Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Discriminating on the grounds of sexuality

Well, here we have another nominee. This time, it's a woman. I think. Hard to tell from the picture that accompanied the article I read. Tracy Jarman, the Fire Chief in San Diego. Jarman, a lesbian, decided that it would be a "fun event" if the fire department would take part in the City's Gay Pride parade.

On a volunteer basis, of course. Oh, except for those firefighters who say they were ordered to attend. But I guess they don't count.

At any rate, at this "fun event", they were subjected to comments from the crowd along the lines of "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". Later, the men allege, when they obviously were not replying in kind, they were subjected to increasingly hostile comments.

And of course they were forced to watch as bystanders rubbed their crotches (their own, I assume and not those of the firemen), blew kisses at the firemen, and so on.

Yeah, that's my idea of a good time. Good clean family fun.

It's bad enough that the men felt as if they were being forced to attend this idiotic bacchanal. But the thought that crossed my mind was that there have been- as yet- no repercussions for Jarman, who clearly subjected these men to a hostile environment. If she were a man, and this was a parade celebrating heterosexuality, then the fire chief would have already been dismissed from the job. But of course, she's both a woman and a lesbian. Therefore, she's safe. Because we all know that women are incapable of sexual harassment, and of course no lesbian could (or would) ever discriminate against men.

Realistically, I wonder if she knows that she likely only got the job because as a lesbian, she hit the jackpot- a minority on two counts, her gender and her sexuality. But I have no doubt she's well aware of it- her status is far too useful for someone looking for an appointed job in government.

None of which is to imply that she's completely unqualified. She might be terrific, and could have been the best candidate out there. But of course, one of the wonders of "affirmative action" and similar programs is that there's always that lingering doubt. More likely, she was a slightly qualified candidate, who's skills were exceeded by any number of heterosexual white men, but she was picked over them.

At any rate, she clearly is lacking in judgement. As I said, if this were a male putting this kind of pressure on gays or women in his department, he would be lynched. But she'll likely get away with it. My best hope is that the men will win their lawsuit, and the City will be forced to apologize and promise never to subject anyone to such harassment again. But this being California, I wouldn't bet on any of that happening.

So for volunteering some of her subordinates to take part in an event which is completely based in sexuality, where one man yelled at them "blow my hose"- a clearly inappropriate sexual comment- I nominate Chief Tracy Jarman for this week's "WTF were they thinking?' award.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Praise the Lord and mount the rape stand

Michael Vick is on a roll. Not only did he win the prestigious "WTF were they thinking?" award for his little hobby of cruelly torturing and killing dogs for his own entertainment, but his story gets better. Right after Vick won, placing himself in such esteemed company as Dhimmi Carter and NASA; Emmitt Smith, another football player, got himself nominated for suggesting Vick was being charged so that the Feds could nab a couple of Vick's buddies.

And now we have another Vick related nominee. Via WithLeather, a great sports website, we now have the story of a group that supports Vick. No that's not strong enough. It's a group whose leader, Charles Steele, said last week "We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being... We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."

So what is this group that regards an accused dog-abuser as "an outstanding human being"?

Why it's the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The group founded by The Greatest American Ever, legendary plagiarist Martin Luther King Jr.

On the surface, it would appear that they're acting out of good old Christian morality- the desire to save the soul of a "man" who has shown no interest (to my knowledge) in being saved. But I think the key is in the above quote: "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us".

Call me a cynical bastard (and you won't be the first) but when I read that, what I saw was "we will work with anyone who opens their wallet to us". It seems to be a trend in the Black Christian community- fork over some money, and voila! You're now one of The Good Guys.
After all, didn't Jesus say "it's easier for a rich man to pass the gates of heaven than anyone else, if they just open their wallets to me"?

No, this one bugs me. It just feels like they're soliciting money from him, in order to grant absolution for his sins/crimes. And even if I'm wrong(!), I don't know that he's asked for their prayers. And given that one of their other heroes, adulterer and traitor Bubba Clinton used the Southern Baptist community to make points when he was in trouble, it seems to me that the SCLC has gone the way of the old Catholic Church- the one that prompted the real Martin Luther to launch the Reformation- and is giving indulgences to anyone that will toss them a few shillings.

So let's bow our heads in honor of the SCLC and it's leader Charles Steele, and reverently ask them "WTF were you thinking?"

Sunday, August 05, 2007

I think I'm in love

Gonna send this to my sister. I've been trying to explain to her that Engler, whatever his flaws, left office years ago and that Jen-Jen has done NOTHING for Michigan since she was elected, but no dice.

It's John Engler's fault.

Hat tip to