DKStories

The iconoclast grumpy old man has a message for his fellow Republicans (Okay for the rest of the country, really): Full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/...E78C7XZ20110913 You don't have to sit on a float in a gay pride parade to be tolerant - and I think his attitude here is a perfect example of tolerance that does not imply endorsement.

Smart unions try to limit the crazy demands, but we have to face the truth that yes, they can be as 'what have you done for me lately' as their members. The problems of the auto industry have been so complex that you cannot point to one part of it as the cause of the problems they experienced. This is exactly the same as you CAN point to how every single part of the industry had to pull together in order to create the rebound they've experienced since Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats pushed to bail them out. They are by and large back on their feet, paying back the taxpayer loans because everyone involved made sacrifices. If the unions had dug in their heels unfairly, there would have been no rebound. Instead organized labor did the smart thing and accepted some very painful cuts in order to keep the industry alive. Without automakers, they knew their members would have no jobs, and keeping their members working is a large part of the reason for their existence. I've met and worked with every day union members, and I've worked closely with union leadership at the local, state, and federal level (even the AFL-CIO). I can also tell you I've met some very corrupt people in politics of all political stripes. What I can't tell you is that I've met any corrupt union leaders or members. Some of them have been a little weird, some of them have had some really bad ideas, but they've worked towards what they believed were the best interests of their members. I've also worked with unions in the last handful of years that have had corrupt leaders, and those unions moved very quickly to get rid of those corrupt members as soon as they knew about them. In fact, they've been more assiduous in getting rid of corruption than any other political organization I've ever seen, including the Democratic and Republican parties. With the political parties, corrupt people will often leave a position and then wait a few months to a year before coming back in a different position with an even higher salary. Once a union official gets in trouble for corruption, they find no union will hire them and they are blacklisted permanently. It's unfortunate how people took the corruption of the past and try to paint the unions of today with that same brush. I have a great deal of respect for all unions because of the work they do on behalf of the common worker. So much of our society as it is today owes the Labor movement. Without them we would have no middle class, no five day work week (remember it use to be SIX days at least), the 40-hour work week, sick time, vacation time, workplace safety, etc etc. Before there were unions, workers were locked into factories and forced to work long shifts and many died in fires where their path of escape wasa blocked by locked doors. Children worked instead of going to school. There was a time, just a few decades ago where labor lost their vision, and corruption became a very major issue. Most unions have cleaned themselves up since then and hold their officers to very high standards. When you talk to the current leaders you'll find that their support of gay issues isn't because they think it's something they can bargain for, but rather because they believe it is an issue of equality. They see gay workers as being no different than straight workers, and thus they do what unions do: push for equality for all of their workers.

By now you've heard of the assaults on union rights in states all across the nation. I'm sure we could easily get into debates about the qualities of unions, etc., but Michigan has provided a prime example of how when they come for the unions, they're coming for the gays too. This happening in all the states attacking unions, but they usually do it at different times. In Michigan though, they feel secure enough to attack both groups at the same time instead of seperately. http://www.freep.com/article/20110916/NEWS...artner-benefits When gay people attack unions, I've often wondered if they have any idea how bad they are cutting off their noses to spite their face. In the fight to achieve benefits for gay couples, unions have been the strongest, most productive allies of the LGBT community. Whether its including Domestic Partnership rights as part of their collective bargaining or seeking equality under Family Medical Leave practices, unions have supported gay families better than any other group (inculding the Democratic Party). They have been the strongest allies of the gay community for decades. As a result, the union busting that is going on in state after state also will result in gay rights busting within those same states. In Wisconsin, after they broke the unions, they started repealing Domestic Partner rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. They've done the same or similar in Ohio after busting the unions (and even while bustingi the unions at the same time). Now they're doing it in Michigan. Give them a few more years of this and when they start recriminalizing gay behaviors, there won't be anyone with any political clout to stop them. Yes it sounds alarming, but we only have to look at the legislation that is being proposed and PASSED right now to see where they are going. Five, ten years ago the people that were pushing to get rid of Domestic Partnership rights were on the outside edge of the Republican party. Now they are its heart and soul and majority.

Yes, Christians need more protections. The way things are going they won't be able to bully or beat up on gays in public anymore and we all know that would be a sin.

The answer as why to answer was in the article - it could make you eligible for financial aid covering up to 1/3 of tuition. It's good they are asking the question for that reason, and even better that they are not requiring an answer nor that the answer affects admissions eligibility. It's a plus-plus since there are so many colleges and universities that woudl kick you out if they find out you are gay.

Afghanistan and Libya are two totally different scenarios. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that Libya had a group of rebels dedicated to the overthrow of the regime and strong support for that change in government from the populace. There was no need for an invasion force, only for the technology, training, and air/naval support that was provided by the same military forces that are with us in Afghanistan. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had such an indigenous support for the overthrow of the government. In Afghanistan we had support from certain forces in the northern part of the country, but they were far from being as 'popular' as what we saw in Libya. Further, instead of consolidating our early victories we withdrew the majority of our forces to go invade Iraq and allowed corruption to flourish in Afghanistan while we were off playing in another desert nation. The biggest thing about Libya is that it was done largely over the opposition of the Republican party. A few prominent Republicans gave their early support but then joined others (including some Democrats) in trying to remove our forces from the continued support of the Libyan rebels. While actual strikes were conducted by NATO forces after the 60-day cutoff for the United States, it was still largely our strategic and intelligence assets that made the continued NATO support possible. The administration knew a congressional vote would have seen Tea Party budget cutters joining with anti-war Democrats to defeat any support for funding Libyan operations. Yet they also knew they were on the right course. In the end they did an run-around, bypassing Congress and making the necessary support happen anyway. And now we see the result. It almost makes me want to give Obama everything he asks for in this upcoming Jobs package that will be presented in September. If he's even half as successful with that as he has been in removing OBL and Khaddafy, this nation will be far better off than it is now, or it was three years ago. It's worth thinking about. Hell, add in what's happening with Immigration, Don't Ask Don't Tell, DOMA and everything else, maybe we should all sit back and watch things play out. He's not out there in front of the troops giving a Mel Gibson Braveheart speech, or a General McArthur wading onto a Phillippine beach, but rather he's a Dwight D. Eisenhower in the bunker back in England making sure everything goes as well as possible on D-Day.

Afghanistan and Libya are two totally different scenarios. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that Libya had a group of rebels dedicated to the overthrow of the regime and strong support for that change in government from the populace. There was no need for an invasion force, only for the technology, training, and air/naval support that was provided by the same military forces that are with us in Afghanistan. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had such an indigenous support for the overthrow of the government. In Afghanistan we had support from certain forces in the northern part of the country, but they were far from being as 'popular' as what we saw in Libya. Further, instead of consolidating our early victories we withdrew the majority of our forces to go invade Iraq and allowed corruption to flourish in Afghanistan while we were off playing in another desert nation. The biggest thing about Libya is that it was done largely over the opposition of the Republican party. A few prominent Republicans gave their early support but then joined others (including some Democrats) in trying to remove our forces from the continued support of the Libyan rebels. While actual strikes were conducted by NATO forces after the 60-day cutoff for the United States, it was still largely our strategic and intelligence assets that made the continued NATO support possible. The administration knew a congressional vote would have seen Tea Party budget cutters joining with anti-war Democrats to defeat any support for funding Libyan operations. Yet they also knew they were on the right course. In the end they did an run-around, bypassing Congress and making the necessary support happen anyway. And now we see the result. It almost makes me want to give Obama everything he asks for in this upcoming Jobs package that will be presented in September. If he's even half as successful with that as he has been in removing OBL and Khaddafy, this nation will be far better off than it is now, or it was three years ago. It's worth thinking about. Hell, add in what's happening with Immigration, Don't Ask Don't Tell, DOMA and everything else, maybe we should all sit back and watch things play out. He's not out there in front of the troops giving a Mel Gibson Braveheart speech, or a General McArthur wading onto a Phillippine beach, but rather he's a Dwight D. Eisenhower in the bunker back in England making sure everything goes as well as possible on D-Day.

Since the story is ever changing right now, I'm not going to link to it. More than likely over the next few days you can find it on the front page of every news website. As of this moment, when I am typing this at 5:30 pacific time Sunday, most of Tripoli is in the hands of the rebels. Two of Khaddafy's sons are now in the custody of rebels, another is believed to have been killed in combat. Khaddafy himself is at large, but his days are numbered. Over the last few months I've cringed and winced as the battles have shifted back and forth. President Obama walked a fine line with Congress over the military activity in support of those rebels. Still, as much as we give him flack for never making a decision, or leading, he's won yet again. He got OBL, and now he's gotten Khaddafy. Without United States support, this would have never happened. Just as importantly, without the exceptional diplomacy NATO would have never taken over the lead and continued air bombing as well as professoinal training and support on the ground. Both of those were necessary, combined with the determination of the Libyan people to be free, to make this possible. Now if he could only be as successful in the economy as he has been in overseas actions, we'd be sitting golden on top of the world.

Let's start this off with something from a month ago: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-11...police-official Yes, that's right, last month South African police arrested four men with the material to make a dirty bomb. If you don't remember (and how many of us bother?), South Africa was where a gang attacked a nuclear plant in 2007 and nearly got away with some senstive materials. They did manage to kill one security guard. What they didn't get was the presumed target, 14 pounds of highly enriched uranimum (more than enough to make a nuclear bomb big enough to nuke any U.S. city). In June of 2011, the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Association - or a part of the US government), sent South Africa $25 million to assist in the changing of production for MO-99 from using weapons grade Highly Enriched Uranium to LEU (Low Enriched Uranium). LEU cannot be made into a nuclear weapon (although it can be used as a dirty bomb). Today the NNSA reported that they have secured nearly 14 pounds of HEU from South Africa. It is in a secure facility here in the United States. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to understand that the money sent to South Africa has resulted in enough HEU to make a full nuclear bomb has been taken from a high-risk location to a much more secure location. Tonight, the world is a safer place. It's nice to see a government agency that does the job it is assigned, and uses our taxes to make this world a safer, better place for Americans. We know organizations like al-queada would love to get their hands on that 14 pounds of HEU and use it to nuke one of our cities. Tonight, thanks to the US government, that is a little harder. Maybe that's why in his 2012 budget proposal, President Obama proposed increasing the agency's funding. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_03/NNSA I say Yay! We need programs that make sense and this is one of them. Oh, wait, yeah, should have seen this coming...Republicans cut the agency by $1 billion for FY 12. Yup, I guess it's kind of hard to afford preventing the use of nuclear weapons against our country. We've gotta cut that deficit ya know! http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/national...-funds-20110603

He did have intelligence - I mean he was able to at least eat pretzels without choking...oh, um, yeah, what you said.

Best description of Rick Perry I've yet heard: "He's George W. Bush without the intelligence and without the ethics." - Jim Hightower.

Infrastructure is about more than bridges and roads - although those are the most visible and easily understood. Trab is also right that some of those 2 million are going to be engineers and architects that have been out of work since the collapse of the building industry. As for who can do the work, military veterans returning from ten years of incessant warfare in the most difficult environments of the world come immediately to mind. There are a lot of them, and they can take the heavy load required by such difficult work. Building a school, or refurbishing it, is also a difficult job. Still, there are millions of construction workers who would be more than happy to do that instead of trying to stay on the unemployment rolls a little longer. Still, they're also going to need people to act as couriers, office assistants, etc. What about the cities and neighborhoods that need blight removed and then remodeled into a park? Clearing rubbish is boring work, but a lot of people can managed to do that - and if it pays more than you're getting on unemployment, there's plenty willing to do that work. The main point is that ten billion PER MONTH that is going into war can instead go into a massive temporary jobs program that will help put this nation back on its feet. Spending that money for two to three years we can bring this nation out of a bad recession and back into a situation where private enterprise can reassert itself. This is part of what government is for, part of our social contract with one another. Yes, it is going to incur debt, but if things do not improve the situation will just get worse. To paraphrase an old sci-fi classic, the money must flow. How the money flows is important though, and so far it's done little except flow into pockets of bankers. The American people are willing to work, if they are given the opportunity. If the private sector will not, or cannot, then it is up to our government to make it happen. The government is, after all, the sole entity in the United States whose purpose is the preservation and welfare of the American people.

I was sooooooooooooooooo happy when I watched the Rick Perry announcement of his candidacy. YES! Finally! It was just like watching George W. Bush, only Perry has prettier hair, and he can actually pronounce big words correctly. Still, the entire time I sat there, smiling, thinking how much he reminded me of George W. Bush. It was like a blast from the past. Finally, Obama stands a chance if every time Rick Perry opens his mouth people think he reminds them of George W. Bush. Oh, and yes Rick Perry is a religious fundamentalist that should make every gay person in the world afraid. I've written a lot of stories where Rick Perry is the exact model of the evil villain I've used...and he believes so many of the same things those villains did. I couldn't write a perfect character.

If we end Afghanistan right now, it will reduce federal spending by about $6.9 billion dollars per month. Iraq is approximately another $2.6 billion per month at this time. I think $9.5 billion per month is a damn good start. Unfortunately, in order to be smart about it, we need to switch some of that spending over to veteran support and employment programs. As a nation we need jobs, jobs, jobs more than we need deficit cutting. Let's see. We have hundreds, if not thousands of bridges that are falling apart. There are dozens of national and state parks across the nation that could use a facelift. Our hospitals and schools are falling apart. What would happen if we took all that money spent on wars and applied it to employing veterans (and unemployed for a period equal to how long we've been in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq? Let's say an average wage roughly $35,000 per year. That is $7,000 more per year than an active duty military rank E-5 base pay (not counting war zone pay, dependent pay, etc.). Let's say we use a workforce of 2 million (encompassing more than every person currently in uniform and ten percent of all those currently unemployed). That comes to about $5.83 billion per month. Now what would be the impact of having an additional 2 million people in the United States, right now, making a somewhat livable wage, doing work on our nations infrastructure, our schools, bridges, etc. Let's throw in another $3 billion for supplies and other costs. We are now spending $8.3 billion, only saving a measly $1.3 billion per month. Yet, what would be the impact on our economy of having 2 million more people working, producing and spending that money back into the economy? What happens as the private sector ramps up employment to meet the increase of demand? What happens when in two-three years, as tax revenue increases from the improved economy we begin to shift people out of these public works projects into education and then into the private sector workforce? Government isn't the long term answer, but it is the only entity in our nation that is capable of single-handedly making a difference.

Over the last few months of debate about debt ceilings, budgets, etc., I've heard one lie over and over again that I can't believe people still believe. This is the old lie about a "Balanced Budget". We hear, mostly from Republicans, that "the average family balances its budget so why can't government?". This is the lie, and why do people actually believe it is true? Almost every American family does not balance its budget annually. The biggest exception to this would be our retired population, but the average working-age family finances its debt over the long term. Let's take the two basic big-ticket item most American families have: our houses and our cars. Do you have a loan out for either of those? Most Americans do have a car loan and/or a home loan. Even when I rented an apartment (as a single man), I still ended up carrying a car loan. Sure, I couldn't afford a brand new car, so I got a used car from a lot, but I still had a loan for that car. Unless you're either very rich and can pay cash for everything, or very poor and unable to get a loan so you have to scrounge up cash for everything, you use your credit to obtain loans or credit cars. Almost all of us will end up carrying over that debt from one year to the next - the same as our government. So, let's look at this a little. Our family goes on vacation, but we don't have $5,500 cash on hand to finance the vacation. Instead we put $2,500 of it on credit cards and use $3,000 in cash for the rest. Over the next 6 months we pay off that $2,500 on the credit cards. Before it gets paid off, our refrigerator goes on the fritz and we have to pay $600 in repairs. We also put this on the credit card and pay it off over the next few months. At the same time, the kids have back-to-school expenses. Like our vacation we split this between cash-on-hand and credit cards, putting another $500 on the credit cards as a result. Take this cycle, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile we have two cars that we bought new, right off the lot by obtaining loans. We pay loan payments on those vehicles for a combined total of $1,200 per month. The good news is that car #1 is paid off in six months and our payments will go down by $700. The car is in good condition so we'll keep it for use and use that extra $700 towards paying off more of the credit card debt. (at least for a year when the oldest kid turns sixteen and we buy another car so he can use the old one as his first vehicle). That leaves us the big investment, our home. Houses are expensive. A good 2,400 square foot home cost us $250,000 (hey, we bought after the bubble). Thanks to really good interest rates, we financed that $250,000 over 30 years at an interest rate of 4.25%. That's a good interest rate, and after taxes, insurances, escrow account payments, etc. we end up making payments of $1,800 a month. Fortunately our income is enough to cover most of our credit payments so we stay current on paying our debt. Most people like to call this a 'balanced budget'. We have our debts, we pay them off and we stay current. Still, at the end of the year we might be carrying as much as $350,000 in household debt between our cars, houses and credit card debts. Our government does the same RIGHT NOW. We finance purchases over the long term (what else do you call our bombers, ships, tanks, bridges, highways, national parks, etc and etc?). We have very expensive big-ticket items and we have expensive day-to-day items that we finance on a regular basis. In the end though, we finance our governmen the same way American families budget their households. Where this break downs, of course, is that the government can decide what its credit limit will be. As a result our debt burden gets too high compared to our annual revenue. As a result, we DO need to hold serious conversations about what to cut in our budget, and whether we should increase our revenues. What we don't need, and would in fact be bad for us, is to force our government to match every expenditure to every revenue dollar. There are things that can, and should be financed over time. Still, we need to put to rest that old adage about "balancing our budgets like the average family". The average family doesn't balance its budget its year, but rather carries over debt from year to year, sometimes paying that debt down, sometimes seeing it increase at the end of a bad year, but always that debt is there.

People in Washington either believe what I posted to be false, or they're Democrats and powerless to do anything in the face of uncompromising righteousness by the tea-party republican right.

Here's something most people just flat out get wrong: Debt is good for the government, just like it's good for individuals and families. Like all things in life, however, moderation is the key. 1. Having no lines of credit, and a surplus of cash in the bank will yield you a NEGATIVE credit score. Having cash in the bank, credit lines that are 40% full (or lower) will yield a very high credit rating. This is the sweet spot (as we recently found out when seeking to buy a home). 2. Some major expenses HAVE to be financed over time, and you MUST make payments on those debts. Most people, when they go to buy a car, get a loan for that purchase and pay it back over 3-5 years. When many people buy a computer from Dell, HP, etc. they often pay over a credit line and pay that purchase off over 1-3 years. When most people buy a home, they end up paying it off over 20-30 years. When government buys a $167 billion aircraft carrier, expecting them to pay it all up front is sheer idiocy. Same thing with that Saturn V rocket to go to the moon, or the construction of an interstate highway or a vital bridge. There are many regular functions of government that need, that must be financed over time. That is why we have a national debt, and why the national debt can be a GOOD thing for this country. If you don't make payments on that debt you just incurred, your creditors refuse to give you more credit and put a black mark on your record. Hell, these days credit card companies lower your credit rating sometimes even if you're paying all your debts if they think you might have trouble making that next payment. The same principle applies to the government. 3. Financing your gambling spree at the casino with your equity line of credit is a BAD thing for a family, likewise there are equally bad investments by the government. Providing Tax Rebates for companies that are making record-breaking profits might be one of them. Tax breaks for companies that lay off 25,000 Americans and hire 25,000 Indians overseas is another bad gambling debt. 4. If you're having to use your credit cards to pay for your groceries (as opposed to using the credit card to get reward points and paying it off at the end of the month), you will run into problems sooner or later. Likewise if you're the government and you're amassing debt for things like payments on social security, etc., you're going to face massive problems sooner or later. 5. What happens when your income is no longer enough to cover your expenses? Well, first off the bat you cut the frivolous spending items. However, as the situation becomes more desperate youa re forced to look into other changes. Sometimes more revenue is needed, so you get a second job and start working overtime. It hurts, it sucks, and the entire family suffers as a result, but the extra revenue can keep you from having to cut payments for your health care, stop buying the medication that keeps you alive, or helps you keep your kids fed and healthy. Most people, when the debt is really, really bad will do a combination of things. They will cut every excess, frivolous spending item they can find. They will work extra hours, get extra jobs, sell non-vital assets, all to make the basic needs. The same goes for government. You cut every extraneous program - and that includes two unnecessary wars. Osama bin Ladin is dead. We don't need hundreds of thousands of troops overseas. (This does not mean an end of the efforts to stop al-queada, but it wasn't the regular armed forces that got OBL. Drones, special forces and support systems for those efforts need to be continued, but they cost FAR less than the hundreds of thousands of troops spending billions of dollars every day). What's missing from the current national debate is the second job - or in the case of government the raising of revenue. Our debt load, as a nation, is so high we cannot cut ourselves into solvency. Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 1990's, and as a result we ended the 20th Century with a surplus that immediately dissappeared because of a massive tax cut and a massive set of new wars. We can fix both of those tragedies, and with a little luck return ourselves to the economic solvency that we experienced under Bill Clinton. Bottom line is Apple has more money in the bank than we do because they're smart. They raise revenues to cover added expensives, and they cut out wasteful practices. They evolve as the market place evolves, and they often lead the way. Instead, we as a country are seeking to fire all of the critical developers that would make our new products, we give away our products instead of selling them for a profit, and we try to build Apple IIe computers that were outdated thirty years ago because we want things to be the way they were before. Then again, that's conservatism for you...

As a parent with two kids, I have to say this legislation is downright wrong. What business does the government have coming into my home and telling me how to raise my children, what I can or cannot do in my own home, with my own children? The damn liberals in this country just want to...wait. Oh yeah, it's not liberals trying to tell people what to do with their private lives, it's conservatives. Go figure. So much for smaller government...

The legislation is about the inclusion of gay and lesbian leaders as part of our state's history. When civil rights are discussed, Harvey Milk will be included (as will other leaders). To conservative chrisitans, this is worse than showing 3rd graders hard core porn. Why? It's a simple explanation: This sends the messge that it IS okay to be gay.

There was a time when I might have subscribed to the bad seed syndrome, but after having not only our two kids, but multiple other kids to observe I cannot subscribe to that theory any longer. How parents (or other adults) treat children in the early formation years is probably the most important factor in what that child will grow into as they age. The younger you can get in there and stop bad influences from affecting a very young child, the better. As they get older, changing their bad habits, or bad outlook on life gets harder. It can still be done, but it requires adults with the experience and knowledge to do it, and children who want to make that change as well. Even in the case of this offender, if the perpetrator truly wants to change, wants to make his life better, I'd support giving him a chance. Yet, even for those that want to make the positive change it is extremely difficult and never guaranteed. Bottom line is that bad kids become bad kids because of poor parenting and bad adults around them. With a lot of love, hard work, and experienced assistance they can become better. Every child, and yes 14 is still a child, deserves that second chance. Unfortunately our legal system is not set up for helping people, only for enacting retribution upon people who break the laws.

I think I need to make a thread titled "What have they done for us?" to focus on what political leaders (of any party) have done to support our community in the last few years (I make sure to include all parties because New York's marriage victory happened thanks to overwhelming support from Democrats, and brave, daring support from a handful of Republicans). What's come to my attention runs best along with the DOMA court filing though, because yet again it involves the President's administration. This time TWO federal departments are involved in the good news. Federal Investigators Take Action Against Anti-Gay Bullying This investigation comes from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. Prosecution if the agreement is not followed will come with the DOJ. Now look back over the eight years of the previous investigation and you will be hard pressed to find anything this supportive of our community. This is real change. For those not familiar with Tehachapi (and I must state here that I have had clients from this region and am actually very familiar with it. Also, my statements here are mine and mine alone and not related in any way to current or previous clients that may include campaigns associated with bond issues for the district noted in the article), this is probably one of the most conservative areas of California. They voted for Prop 8 in numbers only equalled by Tulare county (both voted 75% YES on Prop 8). If you want an area as anti-gay as this in California, you will have to go to Salida, which once boasted of having the highest number of KKK members per capita of anywhere west of the Mississippi. This action can, and will make a difference.

GOP Undoing Financial Reforms As if everything else wasn't enough, now we see attempts by Republicans to get rid of the weak financial reforms that were passed after the meltdown of 9/11. This was what they ran for in 2010, and why they were elected. What I wonder is how much people understood this was what they were going to do when they voted for them. I know a lot of people wanted to 'send a message', but was this the message they wanted or were they played for suckers and now have to pay the price?

I'm sorry, but after BP and the Gulf oil spill, why would anyone be surprised. Even as the oil spill continued in the gulf, everyone turned on the Obama administration because they put a moratorium on new permits for deep water drilling. "Drill, baby drill." was the cry in 2008. What people forget is that when you drill, you spill.

When discussing gay rights, I've often heard something like "What difference does it make if we have a Republican or a Democrat in the White House?" I think today we get a clear difference of what it means in 2011: DOJ Files Brief Opposing DOMA Fifteen years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed with unanimous Republican and very strong Democratic support (it wasn't unanimous among Democrats, but many did vote for it). A Democratic President signed it into law (at least in part because it was passed by a veto-proof majority). Now, in 2011, the President that signed it has called for it to be removed from the books, and the President in office has ordered his Department of Justice to stop defending said law. Today, July 1st, 2011, they have taken the next step and actually filed legal briefs arguing that the law is unconstitutional. On the other side of the issue is the attorney hired by the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives. To be sure, I've been less than pleased with the current administration on many issues, and at times downright critical of the slow, methodical pace they've taken on so many issues. Yet, I have to wonder if it my impatience talking and a failure to see the 'big picture'. In the last year we have seen this administration move to end DADT, and now they are moving to end DOMA. Neither issue has progressed the way I would like, or as fast I want, but progress has been made the likes of which we have not seen in elected leaders since the Republican Revolution of 1994. Maybe he really did learn from the mistakes Clinton made in 1993. Like DADT, DOMA is not yet history, but real progress is made towards the day we will see these hateful laws removed from the books. Word is that DADT will be certified for repeal within the next 60 days, as was promised back in December. Maybe I, and all of us, should learn a little patience because while it might be slow, a Democratic President is guiding us down a better path than we've seen in many, many years. That is a very real, very measurable difference.

Hate to have to do this to ya, but... http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-13/bay-area/17266566_1_same-sex-marriage-veto-message-marriage-bill ://http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-...marriage-bill ://http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-...marriage-bill He didn't veto it once, he did it TWICE. It was the California Supreme Court that enabled gay marriages via a court case. Then the folks at protectmarriage qualified the ballot initiative and Prop 8 was passed. It is an important lesson that I hope the folks in New York pay attention to and learn from better than we did out here. When the California weddings started, support for gay marriage was over 50% in this state. Our state voted for Barack Obama and we elected a large number of democrats in 2008. Yet, Prop 8 still passed. Enjoy today's victory, but prepare for tomorrow's battle. Do not be surprised when the opponents of gay marriage start pushing, and getting a ballot proposition to nullify this victory. Edit: I almost wish I lived in New York. That great state has no citizen-oriented initiative process so only the legislature can put the issue before the voters. This is good news all around!