As we noted before, 64 Democrats voted against women's right to health insurance funded abortion procedures. Many of these Democrats have claimed the ultimate fallacy: That proponents of forced pregnancy shouldn't "pay with their tax money" for abortions because it infringes on their civil liberties. As if anti-war activists and pacifists could claim the same when it comes to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any other wars they oppose.

Yet I'd like to focus on the "hispanics" that voted against women's rights. Long-time readers now that even though I am a proud  Puerto Rican and blatina, I've never been one to shy away from writing about the ugliness and even atrocities perpetrated by Latin Americans. It should come as no surprise my willingness to call out these so-called Hispanics and Latinos of dubiosity. Particularly since in Latin America and the US Latino community we have to still wrangle with the social and political consequences of the machismo and marianismo myths that permeate the cultures of Latin America.

Am listing all seven members of the Congressional Hispanics Caucus for a variety of reasons: If you are not looking closely, some of these votes do not make sense given the previous voting record of people like Costa ad Rodriguez. After all, wasn't Ciro Rodriguez a darling of the netroots? And yet when you look closely at their lists of donors, their votes actually become not just sinister but cynical as well (as in the case of John Salazar). So we can't just blame it on the fact that all of these guys happen to be Roman Catholics or members of the Blue Dog Coalition. It's those donors lists for 2008 and 2010 that really paint a clearer picture of their "conservatism".

Last but not least, compared to the Congressional Black Caucus, the CHC delegation voted atrociously : Artur Davis was the lone member of the CBC who voted for Stupak. Why couldn't the CHC conjure such discipline when voting a measure that would basically kill women's right to an abortion? Or are their votes exactly correlated to the 2007 "whore" scandal that rocked the CHC thanks to John Baca's leadership in disrespecting the women of the caucus?

Let's take a quick look at the faces of Los Siete Infames (the infamous 7) :
 more this way»

When I found out California and Florida were state's #29 and #30 in the banning of same-sex marriage, I was aghast. Yet what really pissed me off was the fact that the Church of Latter Days Saints alone spent 20 million dollars in pushing for a ban on same-sex "marriage" in California.

Why the outrage? Because it proves my point about the anti-gay marriage laws : they are laws meant to use civil law to enforce a Christian Nationalist and Dominionist article of faith. The passing of Proposition 8 shows The Church's hand in legislating, crossing the constitutional line that is meant to separate Church and State.

It's not the only reason why I believe anti-gay marriage laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, are anti-constitutional. I believe all marital rites performed by the state should be banned. The word "marriage" should be stricken out of the books and replaced with "civil union" and "marriage" and marital rites should be the domain of churches. For that matter, civil "marriages" should be replaced by civil unions that would not be able to discriminate based on sex, gender, ability or citizenship status as well have full "family rights" under domestic, family and inheritance law. You want a "marriage"? Then go to your church, temple, mosque or sinagogue to get one.

This takes me to the obvious question : Why in the world are gays fighting for marriage by the state if it is absolutely obvious that marriage is a religious construct?
 more this way»

And I quote directly from La Macha :

But like I mentioned yesterday, while I don't deny that the Black and Latin@ communities have some big time issues with queer hate, I also think gay organizations have to confront their very real racism within their organizing strategies. For example:

Gloria Nieto had a sense of those demographic forces, too. When Nieto, a lead organizer for the No on Proposition 8 campaign in San Jose, wanted to distribute campaign signs in Spanish and Vietnamese this fall, she had to get them made herself because the statewide campaign only had signs in English.

What this suggests to me is that communities of color have their problems--but largely white organizations seem to not value those communities until the time comes when they need them for their own agendas, and even then not so much.

Will gay organizers do anything to confront this problem? Or will they hide their racism behind "They're just conservative" excuses? The answer remains to be seen.
 more this way»

Well, I think 21 states is about my limit. Was considering trying to put together West Virginia and Oklahoma pages, but I think the following are all I can do before election day rolls over us. Look for your state. I cover whatever caught my attention from school board and port authority up to Governor and Senate races. It is compiled from Progressive Majority, INDN List, Daily Kos efforts and my own research. The only controversial one I endorsed was in Washington State, and you can see the contrary comment in that section (from a Republican with a chip on his shoulder, but still with a valid point). So here they are, the 2008 Culture Kitchen Twenty-One State Endorsement Roundup:

NORTH CAROLINA ENDORSEMENTS

MINNESOTA ENDORSEMENTS

ALASKA ENDORSEMENTS

MONTANA ENDORSEMENTS

OREGON ENDORSEMENTS

COLORADO ENDORSEMENTS

WYOMING ENDORSEMENTS

VIRGINIA ENDORSEMENTS

NEVADA ENDORSEMENTS

OHIO ENDORSEMENTS

IOWA ENDORSEMENTS

PENNSYLVANIA ENDORSEMENTS

WISCONSIN ENDORSEMENTS

MICHIGAN ENDORSEMENTS

WASHINGTON STATE ENDORSEMENTS

MISSOURI ENDORSEMENTS

NEW JERSEY ENDORSEMENTS

CALIFORNIA ENDORSEMENTS

ILLINOIS ENDORSEMENTS

ARIZONA ENDORSEMENTS

TEXAS ENDORSEMENTS

Please forgive me if I skipped your state or skipped candidates in your state. I am just one person!

Here's a slew of candidates, etc in California (more local races further down)

First off, I think NO ON PROPOSITION 8 is a must. This Hate Proposition is just plain wrong. Let's stop trying to legislate some kind of separate-but-equal marriage policy. To quote from a Daily Kos blog:

Proposition 8 is an unapologetic attempt by religious extremists to deny civil rights to a minority group incapable of independently defending itself against encroachments on its freedom.

Here is what Apple Computer says right on their website (I am more of a PC person, but here Apple is kick ass):

No on Prop 8
 more this way»

I have been pushing some candidates in California for a couple of weeks, mainly Progressive Majority endorsed candidates. In the June 3rd primary election, those candidates did very well.

First off is a race for Superior Court Judge (office 125) where I covered the rather shocking news that a white supremicist, Bill Johnson, was running for judge as a Democrat. The good news is that Bill Johnson lost. His opponent, James Bianco, won with more than 73% of the vote. The main down side is nearly 25% of DEMOCRATIC voters in the district voted for a white supremicist. This in no way suggests those voters are white supremicists. It shows that so few people actually pay attention to the judicial races that they cluelessly vote for a white supremicist probably because they liked his name better. This is why you will find me publicizing judicial races as often as I can using as much information as I can: people need to know more about who they are electing as judges.

Now we come to the Progressive Majority endorsed candidates. They did well. Of the nine candidates, two lost, one outright won, and six advance to a runoff. Here are the full results:

State Representative

Bob Blumenfield
State Representative - District 40
 more this way»