Member since Feb 2, 2011

click to enlarge 218132_1751987235710_1119750080_31690268_1102287_n_jpg-magnum.jpg



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Participants at “Justice for All” Rally Resolve to “Speak Together…Shout Together”

Count Dracula's comment is spot on, unfortunately. I myself would have added to the white midtown-ness of this rally had I been in town, but we need to figure out a way to get the African-American community more informed and involved in these types of things. These issues, especially those regarding Planned Parenthood and teachers, affect black Memphians moreso than whites. After all, blacks make up more than sixty percent of our population. This isn't a race issue, of course -- I just think everyone involved would be better off if these types of rallies extended beyond white midtowners. Getting the word out to those communities is the first step.

Posted by kference on 06/14/2011 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Congratulations, Miami Heat!!

If LeBron wanted a ring, he should've just stayed in Cleveland if for no other reason than it would've made it easier for him to buy one from someone on the Ohio State football team.

Posted by kference on 06/14/2011 at 12:14 PM

Re: “"Justice for All" Rally


"Homosexuality is a particular kind of sexual behavior that never can result in the birth of a child."

Know what other kind of sexual behavior will never result in the birth of a child? Sex between a man and a woman who are physically unable to have a child, for whatever reason. So old people should be forced to get a divorce if the husband can know longer get it up? God knows the little blue pill isn't natural (not that I purport to to know what "God knows." That seems to be your forte. I'm just guessing.) And even if he can get it up, women can't give birth past a certain age. What about when the woman is barren or the man is sterile? Should their sex be illegal or their marriage invalidated? I've never heard a good response to this counterpoint to the whole "homos can't produce children" argument. So let's hear it -- whataya got?

And your whole "legalized homosexuality leads to legalized bestiality" argument is also flawed. C'mon, you seem to cite logic frequently -- I'm sure you know that the slippery slope argument (at least how you're using it) is fallacious.

Posted by kference on 06/12/2011 at 9:04 AM

Re: “We Have Another Weiner

Marty, when you say that "the Supremes have repeatedly recognized..." are you referring to before or after their name got changed to Diana Ross and the Supremes?

Kidding, of course, although John Roberts and the Supremes rolls off the tongue much more nicely than the acronym SCOTUS. They could play conservative fundraisers and, given Sarah Palin's recent venture into historical fantasy, Paul Revere and Raiders would be the perfect opening act.

Posted by kference on 06/08/2011 at 3:02 PM

Re: “We Have Another Weiner

@Chris Tutor: I agree that integrity is important when it comes to making a choice about for whom to cast one's vote. And if the people of Brooklyn and Queens who make up Weiner's district decide to make their decision in 2012 using that criteria, and they decide that he's not longer fit to represent them, then that's their prerogative. But should he give up his duties voluntarily? I don't think so. And that's not just because I'm a Democrat. I feel the same way about Chris Lee and his Craigslist photo scandal. But he made the decision that he felt was in the best interest of him and his family.

This is much different than other recent sex scandals. Larry Craig solicited sex in a public restroom, Mark Foley solicited sex from a child, David Vitter solicited sex from a prostitute, and John Ensign's affair involved ethics violations and a cover-up. They broke the law, so I think that their standing as legislators was more tarnished than the personal misgivings of people like Lee, Weiner, and even Newt Gingrich (at least, as far as his affairs are concerned). I just think that events like these should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and that the politician's constituents should ultimately make that decision. The people of Louisiana even decided to re-elect David Vitter, because they apparently felt that his personal transgressions weren't enough to outweigh the job he did representing them.

I say I'm glad that he didn't resign because he is a good legislator and a strong liberal voice that isn't afraid to back down to the opposition. Yes, he made some poor decisions. But I don't have to like him as a person to respect the job he does. If it turns out that he committed ethics violations (and I've read that Pelosi is looking into that), it'd be a different story because that would be directly related to his job. Ultimately, it's up to his constituents -- if he runs in 2012, they'll make the decision as to whether or not he's still fit to represent them. Just as Republicans will make a decision as to whether or not Newt Gingrich's personal transgressions disqualify him from representing them in 2012. With conservatives, however, it's a little bit of a different story considering they tend to campaign on morality and "family values." So they not only have to deal with their actions, but with (justified) charges of hypocrisy.

Posted by kference on 06/07/2011 at 11:55 AM

Re: “We Have Another Weiner

This is extremely disappointing, although I'm glad he chose not to resign. And hey, there's still some silver-lining in all of this for liberals: Our side is nowhere near reaching the levels of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and David Vitter -- guys whose offenses were worse, and who campaigned on "family values." Hell, Vitter even got re-elected in a statewide race. Newt Gingrich is running for freaking President.

All of Weiner's amazing anti-conservative rants on the House floor will from now on be prefaced by the media as "Anthony Weiner, of 'Weinergate' infamy..." That's disappointing, but I can't say he doesn't deserve it. He does.

Posted by kference on 06/06/2011 at 4:29 PM

Re: “Tomeka Hart to Challenge Cohen in 9th District

bkbelle73, maybe you're having trouble comprehending what myself and other commenters are suggesting. It's not that she's necessarily throwing her hat into the ring BECAUSE of race. Hell, maybe it has nothing to do with it at all. I hope not.

It's that, as the last two primaries have shown, it's hard to imagine what else it can be about. What is her platform going to be? "Hey, I agree with how Congressman Cohen votes, but I'm just here for some new energy and fresh legs"? If not, then please tell us on what grounds you can possibly fathom her opposing Cohen. I hope it doesn't devolve into a race issue like the Tinker and Herenton campaigns, but that's really the only conceivable grounds upon which she can criticize him. Which is why this decision of hers is ill-conceived and can only turn out poorly for her.

If it's just for "new energy and fresh legs," then she obviously doesn't know how politics works. No one in their right mind challenges a successful and wildly popular incumbent (from their own party!) on those superficial grounds.

Posted by kference on 06/02/2011 at 5:53 PM

All Comments »



Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation