A Lesbian's View

McCain throws in the towel on the Financial Crisis

2008-10-08T05:23:00-07:00

Senator McCain apparently realizes that he has nothing of any substance to add to the conversation in America about the financial crisis. He’s decided to just avoid the issue completely and try to distract the American voter with misleading adds that are just more of the same mud slinging he’s becoming known for.

The problem is, it’s hard to distract someone from the heat, when their hair is on fire. We’ve watched our retirement savings disappear, and been saddled with debt that it will take us years to pay off. Many of us are losing our jobs, or live in fear of it. The cost of living is going up, and the amount of money we’re bringing home is going down. People are losing their homes, and watching their single largest investments lose value as the housing market is flooded with foreclosed properties that no one can get a loan to purchase.

I’m sorry, but refusing to talk to me about this doesn’t make me feel any better about what you’re going to do to fix my problems. I have to admit though, that when Senator McCain was actually talking about the crisis, he wasn’t making me feel much better either. It was so apparent that he didn’t even realize that there was a crisis until late in the game, and then his response to it was to go to Washington and accomplish nothing.

If the best that you have to offer in the conversation about how to help this country crawl out of the pit we’ve been thrown into over the last eight years, is to point out to me that your opponent has a middle name that you don’t like, then perhaps just keeping your mouth shut and letting the people out there who actually understand the trouble that we’re in discuss the issues might not be such a bad idea. On that note, Senator McCain, I applaud your decision to just stop talking about the crisis. Since that is all that I really care about today as I watch my retirement savings go down every time the market opens, it keeps me from having to waste my time trying to listen to your ideas. After all, I can just look back at the past eight years and get a pretty good idea.

Losing doesn't feel so bad today!

2008-06-04T13:54:43-07:00

Having two people like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton running against each other, makes being on the losing end as a supporter a little easier to swallow. At least it has for me. For one of the few times in my adult life, I find myself ambivalent about having my candidate lose the nomination. My excitement at seeing Obama win, has tempered my disappointment at realizing that this would not be the election when a woman takes the helm of leadership in the

United States

Don’t get me wrong. I am an avid supporter of Senator Clinton. As a lesbian, her statements recognizing that same sex couples need to have their relationships recognized in SOME way, and that we must be given the same financial protections as hetero couples made me feel she was the best candidate for me. As a Nurse, I recognize the need for every individual in this country to have access to health insurance that they can afford. Finally, as a woman, I believe that the unique perspective that she could bring to the office would have been an incredible breath of fresh air.

Still, Senator Obama is an incredible candidate. Charismatic, he has energized the young people in this country, which bodes well for those of us in the LGBT community because the younger generation is without a doubt more open minded and inclusive in their thinking. Getting these young people active, and voting, can only help us. He comes across as genuine, and when I listen to him speak, I get the feeling that he actually believes what he’s saying. That it comes from his heart and his soul, and not from what a staffer tells him that I want to hear.

I want to see an

America

that once again takes its place on the world stage as a leader in progressive thinking, human rights, and respect for the rest of the world. I want to see the resentment for us that has built up over the last 7 years subside. I want to see us move away from protecting the wealth of the rich, by placing the burden squarely on the backs of the middle class. Ultimately, I want to see the thick fog of feeling helpless against the ultra conservative’s hold on the presidency of my own country. The past 7 years have felt like a political experiment, where we tested out the theory of abolishing the separation of church and state and allowed the conservative right to run this country right into the ground. I can’t wait to take that first breath of fresh air, when George Bush moves out of the white house, and an agent for change moves in.

That agent for change is going to be Senator Obama, and while I had wanted to see Senator Clinton win, I will support Senator Obama vigorously and with the same excitement and hope for the future. This is the best possible losing scenario for me, one in which you don’t really lose at all. So whether it’s a dream ticket, or Senator Clinton returns to the Senate to continue her fight for universal health care, we still win.

Vote Republican? Not a chance.

2008-06-04T13:02:18-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 03/03/2008

Driving through town, I noticed a political poster for John McCain in the yard of someone that I know personally to be gay. Not just gay, but OUT gay. At first I thought it was probably put there by someone without my friend knowing it, so I gave him a call and was shocked to discover that he had put the sign up and was planning to vote for the republican candidate in the general election.

I just couldn’t believe it. I asked him why? Why would you even consider voting for ANYONE in the republican party if you are a gay American with any concerns for not just furthering equality, but maintaining the gains we have achieved? He told me that he was voting against the democratic party, more than voting for the republican party candidate and admitted that in truth, he knew very little about McCain’s views on equal rights for gays and lesbians, or gay marriage (although he assumed that he was no different from any of the other republicans and opposed it). His major voting concern was the economy, and he felt that the democrats gave too much of his money away to people who sat at home and didn’t work, or were here illegally. He wanted less social program spending and a hard lined approach to immigration reform.

When we hung up, it took me a long while to get past my disbelief and to focus on what he was saying. He wasn’t voting for the people that he knew would help him achieve personal freedoms, his main concerns lay lower in the list of essential human needs.

It’s my belief that people vote according to their perception of needs. If you’re hungry, poor, have no roof over your head, then you vote for the person who is going to help elevate you to a point where you get these basic needs met. Once those needs are met, you start focusing on your future needs, and who will help you meet those needs. When you think you have those needs met, you begin to focus on your personal freedoms and the things that you’d LIKE to have, but don’t need to survive.

For my friend, who had been impacted greatly by the economy, and by workers in our area who are here illegally taking jobs for much less pay, the questions of immigration and taxation were at the base of his needs list, overpowering his desire to have his relationship protected. But there is a problem with that thinking. What benefit do we as gays and lesbians get from tax reform that doesn’t recognize our relationships or our families? None.

We will still be taxed as singles even though we have been in relationships for years and have bought homes and have mortgages and bills just like the heterosexual neighbors do. We still won’t be able to claim the children of our partners, or to write off the medical expenses that we pay for these children, because our relationship with them isn’t recognized. We can’t write off the mortgage interest that we pay on the mortgage if the mortgage is in our partners name. Bottom line, the republican tax cuts aren’t helping us, because they don’t even recognize that we exist. If you’re an adult in a committed relationship with a home to maintain, working hard and making a decent living, then you’re still just a single person making too much money as far as the tax code is concerned so you get to pay more taxes so that the neighbors don’t have to. Why, because they have the benefit of marriage. You don’t.

The republicans want to keep it that way. At least the more progressive republicans want to keep it that way. The really conservative ones want to take away our rights to even have legal contracts that protect our finances and our health care decisions and take care of our need to protect our partners both financially and medically. They want to push us back into the closet, and out of their lives. They like the idea that we pay a disproportionate amount of money in taxes, because it means they don’t have to. It helps them, hurts us, and they love that idea.

I wish I had an answer for him on the immigration issue. He believes that deporting millions of illegal aliens is an option. Realistically, I just don’t. I don’t see that even being physically possible, so we need to work on a solution that is feasible. One that addresses the impact that these workers have on working Americans, and has a realistic chance of success. I don’t see that either party has a real answer yet, but can’t argue that my friends experience certainly justify his frustration and willingness to vote to relieve it.

For me, even the idea of voting for a candidate that courts the religious right is out of the question. Not just because I am gay, but because I hate the idea of any president sitting in the oval office, and giving one ounce of weight to the demands of someone like Dr. James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or any other ultra conservative who thinks they have the right to define the values of an entire nation based on their own personal beliefs. If the republican party wants to align itself with these kinds of far right extremists, and will do anything to try to make them happy, then they are leaving ME out in the cold and certainly will never get my vote.

Both democratic candidates are right. It is time for change in this country. It’s time for people to be seen as individuals who have the right to live their lives according to their own values and beliefs within the constraints of the law. It’s time for religion to take it’s place in peoples personal lives, and to get out of political policy decisions where it has no place. It’s time that a persons actions be allowed to define them, and not their sexual orientation.

I can’t change my friends mind, he’s still going to vote for McCain. I’m just glad my vote will be there to cancel his out. But that’s what it’s all about. Two people standing on opposite sides of a fence, talking about how each of us thinks change needs to occur. In the end, we’ll still be friends, and one of us will have to buy the other dinner. Hope he can afford the seafood feast he’s going to be buying me when the democrats win in November!

Who are they lying to? Us? Or Themselves?

2008-06-04T12:58:58-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 11/08/2007

There’s a repetitive theme out there that tries to explain why Gay and Lesbian couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married. It is used over and again as if the more often it were cast out into the waters, more likely it would get a bite. It’s an argument that on the surface sounds as if it comes from a sincere concern, but when applied equally to both sides of the argument about gay marriage, it falls apart pitifully and questions the validity of not only gay marriages, but many heterosexual marriages as well.

Eric Hogue is a radio talk show host, and a syndicated columnist. He also calls himself a “contemporary cultural pastor”. On Crosswalk.com today, a for profit religious corporations web site, he has an article posted that argues once again that same sex marriage will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. He argues that marriage is not about spousal happiness, but about one thing. Rearing children. He makes the argument that marriage has historically been about that one thing, and not the mutual happiness of the two people who desire to marry.

Overlooking the fact that children raised in same sex families do just as well as children raised in heterosexual marriages and that adoption does indeed allow same sex couples to raise children who would otherwise have no family at all, he maintains that there is no validity to the joining of two same sex individuals because of two things. We can’t procreate and we can’t provide both a male and female role model.

I’m sure that it makes religious extremists feel better to say they are discriminating against other American’s because of concern for the well-being of children, than to admit that they just don’t want to grant the same rights and protections to that they enjoy to people who they see as different from themselves. But if you apply that concern to both sides of the issue, it just doesn’t hold water.

If marriage is all about procreation, then what about those tens of thousands of infertile couples in America? If they can’t procreate, should they not be allowed to marry. If marriage is to be defined not by love, but by a couples ability to have and raise children then what reason do those heterosexual couples who can’t have children have to get married? If children can’t be raised in a home that doesn’t contain both a male and a female role model, what about the vast number of children currently being raised in single parent families? Should those single parents have their children taken away from them because they weren’t able to make a heterosexual marriage work? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? It gets better. What about the elderly who can’t have children, or heterosexual couples who simply don’t want children?

My personal opinion is that the arguments they make are just sad attempts at hiding the truth from not us, but themselves. They don’t want to admit to themselves that they just don’t want to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, because they hate us. Deep down inside, they don’t want to share any of “their” rights with us because they don’t think we deserve to have them. They may say out loud that it isn’t hate or bigotry, but some altruistic concern for children. It makes you wonder who they are lying to. Is it to us, or to themselves, as a way of fooling themselves into believing that they aren’t denying the rights and protections of marriage to others simply because they don’t share their religious views? It doesn’t really matter who they are lying to, they’re the only ones who are buying the lies.

Mohler's Little Moment of Acceptance

2008-06-04T12:57:26-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 03/19/2007

Changing you own opinions about something is at best, difficult. In some cases, where the opinion is a part of a deeply held belief system, it’s more than hard. It can challenge your views of the world, how you see yourself fitting into that world, and even your faith in God. It rarely occurs in one giant leap, where you cast aside beliefs that you’ve grown up with and latch on to an entirely new way of looking at something. Change happens in tiny moments of acceptance. These tiny moments build until you are faced with an obstacle of belief that no longer makes sense and can’t be justified based on what you know to be true. In that instant, you have to make a decision. You move forward, accepting that your views must change in order to include these new facts or beliefs, or you deny them and fall back on your old ideas.

We are beginning to see evidence of change even in the deepest recesses of our opposition. For such a long time, the conservative right has made a stand against science on many issues. They maintain that man emerged on the planet just a few thousand years ago, against all scientific evidence that man has evolved over the ages. They demand that creationism be taught as a SCIENCE in schools, not satisfied that it be discussed as a religious belief. They deny the evidence of the age of the planet and the universe itself, again in order to reconcile their belief that the biblical account of the creation of the heavens and the earth is fact, rather than a religious belief.

But recently, one well known conservative leader took a giant step of acceptance. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, admitted in an article earlier this month, that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Now when those of us who are gay and lesbians read the full text of this article, it’s wildly offensive. He asserts that he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment, if such a technology were developed, to reverse homosexuality. However, you can get past the abrasiveness of that statement and look deeper, this article is actually a step forward in conservative thinking. It’s a moment of acceptance in a long road toward change.

Conservative religious groups have long maintained that being gay was a matter of choice, and that homosexuality could be “overcome” with counseling and prayer. Even when every respected psychological, psychiatric, and medical organization stated that not only was sexual identity not a matter of choice, but denial of ones identity was destructive to the person – the religious right ignored the science and found fringe practitioners to back their own views. This acceptance that sexual identity is a biologically predetermined part of every human being is a giant step toward change, although I doubt he sees it that way.

What will their justification be for persecuting us, when even they have to admit that we are exactly as God made us? If I am as God made me, how can what I am be something that God does not love? When they accept that I can’t change the fact that I was born a lesbian, have always been a lesbian (even before I knew exactly what that was), and have no more control over that part of myself than I do the color of my eyes and hair – then maybe they’ll accept the idea that I shouldn’t have to be treated as less of a human being because I accept who I was born to be.

Don’t get me wrong! I hate the comments he makes about treating fetus’ prior to birth in order to make them heterosexual. I hate it the same way I hate hearing people talk about predetermining fetal sex, or trying to genetically enhance a fetus. But, I do acknowledge that even his acceptance that there MIGHT be a biological basis for sexual identity is a step in our direction. No matter how much back stepping he’s trying to do now.

Ann Coulter - Can I use the "B" word?

2008-06-04T12:56:09-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 03/08/2007

If you ever wanted to know just how deeply divided this country really is when it comes to the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to live their lives without discrimination, just do a google news search with the name “Ann Coulter” in it. You’ll see hundreds of items pop up with view points from both sides of the fence and a few that ride the fence as well. What’s interesting about this issue to me, is that it doesn’t represent a specific “issue” at all, it addresses how gay and lesbians are treated at a more basic level. It isn’t about our right to work (which many of us still don’t have – you can still be fired for being gay in a lot of states). It isn’t about our right to be at our partner’s bedside when they are ill (which many states have no provision for). It isn’t about our right to the same tax breaks that heterosexual couples get (even if they aren’t legally married). It isn’t about our right to anything at all, except respect as human beings.

Look recently at the use of the “N” word by a popular comedian in a club during his standup routine. You didn’t see anyone defending his use of that word. But wait, the conservative right says that we aren’t allowed to compare the use of degrading terms used to humiliate a black person, and a degrading term used to humiliate a gay person. They say that Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot, can’t be compared to someone being called the N-word. The conservative right works very hard making sure no one publicly notes any similarities between the civil rights of a black person, and the civil rights of a gay person.

The American Daily web site has an article on it’s site by J. Matt Barber today. This article says “By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black.” That’s the kind of reasoning we’re dealing with. He’s basically saying that you shouldn’t discriminate against black people because they can’t help being born black, not because they are no different from him and deserve the same respect and dignity of life as he does without having to be compared to others as a measure of their worth. If you’d like to read the entire article you can find it at http://www.americandaily.com/article/17916. It would be a pretty funny read except for one thing, he’s not joking.

The conservatives are circling the wagons, with excuses that range from “it was only a joke” to “they call themselves faggots all the time.” Let me tell you something right now. I have never called myself or a friend a faggot. Never. Not once. I never would and I won’t put up with you calling me one either.

I hope these ridiculous, right wing, nut jobs just keep talking because no one can point out their bigotry better than they do themselves. It just amuses me at how upset they get when all we do is point it out to them. It’s a shame that using the “B” word to describe Ann Coulter, isn’t an insult to her at all (No, not THAT “B” word) – Bigot!!!

It sounds reasonable, until you put the shoe on the other foot!

2008-06-04T12:54:46-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 06/30/2006

Jerry Falwell’s website recently had commentary about a lesbian woman who filed suit against a company who provided film/video copying that refused to provide their services to her because the documentary she needed copied was about Gay Pride. His point seems to be that he doesn’t feel one should have to provide services to the gay or lesbian community, if it is offensive to you or goes against your religious beliefs. It sounds like a reasonable argument, until you put the shoe on the other foot.

Take for instance my own case. I am a Registered Nurse, and I work in the emergency department. I personally find alcoholics, drug addicts, religious bigots, and republicans morally objectionable. Should I not have to provide them services when they come into the ER? Can I pick and choose who gets CPR and who doesn’t? How about a Police Officer who happens to be gay or lesbian, are they not responsible for protecting the lives and property of religious bigots who persecute them, as well as the rest of the communities they serve? Should a gay or lesbian firefighter not be required to put out the flames at a church that regularly preaches against their rights to work, marry, and protect their families?

If someone is requesting something illegal, then I believe you have the right to refuse service to them. If you operate a business, and offer your services to the community, then you have to follow anti-discrimination law. You might not like it, believe me, we don’t either some times. It’s not easy to stand over a drunk who’s cursing you and calling you a ‘dyke’, while you’re trying to clean the urine they’ve dribbled all over themselves and help to suture up the gaping lacerations in their heads from the bar fight they were just in, and all the while they’re explaining how YOU are an abomination in God’s eyes. It’s not easy for a gay or lesbian police officers, firefighters, doctor’s, or paramedics who do their jobs every day without asking to be allowed to “pass this one up” because we don’t like the ideology of the person who needs our expertise.

Suck it up Falwell, we do it every day.

The Conservative Right: Defining Marriage Right out of Existence

2008-06-04T12:53:36-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 06/18/2006

If you let the conservative right republicans define marriage, the only people in the U.S. who will be married in the U.S. will be heterosexual couples, of child bearing age who are fertile and capable of procreation, and who have a legal marriage certificate.

You see, according to Mitt Romney, and the rest of the right hand of the Republican Party, “marriage is primarily about the nurture and development of children”. It’s not about love, or interdependence, or nurturing each other. It’s about having babies in a religiously acceptable setting, and they get to define “acceptable”.

So tell me Mr. Romney, what about the thousands of people in this country who are infertile? What about the folks out there who are beyond child bearing age, but still desire the comfort of human companionship? What about the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples out there who are not married, but have been together for decades (and which by the way can file joint income tax returns despite not being married). What about those American’s who simply do not want to have children, are they not allowed into your heterosexual procreators only club?

The discriminatory amendments that are being written into many state constitutions and the one that the Republican Party is trying to have slapped into the U.S. Constitution are meant to only exclude gay and lesbian couples from getting married. But they are poorly written, in part because the authors are trying to write bigotry ridden amendments without sounding like bigots. As a result, all kinds of relationship issues are called into question, not just marriage. The right for a gay or lesbian partner to be at their loved ones bedside during times of illness or to be protected financially when they lose their partner, all of these issues are at risk of being invalidated by these bigoted amendments.

It is time for the religious right, and the Republican Party, to stop hiding behind arguments that they THINK sound less bigoted and more acceptable to main stream America, and say what they mean. In his speech at the Republican State Convention, Romney said, "Some people think we're intolerant and not willing to let people choose their own lifestyle,". If he were being honest, he would have left the “Some people think” off.

Romney is considering a run for the Presidency in 2008. I can’t even imagine replacing the bigot we have in there now, with this bigot.

Is it pride? Or a Party?

2008-06-04T12:51:59-07:00

From A Lesbian's View 06/11/2006

There are thousands of gay pride celebrations going on this month all across the U.S. as gay and lesbian Americans pay tribute to those who stood up in defiance during the stonewall riots in New York, and gave birth to the gay rights movement. At least that is what some of the celebrants will be doing at gay pride. Truth is a lot of the people that attend gay pride events this time of year, don’t know what the significance of the month is, or why we celebrate it. Many just see it is a chance to foster a sense of belonging and community. Some see it as a great opportunity to party. Some see it as platform for activism.

I guess in a sense, the event itself is a form of activism, regardless of your personal reason for being there. It does give our community an opportunity to be more visible and to remind local governments that we are here, in ever increasing numbers. Local officials understand that, numbers I mean. In a national election, a minority group doesn’t hold the political power that numbers entail. In smaller local elections (City Councils, Mayors, Judges, Sheriffs, etc.), having a minority group strongly behind you, or against you, can make a difference. I can’t imagine a candidate for the Governor’s office in Texas riding in a gay pride parade. But at the Alan Ross Freedom Parade in Dallas (Dallas’ Gay Pride Event), Mayor Laura Miller is a regular and respected participant. Last year, the first openly lesbian sheriff of Dallas was a welcomed participant and was cheered as she passed by. The event itself is without a doubt an opportunity for activism, but that’s not all it is.

Pride events are typically held in larger metropolitan areas, most of which have vibrant and active gay and lesbian communities in them. For the people who live in those areas, pride is a chance to get together and have a great party. But there are thousands of gay and lesbian Americans who live in rural areas where there are NEVER any gay pride parades or celebrations. They live in small towns where there is no “gay” part of town where it’s safe to hold hands, or put your arms around your partner. In a state like Texas, where they can still walk up to you and say “You’re fired, because you’re a lesbian”, the opportunity for activism has a real price attached to it. Living in areas where you have real fears of being the target of hate, or losing your ability to support your family is hard. Getting the opportunity to participate in an event like gay pride, being around thousands of other gay and lesbian Americans, being exposed to the activism that does go on, and getting the chance to breath a little easier while you hold your partners hand is well worth the 2 or 3 hour drive to get to “the city”. So we go, every year. We go to be activists, to party, to be with our community in a setting where we are safe for one day. We sit in parks and listen to music, play with our children, throw Frisbees with our dogs, listen to music, and buy HRC T-shirts and caps with fun slogans. My favorite cap last year said “Yes, I am a Lesbian” on the front, and “No, you can’t watch” on the back.

We don’t go to offend, or to fight, although as we in Dallas walk from the parade route to the park, we are always confronted with protestors carrying signs telling us to burn in hell, or that Jesus hates us. The Police keep the screaming, hateful crowd away from us though, and we just walk past and smile. We don’t have time to listen, or waste any effort trying to talk to them. After all, we just have today. Just this ONE day. Tomorrow, we go back to rural little towns and try to live not in the closet, but under the radar. We need our jobs and we have to live here. It was great to have that ONE day though. One day to party, and participate, and not feel so isolated and oppressed. One day to hold her hand and not be afraid. One day to life up my voice and still have a job. One day to stand with thousands who are just like me, and feel hope that someday, ONE day, we’ll be treated just like everyone else.

The religious rights voices - talking out of both sides of their mouths!

2008-06-04T12:50:43-07:00

Originally posted 06/06/2006

I spend a lot of time reading what evangelical christians are writing about their fight to put discrimination against gay and lesbian americans into the constitution. Subsequently, you end up reading a lot about the evangelists leading the way. After a while, you end up scratching your head, and wondering why anyone would listen to these people, about ANYTHING.

Take Jerry Falwell for example. While the ruins of the world trade center were still smoldering, his comments about who was to blame for the attacks were nothing short of vile. Don't remember?

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen." Make sense to you? God is mad at us, so he helps radical muslim extremists murder thousands of people? I have a hard time swallowing that. So did Jerry Falwell, since not long after he made the statement, he apologized for it. I guess that makes it okay in his eyes. He's made so many ridiculous statements, it's hard to just pick out a few favorites: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem." You would almost have to laugh at how stupid this man really sounds. The problem is that people are listening, powerful people who are in a position to make laws that prevent us from having the rights that the rest of america enjoys. This perverted, hateful, voice has an audience that ignores his almost neurotic statements and allows him to influence policy makers in washington. It doesn't end with Falwell though. You've got Swaggert, who has a history of being caught with hookers, and has stated that the Prophet Muhammad was a "pervert" and a "sex deviant." Pat Robertson, the champion of the anti-abortionists. He has business dealings in communist China. So is it any surprise that he defends the right for women to abort female fetus' there? It seems that abortion is only "evil" to Pat, if it doesn't help him to turn a profit. The list goes on and is almost to nauseating to elaborate on. Robert Tilton, who's working on his third or fourth marriage (but lesbians and gays are a threat to heterosexual marriage to hear him tell it). Oral Roberts, who has visions of 600 foot Christs lifting hospitals and bragging about how easily they can lift it or tells his viewers that if he doesn't meet a quota of donations, God has told him he would die. Why is ANYONE listening to these people, about ANYTHING? The only answer that I can grasp is that people just don't care. They ignore what they hear and don't like or disagree with, and latch on to what they want to hear. It's the old "Don't do what I do, do what I SAY" game. Well, I'm sick of playing.