TexProdigy

Haiti

The situation in Haiti is going from bad to worse. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide wants to stay in power. A large opposition would like to see him out of power. I don't know all the tiny details of what is going on in Haiti. I know President Aristide is the democratically-elected leader of Haiti. I know Aristide was ousted in a coup and the US went in and restored him to the office of President of Haiti in 1994. I know allegations of corruption against him and the people he put in place for police and other services have been made. I am not sure how much of it is fact and how much of it is the opposition trumping up charges.

I do think the international community ought to go into Haiti and help keep the peace and prevent further loss of life. It needs to sort out fact from fiction as to what happened with President Aristide's administration. If the allegations of corruption are true, Aristide should lose his presidency and face criminal prosecution. If they are not, he should keep his position.

Being the realist I am, I do not think much, if anything, will be accomplished soon. More people will die in Haiti and the country will plunge further into chaos. To me, that is the saddest part of this whole affair.

Only One Hour

A story from Yahoo! News says President Bush will only give one hour (!) for the chairman and the vice chairman of the panel investigating September 11th to interview him about what he knew about events leading up to the suicide airline hijackings. This is in addition to not actively seeking the extend the deadline so the panel performing the investigation can get a thorough investigation.

This is the same President who used September 11th to push through all manner of thing from the Patriot Act to starting a war with Iraq. I remember, he's a war president. War presidents don't need to spend all their time talking to panels. They are much too busy. If Bush really, truly cared about September 11th and the events that lead up to it, he would actively appeal to Dennis Hastert and tell him in no uncertain terms he should extend the deadline by 60 days as the panel requested. Bush should have also agreed to sit down with the entire panel and answer the questions they had.

I do not think Bush wants a serious resolution to what the causes were to September 11th. His actions and his words do not match up.

Cho Beau

Margaret Cho is performing tonight in Austin. Yay! Seven of my friends and I are driving up to Austin tonight to see her. I've seen her tours (either live) or on the big and small screens. She's one of the funnier commedians I've heard recently. I'm sure tonight's show will be good.

ABC News reports via its website about an Eagle Scout who murdered someone to see if he could get away with it.

"Gary Hirte, a high school scholar, star athlete and Eagle Scout whose name seemed to be in the local paper all the time, is accused of committing murder not for money, or revenge, but just to see if he could get away with it. "

When I was a kid (many, many years ago) I was in Cub Scouts. I had quite a bit of fun with pinewood derbies, camping, etc. Gary Hirte's deplorable actions are his alone and are not reflective of Scouting over all.

I may not agree with the BSA's discriminatory policies. Scouting should not get pilloried in the news because of this story. Individuals should be responsible and accountable for their actions.

The Discriminator

If a couple of days ago Bush would have said, "I believe marriage should be between one white man and one white woman." he would have been run out of office. If Bush would have said, "I believe marriage should be between one Christian man and one Christian woman." the conservative right would have loved him forever, but the rest of the country would have seen him booted out of office so fast he wouldn't know what happened.

As it is, he didn't say that. If he were truly the compassionate person he says he is, he would have said, "I support all Americans having the same rights and opportunities as all other Americans." As we all know, he didn't. To me, his statements are no different from the statements several Southern governors made during the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's to advocate for separate facilities for whites and coloureds. Discrimination against African-Americans (and other people who are not white) was as wrong then as it is now.

Marriage gives 1,049 rights and privileges to couples. Some of those can be given though legal documents - wills, powers of attorney, etc. Others, like the right to sue for the wrongful death of a loved one, immunity from testifying against a spouse, etc., cannot. Denying all Americans equal rights under the law is, in my humble opinion, discrimination. Discrimination against people simply because the choose to love someone of the same sex is wrong.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!

I have been thinking that just like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, Bush is using the issue of homosexual marriage to distract the American public from how poorly the country is being run. Consumer confidence is down. Sure the economy is growing (slowly), but jobs aren't being added at the rate they should be. Over two million jobs have been lost. No WMDs (the real reason we went to war) have been found in Iraq. We've pissed off the world, even after countries came to us to support us after September 11th. Environmental protections have been thrown out the window. Initiatives like AIDS programs in Africa and "No Child Left Behind" were proposed, but not fully funded. We've had record deficits; spending has actually increased, not decreased. Bush would rather discriminate against one class of people, via a Constitutional amendment, rather than allow them to have the same rights as the rest of Americans.

It is bad, but it is not too late to fix things. I do not think, Bush, the Divider, is the answer. I am an ABB (Anybody But Bush) guy. I will vote for whichever candidate has the best chance of beating him. I am almost certain that any direction they take this country will be better than the direction Bush is taking our country.

Hate Amendment

Byron L, from Burnt Orange Report, .says it best:

"Bush can't win this election on jobs or on foreign policy (because he's miserably failed in both regards), so he's playing the gay card."

Over the past 228 years of our country's existence, we have added amendments to the Constitution to remove discrimination. Now Bush wants an amendment to add discrimination. Bush's leadership on pretty much everything he's done has been lackluster. And contrary to what he said in 2000, he's a divider not a uniter. We need to get rid of the divider.

Recruitment

Doug Giles has an inane statement in his column:

The homosexual agenda is infecting and affecting our schools. Remember: they are OUR schools; we MUST protect and strengthen them. There is much we can do, and we CAN succeed in stopping gay recruitment -- but we can't do it by burying our heads in the sand.

You know, I was one person away from getting that fabulous toaster the HRS (Homosexual Recruitment Service) was going to give me! If Doug Giles and his cohorts had not tried so hard, it would have been mine. I am so heart broken.

Seriously, though, there is no such thing as "gay recruitment." People either decide to come out or they do not. Living in the closet is tough. Preventing people from being who they are is simply wrong.

One of the most courageous people I knew when I was in high school was Maggie Zerger (Forgive me if I misspell the name, it's been a while since I've been in high school.). She was an out lesbian before being out was accepted, especially in Nebraska. She owned a pink moped and was called "the dyke on the bike." That was one of the tame things she was called by people. For people like Doug to tell people like Maggie that she cannot be who she is is as wrong as me telling Doug that he cannot be a male, or white, or anything else he is. People like Doug just need to let people be who they are and stop trying to control others.

Teachers

Rod Paige, the Secretary of Education, called the NEA a terrorist organisation. Oliver Willis provided a link to Balloon Juice to show why the NEA is NOT a terrorist organisation.

I have quite a bit of respect for teachers. Most start their days early and end their days late in the evening. They come in early to prepare for the day and many times take papers home to grade them. They usually get very involved with their students and help them out as much as they can.

One of the comments on Balloon Juice said:

What planet are you from? The only thing teachers want is more pay for less work. They already make more money for 8 months of work than most people make in 18 months. Once they get in, the union takes care of them, they don't do shit, and our kids suffer. Wake up and smell the chalk dust. I had 1 good teacher in 8 years of grade school. My kids have probably had 1 good teacher between the 2 of them. Give me a break.
Posted by: BJK on February 24, 2004 12:47 AM

In Texas, as is probably the case in most states, teacher pay is not that high. From excellent thought.net, the 2002-2003 pay schedule has a teacher's starting salary is $2,424 per month, or $24,240 per year. After 20 years, teachers can expect to earn $4080 per month, or $40,800 per year. And that's for ten months of work per year. That doesn't mean that a teacher works just 40 hours per week. I would bet many teachers spend much more than 40 hours per week doing their job both at school and at home.

Now, BJK may have had some bad teachers. His or her kids may have, too. I don't know BJK's particular situation. However, I do not buy arguments that teachers make more in 8 months than most people make in 18 months. I'm also certain that teachers simply want to get paid for the work they do. If teaching were a lucrative occupation, why aren't people lined up to become them - especially in rural areas? And, if teaching pay so much, why is BJK not a teacher? Yes, good teachers are hard to find. However, we won't find and retain good teachers if we do not compensate them.

What's at Stake?

Craige McMillan quotes (with the help of my favourite friends, the ellipses) from the Constitution:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior ... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"

--United States Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

He should have quoted the whole thing. It's the web, he doesn't have to worry about killing trees (Something tells me he wouldn't be worried about that, anyway.). Here's the full wording of Article III, Sections 1 and 2:

"Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

That to me says courts determine whether the laws are Constitutional or not. Craige's article says the left will be "neutered" by a law Zell Miller, D-Ga. (Why is this man still a Democrat? Could someone please tell me?), and Richard Shelby, R-Al., want to get passed. The law is a wonderful example of what Orwell called, "Doublespeak." The law in question is called the "S.1551 - Religious Liberties Restoration Act." This law would aim to force the display of the Ten Commandments in State and Federally-owned buildings, force the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and force the motto of "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the US. Additionally, the three additions would be "excepted" from the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts inferior to the US Supreme Court.

This law would go hand-in hand with a House of Representatives bill, HR-3799, the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004." This law would prevent courts, and even the Supreme Court of the US from hearing certain cases:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government"

Talk about Doublespeak! The Constitution doesn't need to be restored. This is 2004, not 1794. It needs to change with the times. Religious liberties have not been threatened. People can still worship when and where they want to. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

This country was established to have checks and balances on power. The three branches of our government, legislative, judicial, and executive, were designed to share power equally. The legislative branch made laws, the executive branch passed or vetoed those laws, and the judicial branch could rule a law unconstitutional or declare it constitutional. This stemmed from a time when a king (specifically, King George III) basically made all the laws. If the people didn't like them, tough. He was the king, and it was good to be the king. We had a little revolution and proved him wrong.

The American Street has more in-depth coverage. Now some people in Congress want to go and make this country a theocracy like Iran, Europe during the Inquisition, or Egypt during the time of the Pharaohs. The problem is religion should be someone's choice, not force down their throats.

Marriages of Convenience

Jen Shroder write an article called, Devastating Consequences of Homosexual Marriage. She writes about how if homosexual marriages are allowed, they will become marriages of medical convenience to provide medical care for HIV-infected partners. While that may happen, insurance companies have something called "pre-existing condition" that they look at before they accept someone. If a pre-existing condition exists, the insurance company can refuse coverage outright, or charge higher fees for coverage.

What about lesbians who want to marry? Does Jen have studies to show that their rate of STD and HIV infection is high? I doubt it.

So, does Jen think straight couples who get married for convenience are bad? What about those who get married to provide their new spouse medical coverage? How about those who marry to get green cards for foreigners? How about those who get married on a lark in Las Vegas? When I was in the Air Force, I knew several people who married to move out of the dorms or get separation pay if the other spouse was gone. I'm wondering if Jen thinks that was alright to do. I personally thought getting married to move out of the dorms or to get more money on your paycheck at the end of the month was not right.

Of the arguments I've heard against homosexual marriage, this marriage of medical convenience argument is one of the weakest. Jens sources, Blessed Cause, Family Research Institute, and World Net Daily, are hardly fair and balanced views and studies to base her arguments on. Jen, herself, is the founder of Blessed Cause (self-reflexive references, cute!). I wonder if Jen has any valid studies that show cities, municipalities, and companies that offer domestic partner benefits have faired badly. My thoughts are Jen would have a hard time doing so.

Recess!

I'm not a huge fan of recess appointments. Sure, they are a tool Presidents can use to appoint judges when Congress is out of session, however, in the last two administrations I have had the chance to vote for (Clinton and Bush II) recess appointments have been used to install judges when Congress stalled or did not approve of a candidate for the judicial position.

Today, Bush appointed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Since Friday is a slow news day, this won't get the depth of coverage that it should.

This is the second recess appointment Bush has made. Last month, Bush appointed Charles Pickering. Three other candidates for judicial offices may or may not get recess appointments by Bush. Those three are, Judge Priscilla Owen, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, and Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.

Republicans claim Democrats are holding up the confirmation of these judges using filibusters. They are. However, I feel the filibusters are valid. If I seem to remember correctly, Republicans did some similar maneuvering when Clinton was in office. They stalled, dragged their feet, and/or outright blocked several of Clinton's nominees. Was Clinton right in doing recess appointments? If Bush is not right to do them now, neither was Clinton then.

The President and Congress ought to come to an agreement about the candidates they nominate for appointment to office. Both sides should compromise. Right now, I think recess appointments should be made if a vacancy must be filled, not if your nominee gets shot down.

Curiouser and Curiouser

Just when I thought the whole thing with Ann Coulter's snarky comments about Max Cleland were over, World O'Crap chimes in with a point by point refutaion of Ann's articles. She even links to e-mails people who were there sent in. I personally would trust the word of the Executive Officer who was in charge of Max Cleland and directed him to the mission where he lost an arm and two legs over the words of a reporter any time. That's just me, though.

Ann Coulter is very effective at what she does. She writes very snarky commentary (mostly about liberals). Some times it's even so incendiary it even bites her in the butt - like the time she got fired from the National Review Online. No, she didn't become liberal over night. She just was WAY too conservative for them. After September 11th, she wanted the US to go into the Middle East and Christianise them (by force, if necessary). I can understand where she was coming from. She was mad and scared. Many Americans were. However, even Christ would not have condoned Christianising people by force. Last time I checked, Christ was about loving one's neighbour, turning the other cheek, and being charitable and understanding.

I sincerely hope Ann Coulter's future columns will be better sourced. It's one thing to give your opinion about a subject, however when you attack a person, please cite sources and use them to back up your argument.

JADASH

Oh. Since he linked to me, I have to link him. Quid pro quo... My friend, Jadash's, blog started out personal, but as the year has progressed it has become increasingly political. He and I see eye to eye on several issues. He is a truly awesome guy to have as a friend.

384,000 Short

President Bush has been trumpeting a number 366,000. That is the number of jobs which have been created in the past five months. I'm happy for those 366,000 people who found jobs in the past five months, but... (and there always seems to be one) Josh Marshall points out that 150,000 jobs would have to be created every month in order to break even.

Like Josh, I'm not a whiz at math. I'm kind of like the Barbie that was pulled off the shelf a while back because it said, "Math is hard!" (Though not impossible.) However, I can multiply 150,000 by 5. I get 750,000. That's how many jobs would need to be created in order to break even. I can also subtract. 750,000 minus 366,000 leave you 384,000 short. So, the MBA president is 384,000 (over half the jobs needed!) to break even. Hmm... I guess it boils down to lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Ann Coulter Responds

Okay, Ann Coulter didn't respond directly to me, but she responded to several people who questioned her article, "Cleland Drops a Political Grenade."

She sites several sources that she found (using Lexis-Nexis). I'm glad she did this time around. If she would have done that the first time, I probably would have not written anything. I personally wasn't angry with her article, I was annoyed because it seemed like she was making stuff up.

Yes, Max Cleland's wounds were not caused in combat. And, yes, he didn't win a Purple Heart for that reason. However, he did perform some pretty heroic actions that caused him to win a Silver Star. To me, that's heroic. In my Google search, I found articles that said Max Cleland was getting out of a helicopter and saw a grenade, bent over to pick it up, then had it blow up.

Ann Coulter says "Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying." Lexis-Nexis works both ways. Several web sites showed how quotes Ann used in her books were taken out of context.

In any case, I commend Ann for writing a second article that contains sources to clear things up, even though I could do without the snarky remarks.

2.6 Million Jobs

President Bush initially claimed that his economic policies would create 2.6 million jobs this year alone. I initially thought, Cool!" However, as they like to say in the NFL, "Upon further review..." I couldn't see how that would be possible. I'm not an economist, but I do try to keep up with current events and trends. The trends and events didn't give me warm fuzzies. Contrary to the spin, the economy is still not great.

So then I read that the White House (Bush) has backed off its prediction of 2.6 million jobs. Surprise! The White House likes to play up the fact that Bush has an MBA. It's amazing to me that someone with an MBA from Harvard (not a ringing endorsement of the Harvard MBA program) can make such bad estimations about job growth. But then Bush said, "I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor." Granted, he does work with economists, but with an MBA should he not be able to read and decipher what their reports were telling him?

The country has lost 2.2 million jobs since Bush came into office. I am not placing the blame solely on him. However, when something goes well in the country, the President takes credit for it. The same should hold true when something doesn't.

I see a trend in this administration - shift the blame to someone else. When David Kay said no WMDs were found in Iraq, this administration blamed the CIA. Now that Bush said 2.6 million jobs were going to be created, but actually were not, he's blaming his economic team. What else is going to go wrong and who else will he blame? This administration (and all subsequent administrations) should just say, "I am the President. I made a mistake. I am human. I will work to correct what went wrong and will try not to make the same mistake twice." I think I am asking too much of politicians, though.

Activist Judges

On most Wednesdays, I meet a group of my friends at a local coffee shop. We talk politics, gossip, and catch up on what happened in the past week. One of my friends brought up an interesting point: Bush's comment about "activist judges" is very hypocritical.

He said something along the lines of, "If it weren't for activist judges in the Supreme Court, Bush would still be governor of Texas."

And Bush says he's "troubled" by the marriages happening in San Francisco. Last time I checked, Gavin Newsom was elected by the population of San Francisco. He's not an "activist judge." I also .read that Mayor Richard M. Daley, in Chicago doesn't have a problem with Cook County clerk David Orr issuing licenses to gays and lesbians. Mayor Daley is not an "activist judge," either.

As Mayor Daley said, "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it." How true!

Damn Skippy - "Cupid's Arrows Don't Fly Straight"

Suzanne Fields gets her panties in a wad over marriage. Specifically, homosexual marriage. It's amazing to me that up until 2004 Cupid never needed the help of the federal government to "promote marriage." However, all of a sudden, because gays and lesbians want to have the same rights and privileges as their straight counterparts, marriage is threatened. Suzanne, marriage was threatened even before gays and lesbians tried to marry. I find it amazing that Amelia Limpert and her husband found a way to get married 82 years ago without the help of the federal government. Straight people get married each and every day without the help of the federal government. The hard part is staying together. Why did Amelia Limpert and her husband stay married for 82 years, I don't know. I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't because gays and lesbians couldn't marry.

How do two people who want to try to spend the rest of their lives together "mock the very idea of marriage as a stabilizing force for raising families?" Is it because two men or two women can't have children (without a little help from science and donors)? What about an infertile man who wants to marry an infertile woman? They could adopt, but so could a gay or lesbian couple. Suzanne adds, "the homosexual culture in general promotes promiscuity: 'Til Death Do Us Party.'" As a member of that community, I find that statement stereotypical and offensive. I know straight people are just as promiscuous as gays and lesbians.

Suzanne, amending the Constitution to legislate morality didn't work during the prohibition. Furthermore, creating a group of second-class citizens via a Constitutional amendment is wrong. In the US it was wrong when Asians, Native Americans, African-Americans, and even women were second-class citizens. Let's not go back to those dark periods of our history.

Suzanne, you write, "The evidence is ambiguous as to whether male homosexuality is biologically determined or whether it can be changed, but studies of young girls in female-female sexual relationships indicate that they are affected by social fads. Over time, that can change." What evidence? What studies? Are they valid, peer-reviewed studies? Or are they so much pablum the religious right likes to throw out? If male homosexuality can be changed why have so many Exodus members become ex-Exodus members? John Paulk comes to mind (though I guess he's still in, technically). And so when girls experiment in high school and college, it's just that? I know more than a few lesbians who would dispute that.

You continue to write, "One of the glories of our land is that we can choose how we live our lives, but we've always respected certain limits, self-imposed on a moral baseline that we impart to the generation following us. Today it's increasingly difficult to speak out against homosexual exhibitionism." That moral baseline has moved and changed with the times. If it hadn't, women would swim in neck to ankle dresses, men and women wouldn't sleep in the same bed, and the US would look like the early 1900's. What about heterosexual exhibitionism? Why is it alright for a man and a woman to hold hands and kiss in the mall, but it's not alright for two women or two men to do it? Oh, because everyone doesn't condone the two women or men doing it? Well, I applaud them for flaunting their homosexual exhibitionism. You go girl!

Suzanne, if you had written your article about practically any other minority group, you would never have a job writing again. However, since you are writing about one of the last minority groups that it's fine to discriminate against it's a-okay. Well, let me just tell you it is not. Sooner or later (I hope sooner) the US will change and accept all its citizens as equal.

Intellectual curiosity

Many, many moons ago I used to go to a website frequented by conservative thinkers posting their comments to news stories others had posted. I initially found Lucianne.com a good source of news articles. However, the more I kept going to the site, the more I saw how close-minded the commentators were. Almost all of the comments were skewed WAY to the right. I read comments that would make most people blush. No, they didn't include profanity. The comments were very "if it's not red-blooded, white, American male, then it's wrong!" I slowly drifted away from the site to other, more balanced news sites.

The problem with being too left or too right is that polarisation blinds you. People who only see things from the left, tend not to appreciate anything people who view things from the right say, think, or do. People who only see things from the right, tend not to appreciate anything people who view things from the left say, think, or do. Which side is correct? Both are and neither are.

I have found the centrist view to be the best. Centrists can see things from the right as being valid and see things from the left as being valid. They take a bit from column "A" and a bit from column "B." Most of America, thankfully, is centrist. The next candidate, and subsequent candidates who win the election, will be the one who can win the most centrist votes. Don't get me wrong. Their core voters will be important, too. However, once a candidate focuses too much on the extreme core of their party, they will lose touch with the majority of Americans and lose the election.

Slander and Treason

The article about Max Cleland authored by Ann Coulter has been annoying (kind of like gnats during summer) me since I read it last Thursday. I sent an e-mail to her asking her to please correct her article. I don't expect her to change it on my account, however, if she were truly fair and balanced, she would.

Two of Ann Coulter's books are titled have treason and slander in their titles. She has first had experience with both, especially after writing about Max Cleland. What she wrote about Max Cleland borders on libel. How she could, with a clear conscience, write blatant lies about a man who fought bravely in a war and lost three of his limbs is beyond me. I would like to know what went through her mind as she typed those words. Maybe then I would see her point of view.

Although Max Cleland responded to Ann Coulter on television, if I were Max Cleland, I would ask Ann Coulter for a public apology - on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and any other news organisation. A retraction would not be good enough for me. If she would not apologise, I would take her to court. I know the US laws regarding libel are much less stringent than the laws in the UK. However, what she wrote was in black and white. I guess we'll see what happens.

Weddings and Anniversaries

Last year my grandparents celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. It was a small, family gathering - four generations of my family were at the gathering. It was quite amazing.

In San Franciso, California, another couple celebrated their 50th anniversary. Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Dell Martin, 83, two women who met in 1950 and started dating in 1953, were married in San Francisco.

They were together for 50 years. That is the same length of time my grandparents were married. If 50 years is not a long-term commitment to another person, I don't know what is.

I still cannot comprehend what is so threatening about two adult, same-sex individuals wanting to commit themselves to each other (In other words, get married to each other.). If someone can explain it me in terms that are logical and based on facts, not pure religious dogma, please explain away. I don't want opinion. I have my own, and although I respect your opinion, I may not accept it.

"Family" Republicans in Texas

Although discountblogger is not from Texas, he finally discovered what many of us here in Texas already knew: Texas Republicans are no "Friends of Dorothy."

The following is from the Texas Republican Platform:

"Homosexuality - The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the
breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual
behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our
country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should 'family' be redefined to include
homosexual 'couples.' We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges
including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals,
homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those
who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes - The Party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.

Adoption - The Party supports reducing the time, bureaucratic interference with and cost of adoption in Texas.
We support private adoption agencies recruiting and training prospective adoptive parents and placing for
adoption all children in the foster care system of Texas who are legally free for adoption. We support adult
adoptees' access to their original Texas birth certificates and court records, and that birth parents be provided a
mechanism, after their child' majority, to communicate current medical information, as well as any desire not to
be contacted. We oppose adoption of children by homosexuals.

Sex Education - The Party recognizes parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We
support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual
marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted
diseases, the spread of AIDS, and pregnancies in unwed students, and is also a way to build strong and lasting
relationships. Sex education classes, if conducted, should be separated by sex and must teach that the use of
condoms does not make sex safe. We support policies that mandate parents must be notified before any sex
education course or program is implemented and they must be given an opportunity to review the material and
give their consent."

The opposition the Texas Republican party has to homosexuals is based on pure ignorance added with a heaping pile of religious intolerance. Homosexuality does not tear apart families. It is the bigoted, narrow-minded view of family members that tears apart families. If a man wanted to get married to a man, that doesn't mean a man is taken out of the marriage pool. More than likely, he would have never married a woman to begin with. If a woman wanted to marry a woman, that also doesn't mean a woman is taken out of the marriage poolprobablywoman probaly would have never married a man any way.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, does not lead to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases. The actions of people do. Does that mean that heterosexuality spreads disease, too? Look at the Black Plague. I bet that was spread by more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I can go on an on about epidemic after epidemic to show hoargumenthat arguement is.

And contrary to what they've written, God did not ordain the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. They recognised the need to separate the church and the state. And to deny rights and benefits to a class of people simply based on the simple reason that they have relationships with others of the same sex is wrong. The rights and benefits they wish to deny are simply not based on logical reasoning. They are knee-jerk reactions to repetitive dogma. What's wrong with granting custody of children to a homosexual parent placing that child with the homosexual would be the best for the child? What is wrong with granting insurance benefits and retirement benefits to couples who have been together for a such a long time (2, 5, 25, 50 years?) in most people's eyes they would be considered married? Why is it alright for someone to discriminate (out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values) simply because the person is homosexual? Why can't a child be adopted by a homosexual who has a stable job, living environment, relationship, etc? Is it better to place that child in an abusive heterosexual home? And I guess with the Supreme Court (those activist judges that they are! - Note: Sarcasm.) is immoral because it struck down sodomy laws, including Texas'.

The whole stance on sex education is ludicrous as well. In a perfect world, parents would tell their children about sex well before they even had it. As it is, parents have abresponsibilityresponsiblity because they find it hard to talk to their children about human sexuality. Also in a perfect world, children wouldn't have sex until marriage. (So does that mean a homosexual student could never have sex?) But, the world is not perfect. Since kids will be swayed by peer pressure, rebel against, their parents, or go with the flow of raging hormones, some of them will have sex prior to marriage. Since I am a realist, and since kids are going to have sex whether their parents like it or not, one of the best ways to prevent sexually transmitted disease is through the use of condoms and other methods to help prevent the spread of STDs and pregnancy. Putting girls on one sex education class and boys in another does not sound all bad. Sometimes in high school people can act immature, especially if the topic of discussion is human sexuality. If every parent in the school district were to review the material and then provide their opieducationual eduaction would never be taught because so many conflicting opinions would be given.

In my view, if you are in Texas and you are a Republican and you are gay, that simply doesn't add up. I guess Texas LCR members take the Groucho Marx quote, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member." literally and decided because Texas Republicans don't want them they should join.

It's a bit like the 1938 poem by Pastor NeiMoeller... (I added this stanza) Then they came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual. "Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak out for me." If rights are taken away from one group of people, where will it stop?

Coulter Lies Again

I stopped reading and responding to crap that Ann Coulter wrote because I saw it was pointless. She just wrote whatever she wanted, even if facts and evidence proved her wrong. In her most recent column, she maligns Max Cleland's service to his country while he was in Vietnam.

She writes: "Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman, or what Cleland sneeringly calls 'weekend warriors.' Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."

First of all, I did a little searching using Google. Ann probably has better tools like Lexis-Nexis (though it's obvious to me she doesn't use them). Here is what I found using a simple Google search:

"While disembarking from a transport helicopter, Capt. Cleland reached for a grenade he believed had become dislodged from his web gear. Later it was discovered that the grenade belonged to a young soldier new to the theater. That soldier had improperly prepared the grenade pin for easy detonation and had dropped it while coming off the helicopter. The grenade exploded and severely injured Capt. Cleland."

So, as you can see, Ann, Max Cleland was in no position to drink beer. In fact, he was on a combat mission. Max Leland received the Silver Star, the third-highest honour in United States, for actions he did four days prior to losing an arm and both legs. Here is what the citation said:

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

For someone to malign someone who bravely served their country, was a triple amputee, and is recipient of the Silver Star is beyond wrong. I simply cannot believe the chutzpah that Ann has.

Bush "Releases" Military Record

All the media is abuzz with reports that bush released his military records. Actually, he just released his payroll records. As Richard Cohen pointed out (registration required to view), payroll records don't really mean that Bush attended.

Bush said he released his military records in 1994 and 2000. If he released them in 1994, why would he have to re-release them in 2000? Why would he have to re-release them now? I can think of no good excuse Bush would have as to why they were not released. Since he just released the pay records instead of his full military records, this story is just not going to go away.

The only way to make this completely go away is to release the records in their entirety. It may be that Bush's record isn't as spotless as he alludes. The Viet Nam war was not a popular war by any stretch of the imagination. Very few people really wanted to go over there. Some people got out of going to Viet nam by going to college. Some got out by going to Canada. Some joined the National Guard and Reserves. The National Guard and Reserves of the 1960's and 1970's were not the National Guard and Reserves of today. Much has changed with both the National Guard and Reserves to integrate them as part of the Total Force the military can use when times of crisis happen. In any case, if Bush's full record does show he missed an entire year (or more) of service, he will lose quite a bit of credibility with active duty and veterans alike. Bush will need to explain why he missed that service. He won't necessarily need to explain it to a formal inquiry, rather he will need to explain his actions to the American public.

During the 2000 election, Bush claimed he wanted to change the tone of politics in Washington. In my opinion, the tone in Washington hasn't gotten better; it has gotten worse. So far, Bush is not doing one of the same things Clinton was criticised for not doing: simply telling the truth. Whatever the truth may be, good, bad, or indifferent, it should come out. Until Bush can tell the truth on a wide variety of issues - Iraq, his military record, 9/11, the economy, the tax cuts, and so forth, Bush's popularity will continue to fall. The American public will see him as not being credible. Once his credibility is lost, he will be in danger of being just like his father - a one-term President.

CrAAzy Pilot

An American Airlines pilot, according to a report on ABC news, called non-Christians crazy. It is all well and good that this pilot is a Christian. It is all well and good that he is very faithful. However, calling non-Christians crazy is just plain stupid. This guy is a pilot for an airline. His job is to fly planes. Until American Airlines changes their job description to "Evangelical Pilot - Convert the savage masses en route to their destination." that pilot should stick to his job and get people from point A to point B. Period.

How would people feel if a non-Christian pilot, cab driver, bus driver, teacher, politician, etc. called non-Christians crazy? I can tell you what would happen. That person wouldn't have a job the next day. That pilot has every right to have strong faith in Christianity. He has a right to think whatever he wants. However, when he puts on that uniform, he becomes a pilot and a representative for American Airlines. Last time I checked, American Airlines didn't care what sex you were, what religion you were, what your nationality was, what your skin colour was, and so on. All American Airlines cares about is that you buy a ticket and that you have a safe and enjoyable flight.

Stories like these give ammunition to people to bolster their arguments that Americans are out to convert every one - willingly or unwillingly. America is a true melting pot country. People from varying creeds, nationalities, religions all working together for the common good of the country. Stories like this do nothing to enhance that image.

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

Reading World O' Crap about Jan Ireland's article about why "Liberals Fear the Pledge of Allegiance." Um, I don't.

I think Jan needs to go back and look at the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. It started in 1892 and was much shorter than it is today.

It read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, over the objections of the original author, Francis Bellamy, it was changed to read, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, 62 years after it was orignally written, "under God" was added per the encouragement of Eisenhower to combat the godless commies. These words were added despite the objection of Francis Bellamy's daugher.

Contrary to what Jan has to say, we do live in a democracy. Just ask George W. Bush. The Meriam-Webster Dictionary's 1b definition of democracy is, "A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Last time I checked, Jan, we did have period, free elections in the US. We have an indirect democracy, Jan. We elect our representatives to be our voice.

Jan, the Meriam-Webster dictionary defines republic as, "1b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"

Hmmm. Let's look at that definition. Citizens entitled to vote... Elected officers and representatives. Sounds like an indirect democracy to me.

And as for illegal aliens and Middle Eastern terrorists throwing elections, last time I checked, we have minimum standards before someone can get registered to vote.

As long as Americans who are eligible to vote have that right to exercise their choice to, our system of indirect democracy works just fine. Direct democracy is pretty hard to predict and control. The electorate is notoriously fickle and can be swayed with the right advertising campaigns. To prevent sudden swings in our government, the Founding Fathers decided to go with our system of indirect democracy. Jan, maybe you need to retake civics and maybe read a dictionary. Americans do live in a democracy.

Compassionate Conservatism and Veterans

I am thankful every day that I have a decent paying job. I'm also glad that I have medical insurance through my job. If I didn't, my status as a veteran would mean bubkus. Well, it would with budget Bush has proposed. The Island of Balta relays that under Bush's proposed budget, he would underfund the Veterans Administration by about 2 billion dollars. The VA was set up to provide services for those American men and women who served their country. In the name of presenting the American public with a budget that appears smaller, Bush cuts program after program. One of the last things I would have expected him to cut was anything to do with Veterans. I just hope that military folks will come to realise that although Bush likes to spend tons of money on getting troops shipped off to wars based on trumped up intelligence, he will not spend the money to take care of them once they come home.

I think active duty military and veterans alike need to take off their rose coloured glasses and realise that maybe, just maybe this particular Republican administration does not have their best interests at heart. Bush is far from being the compassionate conservative he claimed to be in the 2000 election.

The Massachusetts Decision

I've said it in previous posts, and I'll say it again...

I thought it was determined that long ago separate, but equal is anything but. So now we have George Bush wanting to make an entire class of people second class citizens simply because they want the same protections and privileges as everyone else in the US gets. I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for standing up to ideologues and stating that for everyone in the state of Massachusetts to be equal, gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry their partners. Some members of the Massachusetts legislature wanted to have a domestic partnership plan like Vermont has. That's all well and good, but as was proven by the South before the Civil Rights movement, domestic partnerships will be anything but equal.

Until I educated myself on the issue, I was for domestic partnership. I saw it as a stepping stone to full marriage. The problem with stepping stones is that sometimes there's nowhere else to step. That's because there is either no next level or the will to move to that next level dissipates because what would be achieved would be "good enough." Well, domestic partnerships are just not good enough. They masquerade as offering all the rights and benefits of marriage, but they only come close. They are like "marriage-lite," "I can't believe it's not marriage!," and "diet-marriage."

Now Bush says the only way to keep marriage sacred is to pass a Constitutional amendment. Marriage stopped being sacred a long time ago. If it were sacred, people would take their time to get married and stay married to the person they were with (barring abuse and the like). However, half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. We have game shows where people get married to complete strangers. We have games shows where people pretend to fool their parents that they are getting married to their "big, fat, obnoxious fiance." Musicians get married then divorced in 55 hours. Movie stars have two, three, and up to eight ex spouses. And marriage is sacred!!??

One comment I heard on the radio went something along the lines of, "What are we going to do now? Allow three people to get married? How about people who want to marry their dogs?" Both arguments are absurd to the nth degree. They remind me arguments made decades ago forbidding intermarriage between people of different races. Miscegenation is now common and does not to have a detrimental effect on society.

What is the problem with allowing two people who love each other to marry? It shouldn't matter whether that couple is a male and a female, two females, or two males. The state, not the religious institution, allows marriages to happen. If churches, mosques, temples, and other religious gathering places do not want to allow marriages to happen in them, more power to them. However, if two people want to go to a Justice of the Peace or a court house, they should be married there.

Bush's Military Service

It seems to me Bush's (almost) six year stint in the Air National Guard is becoming an issue for him. It should have been in 2000, when it his record was reported by the Boston Globe. Alas, the press was ever so willing to give him a pass (as they have done on numerous occasions) and give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm pretty sure Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al. were delighted that little item went away. Unfortunately for them, it never did. If Bush wants to make this issue go away quickly and easily, he could just release his records. However, if releasing those records would show to the world that he didn't serve all the six years of his obligated service, then he loses a ton of credibility - especially with veterans.

Several Republicans have jumped into the fray and accused Bushes critics of attacking the National Guard. Darrell Issa (instigator of the Davis Recall) said that by bringing up Bushes Guard record, Democrats are attacking the patriotism of guardsman by "implying that their contributions are less worthy than those who serve in the military. " I beg to differ. I am 100% sure that no Democrat would attack the National Guard. They are simply attacking the record of one individual guardsman, Bush, for failure to perform his obligated service.

From the information I have read, Bush was a fully-trained pilot on flying status. That training cost about 1 million dollars in 1970 money. Even now, 1 million dollars is quite a bit of money; 1 million dollars back then was a whole ton of money. In 1972, he failed to show up for a required physical and lost his flying status. That was basically 1 million dollars wasted. If it were anyone else, the National Guard would have gotten its money back in some way. He would have been activated, fined, or received any number of possible punishments. Then on top of losing his flying status, he asked to be transferred to Alabama so he could work on the campaign of one of his father's friends. In 1973, Bush returned to his Houston Guard unit. In May 1973, he didn't get his annual equivalent to an OPR (Officer Performance report) because his commanders wrote, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Now that just means he wasn't in Houston for that report. Where was he? From the reports in the Boston Globe and other sources I have read, he failed to show up in Alabama. Some Republicans are even questioning the integrity of the commander who said Bush failed to show up because he contributed to a Democratic candidate's campaign. Please! This man was the commander of a unit. He wouldn't have achieved that position if he didn't have integrity.

The refusal to clarify his record of service is from the same guy who paraded around on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a sign behind him proclaiming, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." We all now know the mission in Iraq is far from being accomplished. Bush's military service record may be another in the long line of things that this administration say is one way, but after some time and investigation, it turns out to be false. I hope for the sake of guardsman across the country that Bush did serve his full six years.