Hey All!
I just found out that I'm one of four winners for this year's A Letter From the Heart Contest. Below you'll find the links to the contest's About Us page and 2013 Winners page.
http://aletterfromtheheartcontest.com/about
http://aletterfromtheheartcontest.com/2012-06-27-19-17-46
Hit up the About Us page to learn more about the contest or go directly to the Winners' page to read the top four entries.
Deuces!
Monique
23 October 2013
17 July 2013
Just Released: The Finley Human Experience
Great news, All!
The Finley Human Experience is now available on Amazon.com. If you'd like to check it out, that's groovy, Amazon offers the preview option free of charge.
Below is a list of the countries with their own Amazon listings of The Finley Human Experience.
U.K.
Japan
Canada
Germany
France
Spain
India
Many thanks to Beth Mitchum, editor and author at Ultra Violet Love Publishing. Through her mentoring and great patience, over a long journey, we've finally arrived at the destination! Thank you, Beth.
The Finley Human Experience is now available on Amazon.com. If you'd like to check it out, that's groovy, Amazon offers the preview option free of charge.
Below is a list of the countries with their own Amazon listings of The Finley Human Experience.
U.K.
Japan
Canada
Germany
France
Spain
India
Many thanks to Beth Mitchum, editor and author at Ultra Violet Love Publishing. Through her mentoring and great patience, over a long journey, we've finally arrived at the destination! Thank you, Beth.
27 June 2013
A Poem: Supreme Shake to the DOMA Debate
They wont debate the Constitutionality of banning homosexuality.
They wont debate the Constitutionality of barring homosexuals.
They wont debate the Constitutionality of...wait...what's that you say?
They debated? They debated in the Supreme Courthouse?
They debated the standing, the precedent, the merits?
But, you say they say they wont debate the Constitutionality?
Did they mention the 5th, the 14th, the--? Yes, they did!
That's the Constitution then. But, they still claim they wont?
Am I wrong to think they just did? Am I wrong to laugh as I just did?
They debated the tax and estate rights of legally married folks.
They really debated 1100 federal laws with that one stroke.
They debated the malice behind the word "DEFENSE" in DOMA,
as if married queers are all offensive guards looking for a touchback.
They debated the "innocence" of taking the traditional stand
in a country that traditionally stands with up-turning standing traditions
based in malice and misunderstanding of un-empowered citizens.
They debated "uniformity of law" in a country over-flowing with uninformed
uniformed enforcers of more differentiated laws than a life-time of reading
could cover if a life-time reader dedicated a life-time to the task.
They finally debated. That's the grandest part of "checks-and-balances",
each third has an opportunity, eventually, to say what they need to say,
to do what they need to do to move U.S. closer to that golden era,
that beautiful ideal, that inalienable human right to LIFE, LIBERTY,
and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. So, maybe they didn't debate
the Constitutionality of homosexuality, they definitely did debate
the Constitutionality of creating second class citizenry where none need be.
They wont debate the Constitutionality of barring homosexuals.
They wont debate the Constitutionality of...wait...what's that you say?
They debated? They debated in the Supreme Courthouse?
They debated the standing, the precedent, the merits?
But, you say they say they wont debate the Constitutionality?
Did they mention the 5th, the 14th, the--? Yes, they did!
That's the Constitution then. But, they still claim they wont?
Am I wrong to think they just did? Am I wrong to laugh as I just did?
They debated the tax and estate rights of legally married folks.
They really debated 1100 federal laws with that one stroke.
They debated the malice behind the word "DEFENSE" in DOMA,
as if married queers are all offensive guards looking for a touchback.
They debated the "innocence" of taking the traditional stand
in a country that traditionally stands with up-turning standing traditions
based in malice and misunderstanding of un-empowered citizens.
They debated "uniformity of law" in a country over-flowing with uninformed
uniformed enforcers of more differentiated laws than a life-time of reading
could cover if a life-time reader dedicated a life-time to the task.
They finally debated. That's the grandest part of "checks-and-balances",
each third has an opportunity, eventually, to say what they need to say,
to do what they need to do to move U.S. closer to that golden era,
that beautiful ideal, that inalienable human right to LIFE, LIBERTY,
and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. So, maybe they didn't debate
the Constitutionality of homosexuality, they definitely did debate
the Constitutionality of creating second class citizenry where none need be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dudeism
