DKStories

Back in 1993 I made a point in a community debate about allowing gays to serve in the military. The point was simple: If the President orders it, the military will do an exemplary job of incorporating openly gay service members into the fabric of military society. It may be eighteen years later (god help me I feel old), but I'm happy to be proven right. On an aside, the forum was reported in the local newspaper. Fearing the reaction of my relatives at the time, I used a different name - but my picture was on the front page so it made no difference as far as the family was concerned. Yes, the reporter knew my real name, but they didn't print it at that time. Over the next few years I made the newspaper on several other issues (The Modesto Bee mostly, although there were reprints in some of the other California papers), and in all of those articles I let my real name be used. It's amusing that eighteen years ago I was afraid of having my name printed in the local newspaper, but had no problem standing up in a room filled with hundreds of people and arguing a point they didn't like to hear. It's almost amusing how irrational fear can be (and that proves just so many points about human nature it can fill a semester psychology course).

There is a reason protectmarriage.com successfully fought to keep the Prop 8 trial from being broadcasted live. Their entire position is based solely on blatant discrimination based on religious beliefs and it is painfully obvious in all of their arguments. With the motion to dismiss based solely on Walker being a gay man and in a relationship where he could benefit from legal marriage, they managed to show once again that for them, it is all about the discrimination. For now, at least, the case rests yet again in the hands of the California State Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit has asked them to determine if protectmarriage.com has legal status to appeal the ruling. In similar cases where a non-governmental entity has tried to defend a law or constitutional amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the non-government organization being eligible to file the appeal. The judges hearing this appeal were the ones whose decisions were overturned in those other cases by the U.S. Supreme Court and they are likely going for a run-around of the previous U.S. Supreme Court decision. It's not an automatic 'yes' from the California Supreme Court. If the question was about protectmarriage.com defending the law in state court, the answer would be a definitive 'yes'. It's not. The question is about protectmarriage.com defending a change to the state constitution in federal court, and yes that is a significant difference. Still, don't get a lot of hope up - the California Supreme Court has been shaped by a number of governors over the past twenty years or more. In that time frame, we had a Democratic governor for five years, and Republicans for most of the rest going back to Jerry Brown's previous time in office ending in 1982. That's right, between 1982 and 1998, all of the state's governors were republican. Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 and Arnold held sway since then. Now Jerry Brown is back in charge, but the court is dominated by Republicans and the Chief Justice that started this all by siding for marriage equality has been replaced by an Arnold appointee who might go either way. There won't be any ruling until September at the earliest, more than likely sometime in October. Then, depending on the ruling by the CA Supreme Court it could be until December or sometime in 2012 before we see a ruling by the 9th Circuit. After that - either way the ruling goes, expect to see it appealed to the US Supreme Court. At the earliest it will be late 2012 before we hear the final word. Of course, it might just be on the ballot again in 2012 and then the court case woudl become moot if California's voters repealed Prop 8.

Let's not forget that the state of Florida recently paid George Rekers $80,000 (I think) to testify as to why gay couples make bad parents and why the state's ban on adoptions by gay couples should not be overturned. In the Judge's opinion on the case, she sited Rekers as an example of extremely bad testimony that served no purpose and had zero creditability. That was just before he took his European vacation with his masseuse and baggage handler. George Rekers is just another example of the frauds that perpetuate this awful stuff. It is a testament to the weakness of government or professional regulation that people like him are allowed to practice medicine and/or therapy without censure. In the UK, a therapist akin to Rekers was recently censured and heavily punished, and the rights of the patient upheld over the ideology of the therapist. Too bad so many people in this country believe any type of government regulation is a bad thing or we might be able to do something about people like this. Rekers and those like him deserve to be in prison for the harm they have done.

The part of Colin's above post that I bolded hits the nail on the head. The biggest successes of this particular industry are, at least in part, successes because they have become dependent on the industry for their financial well-being. This is how they make their living, and they have gone so far as to create their own professional organizations, their own medical organizations, their own periodical publications to support themselves and this industry. They have a very thin veneer of professional cover that they have created themselves to provide themselves legitimacy, and in the process ruined far more lives than they have 'saved'. I have always fluctuated between a grudging acceptance of the ex-gay movement and deep abhorrance. Decades ago I watched the ex-gay movement ruin the life of someone I cared about, ending with their suicide. At its best moments, it allowed a gay man to fool himself and his family for a decade so they got along and loved each other. I have yet to meet a 'success' of the movement who did not eventually cast it aside and learn to live a happy life as an accepting and open gay man (or lesbian), unless that person was actively working in the ex-gay movement itself. Heck, so many people have taken up leadership positions in these organizations and later left it in order to live happy lives as openly gay men and lesbians that it's not too hard to say few, if any, people have ever found lasting happiness in the ex-gay movement. I am certain there are a handful out there, but I'm going to say this: life is rarely black or white. There are very few times when someone is all of one thing or all of another, and what this means is simple. A person who is bi-sexual can find happiness with either gender in a relationship, and thus would be able to find happiness in the ex-gay movement. (of a sort - they'll still deny their same-sex attraction, but that doesn't mean they can't be happy in an opposite-sex relationship at the same time). Yet even for bisexual people, the ex-gay movement is a charlatan with far too many pitfalls to ever promise real happiness. What it boils down to with the ex-gay movement is that they are a religious movement, even when they try to cover their inner wolves in the sheep skin of professional psychiatry. Their main purpose is to take people from something that they believe to be evil (namely same-sex attraction) and move them into something holy (either celibacy or opposite-sex relationships). The need for this transformation presupposes that there is something inherintly WRONG with same-sex attraction. When you boil down everything from the ex-gay movement to the opposition to gay rights, or gay relationships, this is the core suppossition. This is why our opponents argue that gay marriage is bad because it will teach children that it is okay to be gay, and without the core equation that gay=bad, the whole purpose of the ex-gay movement collapses. Real medical and psychiatrical organizations will tell same-sex attracted patients that it is okay to feel these attractions. Religion on the other hand, tells these people it is wrong. Real mental health professionals will seek to help people feeling conflicts about their sexual identity to explore their own psyche and to find a balance where they can be happy and stable. Where religion and our inherint natures collide, some compromises are giong to be living a life of celibacy. I for one won't stop somoene from making that choice, if they can do so with a full understanding of themselves and why they are makign this choice. Unfortunately what ex-gays almost always sell is hatred of who a person is and their innate sexual attractions. Instead of striving for acceptance and making honest choices in the light of that acceptance, they teach hatred of ours innermost selves and teach people to deny who they are, to be come liars of the most despicable kind. I have an uncle who is a very smart, very intelligent and very compassionate man. He is also an extremely conservative baptist preacher of the hellfire and brimstone variety. He told me directly that homosexuals will go to hell, and he would prefer to not see me go down that road. My uncle is a very smart man as I said, and he did not try to sell me the 'you can change' line. In fact, he had very little respect for that message. "You are who you are, and God has made you to walk a difficult road. Walk the road of the Apostle Peter, live a life of celibacy and devotion to God. I believe that is why God made you the way he made you." Those were his words, and they were uttered out of love, and that is a very hard message to deny or to disrespect. It is a message that refuses to lie like so many of the ex-gay movement try, and for a few moments, it was a very tempting concept. Yes, I can understand why a gay man or a lesbian might choose to go down that path, and I also believe that for some they will find happiness down that road. It is not 'change', it is dedication based on religious beliefs. What my uncle offered was acceptance and happiness with my family, and with the religion that I grew up in and still respect at some very deep levels. For people with true faith, what he offered was a path that could lead to happiness and a great deal of self-respect, as long as it was walked with openness, acceptance, and honesty. It wasn't the path for me. Deep down, I realized something even stronger than the attraction of that life he held out to me. It was the path of honesty, happiness, and most importantly of acceptance. In the end, this is why the ex-gay movement does not work. I know, and so many of us here know, that it IS okay to be gay. Twenty years ago, when I was a young man just coming to terms with and learning to accept the nature of my sexuality, it was almost impossible to conceive of a day when the likes of us could dream of marrying the person we love, even if they are the same gender as us. The idea that I could live happily with another man, and raise two kids in a suburb, attend little league games and have the other parents welcome us was never something I considered in those days. Now, twenty years later, we have changed the world so that the message is becoming clear. It IS okay to be gay. That is the message the Ex-Gay movement fights with every fiber of its being, because that is the message that will be their undoing, that will make them nothing more than a topic for esoteric study at colleges or universities. The message that it is okay to be gay is the truth, and it is followed by another message to all the young gay people out there. It is okay to be gay, and yes, it does get better.

Lowes has an up and down history with a lot of money going to local conservative events - although they have offered benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Home Depot has had a very aggressive, pro-gay record. Going beyond offering DP benefits, Home Depot actively supports gay pride events, gay community events, and actively seeks the business and support of the gay community. When I choose where to spend my home improvement dollars (and with my hubby and our new home that comes up quite often), Home Depot has gone out and earned my business. Now all that being said, if Home Depot is twenty miles away and I need to buy a box of nails, I'll head to the Lowe's that is a little closer. If I'm going to spend two thousand on new appliance and light appliances, I'll make the drive down to Home Depot. Meanwhile, I'll die of thirst before I step foot inside of Wal-Mart.

This article helps show that THERE are some companies who are fully dedicated to THEIR values. I am glad we shop at Home Depot and will continue to do so in the future. (Oh, and the caps are just a tease - there are so many times I look at my stories and can't believe the mistakes I make. If YOUR goal is perfect grammer in all things, YOU'RE bound to be disappointed in yourself from time to time. Too bad we can't get our editors to edit our posts before we actually post in forums.)

Honestly, as atrocious as these type of things are, they are to be expected. When this land was first settled by Europeans, it was by the Pilgrims. They were religious extremists so vehement in their beliefs that they burned people at the stake for witchcraft. Over the centuries, the influence of dogmatic religion has been felt all over this country. Less than a hundred years ago, our country passed Prohibition into the constitution. They didn't just make alcohol illegal, they made it unconstitutional. Most of the support for that constitutional amendment was based in the religious beliefs of many people. Think about it for a moment. Religion alone is not to blame for the prevalence of anti-gay behavior and feelings, but it is a driving force in the intolerance and hate. Anti-gay bullies are justified in their actions because "God" is on their side. Meanwhile religious organizations like the catholic church fight tooth and nail against any recognition of gay relationships or gay individuals. (In Rhode Island most recently they sent letters opposing civil unions). So long as they preach that being gay is a sin, you can expect this type of bullying and intolerance to flourish.

This bill has been going on for over a year now. Christian conservatives consider the Ugandan lawmaker who wrote it, and the President now pushing for it, as their 'agents in Uganda". Ex-gay christian groups held meetings in Uganda pushing their agenda that people can be 'transformed' out of homosexuality, and shortly thereafter this bill appeared in the Ugandan parliament. The person writing it attended the conference, and in late 2010 was hosted at a conference in the United States by religious conservatives. Those same religious conservatives have publicly denounced the death penalty portion of the bill, but otherwise supported it, including prison sentences for gay people, as well as prison sentences for anyone who knows someone is gay and does not report them. Meanwhile, here in the United States, two state Republican parties have officially endorsed the recriminalization of gay sex. In states where conservatives gained majorities in 2010, we see more bills to restrict not only marriage equality, but to try and ensure that domestic partnerships and civil unions are not permitted. Other states try even more restrictive policies, and there are even states that force people to attend religious-based alcohol or drug treatment programs that also push anti-gay messages. Certainly we should raise a protest voice against what is happening in Uganda, but we need to remember what is happening here at home. If we continue to elect Republican majorities in our states and in our federal government, we will begin to walk backwards towards what is going on in Uganda. I know it sounds partisan, but there is ample evidence for this as fact. 1. The Attorney General and White House decide to refuse to continue defending DOMA as they believe it is unconstitutional. The House of Representatives on a party-line vote 3-2 (3 Republicans voting Aye, 2 Democrats voting No) chooses to spend $500,000 to hire a law firmm to defend DOMA. 2. In 2010, Democratic lawmakers, joined by a grand total of EIGHT Republicans voted to repeal DADT. This was one of the last acts of the Congress that held Democratic majorities in both houses. Now, the Republican majority in the House has voted today 33-27, again a strict party-line vote, to add amendments that would (they hope) restrict or prevent the implementation of DADT. The amendments, three in all, would require the four service chiefs to sign off on repeal (knowing full well the Marine Commandant is opposed to the repeal), forbid marriages of same-sex servicemembers on base, even in states where such marriage is legal, and stipulates explicitly that all passages of DOMA applies to the miltary services (effectively blocking military benefits to same-sex spouses or their children). 3. In 1994 a vast majority of Democrats joined with an absolute Republican majority to enact the Defenase of Marriage Act. Seventeen years later, Democrats in both the House and the Senate have authored bills that would remove DOMA from the law books. The repeal of DOMA enjoys very strong support among Democratic lawmakers, but will never see the light of day in the House because Republicans are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bill. 4. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas striking down sodomy laws, Republican-controlled Texas has refused to strike the sodomy laws from the books. They may no longer enforce them, but the laws remain on the books in Republican-controlled states, likely in the hopes that one day a conservative-majority Supreme Court would overturn Lawrence v Texas. (Texas is one of two states with state Republican party platforms calling for the recriminalization of sodomy). 5. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker fired the attorney defending the domestic partnership law in that state. 6. In Wyoming Republican lawmakers pushed legislation that would deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, and sought to push DOMA into their state's consittution. 7. In Ohio, Republican lawmakers pushed an anti-gay DOMA language into the bill that stripped union workers of collective bargaining rights. 8. In Tennessee, the Republican-led state legislatures has a bill that would overturn Nashville's non-discrimination ordinance that bans anti-gay discrimination. 9. In California, where Democrats control the state legislature and the governor's office, Republicans attempted to pass language that would allow protectmarriage.com defend Proposition 8 in court. The bill never made it out of committee, thanks to a united Democratic Majority. 10. Democratic majorities in East Coast states like Rhode Island have led the fight to recognize gay relationships either as civil unions/domestic partnerships or through full marriage equality. There are many more examples, but the point is clear. As we protest Uganda and what is going on there, do not close your eyes to its connection with conservatrive, Republican lawmakers here in the United States. If they have their way, it won't just be Uganda passing legislation like this.

Once again, elections have consequences. In state houses across the country Repubilcan majorities were elected in 2010. Sure, they didn't really run on social issues, but so far they have pursued a strong social agenda including against gay rights. Still, it's reassuring to hear there are representatives like this one who speak up in these now Republican-controlled states. Fortunately here in California we elected strong majorities of pro-gay democrats, and a complete slate of pro-gray democratic state officers from Governor to Insurance Commission to Superintendent of Education. Republicans in the legislature tried to pass a bill that would recognize protectmarriage.com as defenders of Proposition 8 and it died in comittee on a 3-2 vote, never making it to the floor. (This is important because right now the courts are waiting for the California Supreme Court to decide if protectmarriage.com has standing to even appeal the ruling by Judge Walker. Who we elect has consequences, be they good or bad.

I have to admit that it was my partner that got me into this show, but I do it enjoy it as well. Even the kids enjoy it. I liked it so much I even bought tickets for the summer tour here in Sacramento (since we live within sight of where the concert is at. Robert's hoping the song Kurt did in the last episode gets into the concert list. Glee does a great job at bringing up so many issues, and in such a funny way. It's also good to see Cory Monteith playing such an innocent. His character in Kyle XY was so totally different, although both play basketball.

I don't want to give the wrong image of my grandmother. Certainly what I described was a part of who she was as a person, but she was also the person who taught me to be a good person to others. It's just that people who weren't white didn't equate to being part of who she thought should be in my life. The fight we had about my sexuality was about the same time as I stopped talking to her, and it was three years of not talking that finally brought her around to being a LITTLE more accepting until Alzheimers took all that away. I loved her greatly, and appreciated all the good she did in her life. However, I refuse to blind myself to the parts of her that were less than beautiful, less than ideal. It is very possible to hold racist beliefs and still be a basically good person. That doesn't negate the racism though, or the need to change that racism.

Yesterday's events in the political sphere have brought the issues of racism and bigotry in our country back into my thoughts. When President Obama acquiessed to the repeated demands that he 'show his papers', our country reverted to how it was over a hundred years ago and up to our more recent history of the twentieth century where anyone who wasn't white or christian would often find themselves second-class citizens, or even worse. Yet, people will act shocked to the core when confronted with their own racism and declare "I am not a racist!" or "That's not racism!". About fifteen years ago, I had a conversation with my own grandmother that was just like that. "I'm not a racist." She told me when I confronted her about refusing to let my cousin and her newborn child into her home. "This is my home. I choose who I let in and who I don't, and I don't want any of them in my home. Let them go live where they want, work where they want. We can't stop them thanks to the courts, but that's their business. I still can refuse to let them in my home, and that girl got herself pregnant by a negro and I don't have to let her child in this house." Yes, she was still upset about the Supreme Court overtuning the California Ballot Proposition that established the right of homeowners to refuse people of different color or religion from living in their neighborhoods. It wasn't just black people, either. She didn't want hispanics, asians, or non-christians around her either. We didn't talk for about three years after that discussion, largely because I was so angered by her racism and her refusal to even admit it was racism. To her, racists were those folks in white sheets that strung the negros up or drug them behind their trucks. Good, ordinary folk were the ones who didn't want negros going to the same schools or being able to buy homes in the same neighborhood as good white folk. There was no problem with stopping people in the neighborhood just because of their skin color, or their religion. In the mid-nineties she had people move in next door who had really dark skin color, and all hell broke loose. Any time one of them even looked at her, she was on the phone calling the police. Her house was locked tight every night and she must have spent most of those early nights shivering in fear in her bed, unable to go to sleep. She ended up in the hospital after a few months of this, and was put on some anxiety medication until she was finally able to accept that she had people living next door that weren't white. Then the muslims moved into that house down the street, and she was convinced that they were going to blow up the entire street. If you think that's bad, when the Mexicans moved in across from her, she became convinced they were going to kidnap her and sell her into white slavery. Thankfully she died several years before Barack Obama ran for President, because I don't think I could have withstood her reactions to a black man running for President. I know she would have been convinced there was no legitimate way he could be President. Most likely she would never accept him as President and would grab onto any straw that would point to him being illegitimate. Oh yes, she would definitely had been a Birther, demanding he show his papers, his long-form birth certificate. Never mind that the long-form birth certificate has NO LEGAL VALUE. In fact, unlike the short-form that Obama provided in 2008, the long form CANNOT be used as identfication or to prove citizenship. Hawaii certifies only the short-form certificate as LEGAL proof of brith, and he showed that in 2008. The form people have clamored for over the past three years is not the legal document. They've had the legal document, but they don't want to accept it, because accepting it is to accept the legitimacy of his Presidency. As soon as President Obama provided this long-form document that has no legal merit, the 'controversy' was not ended. Instead of having their doubts answered, the doubts immediately shifted onto his college transcripts. The demand of "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!" continued, but now on a new topic that no white President would be forced to provide. Hell, I didn't like George W. Bush, and I don't think he was properly elected in 2000, but even I had to admit he was the legitimate President of the United States and his taking the office of President was legal. But to those who don't want to admit we have a black President, no document will ever suffice. If President Obama showed all of his transcripts today, it would be something else they would demand to prove he wasn't illegitimate. It's kind of like a black man walking down a public street in 1899 America. http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-obama-...-his-papers.php It reminds me of a new arrival in my division back when I was in the Navy. This guy had no problem with a black member of our division, who was the same rank as him. He did have a problem with the black guy who was in charge of our division. One night, after quite a few drinks in a bar overseas, he finally admitted to me the core of his problem. "I ain't got a problem with them blacks working with us. I get it that's the way things are now, but none of them should be able to tell ME what to do." It isn't a stretch to imagine this guy is one of those currently demanding that President Obama show his papers. Nor is it hard to imagine that MOST (not all) of the clamor is from people who have a discomfort with the idea of a non-white person being in charge of them and their country. They might feel it's fine for 'those people' to live here, work here, and even hold positions of authority. Yet, put one of 'those people' in charge, and there are problems. Most likely they will never admit the problem is the color of their skin, or their religion, so they will focus on ANYTHING that will deligitimize their status as a leader. When you take away that current focus, the focus will shift to something else, and so on and so forth. That is how you can tell if racism or bigotry is behind something. Prove the fallacy of their argument, and it will shift to something else. That is because the bottom line is not that they don't think Barack Obama was really born in the U.S., it's because he's black and deep down, so deep they can rarely admit it to themselves, they can't believe a black man can be THEIR President. It's sad, but instead of getting rid of racism completely, I think we have merely shoved the racism down so deep that people won't even admit it in themselves. As a country we have come a long way in how we treat people who are different from us. Yet, as this birther controversy has shown, we have a great deal further to go before we are able to put the stamp of "deceased" over the demand to "Show me your papers!".

Elections have consequences, and this is only one small consequence of the last election. We'll be paying the consequences for a long, long time.

So Haley Barbour falls in the percentage of republicans who don't support making interracial marriage illegal? Probably, most likely. That's the main reason it was not me who brought up any single politician. I want to see a similar poll on Democrats to see if this viewpoint is common across political spectrums, not turn this into a screed against politicians I do not like, or a rah-rah chant for politicians that I do like. If I did, I'd be complimenting Republicans on figuring out how to walk and chew gum at the same time. They've managed to take away the rights of workers, gays, and women all at the same time. Kansas Republicans insist on keeping sodomy laws on the books, acknowledging they can't be enforced because of Lawrence v Texas, but they still want them on the book. Could we now see efforts to put laws back on the books to make interracial marriage illegal? Finding out that a pluarlity of ANY group supporting racist beliefs such as those against interracial marriage should be very disturbing for gay people. It's something to think about, consider, and weight when making political decisions. It's also something that I would want to see if it crosses party lines. That's where the real danger lies. If you get 46% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats agreeing on something, you've got problems when those are all the people who get elected. Racism doesn't necessarily know political boundaries. One party may be more tolerant of racism than the other, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist everywhere. Just look at the gay community itself. Far too common we see racism among the members of our own community. It may be more focused on arabs and muslims these days rather than asian as it was when I was younger, but it's still there and its still pervasive. This one poll leaves a lot to be desired, but it's an interesting peek into things that are very uncomfortable to think about.

As the gay community struggles to move forward with same-sex marriage, this poll shows how even 50+ years later, there are places in this country that oppose interracial marriage. It's why I would like to see a similar survey done of Democrats in that state. Is it a regional issue, or is it a political issue? Possibly a convergence of political and regional? Racism can be found anywhere, and in any community. This survey raises some interesting questions though, questions that would be interesting to have answered. It also corresponds with the 2008 Presidential vote where we had the child of an interracial marriage running for office. A lot of interesting factors, a lot of interesting questions, and not a lot of answers.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP..._MS_0407915.pdf I saw a diary on Daily Kos about the PP poll that is linked above. The poll was taken of 400 Mississippi Republicans and covered mostly possible presidential candidates, but they also included a question on interracial marriages. It really comes as no surprise, in my opinion, that 46% of those polled think interracial marrige should be illegal while 40% think it should be legal. A plurality of opposition to marriage between races should come as no surprise in this state. What was a little surprising was when I looked at the crosstabs, specifically those on the very last page of the document. This cross-tab shows support/opposition to inter-racial marriage by age group of respondents. Conventional wisdom has long held that younger people are more accepting than older people, but apparently that may not be true in Mississippi. Just looking at the "Illegal" answer to the question of interracial marriage, we see the following: Notice that it is the oldest and the youngest categories that have the highest level of racist opinion on interracial marriage. Now, one question that comes immediately to mind is: Does this poll reflect that older and younger categories are just being more honest? If the differences between the age groups isn't due to more honesty in the older/younger groups, what other things might cause a higher percentage of racism in the youngest generation of Mississippi Republicans? Oh, and one more thing: How do Mississippi Democrats break down in response to this question? I'd love to see a poll with that question asked amidst the age brackets.

Yet, herein lies the problem. 2010 was the election of the Tea Party, where they managed to get huge numbers of 'fiscal conservatives' elected. People like Scott Walker, John Kasich, Michelle Bachman, and Allen West. What have they done in the first four months of their term? 1. Introduce abortion laws to eliminate abortions as much as possible. 2. Take away collective bargaining rights, attempting to return us to the days when the work week was six days, children worked in factories instead of going to schools, and people were paid whatever the owner felt like (not to mention a total lack of any real workplace safety laws). 3. Introduce legislation in several states to strengthen DOMA laws, take away domestic partnership benefits, and also block removing sodomy laws from the books. I could probably put more items in the list than these, but they make the point: Since their election via a campaign focused almost solely on 'fiscal' issues, running as fiscal conservatives, their major achievements since getting elected are all about social issues. People like Newt and every other candidate we've seen so far on the Republican side might give lip service to the concept of being libertarian, or fiscal conservative, but once in office they will be like all the rest and go after abortion, gays, and unions (usually in that order).

I'm thinking about registering as a Republican just so I can vote for Michelle Bachman. :)

At the risk of revealing myself to be a Gleek, I'll just say this: SOMEONE has to uphold morals on the show after the President of the Chastity club got pregnant!

Richard, Let me start by saying that I appreciate your response here. It is thoughtful and reasoned. There are probably several areas of our federal government that can be cut without causing harm to people. Ending NOAA programs such as Tsunami monitoring, or Head Start aren't two of them, but they're the areas leaders in our government want to cut. As for the comments by Representative Eric Cantor, he's not just one man who can sway opinion. That would be someone like, uh, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Represenative Cantor is a member of the House of Representatives. Not only is he a member of the House of Representatives, he is the #2 man in the Republican caucus of that chamber, making him one of the most powerful people in that body. As an example of his power, he was one of five members of the House who voted on whether the House would spend millions defending DOMA. The vote was 3-2, with John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy voting for the House to pay for the defense of DOMA and Nancy Pelosi with Stenny Hoyer voting no. Eric Cantor can do far more than just 'sway' opinion. I'll be blunt on government spending. It is time to raise taxes. We should give the lie to the myth that raising taxes hurts the economy. Eliminating taxes the way Bush did in 2002 and Obama did in 2010 only hurts the economy. It's like a car peeling out at high speed, it's tires making a loud squealing sound and lots of smoke while the vehicle itself goes nowhere. It's loud, its showy, and all it does is end up hurting everyone. Likewise overhwelming taxes and out of control spending are like brakes being applied at the same time as you're trying to accelerate. Balance is needed, and we have anything but balance right now. Unfortunately, all we have is extremism.

Today Eric Cantor, the #2 Republican in the House of Representatives basically said we shouldn't spend money helping Japan. They are facing massive homelessness, massive cleanup, and a disaster that is already worse than any other nuclear disaster except for Chernobyl. Our military forces in the area are being issued potassium iodide tablets because they are flying over radioactive areas and receiving measurable doses of radiation. Tokyo is now receiving measurable amounts of radiation, although thankfully not yet at a dangerous level. Meanwhile our government leaders in the House tell the Japanese "Good Luck, don't ask us for help"??????? We are turning our back on our closest ally in the Asiatic nations.

I'm sure we've all heard about the earthquake off of Japan's coast and subsequent waves of Tsunamis. They've reported numbers of deaths that have now gone over 14,000, and a fourth reactor is now on fire. Millions of people are being directly impacted right now, and in the course of the next year, most of us here in this country will feel some impact, whether it's from radiation exposure (in case of catastrophic failure), or even just higher prices because of Japan's economic collapse. For now though, we need to look at what's going on in our country right now and wonder just how bad we're about to screw ourselves. In this year's budget, we are cutting extreme amounts of money from the budget of the NOAA, who operate our nation's Tsunami warning centers. This won't defund the buoy warning system, but there just might not be any of those slothful government employees in the control room to actually sound the warning system. Further cuts in our budget our also going to limit our ability to help the people of Japan. When all we look at to fix our budget programs is cutting of programs, we put ourselves into serious jeopardy. Then there are the cuts to regulations and regulatory agencies, such as those to the Department of Energy. Who cares if we have inspectors and regulators making sure our nation's nuclear reactors are up to code? It's not like there could be a massive earthquake damaging them or tsunamis smashing massive waves into them, right? It's not like reactors in the midwest have to worry about damage from hurricanes or tornados. By the way, I've heard 'experts' on television say none of our reactors are at danger like those in Japan because we have 'sea walls' protecting those like the San Onofre plant. Unfortunately, the Japanese plants also had sea walls. They even had sea walls there, and their sea walls were designed to be more protective than those around our plants, and they were better maintained. Heck, their plants were designed to remain safe through an 8.2 earthquake. Ours are designed to withstand an earthquake of up to 7.0, including the Diablo plant, which was built right on top of a fault line (albeit the fault line wasn't discovered until Shell came in to drill for oil nearby after Diablo was built). So far, radiation exposure in Japan is only about 155mr per hour. On average a human receives about 600 mr per YEAR. So, spending two hours within about 20 miles of a Japanese reactor right now will expose you to your annual dose of radiation. In plain talk, the people working there have likely reached their lifetime limits. Residents nearby are in danger of very high cancer rates for the rest of their lives, but most of us won't be affected. Now if the fourth fire gets worse, we'll feel the effects here in California by the end of the week. I feel for the people in Japan, and hope for the best outcome of the dangers they currently face. Even today they are still being hit by aftershocks as high as magnitude 6.1, and more, smaller, tsunamis are still hitting their shores. I hope the engineers in their reactors are able to get coolant back in to their cores and to prevent full meltdown of their piles. Hopefully the worst is over for them. Further, we as a nation need to give them the support and assistance that is needed. What we don't need to do is to deny the fact that next week, next year, or sometime forty years from now, we might be in the same situation as they are at this time. Whether we have buildings, like theirs, that can withstand massive earthquakes, whether we have warnign systems that will save lives, or humanitarian rescue teams that can save our people and get us back on our feet aftera similar disaster is going to be determined by what we do with our government funding. Do we consider funding our government for real, to make us as safe as possible, or do we cut and cut and let everything go?

Well, the hubbie was out of town for the day, but it's been good overall. Tyler had practice and we showed up a good 30 minutes early. One of his teammates showed up early as well as so we played 3-way catch until the rest of the team finally showed up for practice. I also took the niece out to the park since she's finally starting to behave again. We all had a good day. Our old neighborhood's little league started a few weeks earlier so today was their opening day. Instead of practice, two of Tyler's friends had games today. After their games, they decided to ask and see if they can come over. Tyler and his friend Adam decided to not bother changing, so they're still in their uniforms and lounging around while we watch DayBreakers. Yes, watching a vampire movie. For those that have read a specific story I wrote - no vampire Jarred jokes. They're scared enough at the moment as it is... Oh, and I tried to make Tyler and Adam sit on the other side of the room since they are a little ripe, but they refused after the first gory scene. *sigh*

Today was a fairly good day overall. I've got a project that has really been much more intensive than I expected but progress is being made on it at last, and that's a good thing. Then the census releases California data and oh boy do I have some more research to do so I can answer client questions when they start coming in. Yes I'm geek enough to get excited about having to study new data make extrapolations on how the changing demographics will impact the state's politics. Best part of the day though was spending two hours watching my nephew practice baseball with his team, and seeing the pure joy that several of the kids had while playing. It's good to see such unencumbered happiness, and be reminded that sometimes all it takes is a smile to make the day better. His team this year may not be as good in the mechanics of game play as the team he had last year, but it looks like it is going to be a LOT more fun. You know, I think that's the most important part. Oh, and I need to bring bug spray next time. The mosquitos are murder out there.

There is progress, but there is the danger of that progress being reversed. We are, after all, the same country that put into our Constitution a Prohibition against alcohol. Sure it was eventually reversed, but not until hundreds of innocents had lost their lives in the ensuing smuggling wars, and many others went to prison or had their lives ruined.