Blogging Blue

I’ve not spent much time (or any, for that matter) talking about Proposition 8, which will impose a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California, but I came across this video and I just had to share it:

Obviously the video’s meant to poke fun at the logic - or lack thereof - supporters of bans on same-sex marriage employ to rationalize their bigotry, but I think the most salient point of the entire video is the fact that gay marriage could save the economy!

H/T to Kay over at Blue Racine.

It’s only a matter of time before we hear Sykes, Belling, and many other conservatives simply loose their cool over the newest hit in music - - a song about a girl wanting to kiss…a GIRL!

“I Kissed A Girl,” by Katy Perry, is jumping up to #1 in the Billboard US Charts. UK newspaper The Guardian has the scoop:

Pop stars reinventing themselves is not a new phenomenon. David Bowie relaunched himself as Ziggy Stardust and then became the Thin White Duke. Kylie Minogue was the girl next door who suddenly acquired a taste for black basques. But few transformations have been as total as the one that has taken Katy Perry to the top of the US singles charts.

Perry, 23, began her career with a collection of Christian gospel songs. Her parents are both Protestant pastors, so many of her former fans are astonished to find her topping the charts now with a single celebrating the pleasures of a lesbian kiss.

‘I Kissed a Girl’ is poised to be the hit of the American summer and is the 1,000th number one since Bill Haley and His Comets’ shocked the music business with ‘Rock Around the Clock’ in 1955. The lyrics are mild enough: ‘I kissed a girl/and I liked it … Us girls we are so magical/Soft skin, red lips, so kissable/Hard to resist so touchable/Too good to deny it.’

Perry says her parents, who once banned rock music from the home, are now supportive of her despite the new musical direction. ‘Well, I’m not strung out on crack and doing centrefolds,’ she said last week. This is not the singer’s first foray into edgy areas of sexuality. Perry’s last single, ‘Ur So Gay’, poured scorn on effeminate metrosexual males and, in particular, on Perry’s ex-boyfriend who ‘wore more make-up’ than she did. ‘I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf,’ was one of the more memorable lines.

Perry’s background has led to consternation from the Evangelical Christian community. ‘What a sad picture of a lost child who has been swept away by the carnal pleasures of the world,’ reads one entry on the Christian website Planetwisdom.com. ‘We need to be lifting this gal up in prayer. While we’re at it, let’s toss up a prayer for her parents, too. Not to mention the countless young girls who will buy into this lesbian chic message.’

Talk about being a rebel in the family…an Envangelical Christian promoting lesbian behavior, and then saying after kissing the girl, “It felt so right.” I’m sure her parents are “pleased” but boiling in secret. No need to panic, for anyone that’s concerned about the theme will soon have Rush, Mark, Charlie, and the rest of talk radio scorning any parent who let’s their child listen to the tune.

Obviously the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to strike down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage has been big news everywhere, and predictably enough, some conservative bloggers have already started caterwauling about “judicial activism” from the four judges who issued the ruling, never mind the fact that six of the seven justices that currently sit on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors. Ultimately though, for all the screaming about how the California Supreme Court’s decision reeks of judicial activism, a quick glance at the decision by a legally untrained eye such as mine reveals that the decision is far from being activist - it’s actually firmly in keeping with the most basic tenets of our nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Perhaps the phrase that sums up the California Supreme Court’s decision best is the following:

“An individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Ultimately that’s what this decision is all about - equality, and to quote my esteemed colleague, the illusory one:

Today’s convenient Republican devotion to direct democracy is nothing but a smokescreen for a desire to enforce subjective religious principles through state coercion and a prurient fascination with the mechanics of — male, especially — homosexual relations.

And in closing, I leave you, dear readers, with a little something I found during my travails surfing the interwebs.
Read the rest of this entry »

A few folks across the Wisconsin blogosphere have commented on the recent murder of Lodewikus “Vic” Milford in Milwaukee’s Third Ward, and surprisingly enough, James T. Harris - he of the “hip musings” - actually made some great points in his recent entry on Milford’s murder. However, Harris’ spot-on entry was spoiled by one James Pawlak, who responded with these comments:

Curious that the Milwaukee media has not reported on the name of the bar from which this “gentleman” went to his death OR the description of the offenders (Latinos?) OR called on the City Aldermen to shut down that Bar as they did for one where there was a justifiable killing of thugs by armed security guards.

Just in case his response in James Harris’ blog were too subtle, Mr. Pawlak made his way over to Dad29’s blog, where he came up with this doozy:

Of course the Milwaukee Urinal will not publish the name of the bar (Did it fly a rainbow banner at half-staff) or the description of the Latino killers and, if they are taken, the fact of their citizenship status.

Of course, I felt compelled to respond, simply because I fail to see what the victim’s sexual orientation has anything to do with the facts of the case. Vic Milford was shot and killed in cold blood, and his sexual orientation doesn’t - and shouldn’t - have any bearing on the case, nor is it something that’s essential to understanding the crime. It’s disappointing to see homophobia rear its ugly head in this situation, especially given the fact that the victim’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

Does Wisconsin have a racial disparity when it comes to locking up minorities for crimes? According to John McAdams, Marquette University’s resident wingnut professor of political science, the answer is no. Professor McAdams posits that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned because they commit more crimes. In fact, McAdams cites a recent report he wrote as proof of his point, arguing blacks served essentially the same sentence as whites for a violent crime, but about five months less for a property crime. For a drug crime, black offenders served about 1.5 months less than a white would.

What’s really interesting about professor McAdams’ conclusions are the fact that they fly in the face of a recent report by the Wisconsin Sentencing Commission, a report that indicates:

• African-Americans and Hispanics convicted of drug trafficking in Wisconsin are more likely to wind up in prison than white drug dealers, according to a report on race and sentencing by the state Sentencing Commission.

Further, the report goes on to say:

• Compared with whites, Hispanics are 2 1/2 times as likely to be imprisoned, while blacks are nearly twice as likely to end up behind bars for dealing drugs, according to the report issued last month.

What I found to be most interesting is a statistic that showed in less serious Class E drug offenses, 66% of Hispanics and 61% of blacks were imprisoned, compared with 30% of the whites sentenced. Blacks were twice as likely as whites to go to prison. Now maybe professor McAdams doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of disparity, but as I look at those numbers, I sure am seeing a very obvious disparity between the rates of incarceration for black and Hispanic offenders versus the rates of incarceration for white offenders.

Here’s another interesting tidbit from the report by the Wisconsin Sentencing Commission:

• Among all offenses examined, compared with whites, black offenders were 1.7 times as likely to receive a prison sentence, while Hispanic offenders were almost twice as likely to go to prison.

What really disturbs me about these numbers isn’t the fact that more blacks than whites are getting sent to prison; it’s the fact that blacks are far more likely than whites to be sent to prison for the same crime. That’s a disparity, and that’s just not the way things ought to be. Professor McAdams can try to spin the numbers any way he wants, but he can’t run from the fact that there is in fact a racial disparity when it comes to how our criminal justice system works.