California Dreamin' vs. Wisconsin's Nightmares

I wasn't going to spend time on this topic. Only because it is one of those subjects where there seems to be far more emotion in the debate than logic. Yet a recent posting on a blog of a conservative friend of mine caught my eye.

(http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com)

The headline of course was referring to the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on same- sex marriage in our state. In his post he gushed with relief on that Wisconsin had passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2006;

“By amending the constitution, Wisconsin voters removed the possibility the courts would be equally activist here in expanding the definition of marriage. We do not have to fear that Wisconsin will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages by other states as well. “

Okay… So apparently the biggest “fear” that was facing the state of Wisconsin prior to 2006 was the looming terror of being “forced” to accept two consenting adults of no direct family relation living together in a committed and legally binding relationship?

Wow.

Now granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Wisconsin, but I was born there, and I did grow up there. Strangely enough, I don’t recall people living in “fear” about that.

As to the claim that "activist judges" are rewriting our laws circumventing the democratic process, this is nonsense. Very easily packaged nonsense, sound byte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense.

If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776, you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. The reason we have a judicial branch is balance of powers, remember that one from social studies?

It's funny how those who are so upset about the "judicial usurping of democracy", don' t consider someone who wants to bring religion in the courtroom with the Ten Commandments to be an "activist judge." But that is neither here nor there.

And as far as these judges being "un-elected" who appointed them? Elected officials did. So the idea that judges striking down discrimination is undemocratic is just not true.

What is true is this. Saying that letting two people of the same gender get married would in anyway "redefine" the marriages of heterosexuals, is the same thing as saying that equal rights for racial minorities would "redefine" being white.

The marriage amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution is an insult the people and history of that great state, and does nothing to “defend marriage”

If my friend was truly interested in defending marriage in Wisconsin, then he should have pushed for a law making divorce, a far greater threat to marriage, much harder to get. Also adultery, a far greater threat to marriage should have been made punishable by criminal prosecution, fines and perhaps even jail time. Anyone in WI who makes a child out of wedlock should then by law be forced to marry the other parent. Or if they are already married legally adopt the child.

Funny how the amendment my friend is so thankful for, does none of the things I just listed. Clearly it was not enacted protect the people of Wisconsin from anything. It was designed solely to deny equal rights to some people in Wisconsin, and nothing more.

Whenever subject of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples is part of our national discourse conservatives always claim it is an "attack" on marriage and the family. So I decided to look up the word `attack' in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as:

Attack
Pronunciation: &-'tak
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from (assumed) Old Italian estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
transitive senses
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4 : to set to work on
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
intransitive senses : to make an attack
6: the act or action of setting upon with force or violence

Hmmm… to set upon or work against forcefully huh? Ok, so if we take that argument seriously, to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples; Not more rights, not any new rights that straight couples do not currently have, but ONLY the exact SAME rights, this would injure, damage and potentially even destroy heterosexual marriages and families?

Again... Wow. I guess I only have one question then. How?

Would gay marriage mean that straight couples would lose any of the 1,100 federal benefits and protections that they currently have? Does legal gay marriage mean straight couples can’t file joint tax returns, have, adopt or raise children, pass on social security survivor benefits, or make medical decisions for each other? Does the legalization of marriage for gays and lesbians mean that straight people can no longer marry, and those who are married must get divorced?

Would the marriages or families of any heterosexual change in any way?

The answer of course is no they wouldn't. But proponents of discrimination are rarely interested in facts. When faced with them ,they generally fire back with one of three arguments.


The first argument is that; Being gay is sinful because the bible says so.

Well ok, the bible has eight verses that talk about homosexual behavior, And over 360 that condemn heterosexual behavior. (Clearly God must think straight couples need more supervision.) But all this would only make sense if the United States was a theocracy where the church ruled the state. Which, it is worth mentioning would make divorce a criminal offense. My guess is the more than fifty percent of married heterosexual couples that avail themselves of divorce, are thankful this is not the case. And of course this entire debate is about CIVIL Marriage. NOT the religous sacrament of marriage administered by a church. No church will or could ever be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs.

The second argument is even more fun. Allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophile marriages, and who knows what else.

Yet the structure and definition of civil marriage is, and has only ever been about two and ONLY two consenting adults of no direct family relationship. So find me the person who truly wants to marry their dog, and for that matter, find me a dog who is over 18 years old, can read and then sign a marriage certificate, and can then say the words "I do". This argument is as ridiculous now, as it was when it was tried in opposition to interracial marriage over half a century ago.

The third argument used against gay marriage is actually a bit more revealing of the the thought process of many conservatives. They say that gay marriage cheapens or lessens the value of the institution of marriage in the eyes of society.

But since none of the marriage rights or benefits that straight couples have would change if gays were able to marry, what opponents of gay marriage are really saying is that letting gay couples marry cheapens their own marriages in their own eyes. Letting gays and lesbians get married means they now have a right that only heterosexuals had. And for some people that is unacceptable.

It's not just that some people want to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, they want make sure that gays and lesbians have no rights at all. They see equal rights for everyone as an attack on them.

That's interesting. Even though the rights and benefits afforded to couples in “traditional marriage” clearly would not change in ANY way, some people firmly believe that their own marriage would lose value, and might even come to an end, if gay couples are given the same rights.

It suddenly occurred to me there is another word for someone who is irrationally fixed on the artificial preservation of inequality that they feel is in their favor. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has the same word for it.

Bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
1: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

This irrational nonsensical argument against equality in civil marriage is nothing more that the fear of losing what is seen as a civil superiority, coupled with the desire to take religious beliefs and codify them into civil law. It is bigotry, pure and simple. That is what is being “forced” upon the citizens of Wisconsin.

Attempts to legally create a second class citizen are not new. We have seem them before. They had different names though. The inquisition, Jim Crow, States Rights, Reich Racial Purity Laws, the blacklist. Like its predecessors, the “defense of marriage” is bigotry fueled by politically expedient fear. It is time we call it what it really is, an affront to everything our nation has ever stood for, and completely un-American.

Interestingly enough, a similar proposal to add discrimination to the California State Constitution has no chance of passing. Even Governor Schwarzenegger thinks it is a ridiculous idea.

Just as my friend is thankful that he need not "fear" the horror that my good friends Jody and Dennis, who after years of buidling life, a thriving small business and a family together can now make a public and legally binding affirmation of their relationship. Likewise, now thanks to our state Supreme Court they don’t have to fear that California “will be forced to recognize” Wisconsin's bigotry.

Ok Hillary, good luck with that...

Hillary Clinton says she is going to fight all the way to convention

">

Me vs. Karl Rove

The great "turd blossom" himself has weighed in with his own fantasy electoral college map. So I thought I would post my own reality based projections. We'll see who is right this November!

Thank God For Keith Olbermann

Just watch...

Not "their kind of guy"....?

Jon Stewart as usual is the ONLY one in the media to call the Clinton "win" in West Virginia EXACTLY what it was.



Now I don't mean to make cruel jokes about the good people of West VA, but having spent some time there, I will say this; to claim that the Voters of West Virginia are somehow an indicator of how the rest of the nation would vote in the general election, might be true if this was the election of 1858, instead of 2008.

YES!!

The AP just broke the story..

----------------------------------------
Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama

Democrat John Edwards is endorsing former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.

Edwards was to appear with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement comes the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.

Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' poverty initiative, which was a major cause for Edwards in his campaign and since he left.

When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has spoken favorably about Clinton's health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.

From the Associated Press

Brilliant...

How Soon We Forget...

I take great comfort at the Republican "outrage" over Barak Obama's former Pastor, Jerimiah Wright. It is always fun to watch idiots who live in glass houses throw stones at their own windows...

Why Hillary Clinton Can't Win...

As I sat and watched the fairly predictable returns from the Pennsylvania primary, the cable news channels had various surrogates from the Clinton campaign on touting her "great victory", and how this shows how Hillary has what it takes to win.

It has been interesting to watch the Clinton camp's "Kitchen Sink" strategy. Just throw everything you can at Barak Obama and hope some of it sticks and derails his campaign. First it was the "Commander in Chief threshold". Then it was Reverend Wright and his controversial comments. Then came Senator Obama's poorly worded and easily spun comments about "bitter" voters. Then came the debate on ABC, where the first 45 minutes was devoted to issues like American Flag lapel pins.

When faced with criticism that this was politics at it's worst rather than a real debate about the issues facing America, Hillary Clinton's well rehearsed reply was Barak Obama was "whining". And if he thought this was bad he would never be able to stand up to what the Republicans would throw at him come November. She even invoked Harry Truman's famous line; "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Interesting....

In that sound byte ready response, Hillary Clinton made what is perhaps the clearest case for her own speedy withdrawal from the Presidential race. Let's be honest and give Hillary Clinton credit. She is absolutely right when she says the GOP will be brutal in their attacks in the general election. The reality so far in this primary season, is that the Obama campaign has been the picture of restraint in their case for his candidacy over Senator Clinton's.

The GOP on the other hand has been dreaming of, and preparing for a campaign against Hillary Clinton for nearly a decade.

To run against her has been the far right's most cherished fantasy. To say that the GOP is well prepared if Senator Clinton is the Democratic candidate is a massive understatement. You won't hear these kind of things from the Obama Campaign, but I guarantee the "swift boat" ads resurrecting the entire litany of Clinton scandals both real and imaginary are already made, and ready to go.

Picture the ads on how Hillary Clinton made a killing on Cattle Futures. You can already hear Sean Hanity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage spew nonsense on how Hillary and Bill "might have been" responsible for Vince Foster's death. You can see the "special segment" on the O'Reilly Factor on how Hillary's billing records for the Rose Law firm where "lost" and then suddenly were "found" on the table in the White House book room. Picture interviews with fired White House Travel Office staff, Arkansas State Troopers and Indonesian Businessmen.

And of course, the person who is rooting the hardest for a Hillary Clinton nomination? Monica Lewinsky's press agent. Because rest assured Miss Lewinsky and her stained blue dress will once again be front page news. The Washington Times will make sure of that. "But wait!" I hear you cry! "None of that has anything to do with Hillary's qualifications to be President!" Guess what kids? It doesn't have to. All it has to do is take over the debate. You think Reverend Wright was a distraction? That's nothing compared to wild rumors of Hillary's alleged affair with Vince Foster, or the far-far right's favorite chestnut: Hillary Clinton didn't divorce Bill because she is really a Lesbian and didn't care.

Crazy? Outrageous? Outlandish? You bet! I hear you protest that the "vast majority of Americans" won't buy in to such gutter politics. You forget, that we are not talking about the "vast majority". We are taking about fifty percent plus one. We are talking about a campaign that will be run by people who in 2004, convinced a sizable percentage of American voters that John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War hero was less patriotic than, and didn't love his country as much as, George W. Bush a draft- dodging male cheerleader.

Clinton's failed attempt at health care reform has already been spun as "HillaryCare - taking way your choices and forcing you to have sub-standard government medical care". Her own "3 am phone call" talking point practically writes itself into an "unofficial" McCain campaign ad by conservative front groups.

(Cue dramatic announcer) "Who do you want answering the call to the White House at 3 am? A man who has faced combat and survived torture by our nation's enemies? (Insert Vietman War Footge & Picture of Osama Bin Laden) Or a woman who last time she was in the White House didn't even know what was going on under her own roof?" (Insert footage of Bill Clinton's deposition where he parsed the word "is").

The political reality is Hillary Clinton would be ridiculously easy to demonize. Conservative evangelicals who are not thrilled by the prospect of voting FOR John McCain, would come out in droves for the chance to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton.

I am sorry to say it, but it is long past time the Democratic Party faced the reality, that a Hillary Clinton nominiation will do nothing more than hand the White House to John McCain.

Like we didn't already know this...

From Today's USA TODAY....

Disapproval of Bush breaks record

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.

Bush's rating has worsened amid "collapsing optimism about the economy," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies presidential approval. Record gas prices and a wave of home foreclosures have fueled voter angst.

Bush also holds the record for the other extreme: the highest approval rating of any president in Gallup's history. In September 2001, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush's approval spiked to 90%. In another record, the percentage of Americans who say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake reached a new high, 63%, in the latest poll.

Assessments of Bush's presidency are harsh. By 69%-27%, those polled say Bush's tenure in general has been a failure, not a success.

Low approval ratings make it more difficult for presidents to maneuver, limiting their ability to get legislation passed or boost candidates in congressional elections.

"The president understands war and the slowdown in the economy weigh down public opinion, but the situation in Iraq is improving and the economy is about to get a big boost from the stimulus package," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Bush has had dismal ratings through most of his second term. His approval rating hasn't reached as high as 50% since May 2005. He's been steadily below 40% since September 2006.

Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% disapprove. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he's doing.

Here is why I am Voting for this Man...

Any questions and doubts I had about Barak Obama being the BEST choice for President of the United States he answered here:

">

Wow.... Just watch it.

Time to get off the fence...

">

After listening to both Sentators Clinton and Obama, reading their websites, and calling their campaigns with my own questions. I have made my choice.

I am supporting Barak Obama for President of the United States.

Keith Olbermann gets it right AGAIN !

Wow...

Teaser Trailer for the new Star Trek movie...

ok...wow

UPDATED - Thoughts on "Super Tuesday"

">

In the movie "The Sting" part of an elaborate con game involves a staged horse race with a pre-determined outcome. The 'mark', a wealthy gangster is tricked into placing a huge bet "to win" on the horse that will actually come in second.

Lately, it's been hard not to feel like as Democrats we are being conned into betting on a non-existant horse race that the media keeps telling us is a sure thing.

The pundits are loving the Clinton - Obama horse race. Watching CNN, MSNBC or even the un-reality show that is Fox News, you would think the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination was effectively over. All that is left is a super Tuesday coin toss between Hillary or Barak.

There is a two horse race going on. But it is a race to see who can spread the most horse dung out for Democratic primary voters and call it "change".

Now dont get me wrong, I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is brilliant. But to say she is the candidate of change is like buying a Hummer to combat global warming. Senator Clinton is the very embodiment of "establishment". A well-intentioned and accomplished establishment. But establishment never the less.

I will also confess to liking Barak Obama as well. He was my State Senator when I lived in Illinois, and I was thrilled when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. But to be honest, I keep wating for Senator Obama say what he would actually DO if elected. His speeches are stirring, uplifting and almost completely devoid of details.

I come away from listening to Senator Obama inspired, but no better informed than I was before. After nearly eight years of "we're making progress", and "doing hard work", I find Obama's generalities, stirring though they may be, more that a little disturbing.

I guess as a voter I need more than just "trust me, I am ready from day one", or "trust me, I stand for change."

The challenges facing the next President of the United States will be massive. The GOP, slow to come to terms with reality, is still far too invested in their collective denial of the complete failure of the Bush Presidency, to allow for real bipartisan cooperation.

So for any real change to take place, we will need to nominate someone who not only can win the White House, but will have big enough coat tails to give the next adminstration a filibuster proof majority in both houses of Congress.

Meanwhile, surrogates of Hillary Clinton try to quietly suggest support for Obama makes you opposed to a woman President, and surrogates of Barak Obama try to gently assert that support for Clinton makes you uncomfortable with an African American President.

What I want to know is who is going to repair the damage of the last 7 plus years. Who is going to address the impending bankruptcy of our nation due to the costs of health care? Who is going stop writing checks from an overdrawn account and then asking countries with very different agendas than ours, to lend us money to cover the debt?

Guess what? I don't just want "change" I want competence. I don't just want someone with experience, I want someone with courage. I don't just want a nominee with ambition, I want one with vision.

I don't just want to win, I want all of us to move forward.

I don't care what demographic a candidate can claim to be "connected to". I just want a President who is connected to reality. I want a President who can address the root causes of our problems, not just try to affix blame for them.

And I really don't care how you voted on, felt about or expressed yourself regarding the war in Iraq back in 2003. I just care about how you will END this war in 2008, not 2010, 2012 or 2020.

I want to watch a State of the Union Address and feel proud of our democracy, engaged in our Republic's national debate and confident in my President's committment to preserve, protect and defend our nation, our laws and our hopes and dreams.

I have tremendous respect for both Senators Clinton and Obama. But I honesty don't see either of them able to look past their desire to become President, and clearly articulate what they would hope to achieve AS President.

For the last 3 years, I have been listening to all of those who would be our next President. I have read their websites. Heard their stump speeches, and even attended their rallies. The only candidate who was been able to answer my question "What will you do to fix my country?", was John Edwards.

We cannot afford to get stung betting on a false horse race. There is simply too much at stake.

On Tuesday, February 5th I had hoped to vote for the future, I had hoped to vote for solutions, I had hoped to vote for possibilties, not just probabilities.

I had hoped to vote for John Edwards.

That is not going be case next Tuedsday. John Edwards has withdrawn from the race saying it was time for him to "step aside and let history blaze its path."

I honestly don't know who I am going to vote for now. I know friends of mine who are very passionate about Barak Obama, say the natural alternative for an Edwards voter is Obama. I am not so sure.

Part of me worries that the Democratic Party may have just handed the White House to John McCain

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

">

Parting thoughts on the Iowa Caucus...

"Oh, there's nothing halfway about the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without. That we recall.

We can be cold As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time And never see eye-to-eye."

- "Iowa Stubborn" From "The Music Man"

The overall importance of the Iowa Caucus is rightly a matter of some debate. After all, fewer people voted in Iowa in total than live in city of San Francisco. Iowa in general could hardly be considered a demographic representation of , well anything besides mainly white anglo-saxons. The media frenzy that decends on the Hawkeye state every four years not withstanding, the overall importance of who won or who lost in Iowa is largely symbolic.

Having grown up on the other side of the Mississippi River in Wisconsin, I have heard all manner of Iowa jokes and puns. Yet once every four years Iowa in all its Hawkeye wierdness takes center stage in our nation's poltical drama. My Grandmother on my mother's side was a native Iowan, her youngest brother my Great Uncle, still is. Iowans tend to be a slightly cantankerous bunch. If I was running for President, my Uncle Dale, a retired hog farmer from Waterloo, Iowa would frankly be the last voter I would want have to try to win over.

I recall once visiting his farm when I was a young boy. We were going to ride one of his horses. His daughter was having little luck getting the horse to raise his head up out of the grass so the bit and bridle could be put on. Dale, walking by saw this, promptly walked over to the horse and kicked it sqaure in the jaw. the horse jerked its head up and became very cooperative after that. Dale's only explanation was "You hafta get their attention first."

By giving the first primary vote victory of the 2008 election to Barak Obama and second place to John Edwards, Iowa collectively kicked two American politicians square in jaw. With the clear purpose of getting their attention.

The first was George W. Bush. The lopsided turn out of Democrats versus Republicans, including the number of Republicans who changed ranks and caucused for a Democrat is something that, were I a GOP strategist, would have me awake nights with worry. Mike Huckabee can say he "won" Iowa all he wants. But the fact is he simply was the Republican who lost the least. Iowa clearly told the GOP, the next President of the United States will not be from your party, you folks are done for a while.

The second person to get an Iowa footprint to the jaw was Hillary Clinton, and by proxy her husband, former President Bill Clinton. To a certain extent Iowa sent a kick through the national leadership of the Democratic Party. The word "change" is in many ways almost a cliche' in poltics. But with one swift kick, Iowa let it be known that just becuase the next President isn't going be a Republican, it doesn't mean it's going be just any Democrat.

Iowa clearly articulated what is exptected of the next President; Ending the war, sooner rather than later, the beginings of universal heath coverage next year, rather than 4 years from now. Addressing the global climate change crisis now not ten years from now. The recognition that there IS a difference between Free Trade and Fair Trade.

I have come away this week with a new found respect for those cantankerous Iowa voters. The American political horse needed a good swift kick to let it know that 2008 will be a year of change. For the Democrats, you can't run for President, because you think it's your turn. For the Republicans, you can't expect not to be held accountable for mess your party has made over the last 8 years.

But most of all, for both parties you will not be able to ignore the will of the American People, because Iowa has clearly shown the rest of the nation, a great way to get your attention.

Candidates by (un) Intelligent Design…

I have to admit, I was kinda waiting for this one… Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul says he doesn’t believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Uh.. ok…

Hearing that from Mike Huckabee, or Tom Tancredo or even hearing several different versions of that from Mitt Romney would not be all that surprising. But I will confess I was secretly rooting for Ron Paul, only because he really isn’t a Republican . He is a Libertarian running as a Republican. A fact that annoys the heck out of the Republican Party. Watching various Fox News talking heads have to ask him questions at the GOP candidates debate is pure fun. For a while there Congressman Paul was the only reason I tuned into the GOP debates. Yet when we look at the Republican Party of 2007-1008 lets be honest, Larry Craig has a better shot at the GOP Presidential Nomination than Ron Paul does. But, over the last few weeks and months Ron Paul had been saying some pretty sensible sounding things. Stuff like;

“Cliché’s about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”

And..

“Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. “

As a result, friends of mine, longing for the days before the Republican Party lost its mind and sold its soul, have flocked to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Ah, but then in one brief moment, perhaps without even meaning to, Ron Paul showed us all exactly what is wrong with the GOP.

">


I have said it before and it still rings true. For the GOP sanity is optional. Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on Evolution versus Creationism. And to be honest I have never seen how the two concepts are incompatible. The bible says “God made…” the bible does not say how exactly. Yet in a frantic quest for the support of a fanatical religious conservative base, GOP candidates have been in a race to prove who is biggest fundamental case in the Republican Party.

Now if you want to reject the Theory of Evolution be my guest, that is entirely your prerogative. My problem with that is, don’t do it half way. The GOP may not like evolution. But they sure love Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Which is how this all relates to health care.

Huh?

That’s right. Health Care.


Here are few facts to consider. In 2008 the United States of America, over 18,000 people between the age of 18-64 will die because they do not have access to affordable health coverage. That is more than the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina combined. What is the GOP response? “Let the Market decide”

How many times do we hear the great GOP rallying cry; “Let the Market decide!”. Well anybody who has had basic high school economics can tell you the two basic market forces are Supply and Demand. When demand for goods or services exceeds supply the price goes up. When supply for that same good or service exceeds demand the price goes down. Basic economics right? Yet in the case of Health Care, demand will always vastly exceed supply. So the GOP solution to address the deaths of nearly 350 people a week in this country boils down to economic Darwinism. Survival of the richest.

It’s always interesting to see when a healthy well insured Republican says “Health Care is not a right!” Yet claim that the ability to carry a concealed firearm, or enact public policy based on a lopsided misinterpretation of the Bible somehow are. The most basic fundamental American rights, are spelled out in our nation’s founding document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How is right to life, something all the GOP candidates repeatedly claim to be champions of, not directly connected to access to affordable health care? And to say the Government has no role to play is to deny the next sentence in our Declaration of Independence.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

When talking about health care, the GOP loves to selectively paint “the Government” as some kind of beast that roams the countryside eating damsels and burning villages. Yet when talking about other issues like, who can or cannot get married, or who should have control over a woman’s body, or the need to invade countries that never attacked us, the Government becomes a warrior angel defending freedom and standing firm for the rights of “families”, (or at least James Dobson’s narrow definition of what constitutes a family.)

The real question that needs to be asked of all the GOP candidates from Ron Paul on down the line is simply this. How many people in the United States this year will have to die, so you can feel ideologically comfortable?

The last word on Christmas...

Thanks Linus...

">

We now Join the GOP Debate In Progress...

Welcome to the Republican Presidential Candidates primary debate!

FOX NEWS HOST BRIT HUME: And now let's meet the candidates.

Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas,; and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.

Here now is the format of this debate. Each candidate will be asked a series of questions on wide range of foreign policy , domestic issues and perhaps others matters. Answers are limited to one minute each. With points being scored by the most effective use of the following:

Global War on Terror or “GWOT” = Ten Points
Islamic Fascism , Islamic Fascist terrorist = Ten Points
Any combination of the words “Hillary” and/ or “Clinton” = Ten points.
“Secular Progressive(s)” = Five points.
(BELL RINGS)

Let's get started. We will cover a number of issues tonight, Let's begin the questioning with my colleague Chris Wallace. Chris?

WALLACE: Thank you, Brit. I just want to say how brave it is for you to be leading this debate while we are in the middle of a Global War on Terror . (BELL RINGS) Wow! Ten points for me! Ok then, Good evening, gentlemen. Let's talk about illegal immigration. A question for you all …. As president, would you continue to protect us from the hordes of Islamic Fascists who see to exploit the weak enforcement of our borders? Mayor Giuliani?

GIULIANI: Chris, ever since 9-11, and by 9-11 I mean September the eleventh , two thousand and one, and by September 11th , 2001 I mean the day we began the global war on terror against the Islamic Fascist Terrorists that the Clintons especially Hillary would appease through secular progressive policies…
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)

OTHER CANDIDATES: Ooooooh! Ahhhhhh!

ROMNEY: Well, Chris, first of all, the Islamic fascists (BELL RINGS) clearly want our borders to be wide open so they can bring the Global War on Terror (BELL RINGS) to our nation’s homes and schools.

WALLACE: Senator McCain...

MCCAIN: GWOT! Vietnam, Victory, Honor, Islamofacists!

HUCKABEE: Secular Progressives! GWOT! Clinton! Jesus!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Congressman Tancredo, Why are you still here?

COLORADO REP. TOM TANCREDO: I am not really sure, but , I listen to my colleagues up here talk about this, and I ask -- uh…. Umm.. … GWOT! GWOT! Hillary wants to invite the Islamofascists to tea with secular progressives! (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)

WALLACE: Nice save Congressman!

TANCREDO: Thanks Chris!

CALIFORNIA REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: FENCE! FENCE! GWOT! GWOT! HILLARY!

FRED THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

GIULIANI: 9-11! September the eleventh! The day after September 10th!

MCCAIN: Vietnam, Hillary, GWOT!

ROMNEY: GWOT! GWOT!

WALLACE: Senator Brownback, I know you're itching to get in this. ; I have one for you. Your colleague, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, is making it difficult for the Republican Party to claim to be the party of family values. Now, I know that as his friend, what do you say to Senator Craig's second thoughts about resigning?

KANSAS SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Hillary Clinton wants Secular Progressives to force our surrender in the Global War on Terror!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)

(APPLAUSE)

WALKLACE : Another e-mail question for all of you "For the sake of the GOP, should Larry Craig resign immediately?"

HUNTER: GWOT!
ROMNEY: HILLARY!
GIULIANI: 9-11!
TANCREDO: ISLAMIC FASCISM!
MCCAIN: VIETMAM!
THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
HUNTER: BUILD A HIGHER FENCE!
HUCKABEE: … ISLAMOFASCISTPROGRESSALISTICCLINTONALLYDOCIOUS!!!

(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

BRIT HUME: Wow! Thank you, Governor.

BRIT HUME: Congressman Paul, apparently we have to ask you a question…. Why do you hate America?

PAUL: Well, first off, you're making stuff up….

BRIT HUME: I'm sorry time’s up… moving on..

PAUL: Hey! Wait a second!.....

HUME: Senator Brownback, you have a rebuttal to Congressman Paul’s answer?
BROWNBACK: Hillary will lose the GWOT by letting secular progressives force Gay Marriage into our schools!

(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

PAUL: You people are nuts….

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

PAUL: Did I mention I really love guns?
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: I love guns too!
(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: Guns are Cool!

MCCAIN: I used guns in Vietnam

THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

TANCREDO: Hello? Is my mike on?
(LAUGHTER)

HUCKABEE: GWOT!

PAUL: Can I respond... to what you said before?

HUME : No your time is up…

HUNTER: HILLARY!

TANCREDO: THE TROOPS!!!

(((WILD APPLAUSE))))!!

WALLACE: Another nice save Tom!

ROMNEY: I like Troops!

MCCAIN: In Vietnam I was the Troops!

(APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: Hate it when he does that…

BROWNBACK: So unfair….

HUNTER: Show off!

HUCKABEE: Jesus, GWOT! Hillary, Troops!
(BELL RINGS)

HUCKABEE: YES! I still got it!

CHRIS WALLACE: Congressman Paul, do you still hate America?

PAUL: That’s crazy! I never said…

HUME: Thank you, Congressman… your time is up The next question is for Gov. Romney,.

PAUL: Oh come on! You have got to be kidding me… !

ROMNEY: Thank you Brit, allow me to answer your question before you ask it…. GWOT!

(BELL RINGS)

GIULIANI: The day before September 12th is 9-11!

TANCREDO: *stomps foot* HILLARYCARE!
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

HUME: Okay Tom, you can come to the next debate.

TANCREDO: Woo hoo!

HUNTER: Secular Progressive Islamo-fascist Homosexual Marriages of Illegal Immigrants!
HUCKABEE: Performed by Hillary!
BROWNBACK: After an Abortion!
GIULIANI: On September the eleventh!

MCCAIN: IRAN!
(CROWD GASPS!)

HUME: All right, Senator good one. That gives you the last word here, sir.

MCCAIN: Hillary Clinton, GWOT, Victory , America.
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)

BRIT HUME: That is it for us tonight. Our thanks to the candidates and their staffs, to our Fox News writing staff at the Republican Party. END

As we move into the Holidays...

We pause to view one of my favorite Holiday TV moments...

Thanks Rolf & John :)

Doctor Who meet... well, Doctor Who!

A special scene filmed for the British charity telethon "Children in Need"
where Doctor #10 (David Tennant) meets his 5th incarnation (Peter Davison)

Just watch it.. PURE FUN!

James Dobson's WORST nightmare!

Oh Dear God!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!! A normal, well adjusted, talented kid who has (GASP!) TWO FATHERS! AIIIIGHGHHH!!!! Obviously this ISN'T from the United States, where inane bigots like Dobson talk about no child "left behind" but would rather have a kid like Terrence have have NO Family than one that doesn't meet HIS defininitions. This video is great...

">

Autumnal Thoughts...

Here on an Autum night, amidst the grass, and the falling leaves.
Drunk on the crickets and the starry sky.
Oh what fine stories we could tell,
With these stars to tell them by.

How we expected to live in a paradise
Of easy jokes and loving grace.
Then we awoke, and turned on the light
And saw each other’s human face.

I choose hope, I believe in green.
I believe in the contradiction that turns out true.
I believe all that is essential is unseen.
And for this lifetime, I believe in you.

So I will remember a sweet Autumn night.
So lovely, and so full of grace.
Above your head, the universe hung its lights.
And I reached out and touched your face.

All of the lovers and the love they made:
Nothing that was between them was a mistake.
All that was ever done for love’s sake
Was not wasted, and will never fade.

All who have loved shall be forever young
And always walk in grandeur on a clear Fall night.
They live in every song that is ever sung.
In every painting of pure light.

O love that shines in every star
And love reflected in the silver moon.
It is not here, but it’s not far.

Not here yet, but it will be here soon.
- Garrison Keillor

Some Friday Fun

">

Classic...

Weapons of Mass Distraction

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing this week when he repeated his view that gay sex is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported.

Hmmm, okay... Let me see if I understand this....

Over three thousand American Soldiers have died in the a war under his command, Soldiers have had to scavange scrap metal to armor vehicles, under his command. Wounded veterans have languished neglected and ignored in squalid conditions in VA hospitals, under his command. Billions of dollars of have gone missing from military contracts and inept management, all under his command.

With all that, what do you suppose keeps outgoing Joint Chiefs Chair General Peter Pace awake with worry?

Sex.

Apparently the threat posed by unmarried soldiers having sex, especially gay sex is the reason General Pace was unable secure Iraq, catch Osama Bin Laden or effectively manage the oversight of taxpayer resources.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing Wednesday focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

Wow, . The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sitting before the United States Senate manged to show that he is only slightly less stupid than the President of Iran, who seems to think Homosexuals don't even exist in his country

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law." Pace said.

Fine, lets talk about "God's Law" for a moment. One of the most basic statutes of God's law is that God doesn't like false witness. Looking at General Pace's testamony over the last three years on the subject of Iraq we see the stark contrast of his words with the reality on the ground. One can only conclude General Pace was either lying or is an idiot wth no clue of the realites of his own command.

God's law clearly commands General Pace to look after the poor. How many soldiers and their families have been forced to pay for body armor, medical treatment and even hospital food. (The pentagon bills wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for their own food in military hospitals.) Yet that doesn't seem to bother General Pace as much as gay sex seems to.

"I would be very willing and able and supportive" to changes to the policy "to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity -- whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual -- that in my upbringing is not right," Pace said. Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery.

Actually no, adultery is not listed as an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Articles 77 through 134 of the UCMJ detail what are "punitive offenses" (things military personnel can be prosecuted for), and Adultery isn't on the list.

Adultery is covered under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." It prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

There is a street in the Itaewon district of Seoul, South Korea just a short walk from the main gate of Yongsan Garrison , one of the largest American Military bases in the world. The street is commonly known as "Hooker Hill." On any given Friday or Saturday night you can see pleanty of American Military personnel, many of them wearing wedding rings, frequenting the impressive concentration of brothels found there.

General Pace never mentioned his outrage over this in his testamony. Yet he expressed at length his deep personal concerns over the danger to the military posed by homosexual conduct.

To hear General Pace tell it, the real threat to good order and dicilpline is not, extended tour after extended tour, or a VA system that is failing wounded soldiers, or contractors getting paid ten times the average salary of enlisted personnel. Not even the continued lack of adequate equipment or an exit strategy from an Iraqi civil war seem to have the same weight on General Pace's moral threat scales as the idea of two men and one cot seems to have.

The obsession by the Bush Adminstration and it's various mouthpieces over all things Gay is not hard to understand. If I were General Pace I too would be looking for something else, anything else to talk about, besides the colossal blunder and lethal quagmire that is the war he has supposedly been in charge of fighting.

To talk about gays, makes for great stock footage on the Fox News Channel. General Pace standing up for his core moral, and religious beliefs , defending the military from the "gay agenda".

A good friend of mine currently serving in Iraq is, as General Pace put it, one of those, "wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military." On his third tour, his "gay agenda" is pretty simple. - Stay alive and come home.

Yet for General Pace, the real danger to the military isn't the civil war raging all around my friend in Iraq, but rather the idea when he does finally come home to his partner of twelve years, they wont be sleeping in twin beds.

Proberbs 3:34 says "God is stern in dealing with the arrogant." It's probably a very good thing for Peter Pace that the United States Military isn't governed by religious law after all.

Ok, this was pretty funny...

Being old enough to remember the original cast of Saturday Night Live (SNL) I will confess that over the past couple of seasons I had pretty much given up on the show. It just hasn't been funny. But even I had to admit THIS was pretty good.

">

The End of the Bush Era

I actually marked my calendar. Thursday, September 13th, 2007, George W. Bush's presidency came to an end. Not his term, but his presidency.

Much like the horrific quagmire of war and strategic failure he leaves us with in Iraq, other aspects of this administration will be felt long after this failed president rides off to whatever awaits him when his term expires. But his "Presidency", has ended.

Lyndon Johnson knew it when his Presidency had ended on the fields of the Tet Offensive. Richard Nixon knew it when his Presidency had ended in 18 minutes of silence on an Oval Office tape. One truly wonders if George W. Bush knows his Presidency ended with admission by his surrogate, General David Petreus that he honesty did not know if the billions of dollars and thousands of American lives spent in Iraq had made America safer or not.

It was painful to watch. The American Presidency reduced to a desperate plea to a diminished base consisting of only those Republicans who would support him regardless. Not out of any real affection for him, or belief in his policies, but simply out of hatred for those who disagree with him.

The purpose of the speech to the nation was clear. It was George W. Bush trying to make one last pitch of a multi level marketing scam, to people who has already bought into it, and are now stuck.

The President knew he was not going to convince the American People to support his war. A war begun on lies and fought on ego. The American People have moved on. They know reality carries no weight with George W. Bush. For the vast majority of Americans mislead by their President, failed by their Congress, it is come down to waiting for January 20th 2009.

By cowering in fear of their own electoral mandate, Congressional Democrats have chosen to allow the continued death of American soldiers out of fear of being painted in campaign ads as "soft on terror" or "not supporting the troops. As a result, there is little chance that anything will change before 2009 . The President made it abundantly clear he knows that too, when he spoke not about the reality on the ground in Iraq, but rather spoke of the fantasy-Iraq that he alone sees, and clings to like addict clinging to his fix.

In the long strange trip of George W. Bush, He sees Iraq as a nation of people yearning for democracy, George Bush's democracy. He sees a war against Al-queda where he leads a grand coalition of 36 nations in the battle to save the Iraqi people. A people who really do want to get along, they just are being mislead by "terrorist killers and extremists". And all of Iraq looks with hope to their central government to lead the way , and all we need to do is just stay there long enough and "victory" will happen.

In his speech the President at long last admitted that for him, staying "long enough" is an open ended timeline. In admitting his vision of war beyond his term, George W. Bush finally told the truth.

Beyond the simplistic catch phrases of good versus evil. Beyond the endless repetition of the bold-faced lie that Iraq is somehow connected to the events of 9/11. Beyond the billions of dollars wasted, and yes even beyond the thousands of American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost , beyond all that, lies the true legacy of George W. Bush.

The desperate need to never allow for the idea that he might not be right. Regardless of the facts and regardless of the costs. The final act of the Bush Presidency was to say to this nation and the world, that George W. Bush will not lose face , regardless of how many people have to die to make sure of it.

In the last 500 or so days of this President's term , we as a nation will have to come to terms with those costs. And the real question to ask anyone who would seek to succeed the sad failed Presidency of George W. Bush , is not just how and when do we bring our troops home, but also how do we restore the nation we would bring them home to.

Clarity, Truth, & Common Sense ... Finally

">

The time has come to stop "Playing"

I am always amazed by Keith Olbermann's clear, concise empassioned honesty. He is the heir to Edward R. Morrow, and once again, his "special comment" speaks for us all. Watch it, then send it to everyone you know.

">


Text Transcript:

Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush's trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.

And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.

But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.

As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home…

Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying… is lying… will be lying.... about Iraq.

He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book "Dead Certain."

"I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper.

That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.

Which is, to quote him: "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."Comfortable” -- that is -- with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, "stay... longer."

And there it is, Sir.

We've caught you.

Your goal is not to bring some troops home -- maybe -- if we let you have your way now;

Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;

You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal -- perpetuating this war indefinitely.

War today, war tomorrow, war forever!

And you are playing at it!

Playing!

A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!

You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, Sir.

And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing -- and this time, using the second of his two faces.

The President told reporters, quote -- "They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) "tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."

And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today.

"Bush May Bring Some Troops Home."

While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President's true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.

But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen -- a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.

Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush.

Again.

But now, we know... why.

You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book…

And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq -- hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.

"If you look at my comments over the past eight months," you told reporters, "it's gone from a security situation -- in the sense that we're either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I'm able to speculate on the hypothetical."

Mr. Bush, the only "hypothetical" here is that you are not now holding our troops... hostage.

You have no intention of withdrawing them.

But that doesn't mean you can't pretend you're thinking about it, does it?

That is your genius, Sir -- as you see it, anyway.

You can deduce what we want -- we, the people, remember us? -- and then use it against us.

You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.

And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq -- or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq -- they will get the bullet points: 'Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.'

You can fool some of the people all of the time, can't you, Mr. Bush?

You are playing us!

And as for the most immediate victims of the President's perfidy and shameless manipulation -- those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base...

Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death...

The President saved, for them, the most egregious "playing" in the entire trip.

"I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."

One must compliment Mr. Bush's writer.

That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.

For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people -- nothing... could top that.

As if, Sir, you listened to all the "calm assessments" of our military commanders --rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;

As if, Sir, your entire presidency was not a "nervous reaction", and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;

As if, Sir, "the media" does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation's future may depend on the airing of dissent.

And as if, Sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation's agony... and the nation's insistence.

But this President has ceased to listen.

This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.

And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity... with soldiers... some of whom will... on his orders... be killed before the year... maybe the month... is out.

Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.

Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield.... in these last 500 days.

Consider the singular fraudulence of this President's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of The Petraeus Report... in these last 500 days.

Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream... in these last 500 days.

And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is "playing for October-November"… the goal in Iraq is "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence"… and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered... in these last 500 days.

In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.

Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.

Even if it means your resignation.

Even if it means your impeachment.

Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.

Even if it means a Democratic Congress -- and those true Patriots among the Republicans -- standing up and denying you another **penny** for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.

This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country... in the next 500 days…

Not while you, Sir... are playing.

Good night, and good luck.

Go See Jersey Boys!

I will be honest, I really didn't get excited about "Jersey Boys" when it first hit Broadway, and actaully never really understood all the hype. Probably because I had never gotten into the music of The Four Seasons. So when we went to see it last night here in San Francisco I went expecting it be two hours of my life I would never get back.

WOW was I wrong.

The show quite simply is amazing! I now understand why it won the Tony Award for Best Musical. Hardly a conventional "Juke Box" show, "Jersey Boys" tells the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. The national tour is here until the end of September then it heads out on the road. If it comes to your town GO SEE IT.

Here is a sneak peak...

">

Fool me Once....

Here we go again...

Reflections on the HRC Forum

I will be honest, as I sat down to watch the HRC/Logo Presidential forum, my expectations were pretty low. Let’s face some facts. The issues surrounding equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans have not had the greatest track record in terms of uniting the electorate. The very idea that two people of the same gender might enter into some sort of vaguely defined legal partnership became this massive boogieman used by the GOP to ensure “fifty percent plus one” victories, in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

It was interesting to watch all of the Democratic candidates try to navigate the difference between two words. “Marriage” and “Union”. Senators Clinton and Obama both tried very hard to explain how a civil union as it has all the same rights as a civil marriage was essentially the same thing. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich both focused on the need for equal treatment under the law, but also seemed confused by the idea that civil unions and marriage were not really the same thing. And yes, John Edwards seemed to be struggling with the question many people outside the LGBT community want to ask; “If the rights are the same, who cares what you call it?”

Then, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson in space of ten minutes said that he was the most “electable” of the Democratic candidates, and that he thought being Gay or Lesbian was a choice. Whoops. Strange how he didn’t tell the AFLCIO members at Soldier Field that since working in manufacturing is a choice too, losing their pension and health care wasn’t really his problem. Yet by saying sexual orientation is choice he is legitimizing unequal treatment under law for millions of Americans. I don’t know any Gay or Lesbian American (and living in San Francisco I know a few…) who woke up one morning and said; “Gee, If I choose to be Gay, I can be demonized by my own government, condemned by my religion and face a lifetime of struggle for the same basic rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that everyone else takes for granted! Sounds great, where do I sign up?”

The only thing Governor Bill Richardson proved last night in terms of his “electability” is that he is electable, if he was running in a Republican primary

John Edwards really wasn’t able to clearly answer why the notion of same sex marriage makes him uncomfortable and civil unions do not. But the reasons are not hard to understand, and are theological not political. The religious sacrament of marriage is very hard to untangle from the institution of civil marriage. Yet we have a separation of church and state, (And John Edwards was the only one on that stage last night to make that important point.) if seen in this context the issue becomes clear.

We would never regulate someone’s civil rights based on whether or not they have been baptized. We would never deny someone health care based on whether or not they have been “born again”. So the problem seems to be one of language. Some people cannot separate a religious rite blessed by a church, from a legal union sanctioned by the state. It is time to remove the word marriage from it’s civil context. Nobody gets a “Marriage License” from the state, because the state has no business administering a religious sacrament. Instead if you want your relationship blessed by the church fine, that’s marriage. But if you want any of the over 1000 federal benefits that apply to a couple in a legal partnership that is a Civil Union - for everybody.

In most Western democracies if you want to get “married” you have to go the court house or city hall to do it. If you want a religious ceremony as well fine, but that’s your decision. The idea that a religious official has the power to grant or deny access to civil rights is frankly nuts, and also anti-American. I am in fact a pastor’s son, and yet will say my Mother (a Lutheran Pastor) should have no power to create a legally binding civil partnership between two people. If a couple would like her to bless their union that has been created between them by the state , fine... rent tuxes buy the flowers and knock yourselves out kids. But a religious ceremony should not have ANY bearing on what civil rights you have or don’t have.

If we are truly a nation where all our citizens are guaranteed equal treatment under the law, then it is time to live up to that promise. If “marriage” is not just a religious rite, but is in fact a civil institution with taxpayer funded rights and privileges, then to deny two legal adults of no direct family relation access to those rights based on religious considerations is not just wrong, it is unconstitutional.

Two Thumbs Up for - Colma The Musical!

Colma, for those of you reading this outside of CA is a suburb of San Francisco a short ways down the penninsula from the City. Colma is sometimes called the "dead city" becaue it's where the bulk of the cemetaries in the SF Bay area are located. Residents in Colma are quite serious when the tell you the dead outnumber the living by 3 to 1 in Colma.

So when Tim told me there was a movie musical out about growing up in Colma, I thought the concept would make even less sense than the opera "Nixon in China" . In any event, we went and saw it at the Embarcadero cinema a few weeks ago. To be honest I went in expecting to be bored silly. (Hmm.. indie film musical, how uh... quaint.)

So I was surprised to discover I absolutely loved this movie. The story is not terribly deep, but as a "coming of age" film , the plot has wonderful moments, both funny and poignant, that will resonate with most anyone. Plus, I have to admit that the cast is pretty much irresistible.  The three leads HP Mendoza,, Jake Moreno and L.A. Renigen are young, very cute, can sing, and act. Mendoza wrote the story and all the music and lyrics. (Hmm, young, good looking and very talented - ugh.. don't you just hate people like that?) 

A flyer for the movie summarised it this way:
In the town of Colma, just south of San Francisco, the dead outnumber the living one thousand to one. Here, one wouldn't expect teenagers to burst out in song, or dance around cemeteries and streets. But, that's exactly what happens. Best pals Rodel, Billy, and Maribel find themselves in a state of limbo; fresh out of high school, they are just beginning to explore a new world of part-time mall jobs and crashing college parties. As newfound revelations and romances challenge their relationships with one another and their parents, the trio must assess what to hold onto, and how to best follow their dreams. It's a love song to the city, and to the residents who dream of a better (and more musical) life.

Speaking of the music, the tunes are simple yet pretty hummable , (I find complexity to be overrated, - how many tunes from Stephen Sondheim's "Assassins" can you hum off the top of your head? None? Really, I'm shocked... ) The songs range from the wonderfully catchy "Crash the Party" and "Goodbye Stupid" to the heartbreakingly poignant "Crazy like Me".

Colma the Musical is not in theaters here anymore, but a DVD release is forth coming, but if you find you have the chance to see it, definitely do.

Here is the trailer. Enjoy!

From Today's Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel

Now his face can be shown.

Dennis Getto
1949-2007

By AMY RABIDEAU SILVERS
Posted: July 24, 2007

Dennis Getto - restaurant critic for nearly 25 years at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Milwaukee Journal - died Tuesday of pulmonary fibrosis. He was 57.

Like the newspaper's own Clark Kent, Getto went to great lengths to keep his identity secret, wanting to have the same experience that any other diner would have. He often disguised his appearance, growing assorted beards, wearing awful wigs and even a cowboy hat.

He always made reservations under assumed names and paid in cash. Friends dining with Getto soon realized that he kept a small tape recorder in his shirt pocket, the better to discreetly dictate notes.

And Getto's face never appeared on the newspaper page. But he did pose with a grocery bag over his head in promotional ads. Yet another classic showed only Getto's green eyes peering through two Krispy Kreme doughnuts when the franchise hit the Milwaukee area.

In yet other chapters of his life, Getto taught journalism at the University of Wisconsin, swearing any students who worked in restaurants to secrecy. They couldn't tell their bosses when Getto was on the job.

"Students loved him and flocked to his courses," said David Pritchard, a journalism and mass communication professor. "I can't tell you how much we're going to miss him. He was very warm and witty and very good at telling politically incorrect jokes."

In addition to his wife, survivors include son Paul and brother Carl.

Services are pending.
---------------------------------------

Dennis Getto, was the best writing teacher I ever had. If you have ever enjoyed anything I have written, a good deal of credit and thanks goes to this man.

Thanks Dennis.

Religous Extremists & The Real Attack on Faith

">


Victor Hugo once wrote: "Be obliged to acknowledge this: Infallibility is not infallible, there can be error in dogma." It is sad to see how much we have forgotten that simple bit of wisdom.

When did our civil discourse, our debate of public policy become a question of good vs. evil? When did we redefine a person's worth in the eyes of the Almighty as which political philosophy they are prepared to embrace without question? Is there really a difference in what side of the aisle your pew is on?

There are some in America today who definitely think so. As has happened many times in our history, we find ourselves again debating what our founding fathers believed, and what some claim those same founders wanted all of us to believe. Thomas Jefferson was wary of mixing God and government, but John Witherspoon felt just as strongly that our nation was and should always be guided by "divine providence." So which is it? Honestly? I don't know.

However, there are few things I do know. Government is not a religion, it is a function. Ideology is not theology and should never be followed as such. Political operatives are professionals not prophets and should never go unchallenged when they claim to have a lock on truth. A nation founded by Judeo-Christians is not a mandate to create an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation.

To claim that God would vote for you is a combination of arrogance and ignorance on a biblical scale.

"Ubi Caritas et amor Deus ibi est. --Where charity and love are, there God is." There God is. Not in political telecasts masquerading as evangelism. Not in scripted sound bytes trying to re-define who is, or is not, a "person of faith."

God is not a member of any political party. To claim otherwise, to suggest otherwise, to infer otherwise truly is blasphemous. Those who would use religion to gain an advantage in debates over public policy cheapen our national heritage as a land founded by people fleeing religious intolerance.

Look no further than the public gallery of United States Sentate to see the real"attacks on faith." Where a small group of angry bigots sought to terrorize an American Hindu Cleric, Rajan Zed of Reno, Nevada. Three anti-American bigots all belonging to a group misnamed "Operation Save America", traveled to Washington from North Carolina, to show how hateful, how ignorant and how anti-American they are. They did this by interrupting the Senate invocation. Why? Because the minister praying didn't share their narrow, paranoid, fear-driven ideas about who God is, and who we all are supposed to hate.

This is The true attack on faith, it is an attack on the very foundation of American greatness "E Pluribus Unum." Our diversity.

There is an act of terrorism happening before our eyes. It is the hijacking of faith, where the goal is neither salvation nor enlightenment, but rather political advantage. "There can be error in dogma." Victor Hugo's warning is one we would do well to heed.

Legacy Accomplished

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

There are times, when you sit down at the keyboard and just have to stare at the blank page for a while, because you don't know where to begin..

The past few weeks have been nothing short of remarkable in short two hundred and thirty-one years since our nation's founders set out ``to brave the storm in a skiff made of paper." As the Fourth of July approaches, I find it to be a good idea to read the text of that Declaration of Independence and do a quick check to see how we as a nation are living up to it. The reason being, that even in 2007 words really do matter.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --

We live in a time when the President of the United States defines "all " as only those people who conform to his particular limited , fearful and skewed view of the world. He is the President who history will remember for his legacy of "fifty percent plus one." A legacy where the key to victory is to divide people as much as you can, then prevent any who oppose you from having equal access to the political process. Be they people of color, people who don't speak English, or people who are not Conservative Evangelical Heterosexuals

For over two centuries, men and women have died to secure and defend those unalienable rights. Wars have been waged and won to advance those rights. People from all parts of the world came here, and continue to come here in hopes of sharing in those rights. Yet in the last few weeks we have seen the President and Vice President of the United States show their clear contempt for, and fear of those rights. The past weeks have seen attacks on our freedoms by our own Executive Branch that boggle the mind.

Be it their attempt to end habeas corpus, ridiculous claims of executive privilege, an irrational obsession for secrecy, and a complete disregard for the balance or powers and mistrust of the most basic principles of our democracy. The true legacy of George W. Bush and the Republican Party is their eight year campaign to do what King George of England couldn't do, defeat American independence.

When critics dare question, you call them traitors, you have your surrogates question their character, their motives and their very humanity. In his inaugural address, George Bush's Father lamented a time in our nation where "not each other's ideas are questioned, but each others motives." Sixteen years later, George W, Bush has embraced the politics of personal destruction, making his own legacy one of division, rancor and politically expedient hate.

"--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The legacy of George W. Bush is the sad combination of ignorance, arrogance and a deep mistrust of this nation's people and our founding principles. Fueled by years of a rubber stamp Republican Congress that now has the gall question why the new Democratic leadership has not been able to instantly clean up the mess they spent the last decade making. All against the backdrop of George Bush's personal war in Iraq. Make no mistake. This misguided, misbegotten war of choice, that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, is the heart of the Bush legacy.

President William McKinley once said; "Unlike any other nation, here the people rule, and their will is the supreme law. It is sometimes sneeringly said by those who do not like free government, that here we count heads. True, heads are counted, but brains also . . ."

The legacy of George W. Bush is the modern day embodiment of those who would sneer at the idea of free government. Where intellect is derided and blind loyalty regardless of consequence is rewarded. Where Science is discarded in favor of a flawed misinterpretation of Christian theology. Where the will of three quarters of the American People can be ignored if it doesn't fit George W. Bush's frighteningly narrow view of the world.

Last weekend Elizabeth Edwards came to my city and by saying "I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me", dared to affirm the idea that even in 2007 everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Days later the GOP's most popular surrogate Ann Coulter, responded by saying she hoped terrorists would attack our nation and kill John Edwards. This too, is George W. Bush's legacy. The idea that if you can't win a debate based on ideas, you need only spew hateful nonsense because the media loves a good show and will give you a pass on what it was you actually said.

With only five hundred plus days left in his Presidency, George W. Bush and his party are looking for a legacy. They seem to have found it. It is a legacy of failure. Failure to listen to our friends, failure to learn from mistakes, failure to plan, failure to lead and the failure to secure life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all our citizens.

It is a legacy of failing to trust the words on that faded skiff made of paper. Yet in the final analysis it is words found near the end of that declaration that may best describe the legacy of George W. Bush:

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people"

Happy 4th of July, everybody.

">

Wow! - One night in Wales...

A Mobile Phone Saleman from Cardiff conqured the world...

(If this doesn't make you smile, then nothing will)

">

When Appeasement Betrays Us All...

I was struggling with how to respond to today's insane capitulation and cowardly surrender of Congressional Democrats to the whims of the worst President in American history. Fortunately Keith Olbermann again, says it better than I ever could.

Time to get involved. Will you help?

">

Hey there folks, as some of you know I have been blogging for Senator John Edwards over on his campaign website for a few months now. To be honest, the more I have learned about John Edwards, the more excited I have become, and the more convinced I am that he is the man we need in the White House.

So I am asking for your support, I have created a fundraising page for the Edwards campaign. My goal is to raise $500 for the current "end the war" ad campaign. If you or anyone you know are able to contribute, any amount is appreciated!

Here is the link to my Edwards For President Page

https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=MjgyMzA

Thanks!

Dave

GOP Political Twister

Right hand ...where?

I remember when I was in college, our residence hall tried to set the world's record for the largest single game of "Twister" ever played. We had about two hundred people but didn't break the record. What I remember most from the attempt, was being sore for days from trying to twist my right arm six different ways to reach an elusive red dot that was just out of reach.

From what I saw last night watching MSNBC, the ten GOP presidential hopefuls are probably feeling the same way. What was billed as the first Republican debate, made our game of Twister look like a walk in the park. I have never seen ten men try so hard to twist, turn and reach for that one elusive red spot. the "mantle" of Ronald Reagan.

You had John McCain, who strained for reasons to attack Iran. Then you had Mitt Romney who twisted around his own record so much, he would need yoga lessons to untangle his own thought process. You had the also-rans desperately trying to out bigot, out bluster and out blast each other.

Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee want to build a moat across the US-Mexico boarder. Tommy Thompson, showed once again just how far down his throat he can shove his own foot, when he said it was ok fire people for being gay. (As of this morning his campaign was trying to quietly back pedal away from that.) And then there was Rudy...

Mayor Giuliani tried, I mean he REALLY tried to claim that red spot. He managed to work the phrase "Islamic fascist terrorism" in to as many answers as he could. Yet interestingly enough his own conscience got the better of him when asked about abortion. After trying to twist painfully aruond the issue, he admitted he suports a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

The Irony is by doing so, Rudy came closer to the "Reagan Spot" on that Twister board than any of the others.

What came through loud and clear on the stage at the Reagan Library was the Republican Party of 2007, is not the party of Ronald Reagan. It is not even the party of George HW Bush. What was on display last night was a GOP that has lost its mind, and sold its soul.

Amazing were the things that were NOT said. Nowhere on that stage did anyone come close to the Reagan ideals that government has no place intruding into people's private lives, or that "peace through strength" only works when you have strong partnerships around the world. None of the candidates seemed to understand that to promote freedom and human rights abroad we must first model them home.

All ten GOP candidates tried hard to pretend it was 1987 instead of 2007. They twisted to avoid their own culpability in a failed war on terror. They turned to deny their own hand in driving our nation to the brink of bankruptcy with reckless tax polices, insane spending during six years of a Republican congress, the complete neglect of over 47 million Americans without health care coverage, and a culture of corruption that as turned the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into the party of Delay, Abermoff, and Libby.

They stretched to avoid mentioning the damage their party has done to our Constitution. They strained to dance around GOP attacks on privacy, habeas corpus, the Geneva Convention, and Human Rights.

They fell over each other trying to prove who hated Mexicans more, who hated Hillary and Bill Clinton more, and who would fight the "Islamic Fascists" more. All they proved, is they represent a party that still thinks the way to win elections is to try desperately to divide Americans even more.

Abraham Lincoln led a GOP that sought to free the oppressed, unite the nation, and punish war profiteers. Last night we saw a GOP that still seeks to ignore oppression in countries that don't have Oil, or where the leaders are family friends> They didn't dare mention the fact we have a war profiteer for a Vice President.

Dwight Eisenhower led a GOP where war was always a last resort, and an unchecked military industrial complex is a threat to democracy. Last night we saw a GOP where an unchecked military industrial complex is their "base."

Even Richard Nixon understood we live in a world of interconnected global
relationships. Constructive engagement and détente' is always more successful than direct conflict. Last night we heard a GOP that still clings to a failed policy of you are either "With Us or Against Us".

Gerald Ford led a GOP where duty and the interests of the nation were more important than polls or elections. Where accepting responsibility for the actions you take in office is a president's first obligation. Last night we saw a GOP unable to even admit mistakes, let alone learn from them.

And sitting in that elusive red spot on last night's twister board, was Ronald Reagan, who always felt big government was never the answer for America's problems. Who felt faith was always a private matter. Last night we saw ten men desperately trying to use faith as a political tool. Ten men who think Big Government is great when it makes your base happy, leading a Republican Party that created the largest, most ineffective and costly expansion of the Federal Government in history.

George H.W. Bush once urged the GOP to see ; "In crucial things, unity, in important things diversity, and in all things generosity". Last night we saw the GOP of his son. A party that has left our nation more divided than at anytime since the civil war.

In the game of Twister they key to winning is who can adapt and change direction when needed, plan head while being flexible enough to reach the goal. What we saw at the GOP debate, was ten Republican candidates, who would rather break each other and our nation, than change their party's failed approach to government.

When Reality Rains on The Parade...

">

Four years, billions of dollars and THOUSANDS of American deaths later we have to ask; Mr. President, is the mission still accomplished?