approved target using the faux-golden rule
Syria crisis worst since Rwanda, UN says - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
".......Ivan Simonovic, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, told the meeting that at least 92,901 people were killed in Syria - among them more than 6,500 children - between March 2011 and the end of April 2013.rest of the article at
"The extremely high rate of killings nowadays - approximately 5,000 a month - demonstrates the drastic deterioration of the conflict," Simonovic told the council meeting.
Guterres said that two-thirds of the nearly 1.8m refugees registered with the UN in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere had left Syria since the beginning of the year.
Merging battlefieldsThe UN envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, later gave warning that escalating violence in Iraq could no longer be separated from the war in Syria because "the battlefields are merging".
Kobler said Iraqi armed groups had an increasingly active presence in Syria and as a result, the Syrian conflict is no longer just spilling over into Iraq, but Iraqis are reportedly taking arms against each other inside Syria........."
Syria crisis worst since Rwanda, UN says - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
because being disagreed with is just like genocide
So, someone over at the anglican (sic)mainstream website feels so put upon by having to put up with people they think are icky being issued civil marriage licenses, that they are sure it is just like millions being slaughtered in a genocidal fascist campaign. They were crass enough to set martin niemoller's quote below a heading - "to think about ssm, july 2013'.
These are the same folks who say to "approach" homosexuality as a rebellion against god, against humanity, and that people with "homosexual feelings" should be shamed into realizing how hideous and satan inspired they are, and to be coerced and derided into "overcoming" it. Who sent the prime minister a letter including the regnerus study, claiming it proved how bad homos are for children.
So of course - as the final steps towards extending equality in marriage law in great britain are being taken, those who are used to being catered to are screaming about no longer being granted preference over "those kind of people". They are new to this non-entitled reality, and seem to lack the language appropriate to describing their new, and apparently confusing, situation. As a public service, I have custom tailored a more appropriate catch phrase for the movement:
First they disagreed with the British National Party, and i did not speak out because i was not a member of their group. then they derided the policies of the National Front, and i joined in, as i belonged to a rival party. then they looked askance at the new british union, and i did not speak out cuz they had that mormon working for them. Then they laughed at me and told me i couldn't have my way! and there was no one left to feel sorry for me.Because people disagreeing with you, especially when you feel entitled to be catered to, is exactly like a genocide. right.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
gluttons for evangelical supremecy file CA amendment
So,there is a renewed interest in this silly thing It seems the authors make the surprisingly common "mistake" of conflating the concept of religion with their particular brand of fundamentalist christianity - but the sheer disconnect of the following is distressing: below is what the authors want, but apparently were advised was just too obtuse: language strikeout in original - codifying exemption from apparently every conceivable law, just so long as the perpetrator really reeeaaalllly wanted to do it, (and god , as usual, agreed with them)
and replace it with explicit instances and people they expect to be permitted to harass and discriminate against in any way they care to, even up to breaching the peace and safety of the state. they don't include a demand to be free to murder their rebellious children, but mark my words, you know how the talebangicals like a slippery slope - let them get away with this and they'll be stoning their brats within a fortnight.
"(b) We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to perpetuate His blessings do submit that it is not a crime, hate crime or unlawful for a person to use any part of the Bible’s content as authority; and do submit that a person using any part of the Bible’s content as authority may freely speak, pray, write, discuss, publish, preach, teach, hear, share his or her faith, to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, engage in street witnessing, distribute written material or otherwise communicate any views on salvation, heaven, or abortion, adultery, alcoholism, anti-Semitism, astrology, bestiality, bigamy, bisexuality, blasphemy, civil unions, coarse jesting, cohabitation, coveting, cross-dressing, cults, drugs, drunkenness, extortion, euthanasia, evil, evolution, fornication, gay marriage, gender identity, hell, heresy, homosexuality, idolaters, idolatry, incest, lying, marriage, murder, necromancy, other religions, pornography, psychics, rape, reviling, sex, sexual immorality, sexual orientation, sodomy, sorcery, stealing, transgender, trans-sexuality, witchcraft, yoga, or sin at any public or private gatherings, school, church, or other place of worship, Bible Study group or sidewalk or in any communicative medium, the internet, satellite, television, film, theater, radio, videos, recording, newspapers, magazines, music, and periodicals or by means of a computer, electronic devise, telephone, cell phone or fax machine."
Because we all know, the meaning of "religious freedom" is the freedom for everyone to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. oh yeah, and to hold forth about how hideous every other "religion" is. looks like i can still get away with carrying a shrubbery across state lines. thank goodness.
and what the fuck? they don't give a shit if people swear? what kind of fucking christian watchdogs are they? hmm? what caused that lapse? could it be, SATAN?
Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
and replace it with explicit instances and people they expect to be permitted to harass and discriminate against in any way they care to, even up to breaching the peace and safety of the state. they don't include a demand to be free to murder their rebellious children, but mark my words, you know how the talebangicals like a slippery slope - let them get away with this and they'll be stoning their brats within a fortnight.
"(b) We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to perpetuate His blessings do submit that it is not a crime, hate crime or unlawful for a person to use any part of the Bible’s content as authority; and do submit that a person using any part of the Bible’s content as authority may freely speak, pray, write, discuss, publish, preach, teach, hear, share his or her faith, to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, engage in street witnessing, distribute written material or otherwise communicate any views on salvation, heaven, or abortion, adultery, alcoholism, anti-Semitism, astrology, bestiality, bigamy, bisexuality, blasphemy, civil unions, coarse jesting, cohabitation, coveting, cross-dressing, cults, drugs, drunkenness, extortion, euthanasia, evil, evolution, fornication, gay marriage, gender identity, hell, heresy, homosexuality, idolaters, idolatry, incest, lying, marriage, murder, necromancy, other religions, pornography, psychics, rape, reviling, sex, sexual immorality, sexual orientation, sodomy, sorcery, stealing, transgender, trans-sexuality, witchcraft, yoga, or sin at any public or private gatherings, school, church, or other place of worship, Bible Study group or sidewalk or in any communicative medium, the internet, satellite, television, film, theater, radio, videos, recording, newspapers, magazines, music, and periodicals or by means of a computer, electronic devise, telephone, cell phone or fax machine."
Because we all know, the meaning of "religious freedom" is the freedom for everyone to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. oh yeah, and to hold forth about how hideous every other "religion" is. looks like i can still get away with carrying a shrubbery across state lines. thank goodness.
and what the fuck? they don't give a shit if people swear? what kind of fucking christian watchdogs are they? hmm? what caused that lapse? could it be, SATAN?
today in lying liars
Lie 1 - NOM et al: Prop 8 is still the law in CA, and all govt officials, including the supreme court are in violation of 'murkin law - and therefor the state does not allow for marriage equality
Reality: Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by the federal courts (original trial as well as the appeal). The supreme court did not grant standing to the professional antigay folk, and the lower court rulings are in effect.
Lie 2 - The PA state attorney general is in breach of contract and illegally declining to defend the state's DOMA - the supporting argument for the above lie about Prop 8, insisting that the state attorney general broke the law by agreeing with the fed courts ruling and declining to waste money defending what they see as unconstitutional
Reality: nowhere in the state code or constitution could i find language that said the AG MUST intervene when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged - it does say the AG MAY intervene, but is not required.
Lie 3: Eugene Delusional Delgadio sent out yet another breathless but false email warning people that if they don't send him money, that " Instead of allowing an employer the freedom to judge applicants on their expertise, appearance and actions, the federal government wants you to play by new rules."
Reality: The employment nondescrimination act does nothing to limit employers from firing employees for cause, or force employers to hire lgbt workers to meet some quota or give preference to anyone. Rather than eliminating that ability, it adds lgbt workers to the list of folks - including mr. delgadio for his chosen religious philosophy- who cannot be fired for reasons not related to their work performance (i.e. being a satanic pawn in the "homosexual lifestyle")
Instead of allowing an employer the freedom to judge applicants on their expertise, appearance and actions, the federal government wants you to play by new rules.
Monday, July 01, 2013
more "oppression" from the courts
the parents of an encinitas school child sued the district in an attempt to ban yoga classes from being part of the schools exercise routine. they claimed it was religious indoctrination
Saturday, June 29, 2013
so the anti gay groups are using the
so the anti gay groups are using the mark regnerus study to lie again. and this time it is obvious that the authors really have no idea how to interpret data, and/ or are counting on their readers to have no idea how ridiculous their assertions are. Bryan Fischer of the american family ass. pretends that the new family structure study was proven to be a great piece of research and all true - rather than the University of Texas simply finding no overt misconduct as defined in their handbook, but that
Somehow, Mr.Fischer comes up with the notion that the Regnerus study proves that gays and lesbians parents are dangerous - most likely molesting their children, or at least somehow causing someone else to molest their children. Putting aside the FACT that the study did not look at lesbian or gay parents - we'll play lets pretend it did. what does the data actually say ? For one thing, it does not ask who forced themselves on the respondent, where it happened, when it happened. This study also is not generalizable to the larger population - you can't look at the results and make claims about the population of the United States. It is designed to be used by propagandists speaking to people who have little or no knowledge of how to read data results. People like Fischer- who claims that children who have gay fathers are molested at 300% the rate of children of heterosexuals, based on a sample size of 73 people in a deeply flawed "study". The study does not look at gay fathers in the first place, but even if the data could be trusted, the table below shows the actual comparison between those reporting a non-hetero parental romantic relationship and those saying they were not aware of any such thing. It in no way "proves" that a parent's sexual orientation causes the child to be molested, as Fischer claims.
The other ridiculous claims are addressed in a previous post as well as by numerous serious professional researchers.
Using the worthless dataset in the same manner as the american family ass. does, the following must be true about the U.S. population.
20% of the population has never masturbated
63% of the population is female
only 3% of the population has ever been divorced
a 20 year old in the study has 15 children
0.2% of the population is widowed
Whether the research designed and conducted by Prof Renerus and reported in Social Science Research possessed significant limitations or was even perhaps seriously flawed is a determination that should be left to debates that are currently underway in the academy and future research the validates or invalidates his findings.
Somehow, Mr.Fischer comes up with the notion that the Regnerus study proves that gays and lesbians parents are dangerous - most likely molesting their children, or at least somehow causing someone else to molest their children. Putting aside the FACT that the study did not look at lesbian or gay parents - we'll play lets pretend it did. what does the data actually say ? For one thing, it does not ask who forced themselves on the respondent, where it happened, when it happened. This study also is not generalizable to the larger population - you can't look at the results and make claims about the population of the United States. It is designed to be used by propagandists speaking to people who have little or no knowledge of how to read data results. People like Fischer- who claims that children who have gay fathers are molested at 300% the rate of children of heterosexuals, based on a sample size of 73 people in a deeply flawed "study". The study does not look at gay fathers in the first place, but even if the data could be trusted, the table below shows the actual comparison between those reporting a non-hetero parental romantic relationship and those saying they were not aware of any such thing. It in no way "proves" that a parent's sexual orientation causes the child to be molested, as Fischer claims.
The other ridiculous claims are addressed in a previous post as well as by numerous serious professional researchers.
Using the worthless dataset in the same manner as the american family ass. does, the following must be true about the U.S. population.
20% of the population has never masturbated
63% of the population is female
only 3% of the population has ever been divorced
a 20 year old in the study has 15 children
0.2% of the population is widowed
Sunday, June 02, 2013
one of my favorite explanations of entitlement
one of my favorite explanations of entitlement
'And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.
-David Gaider-Bioware
Saturday, June 01, 2013
Help make Ohio a Marriage Equality State!
Help make Ohio a Marriage Equality State!
In 2004, Ohio voted to ban gays and lesbians from legally marrying the person they love, and to deny their families the privileges and protections taken for granted by their heterosexual neighbors. This year, we have the opportunity to correct that mistake and repeal the Ohio "Defense" (sic) of Marriage Amendment. Ballot language has been approved,and petitions are being circulated to place repeal language on the November ballot.
Your support is needed to move the campaign forward - Together we can help Ohio join the 12 states who recognize the families of their gay, bisexual and lesbian citizens. If you can volunteer time and skills, https://freedomohio.com/ will help get you started. Your financial support will help keep the campaign going. follow the link https://freedomohio.com/give/2891
In 2004, Ohio voted to ban gays and lesbians from legally marrying the person they love, and to deny their families the privileges and protections taken for granted by their heterosexual neighbors. This year, we have the opportunity to correct that mistake and repeal the Ohio "Defense" (sic) of Marriage Amendment. Ballot language has been approved,and petitions are being circulated to place repeal language on the November ballot.
Your support is needed to move the campaign forward - Together we can help Ohio join the 12 states who recognize the families of their gay, bisexual and lesbian citizens. If you can volunteer time and skills, https://freedomohio.com/ will help get you started. Your financial support will help keep the campaign going. follow the link https://freedomohio.com/give/2891
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Mark Regnerus methodological failures and breach of AAPOR ethical guidelines in NFSS
One need not look past the high school level methodological failures in this "research" paper to discard it as the toilet paper it is. I hope that if he ever bothered to join the professional organization tasked with standards in social science research that they have removed him from the roles for gross intentional breach of ethics and scholarship.
The first article I reviewed was published in Social Science Research 41, no. 4(2012) by Mark Regnerus, "How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study."
The target population for this survey was adults in the United States from the ages 18-39. The data was collected by Knowledge Networks, described as an online survey company that maintains a panel randomly recruited via phone and mail surveys with no self selection allowed. The sampling frame does not exclude those without phones or computers/online access. Computers and/or online access were provided when necessary. Details regarding response rates ,completion rates, panel recruitment are not included in this article, but readers are directed to contact Knowledge Networks for the information. Selected demographics from the sample are compared to the Current Population Survey, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, National Survey of Family Growth, and the National Study of Youth and Religion. Not being familiar with any of those surveys, the chart is not particularly helpful for me in the scope of this assessment.
The author's intent was to compare outcomes of children raised by non-heterosexual parents to children whose birth parents (both contributed genetic material) never divorced to outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents. This necessitated locating children who were raised by gay fathers and/or lesbian mothers, and in an attempt to do so a screening process was applied to the larger sample to increase the numbers of those sub-populations. The screening process lasted from July 2011 and February 2012, in order to attempt to locate current panelists and recruit new panelists. The screening process is not described. Former panelists were also contacted to attempt to find more respondents for the sub-populations of children who were adopted before the age of 2, as well as those who could answer the question "From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?" affirmatively.
It is reported that after screening a total of 15,058 panelists, 2988 total surveys were completed with the author's key sub-populations of interest including 163 respondents coded as LM (respondent had lesbian mother) and 75 coded as GF (respondent had gay father), and 101 respondents reporting that they were adopted before the age of 2. It is not clear how the quota for sub-populations was determined, or if time constraints finally determined the cutoff. No response rate is included, and it is not made clear how large the potential pool of respondents was following the screening process. A within survey response rate of 65% is reported as an average for Knowledge Network surveys, but none is reported for this particular survey. The survey was completed by respondents online, with computer access provided for those who needed it.
The sponsor of the project is not listed, and incomplete information is provided for all of the funding sources. Two key sponsors are identified as the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. The design team was assembled from family researchers from Penn State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, University of Virginia, as well as the hosting university and home of the principal investigator, University of Texas at Austin. The external consultants are not identified, but the reader is assured that the funding organizations were not involved in any way with the survey, beyond providing financial support.
This report becomes somewhat problematic once best practices are addressed. The purpose of the study seems to be to address results of existing (mostly qualitative) research that show little or no difference in outcomes for children of non-heterosexual parents when compared to their counterparts who were raised by heterosexuals, by collecting a large, nationally representative random sample. A further concern seems to be the absence of studies that show that gay and lesbian parents are qualitatively inferior to heterosexual parents who both contribute genetic material to the child. The dataset was meant to gather information from adult offspring of gays and lesbians, 18-39, about their experiences, as opposed to existing studies that interviewed parents who self identified as being part of a gay or lesbian headed families. The youngest respondent turned 18 in 2011. Unfortunately, the concepts are poorly operationalized in the design, and although data was collected, it does not capture what the author claims to be looking at. Despite the recognition in section 1.1, that "Any claims about a population based on a group that does not represent it will be distorted ", that is exactly what the research design and even more so, the report proceeded to do.
The author has put all respondents into 8 different categories, that he refers to as family-of-origin structure/and or experience. These categories are based on the now adult child's answers to screening questions and measure the respondent's perceptions. IBF – intact biological family , LM – lesbian mother, GF -gay father, Adopted, Divorced, Stepfamily. Single parent, All Others. In creating these variables, he is conflating family structure or configuration – two parent ,one parent, married, divorced, adopted – with categories of LM and GF, which are based entirely on an affirmative answer to the question
''From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?'' Response choices were ''Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman,'' ''Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man,'' or ''no.
In order to boost the numbers in those hard to find categories of LM and GF– second order information on a child's understanding of their parents' "romantic relationships", categories were made mutually exclusive – with all respondents with "lesbian" and "gay" parents being placed in the LM and GF categories regardless of the family structure (single, married, adopted before the age of 2, divorced, other). On top of the conceptual error of treating the LM or GF category as a family structure, it also created only one category – the LM category – made up of exclusively female headed households. The rest of the 7 categories are a mix of male and female headed households. When discussing the sub-optimal outcomes that seem most pronounced for children in the LM category (and contradict the majority of existing research), there is no recognition of this fact, nor the possibility what is actually being measured is the difference between single female headed households and every other configuration including male headed households.
I find the language "romantic relationship" to be problematic, a notion with no clear cut, universally understood meaning. What is described by the author as a key population of interest (children of non heterosexual parents) is constructed using second order information in response to a poorly worded question. The findings report that more respondents mothers everhad "a romantic relationship" with another woman than were adopted, as well as more than children of divorced parents. At one point in the report the number of respondents coded as LM is 175, later in the paper it is 163. Twelve respondents report that both their mother and father had ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex and were coded to increase the numbers in the so called gay father category.
Although the author acknowledges that comparing outcomes of households supported by single mothers to two parent /never divorced households is unfair, that is the method of analysis that is employed – in fact it seems to be the focus and purpose of the study. A list of what is referred to as outcomes are run against LM and IBF categories, and the author cautions that causation cannot be assigned, he simply wants to "highlight the differences" between the outcomes reported. Some of the concepts categorized as outcomes seem more appropriate as demographic or influences rather than outcomes. There is a set of questions regarding inappropriate sexual contact All respondents were asked if ''a parent or other adult caregiver ever touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sexual relations?'' Possible answers were: no, never; yes, once; yes, more than once; or not sure. A broader measure about forced sex was asked before it, and read as follows: ''Have you ever been physically forced to have any type of sexual activity against your will?' It is implied that the perpetrator could be identified (possibly) by who the child was living with at different times of their lives, but the question does not allow for that process. The question is overly broad – caretaker could be understood as anyone from grandma to someone at a daycare or other temporary custodial situation, and does not ask the location or time period in which the assault occurred. It is beyond the scope of this assignment to address the tone and politically motivated assumptions throughout the report, but it was at times difficult to wade through to find questions of design and process.
I am unable to answer questions of the cost/benefit analysis of the design, whether the questionnaire was pre-tested, or answers regarding data collection methods during the screening survey, or training of Knowledge Networks staff. It is unclear how many respondents were contacted for the actual survey, and I cannot assess the response rate, nor the methods used to convert refusals. It is unclear how, as it is with mail surveys, how to determined if the email invitations were ever seen by the potential interviewees.
The author recognizes that it is difficult to find the population the report wanted to study, and that he could not say that the coding of LM and GF reflect the sexual orientation of the parent, or even the child's perception of their parent's sexual orientation. His fix was to code them as such regardless, and report the findings as data on Lesbian and Gay parents. I found his designations to be confusing in the text, speaking at times of same-sex parent (implying a couple) when there is only one parent being referenced, and at times sounding as if the data reflects the parent, rather than the child of a parent. The underlying assumption being re-enforced throughout the study is that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, and homosexuality is a negative, chosen behavior, and I believe it led to ambiguous and obfuscating language and bad design choices.
More information I feel would be necessary to assess the analysis is a description of the weighting variables. The reader is told that "each case in the NFSS sample was assigned a weight based on the sampling design and their probability of being selected", but not what those might be. Also, one of the control variables in comparisons between children whose mother may have kissed a woman at some point and those who grew up in a family headed by their still married heterosexual (both parents contributed genetic material) was household income. This variable is a second order report of what a child perceived their household income to be when they were growing up. There are too many conceptual /operational disconnects in the variable definitions for me to see this survey to be particularly useful as a scholarly instrument as it exists
The first article I reviewed was published in Social Science Research 41, no. 4(2012) by Mark Regnerus, "How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study."
The target population for this survey was adults in the United States from the ages 18-39. The data was collected by Knowledge Networks, described as an online survey company that maintains a panel randomly recruited via phone and mail surveys with no self selection allowed. The sampling frame does not exclude those without phones or computers/online access. Computers and/or online access were provided when necessary. Details regarding response rates ,completion rates, panel recruitment are not included in this article, but readers are directed to contact Knowledge Networks for the information. Selected demographics from the sample are compared to the Current Population Survey, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, National Survey of Family Growth, and the National Study of Youth and Religion. Not being familiar with any of those surveys, the chart is not particularly helpful for me in the scope of this assessment.
The author's intent was to compare outcomes of children raised by non-heterosexual parents to children whose birth parents (both contributed genetic material) never divorced to outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents. This necessitated locating children who were raised by gay fathers and/or lesbian mothers, and in an attempt to do so a screening process was applied to the larger sample to increase the numbers of those sub-populations. The screening process lasted from July 2011 and February 2012, in order to attempt to locate current panelists and recruit new panelists. The screening process is not described. Former panelists were also contacted to attempt to find more respondents for the sub-populations of children who were adopted before the age of 2, as well as those who could answer the question "From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?" affirmatively.
It is reported that after screening a total of 15,058 panelists, 2988 total surveys were completed with the author's key sub-populations of interest including 163 respondents coded as LM (respondent had lesbian mother) and 75 coded as GF (respondent had gay father), and 101 respondents reporting that they were adopted before the age of 2. It is not clear how the quota for sub-populations was determined, or if time constraints finally determined the cutoff. No response rate is included, and it is not made clear how large the potential pool of respondents was following the screening process. A within survey response rate of 65% is reported as an average for Knowledge Network surveys, but none is reported for this particular survey. The survey was completed by respondents online, with computer access provided for those who needed it.
The sponsor of the project is not listed, and incomplete information is provided for all of the funding sources. Two key sponsors are identified as the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. The design team was assembled from family researchers from Penn State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, University of Virginia, as well as the hosting university and home of the principal investigator, University of Texas at Austin. The external consultants are not identified, but the reader is assured that the funding organizations were not involved in any way with the survey, beyond providing financial support.
This report becomes somewhat problematic once best practices are addressed. The purpose of the study seems to be to address results of existing (mostly qualitative) research that show little or no difference in outcomes for children of non-heterosexual parents when compared to their counterparts who were raised by heterosexuals, by collecting a large, nationally representative random sample. A further concern seems to be the absence of studies that show that gay and lesbian parents are qualitatively inferior to heterosexual parents who both contribute genetic material to the child. The dataset was meant to gather information from adult offspring of gays and lesbians, 18-39, about their experiences, as opposed to existing studies that interviewed parents who self identified as being part of a gay or lesbian headed families. The youngest respondent turned 18 in 2011. Unfortunately, the concepts are poorly operationalized in the design, and although data was collected, it does not capture what the author claims to be looking at. Despite the recognition in section 1.1, that "Any claims about a population based on a group that does not represent it will be distorted ", that is exactly what the research design and even more so, the report proceeded to do.
The author has put all respondents into 8 different categories, that he refers to as family-of-origin structure/and or experience. These categories are based on the now adult child's answers to screening questions and measure the respondent's perceptions. IBF – intact biological family , LM – lesbian mother, GF -gay father, Adopted, Divorced, Stepfamily. Single parent, All Others. In creating these variables, he is conflating family structure or configuration – two parent ,one parent, married, divorced, adopted – with categories of LM and GF, which are based entirely on an affirmative answer to the question
''From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?'' Response choices were ''Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman,'' ''Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man,'' or ''no.
In order to boost the numbers in those hard to find categories of LM and GF– second order information on a child's understanding of their parents' "romantic relationships", categories were made mutually exclusive – with all respondents with "lesbian" and "gay" parents being placed in the LM and GF categories regardless of the family structure (single, married, adopted before the age of 2, divorced, other). On top of the conceptual error of treating the LM or GF category as a family structure, it also created only one category – the LM category – made up of exclusively female headed households. The rest of the 7 categories are a mix of male and female headed households. When discussing the sub-optimal outcomes that seem most pronounced for children in the LM category (and contradict the majority of existing research), there is no recognition of this fact, nor the possibility what is actually being measured is the difference between single female headed households and every other configuration including male headed households.
I find the language "romantic relationship" to be problematic, a notion with no clear cut, universally understood meaning. What is described by the author as a key population of interest (children of non heterosexual parents) is constructed using second order information in response to a poorly worded question. The findings report that more respondents mothers everhad "a romantic relationship" with another woman than were adopted, as well as more than children of divorced parents. At one point in the report the number of respondents coded as LM is 175, later in the paper it is 163. Twelve respondents report that both their mother and father had ever had a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex and were coded to increase the numbers in the so called gay father category.
Although the author acknowledges that comparing outcomes of households supported by single mothers to two parent /never divorced households is unfair, that is the method of analysis that is employed – in fact it seems to be the focus and purpose of the study. A list of what is referred to as outcomes are run against LM and IBF categories, and the author cautions that causation cannot be assigned, he simply wants to "highlight the differences" between the outcomes reported. Some of the concepts categorized as outcomes seem more appropriate as demographic or influences rather than outcomes. There is a set of questions regarding inappropriate sexual contact All respondents were asked if ''a parent or other adult caregiver ever touched you in a sexual way, forced you to touch him or her in a sexual way, or forced you to have sexual relations?'' Possible answers were: no, never; yes, once; yes, more than once; or not sure. A broader measure about forced sex was asked before it, and read as follows: ''Have you ever been physically forced to have any type of sexual activity against your will?' It is implied that the perpetrator could be identified (possibly) by who the child was living with at different times of their lives, but the question does not allow for that process. The question is overly broad – caretaker could be understood as anyone from grandma to someone at a daycare or other temporary custodial situation, and does not ask the location or time period in which the assault occurred. It is beyond the scope of this assignment to address the tone and politically motivated assumptions throughout the report, but it was at times difficult to wade through to find questions of design and process.
I am unable to answer questions of the cost/benefit analysis of the design, whether the questionnaire was pre-tested, or answers regarding data collection methods during the screening survey, or training of Knowledge Networks staff. It is unclear how many respondents were contacted for the actual survey, and I cannot assess the response rate, nor the methods used to convert refusals. It is unclear how, as it is with mail surveys, how to determined if the email invitations were ever seen by the potential interviewees.
The author recognizes that it is difficult to find the population the report wanted to study, and that he could not say that the coding of LM and GF reflect the sexual orientation of the parent, or even the child's perception of their parent's sexual orientation. His fix was to code them as such regardless, and report the findings as data on Lesbian and Gay parents. I found his designations to be confusing in the text, speaking at times of same-sex parent (implying a couple) when there is only one parent being referenced, and at times sounding as if the data reflects the parent, rather than the child of a parent. The underlying assumption being re-enforced throughout the study is that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, and homosexuality is a negative, chosen behavior, and I believe it led to ambiguous and obfuscating language and bad design choices.
More information I feel would be necessary to assess the analysis is a description of the weighting variables. The reader is told that "each case in the NFSS sample was assigned a weight based on the sampling design and their probability of being selected", but not what those might be. Also, one of the control variables in comparisons between children whose mother may have kissed a woman at some point and those who grew up in a family headed by their still married heterosexual (both parents contributed genetic material) was household income. This variable is a second order report of what a child perceived their household income to be when they were growing up. There are too many conceptual /operational disconnects in the variable definitions for me to see this survey to be particularly useful as a scholarly instrument as it exists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)