Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Weapons Hunt Shifts to Intent
Apparently because Bushco cannot find any real WMDs and the "programmes" turned out to be sketches on paper, they are lowering the bar even further and trying to show that Saddam Hussein and his cohorts intended to develop weapons of mass.
The cojones Bushco must have! First they screamed up and down that Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical WMDs and were waiting for the day to use them. They said it would only take 45 minutes to launch a WMD strike. If the US did not act immediately, many people would have been killed or injured. So we went into Iraq and Saddam Hussein's army fell awfully fast. And no WMDs were launched. So we proceeded to search for WMDs. Model airplanes were called unmanned aerial vehicles, aluminum tubes that would have never been used in a centrifuge were misidentified, canvas-sided trucks were called mobile processing facilities, and we were certain huge stockpiles were in the area around Tikrit - to the north, west, south, and east, to be exact.
No WMDs stockpiles have been found, despite controlling the country for over a year. I guess Hans Blix was right after all. So focus shifted (and the bar was lowered dramatically) to look for WMD programmes. The "programmes" found turned out to be parts buried 10 years ago and sketches on sheets of paper. I guess even that bar was too high for Bushco to reach. What is the bar going to be lowered to next? Saddam Hussein daydreamed about WMDs?
Apparently because Bushco cannot find any real WMDs and the "programmes" turned out to be sketches on paper, they are lowering the bar even further and trying to show that Saddam Hussein and his cohorts intended to develop weapons of mass.
The cojones Bushco must have! First they screamed up and down that Iraq had nuclear, biological, and chemical WMDs and were waiting for the day to use them. They said it would only take 45 minutes to launch a WMD strike. If the US did not act immediately, many people would have been killed or injured. So we went into Iraq and Saddam Hussein's army fell awfully fast. And no WMDs were launched. So we proceeded to search for WMDs. Model airplanes were called unmanned aerial vehicles, aluminum tubes that would have never been used in a centrifuge were misidentified, canvas-sided trucks were called mobile processing facilities, and we were certain huge stockpiles were in the area around Tikrit - to the north, west, south, and east, to be exact.
No WMDs stockpiles have been found, despite controlling the country for over a year. I guess Hans Blix was right after all. So focus shifted (and the bar was lowered dramatically) to look for WMD programmes. The "programmes" found turned out to be parts buried 10 years ago and sketches on sheets of paper. I guess even that bar was too high for Bushco to reach. What is the bar going to be lowered to next? Saddam Hussein daydreamed about WMDs?
Your Tax Dollars at Work
An article in the Miami Herald documents how Boeing had five months to rewrite (or mod) the contract for 100 767 air refueling vehicles versus Airbus's 12 days. Additionally, Boeing dropped 19 of the 26 (that is, they met 7 out of 26) capabilities the Air Force wanted. Airbus, meanwhile would have met more than 20 out of the 26 requirements the Air Force wanted. The Boeing contract came in at 23.5 billion dollars. The Airbus contract came in at 10 billion dollars less.
I realise Boeing is an American company and Airbus is a European (German, British, French, and Spanish) company. However, if a company can save the US government 10 billion dollars, should they not at least be given a shot at competing fairly and potentially winning the contract? Contracts are put out to bid to get the best price for the best product. If the US government is not going to honour the bid process, they might as well not even pretend to put the contract out for a bid.
If Boeing could meet all the requirements needed, at a competitive cost to any other company, they should have won that contract. The entire Miami Herald article is a pretty interesting read on how Congress was steering money to Boeing, even though it was not the best deal they could have gotten for the American public. It turns out that it would have cost more in the long run, since additional capabilities were going to be added later at additional cost. The cost of the Boeing plan is also higher. A Boeing 767 refueling tanker would be about 138.5 million dollars to buy outright. The Air Force wants to lease 20 planes and buy 80. The cost of leasing the planes is higher than the cost of buying the planes. Airbus wasn't perfect, either. Its planes were too large (I thought bigger was better.) and they didn't have the specific boom required by the Air Force. However, all things being equal, the Airbus proposal met more of the requirements than the Boeing proposal.
All in all, I think the American public did not get the best deal for their money. Let Boeing and Airbus compete on a level playing field. If Boeing wins the bid, great. If Airbus wins, great. The American public should be the ultimate winner though in the savings a competitive bid would get.
**Disclosure** I was in the Air Force for eight years and now work for a subsidiary of the company Airbus is a part of.
An article in the Miami Herald documents how Boeing had five months to rewrite (or mod) the contract for 100 767 air refueling vehicles versus Airbus's 12 days. Additionally, Boeing dropped 19 of the 26 (that is, they met 7 out of 26) capabilities the Air Force wanted. Airbus, meanwhile would have met more than 20 out of the 26 requirements the Air Force wanted. The Boeing contract came in at 23.5 billion dollars. The Airbus contract came in at 10 billion dollars less.
I realise Boeing is an American company and Airbus is a European (German, British, French, and Spanish) company. However, if a company can save the US government 10 billion dollars, should they not at least be given a shot at competing fairly and potentially winning the contract? Contracts are put out to bid to get the best price for the best product. If the US government is not going to honour the bid process, they might as well not even pretend to put the contract out for a bid.
If Boeing could meet all the requirements needed, at a competitive cost to any other company, they should have won that contract. The entire Miami Herald article is a pretty interesting read on how Congress was steering money to Boeing, even though it was not the best deal they could have gotten for the American public. It turns out that it would have cost more in the long run, since additional capabilities were going to be added later at additional cost. The cost of the Boeing plan is also higher. A Boeing 767 refueling tanker would be about 138.5 million dollars to buy outright. The Air Force wants to lease 20 planes and buy 80. The cost of leasing the planes is higher than the cost of buying the planes. Airbus wasn't perfect, either. Its planes were too large (I thought bigger was better.) and they didn't have the specific boom required by the Air Force. However, all things being equal, the Airbus proposal met more of the requirements than the Boeing proposal.
All in all, I think the American public did not get the best deal for their money. Let Boeing and Airbus compete on a level playing field. If Boeing wins the bid, great. If Airbus wins, great. The American public should be the ultimate winner though in the savings a competitive bid would get.
**Disclosure** I was in the Air Force for eight years and now work for a subsidiary of the company Airbus is a part of.
Monday, March 29, 2004
There is a Time for Everything
I find it interesting that Condoleezza Rice has enough time to go on the Sunday talking head shows and 60 Minutes, but does not have the time to go before the September 11th Commission. She says a National Security Advisor has never gone before Congress and testified. She may be technically correct, but as she and the Bush administration have repeatedly said, something like September 11th was extraordinary and they have had to take extraordinary measures to protect the country. I agree that September 11th was extraordinary. I also agree many of the extraordinary measures to protect the country were called for. The point I disagree with Condoleezza Rice and the Bush administration on is why she and others could not testify before the September 11th Commission?
If it were me, I would testify and get everything out in the open. If Bush did not do enough prior to September 11th, he should just come out and say so. If he did do all he could to prevent September 11th, he should say that as well and provide evidence to show that. It appears to me that Bush is trying to listen to Billy Flynn's advice from the musical Chicago and "give 'em the old razzle, dazzle." The more Bush and his administration try to play slight of hand, the less the American public will be fooled.
I find it interesting that Condoleezza Rice has enough time to go on the Sunday talking head shows and 60 Minutes, but does not have the time to go before the September 11th Commission. She says a National Security Advisor has never gone before Congress and testified. She may be technically correct, but as she and the Bush administration have repeatedly said, something like September 11th was extraordinary and they have had to take extraordinary measures to protect the country. I agree that September 11th was extraordinary. I also agree many of the extraordinary measures to protect the country were called for. The point I disagree with Condoleezza Rice and the Bush administration on is why she and others could not testify before the September 11th Commission?
If it were me, I would testify and get everything out in the open. If Bush did not do enough prior to September 11th, he should just come out and say so. If he did do all he could to prevent September 11th, he should say that as well and provide evidence to show that. It appears to me that Bush is trying to listen to Billy Flynn's advice from the musical Chicago and "give 'em the old razzle, dazzle." The more Bush and his administration try to play slight of hand, the less the American public will be fooled.
Politics and Religion
I believe politics and religions should be two totally separate entities. Politics should have no bearing on religion; religion should have no bearing on politics. However, I live in reality. In the US, politics and religion overlap in many instances. I do not think either party has the lock on religion. As it is, the Republican party tends to be more overtly religious than the Democratic party.
This weekend John Kerry went to St. Louis to speak at the New Northside Baptist Church. He mentioned some quotes from James 2:14. This raised the dander of the Bush party. Apparently they feel it was not proper from Kerry to quote the Bible. Steven Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said that it was out of bounds and exploitation of scripture. If Bush and the Republicans can use scripture in their speeches why cannot Kerry and the Democrats? Turn about is fair play, right?
From what I know of the New Testament and Jesus' life, Jesus had a way of inspiring people. He wanted the Romans out of Israel, but did not want to shed the blood of innocent people. He preferred to sacrifice himself for the good of all. He wanted the Jews to go back to their core beliefs. As in the past, the Jews had strayed. Now many people want to use both the Old Testament and New Testament to promote their specific view of the world. I'm not too sure Jesus would approve. Matthew 22:21, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
I believe politics and religions should be two totally separate entities. Politics should have no bearing on religion; religion should have no bearing on politics. However, I live in reality. In the US, politics and religion overlap in many instances. I do not think either party has the lock on religion. As it is, the Republican party tends to be more overtly religious than the Democratic party.
This weekend John Kerry went to St. Louis to speak at the New Northside Baptist Church. He mentioned some quotes from James 2:14. This raised the dander of the Bush party. Apparently they feel it was not proper from Kerry to quote the Bible. Steven Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said that it was out of bounds and exploitation of scripture. If Bush and the Republicans can use scripture in their speeches why cannot Kerry and the Democrats? Turn about is fair play, right?
From what I know of the New Testament and Jesus' life, Jesus had a way of inspiring people. He wanted the Romans out of Israel, but did not want to shed the blood of innocent people. He preferred to sacrifice himself for the good of all. He wanted the Jews to go back to their core beliefs. As in the past, the Jews had strayed. Now many people want to use both the Old Testament and New Testament to promote their specific view of the world. I'm not too sure Jesus would approve. Matthew 22:21, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Craziness
In an article on Wired News' site, users of the "FunHi" service spend real money for virtual gifts. Let me repeat that again. They spend real money on virtual gifts.
The way the site works is you buy stuff - icons of planes, cars, etc. - for your friends and become more popular. I just think this sounds too much like a way for the web site owner to hype the site to get people to spend tons of cash on non-existent stuff. Even though the company vice president says, "It wasn't something we had planned. Our customers asked us for this.... It just exploded on us. It's not like we're trying to bilk people." he and FunHi probably don't mind too much that people are throwing tons of cash in their direction.
What are they thinking! One guy spent $1000 to get virtual stuff. All so they can impress their friends. If they want to throw their money away, that is fine. If it were me, I would rather have a real object rather than a virtual one. What happens when the website goes off line? All the real cash spent on virtual things will be gone and neither party will have nothing to show for it.
In an article on Wired News' site, users of the "FunHi" service spend real money for virtual gifts. Let me repeat that again. They spend real money on virtual gifts.
The way the site works is you buy stuff - icons of planes, cars, etc. - for your friends and become more popular. I just think this sounds too much like a way for the web site owner to hype the site to get people to spend tons of cash on non-existent stuff. Even though the company vice president says, "It wasn't something we had planned. Our customers asked us for this.... It just exploded on us. It's not like we're trying to bilk people." he and FunHi probably don't mind too much that people are throwing tons of cash in their direction.
What are they thinking! One guy spent $1000 to get virtual stuff. All so they can impress their friends. If they want to throw their money away, that is fine. If it were me, I would rather have a real object rather than a virtual one. What happens when the website goes off line? All the real cash spent on virtual things will be gone and neither party will have nothing to show for it.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Why is Zell Miller still a Democrat?
Zell Miller has a right to support any candidate he wishes to. That is one of the great things about living in the United States. Zell Miller also has the right to say anything about a Presidential candidate he wants to. I do think he's a bit of a turn-coat, a Benedict Arnold, if you will, for what he said about his fellow Democrat, John Kerry.
As an Independent, I have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. It is one thing for Zell Miller to have a disagreement with John Kerry. However, since he is from the same party, he should be able to talk to John Kerry and come to an agreement in private. As it is, he bad mouthed John Kerry publicly. Has the good Senator from Georgia ever heard of the rule, "Praise in public, chastise in private?" Apparently not.
Not only does Zell Miller bad mouth his fellow Democrat, he openly supports and is campaigning for George Bush. Republicans have a name for Republicans who do not act like Republicans -- RINOs - Republicans in Name Only. Zell Miller, with all due respect to the Flintstone's pet, is a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. He should follow the Democratic corollary to Reagan's 11th Commandment - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Democrat." I remember when Republicans did break that Commandment, they were swiftly brought back into line or let go.
I think it is time Democrats follow the same line of thinking. Zell Miller should stop bad mouthing his fellow Democrats in public. If he cannot get with the program and act like a team player, maybe he ought to find a new team. If Zell Miller had been a Republican, this would have never happened.
Zell Miller has a right to support any candidate he wishes to. That is one of the great things about living in the United States. Zell Miller also has the right to say anything about a Presidential candidate he wants to. I do think he's a bit of a turn-coat, a Benedict Arnold, if you will, for what he said about his fellow Democrat, John Kerry.
As an Independent, I have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. It is one thing for Zell Miller to have a disagreement with John Kerry. However, since he is from the same party, he should be able to talk to John Kerry and come to an agreement in private. As it is, he bad mouthed John Kerry publicly. Has the good Senator from Georgia ever heard of the rule, "Praise in public, chastise in private?" Apparently not.
Not only does Zell Miller bad mouth his fellow Democrat, he openly supports and is campaigning for George Bush. Republicans have a name for Republicans who do not act like Republicans -- RINOs - Republicans in Name Only. Zell Miller, with all due respect to the Flintstone's pet, is a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. He should follow the Democratic corollary to Reagan's 11th Commandment - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Democrat." I remember when Republicans did break that Commandment, they were swiftly brought back into line or let go.
I think it is time Democrats follow the same line of thinking. Zell Miller should stop bad mouthing his fellow Democrats in public. If he cannot get with the program and act like a team player, maybe he ought to find a new team. If Zell Miller had been a Republican, this would have never happened.
John Cornyn and the Redefinition of Marriage
John Cornyn, the Senator from Texas repeated a quote from Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, "Redefining marriage in a way that reduces it to a financial and legal relationship will only accelerate the deterioration of family life."
My response to Senator Cornyn and Archbishop O'Malley marriage has already been redefined in a way to reduce it to a financial and legal relationship. If Archbishop O'Malley were to marry a couple he probably says something along the lines of, "By the power vested in me by the state of Massachusetts, I pronounce you husband and wife." The US has this nifty, neato thing called separation of church and state. It stems from a time when the King of England was also the head of the Church of England. He could do things like change the rules and allow divorce to happen.
Speaking of divorce, it now breaks down to a legal and financial undertaking. When a couple gets divorced, it happens in a court of law; it does not happen in a church. When a couple gets divorced, the assets of the marriage are divided by a judge of law; a priest, rabbi, or imam does not decide how the assets are to be divided.
Marriage has 1,049 rights and privileges that are not given when people have a civil union. These are rights and privileges given under the law. They are 1,049 financial and legal benefits that are conferred under the law. These benefits were not conferred by any church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry each other will not harm the institution of marriage. Marriage already has been harmed by early marriages, abusive marriages, quick divorces, etc. What harm will it be if two women or two men marry? If a logical answer can be provided, please provide one.
John Cornyn, the issue is about equality for all Americans regardless of age, race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. The Federal Marriage Amendment you support is wrong. To deny a class of people the right to marry the person they love is discrimination. Discrimination is wrong whenever it happens. It was wrong when women were discriminated against and not allowed to work, own property, or vote. It was wrong when people of colour, especially African-Americans, were not allowed own property, vote, or marry who they wanted, even if that person was a different colour than they were. Discrimination is wrong now when gays and lesbians are denied the ability to enjoy the same legal protections as their straight counterparts.
John Cornyn, the Senator from Texas repeated a quote from Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, "Redefining marriage in a way that reduces it to a financial and legal relationship will only accelerate the deterioration of family life."
My response to Senator Cornyn and Archbishop O'Malley marriage has already been redefined in a way to reduce it to a financial and legal relationship. If Archbishop O'Malley were to marry a couple he probably says something along the lines of, "By the power vested in me by the state of Massachusetts, I pronounce you husband and wife." The US has this nifty, neato thing called separation of church and state. It stems from a time when the King of England was also the head of the Church of England. He could do things like change the rules and allow divorce to happen.
Speaking of divorce, it now breaks down to a legal and financial undertaking. When a couple gets divorced, it happens in a court of law; it does not happen in a church. When a couple gets divorced, the assets of the marriage are divided by a judge of law; a priest, rabbi, or imam does not decide how the assets are to be divided.
Marriage has 1,049 rights and privileges that are not given when people have a civil union. These are rights and privileges given under the law. They are 1,049 financial and legal benefits that are conferred under the law. These benefits were not conferred by any church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.
Allowing gays and lesbians to marry each other will not harm the institution of marriage. Marriage already has been harmed by early marriages, abusive marriages, quick divorces, etc. What harm will it be if two women or two men marry? If a logical answer can be provided, please provide one.
John Cornyn, the issue is about equality for all Americans regardless of age, race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. The Federal Marriage Amendment you support is wrong. To deny a class of people the right to marry the person they love is discrimination. Discrimination is wrong whenever it happens. It was wrong when women were discriminated against and not allowed to work, own property, or vote. It was wrong when people of colour, especially African-Americans, were not allowed own property, vote, or marry who they wanted, even if that person was a different colour than they were. Discrimination is wrong now when gays and lesbians are denied the ability to enjoy the same legal protections as their straight counterparts.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Dick Clarke
I saw the 60 Minutes interview of Richard (Dick) Clarke by Lesley Stahl. The allegations he made against the administration were, in my mind, pretty damning. And so far, the administration has not done much to really refute them. The refutations they have offered have been shot down. The Center for American Progress has a listing of the claims the administration (Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, et al.) have made to try to discredit Richard Clarke and his allegations and the facts.
The one thing I like about the Internet is the speed at which statements and mis-statements can be looked up and verified. What used to take weeks or days now take hours or minutes. From what the record shows, Bush spent about a month cutting brush on his Crawford Texas ranch. It seemed like his big priority was setting up the next T-ball game. While that was all well and good, evidence handed over about potential terrorist acts was ignored until it was too late.
After September 11th, The administration faired no better. Bush flew from Florida to Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, LA. From Barksdale he flew to Offutt AFB in Bellevue, NE. All the meanwhile Ari Fleischer claimed Air Force One was the next target. We now know that was false. It is one of a series of false or misleading statements the Bush administration has made about quite a bit - the environment, Iraq, Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, and so on, and so on.
I think the American press needs to do its job and call this administration on its statements just as it has done with the previous administration. Bush does not need to get a pass simply because of September 11th. This administrations half-truths, misrepresentations, mis-statements, and fallacies are just as bad, if not worse than the previous administration's.
I saw the 60 Minutes interview of Richard (Dick) Clarke by Lesley Stahl. The allegations he made against the administration were, in my mind, pretty damning. And so far, the administration has not done much to really refute them. The refutations they have offered have been shot down. The Center for American Progress has a listing of the claims the administration (Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, et al.) have made to try to discredit Richard Clarke and his allegations and the facts.
The one thing I like about the Internet is the speed at which statements and mis-statements can be looked up and verified. What used to take weeks or days now take hours or minutes. From what the record shows, Bush spent about a month cutting brush on his Crawford Texas ranch. It seemed like his big priority was setting up the next T-ball game. While that was all well and good, evidence handed over about potential terrorist acts was ignored until it was too late.
After September 11th, The administration faired no better. Bush flew from Florida to Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, LA. From Barksdale he flew to Offutt AFB in Bellevue, NE. All the meanwhile Ari Fleischer claimed Air Force One was the next target. We now know that was false. It is one of a series of false or misleading statements the Bush administration has made about quite a bit - the environment, Iraq, Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, and so on, and so on.
I think the American press needs to do its job and call this administration on its statements just as it has done with the previous administration. Bush does not need to get a pass simply because of September 11th. This administrations half-truths, misrepresentations, mis-statements, and fallacies are just as bad, if not worse than the previous administration's.
Friday, March 19, 2004
The F-Word
An article on Salon discusses how since Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction/nipple shield viewing the FCC has started to really crack down on what indecency is. For years the FCC was not as draconian as it is now. I guess in an election year, it has to show that it, and in turn its ultimate boss, Dubya, is tough on indecency.
The article describes how Howard Stern's show is now being fined for being indeceny. I have never heard Howard Stern's show, so I cannot comment on it. The article also said that the FCC reversed its earlier ruling about Bono's (U2's lead singer) comment (really, really fucking brilliant) when he and U2 won a Golden Globe for best original song. I think using "fucking" in that context is far from being indecent.
I think the FCC should focus on other indecent things like the amount of violence shown on television. Oh, but violence is okay; sex is not (unless it is between a man and his wife and they are in the bed room and one of them has one foot on the ground and all their clothes are on). As far as words go, the FCC should live by the children's rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
An article on Salon discusses how since Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction/nipple shield viewing the FCC has started to really crack down on what indecency is. For years the FCC was not as draconian as it is now. I guess in an election year, it has to show that it, and in turn its ultimate boss, Dubya, is tough on indecency.
The article describes how Howard Stern's show is now being fined for being indeceny. I have never heard Howard Stern's show, so I cannot comment on it. The article also said that the FCC reversed its earlier ruling about Bono's (U2's lead singer) comment (really, really fucking brilliant) when he and U2 won a Golden Globe for best original song. I think using "fucking" in that context is far from being indecent.
I think the FCC should focus on other indecent things like the amount of violence shown on television. Oh, but violence is okay; sex is not (unless it is between a man and his wife and they are in the bed room and one of them has one foot on the ground and all their clothes are on). As far as words go, the FCC should live by the children's rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Rhea County
The Rhea County commissioners briefly wanted to ask lawmakers to see if Tennessee could amend the laws so Rhea county could charge gays and lesbians who lived there with "crimes against nature." Commissioner JC Fugate, the genius who introduced the measure, wanted lawmakers to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county. Then a day after they enacted their moronic law, the County commissioners rescinded their law.
I am glad they finally came to their senses. What if they had enacted a law banning Asians, Blacks, Jews, Catholics, deaf, or blind people? People would have been furious. Boycotts would have started and people would have stopped going to or doing business with Rhea County.
What upsets me is that these commissioners have the gall to openly discriminate against an entire class of people in 2004! And when the Rhea County commissioners rescinded the ban, one of Rhea's esteemed citizens, June Griffin, showed what an intellectual she is. From the The Chatanooga.com:
June Griffin, a Christian activist, said the commissioners had bowed to "pressure from the liberal press."
She said, "We need to raise a better generation that won't chicken out." She said the majority of Rhea County residents supported the resolution.
Mrs. Griffin said she did not believe there are any gays living in Rhea County. She said, "Anyone I ever suspect, I go up and ask them directly." She said anyone she had asked had denied it.
Do gays and lesbians scare her that much? If so, why? Maybe she dreams of munching carpet some day and does not want to admit it. I do not know. And what do the Rhea County commissioners have to worry about? The gays and lesbians I know are just as fine and upstanding as any straight person I know. I know people who are doctors, nurses, teachers, air traffic controllers, computer programmers, work for major insurance companies, and so on and so on. They are active in their community, volunteer to better their neighourhoods, and give to charitable organisations. What county would not want these people to be part of their county? Oh, I know! Rhea County!
The Rhea County commissioners briefly wanted to ask lawmakers to see if Tennessee could amend the laws so Rhea county could charge gays and lesbians who lived there with "crimes against nature." Commissioner JC Fugate, the genius who introduced the measure, wanted lawmakers to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county. Then a day after they enacted their moronic law, the County commissioners rescinded their law.
I am glad they finally came to their senses. What if they had enacted a law banning Asians, Blacks, Jews, Catholics, deaf, or blind people? People would have been furious. Boycotts would have started and people would have stopped going to or doing business with Rhea County.
What upsets me is that these commissioners have the gall to openly discriminate against an entire class of people in 2004! And when the Rhea County commissioners rescinded the ban, one of Rhea's esteemed citizens, June Griffin, showed what an intellectual she is. From the The Chatanooga.com:
June Griffin, a Christian activist, said the commissioners had bowed to "pressure from the liberal press."
She said, "We need to raise a better generation that won't chicken out." She said the majority of Rhea County residents supported the resolution.
Mrs. Griffin said she did not believe there are any gays living in Rhea County. She said, "Anyone I ever suspect, I go up and ask them directly." She said anyone she had asked had denied it.
Do gays and lesbians scare her that much? If so, why? Maybe she dreams of munching carpet some day and does not want to admit it. I do not know. And what do the Rhea County commissioners have to worry about? The gays and lesbians I know are just as fine and upstanding as any straight person I know. I know people who are doctors, nurses, teachers, air traffic controllers, computer programmers, work for major insurance companies, and so on and so on. They are active in their community, volunteer to better their neighourhoods, and give to charitable organisations. What county would not want these people to be part of their county? Oh, I know! Rhea County!
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
I'm Back...
I have been gone (for work) for the last two weeks doing work for one week in Niagara Falls, NY, and the next week in Montgomery, AL. Niagara was fun to see. Niagara Falls, Ontario is like a mini Las Vegas. When I visited Montgomery, Al, several people asked me to take them back when I went home. I didn't know Montgomery was that bad. I was just visiting, so I did not get to see why they were desperate to leave.
Since I blog by myself, I do not have the luxury of relying on guest bloggers like some of the bigger, more well-known names in the blogosphere. No matter, I still have fun blogging.
I have been gone (for work) for the last two weeks doing work for one week in Niagara Falls, NY, and the next week in Montgomery, AL. Niagara was fun to see. Niagara Falls, Ontario is like a mini Las Vegas. When I visited Montgomery, Al, several people asked me to take them back when I went home. I didn't know Montgomery was that bad. I was just visiting, so I did not get to see why they were desperate to leave.
Since I blog by myself, I do not have the luxury of relying on guest bloggers like some of the bigger, more well-known names in the blogosphere. No matter, I still have fun blogging.
