DKStories

There are times I love being a Californian. :) As is normal, the christians immediately state that the whole section of the treaty that included this phrase were 'made up' by a former chaplain to George Washington and was not in the arabaic version of the treaty. However, both George Washington and James Madison approved the treaty including with that phrasing. It doesn't matter if other versions did not include it, nor if subsequen revisions to the treaty included it, this phrase was aprpoved unanimously by the US Congress as part of that document. Unfortunately we are dealing with irrational people who use their religious beliefs to justify using force on others in this society. No pithy phrase is giong to change their mind.

Notice something about Bryan Fischer's spiel - homosexuals are hate-filled, vengeful, bigoted, etc. Meanwhile Christians are the victims. Yup, we get bullied, beaten up, raped, or murdered - and we're the hateful bigots bent on revenge.

I've been disappointed with Obama at several points during his Presidency, but I have to say he has been the strongest advocate for LGBT rights that we have EVER had in the White House. He may not be as strong as we had hoped, but he has accomplished leaps and bounds more than every President before him. Whether it's here at home where has used executive authority to enable same-sex partner benefits, refused to defend the DOMA, repealed DADT or overseas where he has begun tying foreign aid to the treatment of LGBT people overseas he has done a heck of a lot for our community. That won't stop us from demanding more, until we have full equality. Our economy still languishes with very high unemployment rates, but we are not nearly as bad off as we would have been with other leadership. We have seen more job growth during his tenure as President than we saw in 8 years under the last President. Too bad for him (and us) that so many jobs have been lost that we aren't even keeping up with the rate of new workers joining the work force. Over the past three years we've had manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis from a political party that declared from the first day of his tenure that their sole purpose would be to make sure Obama was a one term President. In working towards that goal they've managed to screw over each and every American. So yeah, Obama hasn't been the Savior reborn, but he's made a pretty damn good President (and that's without even adding in the fact that HE is the one that got OBL).

There are moments when I just look at something being said or done by the right and wonder if they really believe what they are saying. Seriously, I mean let's just take a look at the current pack of candidates for President on the Republican side. Who they are, and what they represent is enough to make any gay person with a shred of self-respect puke their guts out. Not one of the Republican candidates on the stage tonight can be identified as anything other than anti-gay. What is even worse are the positions these people hold now, or have held in the past fifteen years. Newt Gingrich - Former SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. For years this man was two heartbeats away from the Presidency! Mitt Romney - Governor of Massachusetts - If you could believe what he said in previous years and what he did as governor he wouldn't be that bad - but his positions change faster than Bill Clinton with a cigar and an intern. Rick Santorum (google the name - I dare you!) - Former US Senator (for over a decade). This guy is so anti-gay, christian fundamentalist it's not even sane. Michelle Bachmann - Member, US House of Representatives - Yeah, that's right, the woman who doesn't know US history even when it hits her in the back of the head, whose husband wants to make all of us straight in his therapy center that feeds at the medicare trough is a CURRENT member of congress and regularly re-elected. Ron Paul - That crazy libertarian-leaning man from Texas is probably the softest in opposition to gay rights of any person on the Republican stage, but he's far from gay-friendly or even gay-affirming. I'm sure he had no problems with businesses putting up signs saying "No Gays Allowed". Certainly his son (a sitting US Senator) has said publicly that HE sees no problem with that approach. Bottom line, everyone at the top is about as anti-gay as you can get, and they are all very important, key elected officials or former elected officials. When you look at the currently elected leaders, you've got John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor who pushed through a million dollar plus defense of the Defense of Marriage Act to keep legal gay marriages in certain states from being recognized by the federal government. You've got Mitch McConnel doing his best to kill the repeal of DOMA in the Senate and Jim DeMitt (as noted in the above article) making sure any gay-friendly person nominated to a position in the government by the President is blocked. Our government is being strangled to death, bleeding the death of a thousand small cuts by these idiots who the American people have elected. Unfortunately, we get the government we vote into office. What we need are good, strong candidates dedicated to doing what is best for the country and its citizens, not the self-serving idiots we have now (and yes, I include a few Democrats in that category like Ben Nelson). Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I wonder how so many people live with blinders on as they go into the ballot box.

she wrote a letter urging El Savadore to be nice to gay people. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/09/opinion/cardona-aponte-salvador/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn It may be beating people over the head with this...but when 2012 rolls around and it's time to step into the ballot box, these things need to be remembered. It's important to not only defeat the Republican nominee for President, but any of them that do not denounce these types of actions.

As Secretary Cliniton said in her speech, America has a long way to go yet in protecting the rights of its citizens, including its gay citizens. Her speech, in addition to being so strong in its support of LGBT people is also a textbook example of what it means to be liberal. 1. Government is NOT the source of rights. 2. Human rights are inalienable and we are born with them. They cannot be granted to us. We have them from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death. People and government can only impinge on those rights and prevent the free expression thereof. 3. It IS the role of government to protect the free expression of our human rights. 4. Gay rights are not special rights, they are human rights. 5. No country is perfect, no country is without fault, but we can strive towards making our homes, our cities, our nations better places, safer places. 6. When our neighbors, our governments, or those governments that we do business with transgress against the rights of humans, we must make a stand and tell them "no". Nigeria's anti-gay bill has been met with a lot of opposition from countries beyond the United States. In fact it was the United Kingdom that took the early lead in threatening the removal of foreign aid funds if the bill is enacted. (I have to hand it to you brits - you found a conservative PM that actually supports gay rights. Can you send a few like him to infest the Republican party?). We have just upped the ante and made the concept a worldwide proposal. Now on to the point regarding religion. I personally believe that organized religion is the most dangerous threat to freedom and liberty in the mdoern world. It is where the racist and the bigot find justification for their hatred and legitimacy for their desires to seperate and eviscerate. Yet, here our Constitution protects them. It is sad in that the protections were put in place to protect the people from a state-imposed religion and it is now being used to allow religion to impose on the state, but it is what it is. Until people themselves turn away from the discriminatory and hate-filled churches, they will continue along the path they have trod for the past two hundred years. Oh yeah, don't think the hatred and discrimination of the modern church is anything new. They can be found attempting to change the laws of this nation to suit their religious beliefs since before the nation was founded. Do you remember that Jefferson's famous use of the 'seperation of church and state' phrase was in response to an attempt by Baptists to have a prayer and the bible put into law (something that is common now). It was only in 1956 that religious leaders got "In God We Trust" as the national motto (by using the threat of communism to justify it). Let us also not forget that Christian hatred of alcohol even got our constitution changed to outlaw alcohol (especially important for anyone who says there is no chance for amendments banning gay marriage, abortion, or even flag burning). We must remember that we are a democratic republic where the will of our people is reflected by the people we have elected. If we wish to see things continue to improve, if we wish people like Hillary Clinton to represent us to the world, we must go to the ballot box and choose those leaders. It's there that we can make sure that things continue to get better, and where we can make sure that the words of Hillary Clinton hold true.

Barney Frank has made a lot of mistakes over his political career (starting with having a boyfriend that was running a prostitution ring out of their home - which is how Barney ended up coming out). In many ways, he is your typical politician, warts and all. Yet, as politicians go, he has been more honest, more blunt, and more straightforward than most of his colleagues. Show me a congressional candidate who refuses to take money from major industies like banks, etc. and I'll show you a candidate most likely to lose their election. There are few (if any) members of Congress who can get elected without taking money from banks, financial institutions, or other businesses that might be regulated by Congress. So long as candidates have to raise money to get elected, and businesses are allowed to be a part of the electoral process you will have this happen. The important part is what they do while they are in office. Right now, the #1 target of the financial regulation business is a law that was called Dodd-Frank. Chris Dodd announced his retirement from the Senate this year, and now so has the other name attached to that law, Barney Frank. Why does the financial industry hate this law? It's simple - because it limits what they can do in screwing over the people of the United States. It even says if they screw up like they did in 2008 - they won't be bailed out again. Does it do everything we want? Hell no. We want more, but after the 2010 election you're not going to get more. Is it far better than what we had before it passed? Hell yes. That's something that is very common, and that is a part of politics: compromise. Barney Frank was a master at compromise, and he was a master at moving forward a gay-friendly agenda as much as possible over the years. Want to know how Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed? Barney Frank played an integral part of moving the actual legislation through the House. How did ENDA get even a shot of being heard and coming within a hair's breath of being passed? Look at Barney Frank's work. Like any other human being, his is an imperfect person. Like any successful politician, he has a ton of skeletons in the closet rattling around. Thanks to one of those skeletons, he leaped out of the closet decades ago and hasn't looked back. When he leaves the House for the final time, there will still be gay and lesbian representatives in that institution of our government. That can not be said if he'd left twenty years ago. For far too long, he was the ONLY openly gay representative in our government. When you look for perfection, you doom yourself to a life of perpetual dissapointment. Barney Frank's leadership on LGBT issues will be sorely missed in the years to come, especially as we come under more and more attack by Republican officials seeking to deny us marriage rights, pushing military members back in the closet, taking away rights every chance they get, and even seeking to make being gay once again a crime. (Does that sound a little extreme? Look up laws proposed, approved, and put on the books both by the federal government and the various state governments You will find cases of all of these having been submitted or enacted by Republican representatives. It is happening and will continue to happen so long as they continue to be elected to office).

http://news.advocate.com/post/13844217337/watch-the-speech-youve-been-waiting-for Hillary Clinton's speech (watch it from the above link - it is worth every second of your time) is one of the reasons why I supported her in 2008 for President. She didn't win, but once she took over as Secretary of State, she immediately began making changes to the State Department's operations that were important to the LGBT community. This speech, and the new Obama policy directive linking gay rights to foreign aid monies is even more important. This is what happens when you elect Democrats.

Actually - California's Democratic legislature voted TWICE to legalize same-sex marriage. It passed both houses of our state government only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Almost every Democrat voted for the bill while every Republican voted against it. The Republican Governor of that time vetoed the bill. Tell me again how it doesn't matter if there are Republican or Democrats in office? Proposition 8 came about after the California Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage in a court case. 52% of California's population voted for the proposition. The court case that we won is now stalled at the appeals court level. Winning the court case at the 9th Circuit level is hopeful, but not guaranteed. Winning it on appeal to the US Supreme Court is a crap shoot at best. The case will hinge on keeping all four of the left leaning justices (we only have two classic liberals still on the bench), and getting Kennedy to side with the left side. Since their ruling would affect the entire United States, not just California, most court watchers are pessimistic at best that the case will win. The other option to get rid of Proposition 8 is to repeal it at the ballot box. The state's largest LGBT group has already declared that it will not push for a Prop 8 repeal in 2012 - the year that it is most likely to pass. With the state's Democratic Governor having signed a law that now puts ballot issues on the November ballot, it could be on the ballot with Barack Obama again - and I well remember the phone call I got on election day 2008 where Prop 8 supporters used a recording of him at a debate to urge me to vote Yes on 8te. Even with him on the ballot, trying to overtun 8 at the ballot box is a very remote possibility, and without a statewide organization or a millionaire doling out millions to fund the campaign it won't ever be on the ballot. Now, please tell me how we're going to get marriage in California soon? (and boy do I want to be wrong on this one). Young people may be more pro-gay, but they don't vote and the only people that matter in regards to changing laws are those that actually show up at the ballot box. Before Prop 8 went to the ballot box, a majority of Californians supported gay marriage, but those people didn't bother to vote in the same numbers as those who opposed gay marriage, and so Prop 8 won. Sorry, I not only live in California, I work in politics in California. The only reason NY still has gay marriage is that the state laws do not allow voter-sponsored ballot measures. In that state, and in Massachussetts and a number of other states with same-sex marriage, ballot measures have to be put up by the legislature as a referendum. That has protected those state laws, along with a solid Democratic majority in the same legislatures, keeping it off of the ballot. Gay and lesbian victories are tenuous at best. They can easily be overturned, erased from history. Look at history and you'll see all it takes is a conservative sweep to power to undo any gains by the LGBT community. How bad it can get depends on how conservative a group gets elected. So, yes, elections do matter, and voting for people that will vote against our community damages us, period, no matter what other issues they ran on during the election. Pecman, a vote has taken place - and while most people will say it's just a committee vote, what any decent politico will tell you is that in most cases a committee vote WILL reflect on the final vote. When the vote is extremely close, or it has weak party members waffling, you have a chance of flipping votes on the house floor, but this is not one of those cases. The committee vote was a strong, pure party line vote. In fact, the Democratic, pro-gay side might lose one or two votes because of what happened with the Anthony Wiener seat in New York (in case I have to explain that - Democrat Anthony Wiener resigned after sending pics of his penis around and their going public - his seat was Democratic for decades with a solid Democratic majority and a Republican won that seat in the special to replace Wiener. The National Organization for Marriage - now headed by an architect of the Prop 8 battle - contributed heavily to that race and they are going to Democrats in tight districts and vowing to use their millions to run them out of office unless they vote to overturn gay marriage). So yes, who you vote for does matter. When you have strong Republican victories like we've seen over the past two years, they move forward on their war against abortion, unions, and gays. Then they pick on the margins of Democrats and sneak away a vote or two from scared politicos more concerned about staying in office than doing the right thing. In the end, we are the people who pay the price. No, Democrats aren't perfect. It took Democrats 15 years to correct the damage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but they are the ones who did it (incidently by using the same technique that I outlined at the end of the last paragraph to peel away a handful of Republicans in the Senate who are worried about reelection). Almost every supporter of the bills currently in Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act are Democrats, and while it is not likely to succeed this year, they are the ones carrying the water to keep the issue on the table. The bottom line of all this is that who you vote for, who you elect really does matter. We are coming up on election year that is going to have a humongous impact on not only the next four years, but likely the next decade of our future. You may say it doesn't matter, but try telling that to the State Department employees who can now take their partners overseas with the same benefits as married couples, to the service members who can now serve openly without fearing that one wrong word will see them kicked out, tell that to the husbands of American citizens who aren't being deported. Yes, sometimes it seems like who is in office doesn't really matter, but when you start taking a good, hard look you see improvements being made and that we are moving in the right direction. Not fast enough, my god I've written more letters/emails to my elected officials including the White House in the last three years than I ever did from 2001-2008. Maybe that's because I know the people in those positions are listening, that they care, and that pushing them can help move them in the right direction. No matter how hard you push, the overwhelming majority of the other party, and all of the major candidates they are running for the office will not be moved to help you or me achieve true equality.

File this article under why voting Republican is voting to take away gay rights: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/10/26/NH_House_Panel_Advances_Gay_Marriage_Repeal/ No matter what platform they run on, once elected modern-day Republicans first actions are to wage war on unions, women, gays and immigrants. In states with new Republican majorities from 2010, we have seen legislation that strikes at unions, a woman's right to choose, immigrants of all types, and of course gays. Now New Hampshire gets in the act to take away marriage after Democratic majorities passed the law in prior years. Fortunately this state still has a Democrat Governor who has promised to veto the bill once it gets to his desk. Even more fortunately, the Republicans don't have enough of a majority to override that veto. Until the Republicans control all three parts of that state's government, gay people should be allowed to continue getting married. Let this be a reminder that any right can be taken away if you give your opponents enough power. Today it's marriage, but give them a strong enough majority and they'll start taking othe rights away. In other states where they are stronger they have already started taking away domestic partnerships, discrimination protections, etc. They won't stop at marriage, they'll keep on pushing until they have the clout to start putting us in jail again.

Thomas Roberts is SO much better than the average reporter - he actually asks good questions and doesn't give the bigots a blank check for their lies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45033576#45033576 Hopefully the link works right - it should be noted the MSNBC reporter is openly gay (and quite handsome)

I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but for many of these places it's not 'going backwards' because they never left that way of life. It's only now they feel empowered to act openly on their feelings and cloak it under economic issues.

In another thread, the topic of how the progression of democratic ideals results in the better treatment of gay people was brought to my mind. So, after finishing some work for a client, I did some reading on the topic of sodomy laws in the United States. For younger people the changes of the last few years might seem like no big deal, but it was eleven years ago that two men were arrested and spent the night in jail because a police officer barged into an apartment and caught them having sex (incidently, the person who filed a false report on them was the boyfriend of one of the two men and later spent 15 days in jail for filing a false report). Think about that for a moment. That was in 1998 that these men were put in jail for having sex in the privacy of a home. Until the decision of Lawerence v Texas in June of 2002, there were 14 states in this nation that would fine you or put you in jail just for having sex with a person of the same sex. After your arrest and conviction, you would have a criminal record that would follow you around for the rest of your life, and in some states you might be required to register as a sex offender. The US Supreme Court changed that in 2002 with a 6-3 decision - meaning only the three ultra-conservatives were in disagreement with ruling sodomy laws as unconstitutional. In 1989, I was eighteen years old. At that time, there were 25 states in this nation that had sodomy laws on the books. Just three years earlier, the US Supreme Court had ruled in Bowers v Hardwick that yes, state sodomy laws were constitutional and gay people could be thrown in jail. While most of these states were once members of the Confederacy, many of them were still north of the Mason-Dixon line. It wasn't a regional thing (while by 2002 3 of the 14 were above the Mason_Dixon line including Idaho, Colorado and Michigan). Illinois was the only state to repeal its sodomy law before 1970. Everyone else has done it within my lifetime. Since the time I was born, our country has gone from viewing consensual sex between people of the same gender as a crime to something that is none of the state's business. In fact, instead of seeing it as a crime, we now have 6 states that allow us to get married. That's progress. After all, as recently as 1916 Virginia was expanding its sodomy laws to include oral sex. That same state was the source of a ruling 100 years earlier that made it no longer necessary for there to be a dicharge of semen for conviction on charges of sodomy. The act itself was enough. In 1777, Thomas Jefferson argued in Virginia to 'liberalize' their laws and change the penalty for sodomy from death to castration. Yes, that's right, 234 years ago Thomas Jefferson tried to get Virginia to be nice and only castrate gay people instead of killing them. Who knows, he probably wanted even less penalty, but he thought he could at least get you and me castrated instead of killed. Kind of nice, eh? Unfortunately, the people of Virginia disagreed and kept the death penalty for another century or two. By the way, at the time of the Lawrence decision the penalties ranged from: fines, 60 days in jail, all the way up to a LIFE SENTENCE in jail. Texas, the state that gave us the Lawrence decision actually had the LEAST punishment for violating the sodomy laws. Idaho had the worst. That was in 2002. While Virginia was where the first execution for sodomy took place in these lands, back in the 1600's, before we were even a nation, gay people were executed all the way up to 1801. For those who like irony, it was California executing an eighteen year old for fellatio - with a mule. Yeah, yeah, so the guy was into bestiality, wasn't likely gay, and California wasn't even a state, but it's the last time a person was executed under sodomoy laws in the physical boundaries of what is now the United States. Up until the middle of the 20th Century, penalties for sodomy ranged from jail time and fines to stripping of voting rights, etc. after conviction. Castration was used in some states, as well as the forced hospitilization at medical clinics where patients were often subjected to treatments we would call torture today. There are still people today who call for such penalties for gay people, and some of them are even elected officials. Still, it was that great liberal Thomas Jefferson that best symbolizes my point in this. When democracy takes root, when people open their minds to new ideas, new thoughts, and new experiences and look at their country through those thoughts and experiences, their country will change with them. Twenty years ago a bare majority of Americans supported decriminilizing gay sex. Now, a bare majority supports letting same-sex couples get maried. It took two hundred years for the progression on the first part, decriminalization, and only twenty for the second. When we look at emerging countries like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc., we need to be engaged with them and help them learn the lessons we have learned over the centuries, and maybe we will help make their lands safer for our brothers and sisters within their borders. Certainly these changes are much more likely to happen in the liberal atmosphere of a democracy than in the dictatorial chains they've had for the last several decades. Hopefully they'll also listen to our partners like the United Kingdom who decriminalized sodomy nationwide in the 1960's, or France who never had 'sodomy' laws per se, although they did have laws with similar impacts up until the 1980's. Better yet, maybe they should listen to Poland where sodomy was never against the law (occupying forces in that country had laws against it, but free Polish governments have not). Certainly, following in the paths of any of those countries would be better than following in the footsteps of Muslim countries like Iran where they execute us, or Christian nations like Uganda where they have been trying to pass laws to kill us or put us in jail for the last three years.

Let's start with the kid that put the bullet in el-Gadhafi (how the man himself spelled it in romanized letters). The 20-year old fighter was pictured after having killed the Libyan Leader while wearing his New York Yankees ballcap. That alone makes the kid an American for all intent and purposes. Now on to a more serious response about the US involvement in the rebellion that led to el-Gadhafi being killed at last. To paraphrase our greatest Secretary of State for the last decade, "It takes a village...", and in this case it took several 'villages' to take care of this situation. First off are the Libyan people themselves who actually stood up, took up arms and put their lives on their line. Who can forget the early days of the conflict when an NBC reporter is in the field with rebels as they are attacking the Libyan army, and the fighter he was interviewing was armed with...A PLASTIC TOY GUN. He wanted his freedom so badly he would take to the battlefield with nothing but a toy so he could fight for freedom. (or maybe he was just insane). The rebellion would have been over in those early days very quickly without international assistance. The United States was nearly paralyzed. With a do-nothing Republican House, a senate paralyzed by the 60-vote rule, and liberal doves who would move to block him, the President had very few options. He used all those options, maneuvered around the edges of what was legally permissable and sent our pilots into harms way. Along the way he got together with Britain and France (yes, that same France that Republicans have called wimps and pussies for the last decade after they refused to endorse the stupid, dumb war that was Iraq) and got them to agree to take over after Obama's legal deadlines forced him to withdraw from direct support of military action. It was this NATO effort, including a UNITED STATES PREDATOR DRONE that attacked el-Gadhafi's convoy, putting it into a position where rebel fighters on the ground could finish the job - including a 20-year old young man wearing a NY Yankees ballcap. Where will Libya goe from here? Well, according to the same article linked above, it's not necessarily what James Saavik implied: Next door to Libya is a country called Tunisia. For those that don't remember, Tunisia is the country that started the 'Arab Spring' movement by getting rid of their dictatorial 'President'. Now they have had free, democratic elections where over 80% of the voting population came out and cast their vote. Whatever may come of it, it IS a democratic vote. Democracy people, and that is a damn beautiful beginning. Now let's go back to the quote from the 'update'. First off, it's source is al-Jazeera news. Whatever their beginnings, al-Jazeera is now one of the most reliable, consistent and effective news organizations in the middle east. They are also one of the most accurate. Their translation is most likely to be the most accurate of those out there in the media today, so let's look at the key word in their translation: democratic. This is not democratic as in democratic party, but rather democratic as in the principles of democracy, government whose power is based on the will of the people, not on the will of the rulers. I know the part about 'based on sharia law' is disturbing to most of us. It should be. Just like 'based on the bible' here in the United States should worry us just as much. Both holy books call for the killing or imprisonment of people like most of us here on this board. Fortunately we are a few hundred years further along in the democratic process and most of the debate in our country isn't about whether to kill or jail gay people, but whether we are allowed to marry or not. It's not going to be that easy in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya. Still, what is going on there now is a beginning, and since other nations have led the way with Democracy before, it won't take them two hundred years to get to this point. Instead of reacting out of fear, let's look at this as an opportunity. Stick with these people, help them get back on their feet and to build truly democratic governments. As long as we stay engaged with them, we have a chance to help them make their countries a better place. It's what we should have done with Iraq, instead of propping up dictatorial prime ministers who have allowed sectarian strife to grow worse since the end of the surge, and who have allowed things like the continued murders of gay people in that country. Frankly, there is a lot more hope in these other countries where the United States is the country that helped them achieve their freedom as compared to Iraq where we have been their conquerors for the better part of a decade, oppressing them, killing them, torturing them in prisons and then propping up power-hungry corrupt fools who have gone on to steal and kill their own people. There are a lot of things in Libya (and Egypt too!) that we need to be worried about and need to work on. However, by approaching these countries and their rebellions differently than we did Iraq and Afghanistan, we stand a better chance of building strong, lasting friendly relationships with those nations. We can also be a stronger voice in tempering the new nations into more civilized places.

Well, it seems it took two months (almost from the day) to go from taking the capital to eliminating the dictator. The man of many spellings for his name is now dead - in part thanks to repeated attacks by NATO fighters and Predator drones on his convoy. This whole operation has cost the United States of America around $1 Billion. That's a lot of money until you look at what we spent to take out Saddam Hussein under a different President. That price tag was about $1 Billion PER DAY and is now over $2 Trillion. So let's see, since coming in to office three years ago - Obama has racked up an impressive kill list including not only Osama bin Ladin but most of the al-Quaeda leadership after him as well. Now he adds Khaddaffy to the list. He's done so well abroad while domestically things have stalled. I couldn't help but notice that when it comes to foreign policy he doesn't have to really deal with Republicans all that much. All they've done is stopped any appointments he's made and so he just makes temporary appointments to get around them. Unfortunately it's not that easy when it comes to domestic policy. Maybe if we swept the Republicans out of the way we might actually fix things here at home the way we've been fixing them overseas - more success for a lot less $$.

At least he brings us pictures of good looking guys like the one just over his shoulder... Seriously, not the most embarrassing photos of Arnold. If you walked into the California Democratic Party's office in Sacramento during his time in office you might have seen pictures like... http://www.workoutweights.net/page/21/ (you have to scroll down a bit to find the pic)

I've been following the Syrian uprisings from a distance, but have noted repeatedly that our ambassador to that country has been working to make sure the protests against a dictator are being heard, that the world knows what is giong on in that country. Ambassador Robert Ford, appointed ambassador during a recess appointment, has often traveled to peaceful demonstrations knowing that his presence could help prevent obvious and large-scale attacks by government forces. Here's a single example of what he's done multiple times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nat...Zn2H_story.html He's also been noted as being at odds with the Obama Administration's 'go slow' approach on Syria - pushing for faster and harsher actions against the brutal dictators in power. http://www.tnr.com/article/world/93144/ham...ambassador-ford As we've watched the "Spring Awakening" of the arab world, the United States has had opportunities to win public relations victories in nations where we have long been the bad guy. Having the US Ambassador in the heart of Hama showing the protestors that we support their right to protest peacefully can have a major impact in the long run. It's also gotten the notice the dictator: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...2082128,00.html So much attention, tha a pro-government mob attacked his convoy - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/3...tack-on-convoy/ Ambassador Ford has used his recess appointment to push for ties to these pro-democracy supporters. He's the voice of America, and that voice is right there on the right side (and pushing the administration to take the next step). Instead of being a sinecure for some campaign donor, we actually get to see a U.S. Ambassador doing his job: promoting the interests and welfare of the United States overseas. Yet, Robert Ford hasn't been confirmed by the United States Senate. He's got the support of Senate Democrats - but Senate Republicans have stalled his nomination like they have stalled the nominations of hundreds of others . Why? Well as Senator McConnell (Republican leader in Senate) has stated, their goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. So long as government doesn't work, they believe they can beat him in the election, so they refuse to let government work and refuse to confirm the vast majority of his nominees, including Robert Ford.

Bah! Don't you knw the lovey-dovey Jesus Christ has fallen out of favor with modern Christians? Now it's all about going Old Testament or Apostle Paul on anyone who does not fit their narrow definitions - all while waiting for John's Revelations to come to pass... Jesus Christ has almost nothing to do with modern Christianity.

I'm sure most of us have seen the video of the gay airman that called his dad and came out after the repeal of DADT. Every time I watched it, tears came to my eyes. At last night's Republican debate, the video of the young airman coming out was shown, and Rick Santorum was asked about DADT and what he would tell this soldier about his service. Santorum's answer was disgraceful, but even worse was the response of the Republican audience: They booed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/...ed-gay-soldier/ Yes, that's right. The Republicans only support our troops as long as they are straight. If they're gay, they're only worthy of being booed. Is it any wonder that Republican leaders are so anti-gay - it's what their people want.

The 10% figure comes from the decades-old Kinsey study. The 3% figure comes from Census data and some other studies. The lower figure reflects gay men only (and is much smaller giving the other side a perception of having a stronger argument). They can use that figure and be technically correct depending on the study they base it on. Some of the studies have been debunked, others have had the researchers state that anti-gay people are misusing their study, and so on and so forth. One big common theme in the newer studies with lower figures is that they depend largely on self-identification in a non-blind survey. That means people being asked know they can be tracked back down if they say yes...ergo many won't say "I'm gay". Kinsey's critics point out his study was based on prison populations and not the general public - so every number out there is suspect. What can be shown, especially by the US Census data is that the number of self-identified gay people is growing. There are more gay couples reported in almost all areas of the United States than before. As the society becomes more open and accepting, we will find more people being open about who they are. Here's a link for a decent survey done that shows 1990/2000 data. http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm

I saw that today as well. With all the other depressing news today it's good to see a few bright spots.

They did, they are, and they will continue to be joining forces. They got Prop 8 passed here in California, they've moved forward with slashing any and all benefits for gay people in states across the nation, they are spending well over half a million dollars defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, spending millions more trying to force the mlitary to undo the repeal of DADT, and in some states trying to re-pass sodomy laws so they can send you to jail. They'll tell you we shoudl be thankful we don't live in Iran - or Uganda. Those mean people have no problem killing gays. Here all you have to do is shut up, sit in the corner and pretend you don't exist. Unless you start to get uppity, and then all they'll do is try and put you in jail. Edit to add: So as many know, my partner and I are raising my niece and nephew. My nephew is now age 13 and playing Fall Ball (baseball) on the Juniors team. His teammates range in age from 12 to 14 and so I'm getting reminders four times a week on what it's like to be around teenagers full time - and a bunch of jocks at that. Some are quite dense, like one guy that had to have the stickers on the car pointed out to him (We have disney stickers, you know the stick figures representing families with mickey mouse ears on ). We even had to spell out for him Guy-Guy-Boy-Girl-Dog. Then his eyes got really wide and the light bulb went off over his head. What's really pertinent to this thread is how he reacted. A lot of eye blinks and then the jokes started rolling again, just like they were before it was pointed out to him. The young man is quite the jokester and has been doing a lot of teasing back and forth. I was happy this continued, and that there weren't any real awkward silences. When the subject about gay kids in his school came up, he got quiet for a moment. "I don't really know any, but if I did and they were being picked on I'd have to stick up for them." Hopefully he's not blowing smoke up my ass, but it's good to see there might be kids who at least pay lip service to that idea. None of this will help the fourteen year old in this article but it's reassuring to know that change is happening. What this story points out, though, is that saying "It Gets Better" might be a good first step, but it's only a beginning. The next part has to be "We will MAKE it better." When it comes to fulfilling that next part, it is up to all of us, in our every day lives to work at making it better.

I served in the United States Navy before Don't Ask Don't Tell was implemented, and I was discharged because I told my Seniore Chief and Division Officer that I was gay. After my statement I was told to 'prove it' and did by bringing a date on board the ship. At that point I was put into a compartment the size of a closet and told I wasn't leaving the room until I'd written a statement and included the names of any other sailor that was gay. Eight hours later I concocted a story that included the name of someone I knew had already been discharged for being gay. When my 'hearing' came due on board ship, my Executive Officer pulled out his Holy Bible and preached to me about how I was a sinner and going to hell. A month later I got my honorable discharge. A few weeks short of a year later, Bill Clinton was sworn in as President, and the greaty Gays in the Military debate got underway. I joined the fight, speaking publicly for the first time publicly about being gay - even using a fake name at first until my family go tired of cutting out my picture in the paper so other family members wouldn't see the phots. After that I used my real name. We lost the step, having taken a step forward and two steps back by having Don't Ask Don't Tell enshrined in law. This result kept gays from serving openly for another decade and a half. Worse, it was never implemented the way it was promised, resulting in more and more discharges for even perceived sexual orientation. In many ways, I was lucky with my discharge. During my first few months onboard ship I made a very big mistake and it ended up getting around Barbados that I was gay (the ship was there for a port of call). After being hunted down by some shipmates and fighting my way clear, I was sent to talk to the ship's Chaplain. The older Catholic Chaplain made sure I knew to tell him 'what he wanted to hear', I denied I was gay and the issue was not heard of again. Even one of the guys who had pursued and tried to beat me came by to apologize for believing scuttlebutt. A year later, when I started hanging around people who were known to be gay on board the ship, I had a good buddy warn me rumors were starting and to stop hanging around those guys. No threats, no assaults, just muttering. By that time I no longer cared, and decided to ignore his advice. Meanwhile someone I'd met in a gay bar back in San Diego was being murdered in Japan by shipmates who thought he might be gay. Since then, many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been murdered by their fellow service members, often in cold blood for the merest hint of being gay (or even dating a transgender person). Thousands more have been discharged at the slightest rumor of their being anything other than straight. Many more have died, never having been honest with their fellow service members or their families about this aspect of their lives. Some combat veterans who were killed in action have left being lovers who were never recognized as being important in the lives of the dead. Wounded service members have been sent back to the States for medical treatment and been forced to stay away from their lovers for fear that they would be kicked out and never receive artificial limbs or VA medical care they had earned through their heroism. Today, despite all the efforts of Republican lawmakers to stop it, that era has come to an end. No longer must LGBT service members remain silent when their compatriots discuss their loved ones, their families. They no longer have to hide for fear of discovery costing their careers. No longer do we, as a people, say that a queer isn't good enough to serve our nation. Yet, let us not forget that the road to this day has been paved with the broken dreams, broken hearts, broken trust, and borken lives of all those that have gone before us. Nor should we believe that there will not be problems with this down the road. Hatred and bigotry are human traits, and as such will be wherever there are humans. Love and acceptance are also human traits, though, and must never be forgotten either. For bit by bit, piece by piece, we will use those good traits to push back the bad. We may never be done with this struggle, but in the end we will see the day dawn brighter for all we have accomplished. Today is one such day.

Just so you don't think it's only in those states - here's some creep from California: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/09/19/3...ition-bullying/ Um, on a sidenote - yes that is Orly Taitz in the picture. The Birther Queen herself who is considering competing with Michael Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan) for the honor of trying to defeate DiFi (Dianne Feinstein - California's senior senator, former mayor of San Francisco and the woman who had George Moscone's head in her lap after Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk were shot by Dan White).