Eugenics is apparently making a comeback

October 19, 2007

I love me some DNA, but I am not loving James Watson right now. The Nobel winning biologist most famous for his part in the discovery of DNA structure has hit some nerves across the country with his racist remarks.

LONDON, England (CNN) — Nobel laureate biologist James Watson was suspended Friday from his longtime post at a research laboratory and canceled his planned British book tour after controversial comments that black people are not as intelligent as white people. Watson, 79, an American who won the 1962 Nobel prize for his role in discovering the double-helix structure of DNA, apologized Thursday for his remarks — but not before London’s Science Museum canceled his talk there, planned for Friday evening.

The controversy began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.” Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.” The biologist apologized “unreservedly” Thursday for his comments and said he was “mortified” by the words attributed to him.

Watson is no stranger to controversy; he has a history of saying offensive and often scientifically inaccurate statements:

In 1997, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion. During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between skin color and sexual prowess and between a person’s weight and their level of ambition. And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested that stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated.

I have a theory about his statements. My theory is that the old man in a racist homophobe who feels superior to most people and is now senile enough to say what he thinks in public. I mean theory in the scientific way, like the theory of evolution.

Advertisements

Just Playing Gay

October 14, 2007

A priest has come out, well sort of. He has come out as a gay fake. Not to be confused with a yestergay, he claims to never have been gay. A gay fake is someone who pretends to be gay for some secret reason they believe with benefit them. Pop culture reinforces the idea that a guy would fake gay to get in good with the ladies. In the real world, this doesn’t happen (not to say it has never happened). So to you Father Stenico, I say use this to your advantage. You’re gay, we all know now, and therefore you are going to lose your priestness. So why not hit the clubs twice as hard, meet some cute boys at are actually over 18, and marshal the gay pride parade next year. Write a scandalous book. Do motivational speaking about your journey. Do something, really anything, but claim to be a totally straight man who hits on boys for educational reasons.

art.monsignor.ap.jpg

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work.

Stenico was suspended by the Vatican after he was caught on tape making sexual advances at a young man.

In an interview with La Repubblica newspaper, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico said he frequented online gay chat rooms and met with gay men as part of his work as a psychoanalyst. He said that he pretended to be gay in order to gather information about “those who damage the image of the Church with homosexual activity.”

Stenico is a top official in the Vatican’s Congregation of the Clergy. The Vatican acted after officials recognized Stenico’s office in the background of a television program on gay priests that was broadcast on Oct. 1 on La7, a private Italian TV network.

Stenico was secretly filmed making advances to a young man and asserting that gay sex was not sinful. In the Repubblica interview, Stenico said he had met with the young man and pretended to talk about homosexuality “to better understand this mysterious and faraway world which, by the fault of a few people — among them some priests — is doing so much harm to the Church.”

He said he had never been gay and was heterosexual, but remained faithful to his vow of celibacy.


HIV in the Media

October 10, 2007

This video is generating a good deal of controversy in the gay community, this is what queerty.com reported on the ad.

Some gay bloggers have told filmmaker Eric Leven his AIDS PSA’s “fear-based”. And, you know what, he’s okay with that. HIV commercials should be fucking scary – or, at least, jarring. This one’s both. In an interview with Michael Crawford from Bloggernista, Leven explains his – er – position:

“I’ve been through the ranks of gay life. I’ve seen it in its most beautiful and darkest arenas. I want to take these experiences and shine light on them. Expose them for what they are and nothing less. I want gay men to start realizing the realities of their own community. I want them to step up to the plate and be a man (whether you’re wearing leather or a dress!) I want them to start taking their lives seriously and thinking before they act.”

Because HIV is something that affects the whole world, it is important that HIV/AIDS education be effective. I think by now, much of the world understands how it happens and many have an idea of what they can do to prevent it. But that doesn’t guarantee people will actually take those precautions even if they know it is a good idea. I absolutely agree with the writers over at queerty.com, I think ads related to HIV/AIDS should be incredibly scary, so people get it. HIV is scary. And since the main path of transmission is sex, which is incredibly temping and glamorized, campaigns need to be particularly jarring. So I figured I would share some of my favorite HIV/AIDS awareness print campaigns.

aids_france.gif

aidspreview.jpg

I also think the approach of showing real people dealing with it is incredibly effective. There are campaigns taht show people with AIDS who are wasting away and there are also campaigns with people who look completely normal, both can be powerful.

aidspatient2.jpg

a25128.jpg

There is also a site I like, Positive Lives, that has pictures with the associated stories on it. It is organized by region of the world.

http://www.positivelives.org/index_en.html

“Positive Lives is a unique international project that photographs and documents the social and emotional impact of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, illuminating positive human responses to this world crisis. By sharing these stories, we can all face the challenges, myths, and prejudices surrounding HIV/AIDS.

No matter what are an individual’s prejudice, the virus does not discriminate. HIV affects us all”


Ever wonder what your appendix is up to?

October 6, 2007


Scientists have finally solved an age old medical mystery (or likely solved). The appendix, often viewed as an evolutionary relic, has a function (at least theoretically). Bad news for my readers who have had them removed and are now planning on moving to an uninhabited island living along for the rest of their lives. Here’s the explanation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut. That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most are good and help digest food. But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix’s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case. The appendix “acts as a good safe house for bacteria,” said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker. Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said. That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said.

If a person’s gut flora dies, it can usually be repopulated easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn’t as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy. In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said. Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.


Gay Wedding Announcements

October 3, 2007

gay-wedding-cakae.jpg

After reading this article on QueerSighted, I thought I’d share with you.
Article: They Are Adorable: A Gay Wedding and The New York Times

First, a clip from Sex and the City that is on the link, but encase you don’t click the article:

But what struck me is the prevalence of gay and lesbian wedding/union announcements. I mean I see them on the Times website, but the Times is coming from uber-liberal New York, so it is to be expected. But recently I have seen announcements in the papers sitting on my table. The Bucks County Courier Times (although it may have been an article not exactly an announcement) and the Philadelphia Inquirer. So I looked up just how common they are and what started the trend. I was unsurprised to find out GLAAD was largely behind the push for newspapers to publish inclusive announcements. The campaign GLAAD ran to encourage newspapers to adopt inclusive policies was called Announcing Equality and here is the website.

As of January, GLAAD reported that 883 newspapers—nearly 60 percent of all daily newspapers in the United States—now accept wedding and/or commitment ceremony announcements for gay and lesbian couples. That number has increased nearly 584 percent since it was first measured in 2002.

Among the Announcing Equality campaign’s other successes:

  • All of the nation’s top 50 media markets and 99 of the top 100 are home to at least one newspaper with an inclusive announcement policy.
  • An estimated 75 percent of all U.S. newspaper readers read a paper that accepts wedding announcements from same-sex couples.
  • All 50 states and the District of Columbia have newspapers that print same-sex union announcements. (In 2004, Mississippi was the lone holdout.)
  • 319 U.S. daily newspapers have printed at least one same-sex union announcement.

I think thats great. I personally don’t know if I would make an announcement, in fact I probably wouldn’t. But I know I would have liked to have seen them when I was growing up.


Sex Tips

October 3, 2007

I got the message. My two previous sex posts (homemade porn tips, and tips from porn for good girls) were two of my most popular posts ever.

You want sex. Nay, you need sex. Well always looking to please my readers, who are apparently always looking to please someone in their life, I’ve decided to post a more extensive sex tip article. Today I am taking notes from bible of sex tips, Cosmo. Cosmo split the tips into categories: Get Him Riled Up, Feisty Foreplay, Getting it On, His Down There Domain, and Kink it Up. They are tips men sent in for women. Now from the multitude of tips found within their website, I’ve tried to pick what I found the best.

This selection was based on four factors:

  1. Did I feel it was translatable to my gay and lesbian audience well? (I would never forget you kids)
  2. Would I personally find the item sexy or enjoyable?
  3. Did it make sense?
  4. Was it clean enough that I wouldn’t feel bad if kids stumbled on here, but dirty enough to entice my adult readers?

Before you continue, these are tips for adults. For my more adventurous adult readers check out the actual site (Cosmo Article) they have the really juicy tips, with the specifics of what to put where and how to…..

Get Him Riled Up (or Her)

“When I lean in to kiss you, hold the back of my head gently in your hand. It’s tender yet sexy.” – Donny, 34

“The night after I got a big promotion my girlfriend said she was going to give me only oral sex all night.” –Ken, 32.

“If we’re somewhere semi-public and can’t go at each other, press your hips against mine.” –Henry, 25

Feisty Foreplay

“Do what my first girl did: Moan my name while I pleasure you.” –Eddie, 28.

“My current girlfriend treated me to a ‘bed dance’: she had me lie on my back while she slowly rubbed herself along my chest, stomach…” –Arlo, 27

“My girl pretended not to want to kiss me. I had to use my tongue to pry her mouth open passionately.” –Ron, 25

Getting It on

(Most of the tips were too graphic, I picked two tame ones)

“Tell me to get undressed but to keep my tie on. Pull on it to bring me closer to you.” –Ted, 31.

“When you’re near the point of no return, whisper four letter words into my ears –the really dirty ones.” –Fred, 23.

Down There Domain

(too graphic and really only applicable to men)

Kink It Up

“My fiancé will blindfold me and rub her body across my face. I can only use my mouth and tongue to identify what I’m feeling” –Carter, 29.

“One night, my girlfriend stopped the action and pointed to the camera she’d set up in the corner.” –Justine, 21

“My ex would me at local dive bars and pull me into the restroom for raunchy, against-the wall sex.” –Max 21.

“Treat your guy to sex under water. With your bodies feeling so weightless…” –Mark, 29

“Morning sex please” –Charlie, 26

“While we’re driving alone on a back road, ask me to pull over and then jump into my lap. You’ll be fulfilling my teenage fantasy of getting busy in my care.” –Jason, 34.


Children’s Health Care

October 3, 2007

President Bush has vowed to veto the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. The program already helps 4 million children receive health care, but the expansion would increase the number to 8 million. It is designed to protect families that cannot afford to provide adquete health care to their children. Now before any starts those classist rants about people needing to get off welfare and get a job, this act is different. It is setup to help the millions of working families who make too much for Medicaid but don’t have enough for the rising costs of private health insurance. While I could understand a few reason for vetoing a universal health care plan, this makes no sense. If he were concerned about limiting the federal budget (clearly not a concern..cough..Iraq…cough) I would understand. If he were concerned it was too limiting and should cover more children (he claims the opposite) I might understand a veto. Or perhaps if had some alternative in mind (other than draining the education system, putting the country in economic distress, and telling families how they ought to live) I could understand.

What Mr. Bush fails to see is the bigger picture. These children are often without coverage because they fall between the extremes of poverty and the comfort of the middle class. But not giving them coverage does not force their parents to get better jobs, nor does it force insurers to lower prices, nor does it take away the rest of a family’s expenses. What it does is leave children without insurance. Children, you know those little innocent people who cannot go out and get insurance for themselves.


WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush certainly will veto legislation expanding a children’s health insurance program by $35 billion over five years despite Democratic pressure lobbying him to change his mind, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated Tuesday.

The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday night to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a measure Bush has vowed before to veto, saying it’s a step toward universal coverage. The program would double — from 4 million to 8 million — the number of children covered. Eighteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting to expand the program from its current annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among those Republicans who split from the president. “It’s unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue.” Bush and many Republicans contend the program’s original intent would be changed under the current bill. They have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill.

Such a veto would be the fourth of Bush’s presidency. After not using his veto power at all during his first term, the president has vetoed three bills in his second one, including two on stem-cell research legislation and one on a war funding bill with a Democratic timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

“If the president vetoes this bill, he will be vetoing health care for almost 4 million children, and he will be putting ideology — not children — first,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

But Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, wasn’t buying that argument. “This is a perfect example of the type of partisan politics that goes on in Washington all the time,” he told CNN. “It’s not about trying to take care of the children; it’s about how can we get a political advantage.” Lott added, “Do you really believe Republicans don’t want to help poor, low-income children?”

Actually Mr. Lott, that is exactly what I believe.