Okay, what the fuck? The first issue I have with that is that that really doesn't have anything to do with being gay. One parent could be more cautious than the other. Secondly, heterosexual parents could differ in those areas. The father could be the more hesitant and cautious one. Case in point: my parents. My father is very conservative, very cautious with everything. Every decision is planned out. Mom on the other hand just throws caution to the wind, spends money, etc. When she was younger and less of a Nervous Nelly, she'd just pick up and go on long road trips.
And finally, heterosexual parents aren't always of different temperment. Maybe both parents are cautious and reserved. Maybe both are impulsive and outgoing. Who knows?

So, Mr. Ball's statements were totally unfounded, for many different reasons.

I also like the argument that gays shouldn't raise children because their children have a higher tendency to be gay. The argument breaks down when you start to think about it a bit in these terms: what's wrong with being gay? If nothing's wrong with being gay, then why should it matter if children of gay parents are more likely to be gay?

It's like saying that Republicans shouldn't have children because their children are more likely to become Republicans. If there's nothing wrong with being a Republican, then why is it a problem if their children are more likely to become Republicans?
And, of course, Channel 9 has to come up with a relevant story to run on it's 11'oclock news that night, so, they do a story on how it's easier for interracial adoptions to occur in Hamilton County now. *shakes her head in embaressment* Besides not being quite on topic (adoption is quite a broad topic, as is restrictions placed upon adoptions), this bothers me because it's like they're waving their arms in the air and going, "Yay! We're slightly less behind all the rest of the country in terms of race relations AND adoption!"

Puh-lease people.

And turning to race relations....

I'm so...horrified...by some of the actions in this city. It's terrible the kind of crap that goes on. I don't know what makes me more annoyed- the actual discrimination that takes place or the not so subtle attempts to sweept it under the rug by local officials who should most definitely know better. Case in point: the whole "prettying up Vine Street" effort.

I can see where the idea sprang up out of. There's this idea in the city that by improving conditions in the underprivileged areas of Cincinnati, we'll help solve racial problems. And, that is true to some degree. (I'd like to point out that Westwood isn't exactly the classiest part of town, but it's no ghetto or slum. There's plenty of racial problems out here in the 'burbs, but, you won't see any of that addressed simply because the area isn't overrun with vacant lots, trash, run down/condemned buildings, and lack of Kroger's. Even those areas that look pretty on the outside need work on the inside.) So, the bright idea is to put up flower boxes on windows on Vine Street. And it looks lovely in a photographic, dichtomy of povery vs. beauty sort of way. But it does nothing to change the attitude of the people around them. The little German woman next door to the black family isn't going to start treating her neighbor better simply because the family now has some flox hanging from their windows.

I get the idea that Cincinnati would like to turn Main and Vine Streets into a posh, pub-filled playground for the masses that have flocked to the 'burbs. This would help "revitalize" downtown, as The Banks project supposedly will. That's all nice and great except that this is Cincinnati. Nothing productive happens in Cincinnati.

It's amazing that the Bengals' stadium was built and in operation by my junior year of college. They only voted on it in my sophomore year of high school. The Reds' stadium hasn't even been built yet. The Banks suffers from Cincinnati Beaucraticitis- the funding, the planning, the implimentation, and opening of the whole shabang will happen six to ten years after it should have reasonably been completed.

Why do I say this? The Reds' and Bengals' stadia are the biggest examples of how Cincinnati has failed in their planning so far. To see a success story, one only has to look across the river. The Newport Aquarium sprung up seemingly overnight. It took me quite by surprise. A private company came in, bought land, built an Aquarium, opened it, and made it the biggest attraction in Cincinnati at the moment. It has more visitors than probably than either of the professional sports teams in the city can claim and has provided a huge economic boon to the surrounding areas. Not only that, the Newport on the Levee complex has recently opened and a slew of other projects are being planned. What great divide is the Ohio River that Cincinnatians just can't seem to emulate their Kentucky brothern?

And what about this boycott that's going on? Oh, don't worry- I have an opinion on that too.

I'd like to see the boycott work. I honestly would. It'd be a really cool thing to see a group of pissed off black people usurp the conservative, Catholic white rite that plagues- yes, I said plagues- our city. Why a plague? They're the ones that vote, have the money, and hold a very slim majority. (I'm sorry- I don't consider anything under %60 a "vast" majority.) With the black population in Cincinnati in the %40 range, they have a VOICE- a loud one at that, since all the good little Catholic school girls and boys that make up a good portion of the white rite can't vote yet.

Here's the deal though. I live with two conservative, Catholic bred white Westwood citizens and I realize what the boycott is actually accomplishing. Instead of making the whites realize that they're being bigots and should stop, it's driving them further into their stereotypes and prejudices against blacks. Here's a statement I heard recently in my house: "The boycott just hurts *them.* It takes away *their* jobs and it's not affecting us." Them and their being used in subsitute for "the blacks." The basic point: whites are thinking, "Look at those stupid blacks- they're shooting themselves in the foot."

It's that kind of thinking that isn't going to make the boycott succeed. But maybe that's a short term consquence. I'd like to know what the whites thought of the Montgomery bus boycott at the outset.

And, kind of a side note on the boycott. Why target mostly black performers? Sure, they seem like an easy choice and I'm totally cool with black performers going, "Yeah, this is crap. I'm not playing there." But, wouldn't it be great if WHITE performers stood up and said, "Uh, yeah, that's wrong- I'm not playing there." I'm not saying they should get a medal or anything for standing up for what they believe in, but, it'd be a more powerful message. (Especially since your whites who think blacks are shooting themselves in the foot are probably more likely to go, "Yeah, those black performers are sticking together with their 'brothers.'")
Should I even tackle Afghanistan right at the moment? Oh, why the fuck not? I'm rambling tonight- might as well get this all sorts of out in the open.

So, does anyone else squirm when Bush starts going, "Yeah, there's this Axis of Evil (TM) and we're going to go after them and their little dog, Al-Qaida, too!" It's kinda scary to think that this former crackhead, Republican underachiever is suddenly the man who's leading us into what could potentially be a long term war situation.

And not only that, who wants to be in a long term war situation to begin with? Why did this suddenly become the Salem Witch Trials of the 21st century? Everyone and his uncle is part of Al-Qaida, or at the very least, they're suspected of being part of Al-Qaida. I'm so glad I'm not an Afghan right now- I'd hate to be on the brute end of a US trained task force for weeding out potential Al-Qaida members.

Is it really our job to tell other countries, "Look, you find the potential terrorists hiding in your country or else we will for you." What kind of authority do we have to do that? And what kind of military action and further terrorist wrath are we going to incur because of it?

And when is this shit going down, anyway? God help me, not before the next election. It's really a shame that Bush has such a high approval rating. I'd hate to be the Democrat going up against him. Of course, campaigning might be where Bush falls apart (if he hasn't already)- keeping together a war, domestic affairs, and a campaign might be too much for the boy to juggle at once. (Though, I'll admit, it's not really juggling until you hit three objects. Two is just throwing them back and forth without dropping them.)

And it's incredibly obvious to me why people from other countries hate Americans. We are greedy, self centered, arrogant, and plain ignorant of other countries and their issues. This is quite apparent from watching late night TV. Jay Leno puts on a never-ending parade of idiots in his Jay Walking segments who personify ignorance. Bill Maher puts on overly educated people who still persist in modeling ethnocentricity.

I have to give Politically Incorrect some credit- I get horribly frustrated watching the show, not because of the bickering that leads no where (though, that is annoying too), but because Bill will preface an argument for dissenting opinions by saying something like, "We should just all agree to start with the premise that America is the greatest nation in the world." Well, no, actually, we aren't the greatest nation in the world. We might have some great qualities. But that doesn't mean we are the greatest.

We can't just quantify something like that. To say that would be to discount the other countries that have thousands of years of history, culture, and influence. We've had a measley two hundred and change years worth of existence. Granted, we started being influential right away- kind of the bad kids over on the other side of the pond corrupting the good kids over in Europe kind of deal. But, with our problems, we have no right to call ourselves the greatest.
Pen's boyfriend, Eric, likes to play songs by Corporate Avenger that have such punk/goth/angst as "Christians Murdered Indians," "Taxes are Stealing," and, I think, my personal favorite, "FBI File." Now, why do I bring this up? Well, "Christians Murdered Indians" is basically a rant about how Christians lie because they slaughtered innocent Native Americans. Well, yeah, okay. But that's not quite the whole story. That's one side of it- the side that hasn't really been sited as much as the dominant story.

And there's something to be said for the dominant story. Christians did conquer a good portion of the world. Whether or not they were better overall than the people they conquered, there was at least one thing that enabled them to beat the shit out of the lossing party. And that might not be right, but, that's the way it is.

And that might seem bitchy, especially since I say that America isn't the greatest and that other cultures- even the ones we fight against- have value. These things might seem condrictory. But, here's the deal: I'll remember that the conquering party wasn't perfect, that the conquered party had value, and eventually, I'll try to get a whole, complete picture.

But to go off and say, "Christians Murdered Indians," with it's offensive nature, pissed off attitude, and broad assumptions that ALL Christians murdered Indians is misleading and wrong. Not all Christians murdered Indians. Some Indians murdered Christians. Granted, there were probably more Indians murdered by Christians than the other way around, but, to be fair, we can't say all were guilty or innocent one way or the other.

And how's this related to current events? Eventually, the history for this war with Afghanistan will need to be written. I take that back- it is being written by the media and probably more importantly, the government. Unlike in previous military actions, the government is carefully selecting what info to share with the media. And the media is carefully selecting (per ratings) what material to spread to the public at large. What info we're getting is filtered through so many channels that even if we're getting quotes, we're not getting them intact and in context.

And in America, what we're getting is predominantly pro-American, which is not totally unexpected. It's not fashionable to dissent at the moment, which makes me a bit nervous too, since this is an issue we should be highly critical of. We should be evaluating whether or not bombing a country into oblivion and killing innocent people are an appropriate actions.
So, to say that all Afghans are terrorists is wrong, as is saying all Muslims are radical and out to kill us. We need to look at both sides of the coin- perhaps we're not respecting their religion and their views, perhaps they shouldn't have killed a bunch of us. Give a little, take a little. Remember that there are at least two sides to every story and that neither is more valuable than the rest.

And boy do my shoulders ache. I think I've been pretty tense during this diatribe. Time for sleep. #