Apparently the World didn't end after all...

>

Well it happened. Two by two, same sex couples trouped up the steps of San Francisco City Hall, went inside and got married.

Shockingly enough, we all appear to be still here...

Last Monday, while on my way home, I walked past City Hall. The scene out in front literally looked like something from a TV movie. On one side of the street you had hundreds of people cheering, singing, crying and celebrating as couple after couple came out of city hall waving their marriage licenses and certificates. The first were a couple that has been together for 55 years. Now finally able to "tie the knot" because of the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same- sex marriage.



Meanwhile on the other side of the street...

Members of the Fred Phelps family from Kansas were there holding up signs and posters to tell you just who God hates and why. My favorite was a sign held up by one member of this delightful little clan that simply proclaimed that "America is Doomed".



Two friends of mine, Felix and Freddie have been together for many years. In fact they have been together for longer than half of the average heterosexual marriages in the United States. They have a home, they work hard, they pay taxes, they volunteer in the community, they vote, they recycle, and they are faithful Christians who worship regularly at their church. They are everything you would think of when you hear the phrase "model citizens".

Yet according to this angry person shaking their sad hateful sign in rage, the fact that my two friends are going to get married this August, has doomed all of America.

Wow, these folks drove all the way from Kansas to San Francisco just to tell us that their angry vengeful God hates us all and the rest of America with us. Just because CA decided to allow two legal adults of no family relation who had the gall to fall in love, to actaually get married.

Yet again, shockingly enough, San Francisco and the rest of the Country appear to be still here.

How disappointed the Phelps family must be today to wake up and discover that God prefers our California love to their Kansas hate.

The True GOP Legacy...

It was a warm and muggy day twenty one years ago today. June 12th, 1987.

I was an exchange student in (what was then, West) Germany. I remember standing there at the Berlin Wall watching the President of the United States, state in words so clear, so commanding that they seemed to reverberate through the crowd like an electric current.

"Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

An elderly man standing near me the crowd saw I was an American and tapped me on the arm, and asked if I spoke German, I said yes. He then pointed towards the podium and said "only the American President could say that and mean it."

It wasn't until days later back in Munich I asked the grandfather in my German host family what did he think the man meant by that. He explained to me at the end of World War II German soldiers were fleeing westward with one goal in mind: Escape the advancing Soviet troops and surrender to the Americans. It was a known fact that the Americans would treat captured enemy combatants in accordance with the Geneva Convention and if you were caught by anyone else you were taking your chances.

It gave America a moral authority in the post war world that the Soviets didn't have. It was "moral capital" that gave successive American Presidents from Truman to Clinton the ability to stand before the world, demand justice, speak for freedom lead the world and mean it.

It was moral authority that allowed Truman to fight communist aggression on the Korean Peninsula, Eisenhower to deliver his Atoms For Peace speech at the United Nations proposing an international atomic energy agency and peaceful development of nuclear energy. It was moral capital that gave Kennedy the ability pull the world back from the very brink of nuclear war and face down Soviet military ambitions in Cuba. It gave Richard Nixon the chance to move détente' from being a nice idea, to real dialogue in China, and over a kitchen counter in Moscow.

It was a moral authority that Americans and the world would find reassuring in hands of Gerald Ford, and it enabled Jimmy Carter to take two nations that had been at war since the time of Moses, and into the woods of Camp David and lead their two leaders to peace.

The moral authority that came from America doing the right thing, the fair thing and the just thing in war , forty years later would empower Ronald Reagan to call an evil empire by its name, and demand the wall it built through a city be torn down. The trust that America does the right thing, would enable George Herbert Walker Bush to say in his inaugural address "When America says something, America means it. Whether in an agreement, a treaty or a vow made on marble steps!" The faith that America does the right thing would let George H W Bush meet with that same soviet leader and end a cold war that gripped the world for decades. The idea that America does the right thing would lead skeptical Arab nations to follow that same President Bush to free Kuwait from Iraqi aggression.

The faith that America does the right thing, would lead a hesitant and fickle Europe to follow Bill Clinton when he said the world community could not allow the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia to go unchallenged.

That authority, that capital, that faith in America as the nation that does what is right, has been destroyed by the Republican Party of George W. Bush. The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, the FBI reports on torture and abuse of enemy combatants takes that great American legacy of doing what was right, and tears it to shreds.

Rather than lead with the moral authority stemming from generations of American soldiers and leaders doing what was right. We have a President of the United States who has to attack Amnesty International, ridicule the United Nations and insult traditional allies all to avoid admitting his own massive mistakes . Such as claims in the State of the Union Address, they have to be "re examined " when they turn out to be completely false.

Now we find when the President of the United States needs most to enlist the help and support of the global community the best he can do is "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists". Now we find when America goes to war, it is for reasons that are continually changed as they are proven to be fabricated, cherry picked and far more spin, than truth.

I was never so proud to be an American as I was twenty-one years ago today. The American President, MY President stood before the Berlin Wall and before the world and affirmed that American would demand what was right and mean it. Now I watch the President and cringe. For the last century when the American President spoke, the world stood up to listen.

Now when the President, or more importantly, when Senator John McCain - the man who would replace him, speaks; the best we can hope for is they won't be forced to "clarify" things when reality, facts and the truth continue to prove the President and his would be successor to be either wrong, or deliberately dishonest.

Game On!

">

Memo to the Republican Party:

Dear GOP:

PLEASE make gay marriage your signature issue for this Fall's election.

Please work yourselves into a rabid anti gay marriage frenzy! Froth at the mouth about the "threat" to the family and the traditional "institution" of marraige.

Obsess about the "gay agenda". Stomp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue unless CA voters write homophobia into our state constitution. Keep that singular focus and WHATEVER you do, DON'T listen to the Voters when they say they really couldn't care less about this issue.



Stick to your guns GOP! Public opinion clearly must be wrong and you know what is best!

That so-called majority of voters may "Say" they would rather hear about energy independence, health care, ending the war in Iraq, improving education and job opportunity. But you know what they REALLY want to hear about, is how you and only you, are all that stands between them and the HORROR of some same sex couple being able to visit each other in the hospital or file joint income taxes!

Oh please oh please oh please oh PRETTY PLEASE!! Make stopping gay marriage your sole mission this November.

That way, while you desperately try to hide from your party's record of dismal, domestic, foreign policy, economic and strategic failures by fixating on all things gay; California Voters as well as the rest of America will give your party the election results you so richly deserve.

Political exile - Enjoy.

Their 'Freudian Slips' are showing over at Fox News

It is hard to know what to be shocked at first. The all too common "slip of the tounge" over at Fox News of calling Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) "Osama", or the directly stated wish for his assassination.

To her credit Liz Trotta did come back on the air to apologize.




It is worth noting, that had this happened on MSNBC, and if Keith Olbermann made a similar "dumb joke" calling for the asassination of John McCain, and then apologized; Fox News would be running it nonstop and calling for the United States Secret Service to arrest him.

Clearly the general election is going to get unbelievably ugly

Hey NASA! Well Done!

The Phoenix Lander arrived safely on Mars on Sunday.

Yeah I know I am a geek but you gotta admit this is really cool!

">

Happy Memorial Day

On this Memorial Day, there is so much that could be said about the valor, courage and sacrifce of all who have worn the Uniform of the United States. Yet I think today's New York Times Editorial does an incredible job exposing the unbelievable hypocricy of the Bush Adminstration and George W. Bush's complete failure as Commander-in-Chief. And how for the Republican Party "Supporting the Troops" is nothing more than an empty campaign slogan.
----------------------------------------------------------


May 26, 2008
New York Times Editorial

Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.

Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money — an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush’s Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved G.I. Bill is as wise now as it was in 1944.

Senator Clinton - Go Home. You are done.

Your campaign is over. You have lost. Your continued candidacy would be an insult to this nation. Please just leave now.

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.