Grey turning Blue...

live blogging the ninetieth republican debate

2012-01-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

20:08 OK...no more live blogging. I'm done with debates.

19:59 Romney just smacked down Newt about promising everything to all states...

19:58 what is all this anti-chinese jingoism? It's ridiculous...

19:50 the all important future of NASA question--Romney, I'll get scientists and commerce to sing kumbaya. Newt: he just said NASA is mis-managed--in Florida. Wow...offer prizes to get an American on the moon. (no, really, he said that).

19:35 I wish I had enough money to "blind trust" let someone else invest and then get paid! Also...Newt just got his arse handed to him.

19:22 Newt, "No one should be trapped in a linguistic trap." Romney calls PACs "the people" They are SO far in the weeds about immigration without saying anything different at all...

19:21 Romney keeps confusing "legal immigrants" with Americans. The irony is strong, but I doubt his audience gets it--illegal immigrants DON'T TAKE AMERICAN JOBS

19:20 Mitt won this round without saying anything, really...

19:17 Newt, after running ads in Spanish, calls for English as the official language.

19:15 Romney--guest worker cards and e-system that employers can check. Just curious what's to keep people from asking me for my guest worker card. Think it won't happen? People used to ask my dad how much he charged for lawn care, five years after we moved into our house.

live blogging the SOTU

2012-01-24T18:03:00.000-08:00

20:39 this speech is vapid, but at least not offensive (unless you consider lack of substance offensive)

20:36 give citizenship for service in the military--but you can't get a secret clearance, so you can't use the computers so...you can't really get promoted...seems a little "rock and a hard place"

20:32 Al Franken!!

20:30 Some of these things are just cheer lines...I don't know why I'm watching. (My husband just called my blogging "my work" :) I love this kid!)

20:27 the Joint Chiefs look REALLY bored...and where are the zoomies and Marines?

20:24 minimum tax on all corporations to support American companies? That's interesting...

20:20 it's all past so far...republicans are confused if they should clap for GM or not

20:12 starts of with a pander to the troops. No one can be against troops, right?

20:11 There should be a "no ovation" rule...either that or the opposite, more "you lie!" guys--I mean, at least TRY to be genuine.

20:08 Chief Justice Roberts greeted him with what appeared to be a rather warm and genuine smile...Ginsberg doesn't look well :(

20:06 Was that Dick Cheney?!

20:05 This whole thing has got to be the most ridiculous thing we do as a country. It doesn't drive policy, it's purely political. There are so many norms and traditions that are, what...a decade? old, why bother? It makes us all look petty and rather silly.

19:58 First lady's "guests" I hate that...people-props

19:57 Alito, Thomas and Scalia all skipped the SOTU...and Sotamayor--is this going to be her norm?

live blogging today...

2012-01-21T09:59:00.000-08:00

I'm watching TV and cleaning, but didn't want to update my status 13809473 times, so instead, I'll "live blog" here...like twitter...with no character limits.

19:11 headed to dinner, but a last thought, in reaction to this from Eric Ericson (redstate.com):

Basically, today’s vote is about Republican grassroots giving the Washington Republican establishment the finger. The base is angry, and right now, only Newt is left to fight for them, as imperfect as he is. We may still end up with Romney, but voters aren’t going to let him have it easily.

seriously? to fight the establishment nominate the guy who was speaker of the house when the current form of "conservative" took over the Republican party??

19:06 Fox News...I think they are subscibed to some "black conservatives" website...because they always have them on TV to comment...but then they show the Republican rallies and there are none there...

19:03 When Mitt Romney says that there's an assault on "free enterprise" what he doesn't get is that there's NOT an assault on free enterprise, there's an assault on crony capitalism and people who blithely game the system. There are things you CAN do and things you SHOULD do. Mitt Romney got filthy rich on (well, on his parents money...but) on doing things that one CAN do (with money to begin with) but shouldn't because it's unethical if not immoral and illegal.

18:58 Will Mitt Romney be the best "front runner" to never break 50%?

18:42 LOL! From Andrew Sullivan: Exit poll crack: the under-30s went for Ron Paul again, even in the South. Paul beat Romney among the under 44s. Only the seniors seemed immune to the 76 year-old.

18:18 Anderson Cooper just showed us The Cube where the "analysts" sit. They're all rather young, in makeup and have nice hair...nice!

18:16 The good news tonight, and this election, is that with Newt and Paul, there is proof and hope that super PAC's might be over. They'll still have money, and still put up a billion ads...but messaging, personality, debates and interviews will possibly be what people focus on. It's possible super PACs, for a short while, will simply spend themselves into futility...enough ads and people stop listening. They'll realize that eventually and use their money in less obvious ways (astro-turfing and others) but in the next election or two, they'll just throw money down the hole that is TV.

18:11 Lexington, S.C. CNN is bragging about how they have the "most people on the ground" in SC. Now I see why. Clearly they have an intern who they called last night. He's in an ill fitting suit, hasn't shaved, didn't get makeup so he looks like a lobster with a blush and stutters. There's nothing wrong with any of those, but I assume the only way someone so non-television ready got on television was because they were going for numbers and not perfection.

18:09 just heard someone say she "can't wait to see Newt debate Obama." I imagine the people who like how Newt debates are people who care not for the substance but only the style. But can you imagine a Newt/Obama debate?? That hatred that burns in his eyes when he thinks someone isn't smarter than him, being directed at Obama who, like him or hate him, always comes off as cool, calm and collected...it's going to be HORRIBLE in terms of imaging...and AWESOME in terms of democrat awesomeness...

18:07 40% of South Carolinians think Newt Gingrich is better poised to beat Obama than Romney. Who are these people and what have they been thinking for the last...oh...15 years?

18:04 I just heard Ari Fleischer say that Newt deserved "props" for his performance. While I agree...remember when giving someone "props" was hip/urban slang? Now it's being used on the national news by "respectable" people...

17:15 I just remembered I forgot to buy bread for sandwiches :/ SO! I adapted and overcame! I made sandwich tacos! Tortilla with lunch meat, mustard, pepper, tomato, cheese and red onion...oh, and a glass of wine!

14:15 brief mention of coordinated attacks in Nigeria including car bombs, gunfire and other...this doesn't bode well...

13:44 Head of the Evangelical vote says that "nobody knows what goes on inside a marriage" so it's unfair to discuss Newt Gingrich's marriage and that the media is bias by talking about it while ignoring Edwards or Clinton. Then, he says that he understands there's a different standard because Republicans bring moral into the question themselves. I don't remember Edwards or Clinton being ignored, but if he understands why there's a difference then how does he still see it as bias? The media isn't bias--the media is simply judging candidates by the standards they set for themselves--democrats don't care what you do or don't do in the bedroom.

13:43 re. Jon Henserling, I happened to stumble upon this article saying that we're on track to BEAT, not meet, Obama's desire to double exports by 2015. Moving on to cleaning now...

13:34 switched to CNN for some liberal bias. I'm watching two editors of The Wall Street Journal talk about Obama waging class warfare. Damn liberal media.

12:36 I swear...if I hear someone else say something about Obama "wanting" people to be on the govt dole or "wanting" people to be on food stamps. That's just a ridiculous thing to say...and yet, it's said at least four times this morning alone.

12:17 In an effort to seem more exciting and that he has "momentum" Mitt Romney's team has been busing in out of state Mormon college aged youth...ha!

12:11 Jon Henserling, "Obama's policies haven't just failed to make things better, they have actually made it worse." By what metric??

12:10 clearly I'm watching fox. GOV Mark Sanford on to talk about the candidates. I wonder why they didn't ask him about Newt's infidelity? Also...I think he just tried to quietly re-enter the lime-light.

12:04 Gingrich says that he thinks it's a good think for Republicans to stretch out the primary...I assume he's remembering the Democratic primary four years ago. The difference, however, is that the longer the primary lasted back then, the MORE excitement democrats and independents had for Obama AND Hillary. It was a decision time between two candidates we all liked and just needed to choose which we liked MORE. We were excited to have to choose between two people we saw as awesome. On the other hand, the longer this primary lasts, the more ridiculous they all look. The more debates, the more commercials, the more interviews, the LESS electable the republicans make themselves.

11:55--There is a LOT of talk on Fox about if it was fair to ask Gingrich about his affair. It's really interesting right now to hear how people discuss the issue. So far, I've heard someone say that if it was fair to ask about Bill Ayers and Obama's Pastor, then this is fair; that Gingrich isn't accessible to the press and that's 'not fair'; that Gingrich shouldn't attack the press--unless they're being biased for Obama; and, finally, that the press is biased toward Romney. This election is, if nothing else, a real moment of introspection on behalf of the Republican party. Who you support as a Republican (Romney, Gingrich, Paul or Santorum) says a lot about which particular part of the party you support. The fusion of religious, social, fiscal and libertarian conservatism may soon end.

live blogging the republican circus...

2012-01-07T18:58:00.000-08:00

21:42...guess thats it...

21:32 Huntsman: "What [Romney] is saying is easy applause and a soundbite" but it hurts Americans.

21:31 Romney: "We want to replace regulations which kill with those that help!" so...the difference between republicans and democrats isn't the size of govt, but the efficacy of it? WTF...what republican party is this!?

21:28 Santorum: "I don't believe in middle 'class'"

21:28 Newt: Obama trying to establish a radical socialist european model

21:21Perry: There is a vision, "get america working again". Um...yes. Also, we'll win this game by "putting points on the board."

21:12 creating more jobs "How committed would you be to infrastructure building?"
Romney: bridges, roads, rail and air is necessary but fundamentally, govt gets in the way of creating jobs...entrepreneurship...europe...president wants us to be European..."I believe in an America that believes in freedom..."
Gingrich: You cannot compete with China if you have an inferior infrastructure--technologically smart and progressive--I would have an energy program to get us free from Saudi and Venezuela (what it is I won't say...but it's there!)
Huntsman: Earn our way forward--I would have followed Simpson-Bowles
Santorum: I would NOT have followed Simpson-Bowles...0% tax on manufactures and processors
Romney: "It would be great not to have taxes, but we have to have them" finally someone being smart
"we're only inches away from not being free" nevermind--apparently tax rates being the lowest since, what, the sixties, means we're close to socialism

21:05 I suddenly noticed the American flag pins! woohoo!! AMER'CA! Why don't Sawyer and Stephanolous have em? commies!

21:03 Ron Paul: ping pong?..."sanctions always lead to war."

21:01 Newt: develop a policy to replace the Iranian dictatorship.

Let's just invade!

21:00 Perry: I would sent troops back to Iraq.

Ha! LOL...seriously...we'd re-invade because, if he doesn't know, the Sovereign government of Iraq that WE set up doesn't want us there...so we'd have to invade a country we made to send them back in.

20:59 Santorum: "[the President] makes the decision, not the Generals..." how often have the republicans said the President doesn't listen to the Generals...now he's not acting independently enough?

20:58 Santorum: "We are the weak horse...they did it by withdrawing from Iraq..."

Bush withdrew us...remember the SOFA??

20:58 Newt Gingrich: I (again) think we're asking the wrong questions.

I like this tactic...always suggest a different question I have a better answer for...

20:56 Mitt Romney: I'll bring the troops home as soon as I can, not any later.

Great answer!

20:24 Drinking wine after Peter's Birthday dinner and watching the debate!

900 and the "Gay Lifestyle"

2012-01-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

There are two things I would like to convey. One is a post and one is an announcement:
1. My last post was number 900 on blogger! Wow...who knew?

2. The actual post relating to the title of this post "The Gay Lifestyle"-
There is a theory called, "Queer Theory" that you can google, but which I am not discussing here. What I would like to discuss is the idea that Santorum has that there is some homogeneous "gay lifestyle" that is assaulting (or can be assaulted) "normal" life--ie. HIS life.

There is not. There are as many gay lifestyles as there are gays. Add to that Lesbian lifestyles, bi lifestyles, trans lifestyles, hetero lifestyles and you catch my drift--it's as ridiculous to call something a "gay lifestyle" as it is to call something a "straight lifestyle". Why? Because I have straight friends who are in their fifties, not married and living on a boat and I have straight friends who are married and in an open relationship and I have straight friends who are single and living in apartments trying to eek out a living and straight friends who are married with several kids living in Utah in houses larger than I can even fathom right now.

Everyone chooses for him or herself what lifestyle they want.

So, what's the "gay lifestyle" that Peter and I choose?

Well, right now, he works (a lot), takes care of our fish, Gus, and will soon be picking up our dog, Buddy, from his mom's house in Vermont. The odds are he'll stop at his Aunt's house to say hello to her and his uncle and wish her well on her breast cancer recovery and may or may not swing by his sister's college to grab a slice of pizza. He'll pack up soon and move here to Kansas to be with me and our other dog, Bear.

Once he's here, we'll sort through our things with my Mom, who lives with us, and we'll figure out where we're headed next; one big gay-lifestyle family--a mother-in-law, two sons, two dogs and a fish named Gus.

In our spare time, we cook together (mom's teaching us to make salsa and I'm teaching Peter the finer art of cooking outside a crock pot), work on art projects (Peter draws well) and quilt--yes--quilt.

There you have it. Our radical assault on America.

Ron Paul's and the gays...

2012-01-05T12:50:00.000-08:00

Amongst many of my gay friends (lesbians, not so much), there is a push to argue that Ron Paul is “gay friendly.”

I believe this is for two reasons: 1. There are a lot of conservative (economically) gay men who are looking for someone to champion who doesn’t carry the socially conservative anti-gay baggage for whom Ron Paul seems a natural choice. 2. There is an unstated assumption that if someone is not actively anti-gay (a la Santorum), then s/he is “pro-gay”.

The second is the issue I would like to address here.

Ron Paul is not “pro-gay”. Ron Paul is a Federalist (I wouldn’t even call him a Libertarian for reasons better explained here). What this means is that Ron Paul is against Federal legislation that infringes upon personal liberties--including the liberty to define marriage as one sees fit.

However, and it is a big however, he not only believes states should be allowed to decide for themselves what marriage is without having to recognize the marriages legally entered into in other states (which, an argument can be made, violates the tenth section of article 1 of the Constitution—but that’s another discussion). He supports (ironically) the Federal Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal level which specifically grants states the right to refuse to recognize my marriage in Iowa, and prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing it as well.

An argument could be made that the Federal Government has no right to recognize marriage at all—that would be strict libertarianism. However, Ron Paul does not make that argument. He instead explicitly endorses States which deny recognition of marriage equality and a law which prohibits the federal government from recognizing it. This seems the opposite of Federalism which would have the federal government recognize any state issues marriage contract.

Dr. Paul has written regarding anti-sodomy laws,This is why I say that Dr. Paul is a Federalist, and not a libertarian. While his buzzword is “liberty” his belief in ultimate liberty seems to end at the State. He is not someone who believes in the ultimate liberty of the individual to decide for himself—at least in anything non-economic. I cannot see how it is somehow “pro-gay” to say that while the Federal Government may not infringe upon my rights, the State government can, and should, do so.

...there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

He argues, often, that we should not consider ourselves as part of “groups” but instead as individuals. Using the example of his treatment of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, he wrote, That argument, it seems to me, is solely academic. He points to a law that is discriminatory in nature against a group of people (LGBT) but then says that it’s not about a group it’s about individuals. This may make sense academically, but in practical terms, it does not. Moreover, recently, Dr. Paul said that Rick Santorum was “[Santorum] very confused …” in regards to saying the Constitutional right to privacy doesn’t exist in regards to birth control and Griswold v. Connecticut. Dr. Paul goes on to say, Holding these two positions simultaneously seems contradictory to me—there IS a right to privacy that protects a person’s right to have consensual sex with contraception, but NOT a right to privacy that protects a person’s right to have non-vaginal consensual sex. If the SCOTUS decided Griswold correctly, which they did, then they also decided Lawrence correctly. They are the same argument—Lawrence holds that, By claiming that it is about individual liberties and not about groups, but simultaneously saying that Griswold is correct and Lawrence is incorrect, Dr. Paul tips his hand—he supports a state law which discriminates against a group (only homosexual sodomy was banned thus affecting only that group) but is against one which affects individuals (contraception between hetero or homosexuals under Griswold, however redundant homosexual contraception might be).

I think ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] is a decent policy... [If] there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

If property rights and individual liberty and the Fourth Amendment [do not] protect privacy, what does the Fourth Amendment do?

...under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.

When it comes down to it, Dr. Paul is not “friendly” to gays. At best, he is “un-friendly” to federal laws that are, by nature, discriminatory, but he is against them not because they are discriminatory, but because they infringe upon the state’s right to conduct the discrimination. By allowing ourselves to be duped into thinking that Dr. Paul’s talk of “liberty” means that we should be free to do as we please, we neglect to see past the rhetoric. If implemented fully, Dr. Paul’s vision of liberty would severely restrict the personal liberties and freedoms enjoyed only by a group—LGBT individuals—in the name of the liberty of the state. The best consolation prize we are offered is the knowledge that what we’ve lost as a group, we re-gain in “states rights”.

Foot note:

Before anyone brings it up, I do know that Dr. Paul voted, ultimately, to end DADT. While I give him credit for not voting against it, I still do not consider this move as “friendly”. Recognizing that the law would be repealed and joining in at the last minute in order to shore up libertarian bona-fides is not “friendly”, it is simply politics. Even he is not above that.
I personally am glad that Ron Paul has the visibility he currently does. I think he has a lot of good positions, and will do the Republican party a lot of good in regaining relevancy and changing the debate in both parties. This does not mean, however, that I agree with all of his positions. He is someone for whom I, thankfully, must evaluate position by position. It would do all of us well to do so with all politicians and Ron Paul's entry in this debate in a meaningful way forces us to do so.

2012-01-04T12:43:00.000-08:00

Bachmann is out!

This isn't an official prediction, but more a thought-exercise on "what if"--

What if her supporters split between Newt and Santorum just because non of the 75% of voters who voted for "not Romney" like him any more. That ups their numbers by 2.5% each.

Newt HATES Romney now, thanks to Iowa. There are two debates in New Hampshire where Huntsman actually campaigned. For the "we want a sane President", this adds one more option for non-Romney fans to turn to. Imagine if Romney and Huntsman come out close with Santorum and Gingrich coming in the top four as well.

Perry will campaign in SC, but will lose. His supporters? They're looking for far-right, religious zeal that Gingrich and Santorum provide but Huntsman and Romney do not. They'll support the former when Perry inevitably drops out.

Then there's super-Tuesday--maybe that's when the sane Republicans who do NOT like Romney (because no one does) will support Huntsman (maybe?)...

I'm just imagining ways in which Romney loses the un-losable election.

A reflection

2011-12-05T07:53:00.001-08:00

The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.-Douglas MacArthur farewell speech to the Corps.

I feel the need to stop and reflect today. Yesterday was the anniversary of the loss of one of the best Officers I've known, Adam Snyder. I've written about him before and how much he meant to me, so I will not rehash again but will only say that for those of you where were lucky enough to have known him, there is, and always will be, a place in your lives that no one else can fill.

Today, when I logged into facebook, I was reading in a forum of Junior Officers. Generally the conversation is upbeat, humorous or frivolous--oftentimes it becomes a professional forum for development. This morning, there was a simple post by a Naval O-3 which read, "War Sucks." Nothing more.

I could guess what he was writing about, but I don't know. It could have been about crappy food or missing holidays. It could have been about pay and funding cuts making his work-day harder. I don't even know if he's deployed or not. Like everything else, I projected--War Sucks...because you lose friends.

Like Adam...
Like Dan...
Like Tyler...

I meet with my boss's boss next week for my final counseling before I'm authorized to leave the military. It's not an easy decision and one which I chose because with Peter and I being married it was the only viable means to live a life together. But the people and experiences I've had will forever color how I view the world.

It is easy to find and bring meaning to your life in the military. Even the mundane you can convince yourself is for the betterment of the Soldier and contributes to society. It scares me that I will lose this in several months and will have to create that meaning for myself.

I take forward with me a poem that has stuck in my mind since I first read it years ago. It is both reminiscence and charge. It encapsulates where I find meaning, and where I will find meaning, in the future. For regardless of the outcome of the wars we are currently engaged in, the deaths of my friends are not in vain for they have changed and influenced me. My life is not, and will not, be the same because of them.

The young dead soldiers do not speak.
Nevertheless they are heard in the still houses.
(Who has not heard them?)....

They say,
We were young. We have died. Remember us.

They say,
We have done what we could
But until it is finished it is not done.

They say,
We have given our lives
But until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave.

They say,
Our deaths are not ours,
They are yours,
They will mean what you make them.

They say, Whether our lives, and our deaths were for peace and a new hope Or for nothing
We cannot say.
It is you who must say this.

They say, We leave you our deaths,
Give them their meaning.

~Archibald MacLeish

Bachman's high school debate style...

2011-12-01T12:09:00.001-08:00

When I was a senior in high school, I remember debating a bunch of my Mormon friends about gay marriage. One of them, in what seemed to him like a stroke of rhetorical genius, told me that gays DO have equal rights--they can marry women and can't marry men just like straight people.

In high school, it seemed to me a remarkably ignorant argument and I thought I was done with it. I was wrong. Michele Bachmann has revived it for us all here:

[Gays and lesbians] can get married," Bachmann responded. "But they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they're a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they're a man."
Bachmann later went on to clarify her belief that "there are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There's no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life."

I am quoting this here not to debunk a stupid argument, but because I just thought of a new way of looking at it. Here goes--

If people believe that sexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is as much a choice as homosexuality. That being said, opposite-sex marriage is a choice, and (using their logic) is based upon the sexual act of opposite-sex, vaginal intercourse. This means that all the benefits that legally recognized, opposite-sex married couples receive ARE "special rights based upon what you do in your sex life."

That's right folks--by claiming sexuality IS a choice, and that marriage is simply the "choice" that people who "choose" certain sexual acts enter into, then the benefits one receives are "special" rights.

Whew...now that I've shown how her arguments are woefully self-defeating, I'm sure they'll go away. Because...Bachman has clearly shown that facts and logic when disproving her statements sway her opinion. (<-sarcasm)

republican primary...

2011-11-18T06:08:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about the Republican primary, but for different reasons than I usually do.

Instead of the political stances of the contenders, I've been thinking about the party as a whole. More specifically, does the party (or, should it) as a whole get painted by the crazy brush if they keep rallying behind crazies?

Here's what I mean--

Another Poll Confirms Trump as Republican Front Runner
Bachmann Emerges as Republican Front Runner
Rick Perry is Now the Republican Front Runner
Herman Cain's Surprising Rise to GOP-Front Runner
Newt Gingrich GOP Front Runner

People have written enough about the schizophrenia of the electorate, but that's not what interests me. What interests me is that BEFORE each of the previous has crashed and burned, the Republican primary voters have come out to extol their virtues and ability to lead the nation. Then, one thing or another happens and the candidate crashes and burns. The problem is, the issue that causes each to crash and burn is readily apparent long before they each became front runners.

Look at Trump--he was clearly a ridiculous candidate as people were calling him the front runner. But, despite his crazy rantings and the fact he was clearly only trying to make money, the electorate still backed him in polls. Nothing changed AFTER the birth certificate release in terms of him saying or doing crazy things...nothing at all.

Bachmann--BEFORE Perry entered the race and her attribution of mental retardation to the HPV vaccine, she built up a years-long record of saying patently untrue and ridiculous things. Hell, her entire persona is built around repeating what she'd heard/read in email forwards as true and then not "refudiating" them once disproved. She STILL managed to rise to the top as front runner with the backing of a large percentage of republican primary voters.

Then came Perry who BEFORE rising to front-runner status was a secessionist whose own book was filled with ridiculousness about income tax being unconstitutional and repealing the 14th amendment...but he STILL rose to the top before crashing under his own weight.

Cain's ignorance...no, not even ignorance (ignorance can be forgiven and shows a lack of exposure...Cain CHOSE to not know things or ignore them) something more insidious...shone long before he rose to the top. His 9-9-9 plan was utterly ridiculous and would have ruined the economy. But, he STILL rose to the top...

And now Gingrich, whose record of ridiculousness is longer than his Contract With America and who has flip-flopped more than a fish on land is rising to the top...

There are two options, either GOP voters seriously don't know what these people said or did in their lives preceding their run at the presidency or they know about it and don't care. The first shows a woeful ignorance and the second shows an ineptitude that's rather damnable.

Romney will eventually be the nominee, and Huntsman and Paul SHOULD have some weight behind them, but don't. The only explanation I can think of is that the general Republican primary voters at this time in America are backing ignorant and ridiculous politicians not as a fluke, but as a manifestation of a general belief. What I'm trying to say is...the list above, complete (somehow simultaneously) with flip-flopping fools, dithering ignoramuses and dogmatic firebrands has gained the support of the majority of Republican primary voters at one point or another over the past seven months and should be taken to demonstrate the identity of said electorate. To draw an analogy, think of religion. Anytime someone does something crazy in the name of religion, we all say, "well, that's not TRUE 'religion-X'" and that "religion X was hi-jacked". But, at some point, when enough members of religion-X start doing or saying that thing, it should be proof that it's really not hijacked or bastardized, but IS true. Likewise, the Republican party (unlike Conservativism) was hijacked...but now, the majority of Republican voters have tipped the scale so that it is no longer something un-true or hijacked...it is something altogether different.

Let's not, at this point, discount the negative contributions of those above, but rightfully paint the entire party with them as a brush...because they rose on the support of the people, the people should now carry their identity as a weight around their neck and, one hopes, it will drag down republicanism so Conservatism can again be a useful contributor to American political dialogue.

proud of the past (if we ignore the present)

2011-11-03T18:33:00.000-07:00

I found myself reading the GOP "Political Achievements" webpage today for no good reason (O.K. reason: I was looking for an outline of the now-dead GOP infrastructure plan). I found it interesting...

The first, and most obvious, reason was that anything having to do with civil rights or recognizing that minorities have had a rough go of things in this country stops about seventy years ago. The second is that even those things touts as "accomplishments" by the GOP website are now derided by the very people that are running for the GOP nomination for President.

The second thing is what I want to address here. So, I am quoting their website bullets (see their site here) and immediately below it are quotes from CURRENT Republicans about the same issues. My question, I guess, is does a current party have claim to "accomplishments" in its name if it has since turned its back on the very principles that made those accomplishments a reality?

Republicans establish transcontinental railroad.

Republican Governors across the country killed rail projects in their states, and some killed projects in OTHER states.

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment.

At the Republican debate, not a single candidate said he or she did NOT want it repealed. Not one.

Republicans established Yellowstone National Park.

Maybe they were establishing National Parks in order to drill in them later...like...now?

Republican party first called for ending segregation in the military.

I don't have to outline Republican opposition to ending segregation in the military...do I?

Republicans established Federal Highway System.

Republicans block President Obama's attempt to build infrastructure. (They submitted their own plan which did nothing to fix infrastructure and which blocked the government from regulating emissions.)

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act.

Ron Paul, Republican Presidential contender, would have voted against it. Republicans attempted to amend it at last passing in order to gut its ability to affect change.

Republicans ended Segregation in Little Rock.

Here's a journal article on the re-segregation of the south. Republican school boards all over the South are attempting to dismantle busing and de-facto re-segregate. The fact that segregation isn't the INTENT but IS the outcome is, I think, beside the point.

Nixon goes to China.

This one's rich...from the Log Cabin Republicans (yes, gay republicans):
[Obama's] lack of resolve in enforcing international human rights law in China leaves the US looking weak and undermines our reputation in the international community

So, there you have it...a list that the Republicans can, and should be proud of. However, it is clearly a list that if a current Republican Party nominee for President were to run on would get him booted from the party faster than saying "I don't hate gays." Not a one of the items listed above could EVER pass as a party platform issue today...not only that, but the current party would block every. single. one.

workish things

2011-11-02T19:44:00.001-07:00

List of random grievances from today at work:

1. The IT guy can’t type—he pecks with two fingers. This is a clear indication he should NOT be working with computer.

2. Said guy called me to his office in the cold and snow. When I asked, “Can you ask me your questions over the phone?” he answered in the negative. After putting on my jacket and making the long trek, he asked me, “I need your name and phone number for this paperwork.”

3. TheKnot.com, where Peter and I have our wedding website (a new fangled thing that’s all the rage w/ the kids), keeps sending us “what to do before you get pregnant!” or “girls night out tips!” I feel as though they should develop something to filter out same-sex couples from emails that are clearly designed for mixed-sex.

4. An un-named Lieutenant who is NOT in the field with us was called to bring us out some computers. He drove out and called me asking, “Can you come get them from the car? It’s kind of a far walk.” Seriously.

rock, but don't sink, the boat

2011-11-02T08:53:00.001-07:00

I saw Ari Fleischer the other night on Anderson Cooper. He was trying very hard to find the golden nugget in the political pile of crap that is the Herman Cain campaign and platform. When it was pointed out that the 9-9-9 plan would be economic ruin, Fleischer’s response was basically (and this is a paraphrase) that the Republicans and Democrats have only argued about reforming the tax code to various degrees left and right while Herman Cain, at least, wants to trash it completely.

Allow me to make an analogy: Democrats and Republicans want to steer the ship, but know it can only move left or right by degrees. Herman Cain wants to sink it.

I stumbled upon an article today which I thought explains well why this is a bad idea—many populist ideas are simply bad policy. With the advent of mass media, blogs, 24 hr news cycle, unfortunately, what we have is an electorate that ISN’T well informed, but well fed. We have the informational equivalent of a child who went from being starved to being stuffed full of twinkies. People think that because they are consuming more, they are consuming well. This, in turn, like a parasite that eats the brain of the host, has killed the Republican Party. What was once a party that was reality based and hoped to use the levers of government for the better has been taken over by a minority of people who hope to sink the ship. In a self-reinforcing loop, the media and self-serving blogs reinforce that this new incarnation of the party is a valid form of government and the people push ever further rightward.

These people provide simple answers that capture the imagination—they come as “outsiders” and people fed up with what is going on support them. However, they provide neither answers, nor solutions to anything. An article I read recently said,

But the question is, would empowering outsiders at the expense of the establishment tend to replace the Washington Establishment’s biggest policy errors with outside wisdom? Or would it more often gut sound-but-unpopular policy and replace existing errors with bigger errors?

The answer, it seems, is bigger errors. Herman Cain’s tax plan is a preposterous idea. Sara Palin’s entire governing philosophy is a joke. While we may be angry as a country at what has happened, the answer is to right the course, not sink the ship…hopefully there will be a valid second party to help us accomplish this. This isn’t to say the Republicans might not win—they might—but in their current incarnation, they are not a valid governing party and I genuinely fear what will happen if the Tea Party side of the family takes control of the government.

We're kind of a big deal...

2011-10-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

Our friend Max wrote an article about Peter and I. We were HUGE on the front page of the Huffington Post! Awesome! I've been reading this since the day it launched...now I'm a small part of it! I'm hoping someone gets some hope out of the article, even though the picture of me, miserable in BDU's on "Armor Day" is embarassing...but that's a small thing, right?

The article is here for those who want to read it!

Cain policy = zoomba

2011-10-19T14:12:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen a zoomba work? It's one of those machine vacuums. You can pre-set it so it knows basically where big pieces of furniture work, but otherwise, it rolls along blindly until it bumps into something and then turns randomly and goes off in that direction. Eventually, everything is covered.

Watching Herman Cain develop policy outside 9-9-9 is similar.

He doesn't know what he believes other than the broad idea he's a "conservative". So, if it's not about his tax plan, like a zoomba, he'll just make whatever un-directed statement he wants until someone tells him it's wrong, then turn in another direction and go that way. Eventually, like a zoomba covering the floor, Cain will develop positions he'll claim to have always held.

What do I mean?

Here's an example. What's his position on immigration? Well, first he says he'll build an electrified fence. Then, when people are upset (even the ladies on The View!), he says he was kidding. Then, when he realizes the base likes it, he says he was serious, but didn't want to offend. See? Policy set!

After that comes his statement on if the US should negotiate for hostages. He says that he would, then during the debate said that he wouldn't, and when he said he would that he was misquoted or didn't understand the question, and then says that he wouldn't...but that he would.

I'm waiting to see what the "new direction" will be on his lack of knowledge about Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan question will be. I mean, he could always claim he was joking again, that seemed to work...

Occupy Wall Street and illogical responses to it

2011-10-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

I have not yet written fully my opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement because I don't know enough about it. What I do know is that SOME of their demands make sense. Other people have written more thoroughly about it than I, but the basic gist I get is that there has been an imbalance between the corporations and the individuals that needs to be righted/regulated by the government and they don't see that happening.

Watching the REACTION to OWS, on the other hand, is easy to judge. For example, look at Florida Rep. Allen West engaging in two very clear and simple logical fallacies:
guilt by association

In this fallacy, one says the following: premise C is an A. Premise B is an A. Therefore, all C are B.
In this case,

I think there is a danger in the people on Capitol Hill starting to embrace this movement, especially now that we know that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party are also starting to align themselves with this Occupy movement,

You see: The people are part of occupy Wall Street. Communists and Nazis are part of occupy Wall Street. Therefore, all people involved are Communists or Nazis.

I don't think there's a name for a second (and, I haven't thought of a good Venn Diagram), but this one involves equating simplicity with truth. In it, you assume that if something is simple to understand and state, it must be good and true, but if it is complex or vague, it must be false.

See here:

When you talk to somebody with the Tea Party, they can tell you what they want -- limited government that’s constitutionally mandated, fiscal responsibility, they also want to see our free market and free enterprise systems adhered to, as well as our national security

Neither of these is true. Just because some bad elements have aligned themselves w/ OWS, that does not negate the possibility that OWS has valid interests. Also, just because their demands don't fit on a bumper sticker (Taxed Enough Already) doesn't mean their demands aren't just.

live blog late...

2011-10-18T17:44:00.001-07:00

I came in late, but...
2052: Bachmann chimes in with..."I'm relevant!"

2043: I'm surprised at how derisively they say the word "Massachusetts" as though it's a dirty word. Can you imagine if Democrats said Alabama with a sneer instead of saying "folks" and dropping their ending "g's" to seem "one of the people"?

2040: the crowd boos Ron Paul for saying that the people in Guantanamo Bay were not terrorists, but suspected terrorists because they hadn't been convicted of anything.

2037: Bachmann: cut back on foreign aid to everyone but Israel and get reimbursed from Iraq and Libya. Um...ok.

2034: Why do we send foreign aid? Perry: we should debate that. We should defund the UN. Palestine circumvented the proper channels by asking the UN to recognize it as a state? WTF...if not the UN, what's the proper channel to be recognized as a state?

2032: In the last 6.5 years we've not had an attack on American soil, we've put more terrorists to trial and locked them away, we've killed Osama AND the American Imam. We've killed pirates and deported more people than EVER. But if you listened to the stage tonight, you'd think that we were being attacked on street corners by terrorist anchor babies...

2031: Cain: I would have a policy that we do NOT negotiate with terrorists. But, we'd have to consider the case. This guy caveats every answer with either "I was kidding", "you didn't understand my question" or "it's complicated."

2027:Newt Gingrich just called the members of the super-committee all ignoramuses. Somewhere John Kerry is rolling his eyes and reading something with more than four syllables.

2025: "Should defense be cut?" Bachmann: Iran disrespects the US. The President of Iran is a genocidal maniac and we need to stand up to Iran. Cooper: the question as about budget cuts...is defense spending on the table? Bachmann: yes.

2022: Newt Gingrich: How can we entrust you with power if you don't pray?

2018: reduce LEGAL immigration commercial airs on CNN. pathetic.

2017: no mention yet of foreign policy, domestic policy or social issues. Just health care and immigration...all answered with "the economy"

2014: I could apparently win this debate...watch, thirty seconds, ask me any question like, "how will you fix X?" me "X is broken! Obama hasn't fixed it...I know how to fix it. First, I'll do whatever Obama hasn't done because he didn't do it yet. Second, I'll fix the problem because I have a plan. Third, we'll fix the economy by fixing X. Obama doesn't know how, but I do!"

2013: The President doesn't have a jobs plan even now??

2011: Ron Paul points out the Banks WERE involved and everyone on stage looks at him like one normally does an eight year old doing a performance in your living room--just hoping it will end so you can go on ignoring him.

2009: Cain: Wall Street didn't implement failed economic policies?? WTF? Yes, they did! That's why the banks failed--failed economics. They failed BECAUSE the government didn't regulate. If we reinstated laws that were repealed, it would help fix it.

2008: Bachmann reaches out to moms while dressed as Chairman Mao's winter-wonderland doppelganger.

2007: The word "fundamental" is used a lot today.

2005: Perry: We sent a letter to congress asking them to "act". Santorum: You sent a letter, on that day, saying vote for the plan and there was only one in play...ha! He finally says something that makes sense.

2003: Why do people constantly say to "let the free market work" when it comes to energy? Our own history shows that when we "let the free market work" we end out with massive amounts of pollution as well as the poorest people taking the brunt of it as well as massive degradation of the environment. Why? Because the "free market" doesn't dictate that one should do the best thing for the most, it dictates that one should do the cheapest thing for the most wealth.

2000: Yucca mountain question: Newt--look at it scientifically (ie. yes) Anderson asks, "you were for it in Congress, right?" Newt, "well...I worked with people from Nevada."

1958: immigration: something about faith and family and no-gay marriage

1958: Bachmann--does she support repealing the 14th Amendment? Something about anchor babies.

1957: disgusted looks from the audience at the very name "energy secretary"

1955: I'll fix immigration by...the economy. Yes Cain, just say "economy" and that's a good enough answer for any question.

1954: Ron Paul--see everyone as an individual. Surprisingly sound argument.

1952: Perry...if the crowd boos, don't say it again. If they boo a second time at the same line, you're not so bright. If you say it a THIRD time and they boo...you're ridiculous.

1951: Who do these people think cross the Rio Grande to get college education for free? The answer is NO ONE.

1948: Enforce English as the official united states government and a pledge to NEVER receive any benefits? What if they join the military and then the VA?

1948: Bachmann is on state...I didn't realize that. OOH! A DOUBLE walled fence! She's TWICE as strong.

1945: his answer...basically stated three times "fix the problem". 1. "close the back door and open the front" 2. Fix the government bureaucracy in DC 3. enforce the laws on the books. None of those are answers...they are all restatements of "fix the problem".

1945: Cain on the electric fence, this should be good...

1944: Perry and Mittens might fight!!!

1943: Question: Perry, how do you defend the fact Texas has the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation? Perry's Answer: Well, we have a world class system. Me: Wha huh??

1935: Ron Paul--we'll make government smaller by passing tort reform laws...wha huh?

one vote with baggage please...

2011-10-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, you get what you don't ask for.

What do I mean? Well, if you vote for someone with baggage, and you aren't prepared for it, then what s/he does could surprise you. Take Obama, for example. Liberals voted for him because they thought he was a fierce leftist who would close Gitmo, prosecute Bush for war crimes and immediately pull us out of Iraq/Afghanistan. None of that happened (OK, technically, this is the opposite of coming with baggage...)

New example: 2010 a lot of people voted for Republicans. Most of this in a wave of anti-tax, small government fervor stoked by the Tea Party, amongst other things. The economy was tanking and people were looking for a saviour. The Tea Party arrives and took over numerous state houses and legislatures and sent a record number of new Freshman to the US House.

What did they do?? Well, therein lies the baggage. It has NOTHING to do with the economy. Instead, we have a record number of anti-abortion laws coming into effect, voting suppression efforts aimed at college students, the elderly, minorities and other disenfranchised groups, and a multi-state nefarious plan to change the way electoral votes are split to give more weight to certain portions of the population (guess which portions those are??).

So, look out for baggage next time people. What a politician says isn't always what he or she will do. Sometimes, what he or she DOESN'T say is almost just as important in telling you what they will do as well. So, next year, when people are yelling about the economy, remember...there ARE other issues. Those issues will still be issues after the election and think about who you're voting for and how they'll vote on those. It's important.

Soldiers are NOT the 1% being protested, so stop.

2011-10-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

To my friends in the Army who are commenting that they are in the "1%" referred to in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, please stop.

We are not. I know how much we all make, and we are NOT in the 1% referred to in the protests. It is a clever gimmick and slight of hand. Not unlike Erick Erickson claiming that we're the 53% that are paying taxes (not true), this is a way of manipulating numbers. Worse, it's basically like a horrible case of using transitive property incorrectly.

The logic is this:
Protesters claim they are part of the 99% of those who own the least amount ->1% owns most->1% of Americans serve in the military = protesters are protesting the military.

It's not right and it's further politicizing the uniform in a way that does a disservice. Moreover, if you look at what we DO make, ALL Soldiers, minus a few flag Officers, ARE in the bottom 99%. So, please friends, let's not politicize ourselves unnecessarily. We have a finite amount of respect due to our remaining above the fray and this doesn't help us. It only contributes to a feeling of entitlement and further exacerbates the civil/military divide.

Rick Perry...god bless him

2011-10-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

Obviously I don't have to take down all the ridiculous things said at the debate last night, but this zinger by Perry particularly caught my eye ("eye" because I had to read the transcripts vs. watching it as I was stuck at work):

I'm going to be laying out over the next three days... we're going to be focused on initially the energy industry in this country and making a America again independent, and clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from.

My question is...where does this convoluted speech come from? This is the same cadence and language and total lack of substance that characterizes Sara Palin's speech. "Making America...clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from." WTF? I really hope that he not only loses the primary, but that Texas re-thinks their love affair with him. If I end out at UT, I'd much rather Kay Bailey or ANYONE else be Governor there.

Herman Cain question...

2011-10-12T13:23:00.002-07:00

This is less a blog post than an email. In fact, it IS an email I wrote to a friend. I specifically wanted his take because he is African-American and had recently posted a reaction to Herman Cain's "brainwashing" comment. That being said, I thought I'd put it out there for further discussion. I have a rather varied group of friends so generally get good responses in return. So...here it is:

I don't have much time...but I was wondering what your opinion was on the Cain interview where he was asked about his lack of participation in the civil rights movement. Was it a fair question? Is it a fair position? I feel it parallels quite nicely (or, should I say, quite poorly) the position of some gays today--let others do the work so that once the work is done you can simply step through the doorway they've opened and pursue other agendas.

This isn't to say that I feel that gays or African Americans OWE anything to the democratic party--politics is not family and once a political position is achieved (in this case equality) it is perfectly OK to say thank you and move on to another political aim while not being beholden to the party or people who achieved the first.

But, to drive home the comparison, when I look at groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, it's hard not to see them as opportunists who see more personal value in integration with the "oppressors" (in the case of Cain the white majority and in the case of LGBT individuals, the party that has made it a longtime agenda to deny them rights) over the long term than short term fighting for their own rights (and, thus, the rights of their children and others who are similarly oppressed).

Is it a valid position to take? To say that while a group is oppressed, and you are part of that group, you personally feel other issues are more important?

I ask not in an accusatory tone, but because it's something I've considered often within my own networks and did not see coming re. Cain. But it has come up now, and it cannot be ignored.

thoughts?

(that was longer than expected and will eventually be a blog post, I'm sure. I've also been thinking long about your progressivism post and am still formulating a response. I want to write something thoughtful without being combative, but it's difficult considering the issue. Unfortunately over text, often passion translates as anger)

2011-10-03T15:39:00.000-07:00

I just had a horrendous thought that the following things could happen (or, ARE happening now)...

Right now, the gay rights movement is gaining in momentum. The younger generation is with us an knows where this will all end out. Obama's speech at the HRC dinner really drove home the point. While his speech just a few years ago would have been unheard of, today it seems almost passe.

There is an election next year, and the economy is important. Civil Rights are important. If, however, the right so frames the debate as to say "we focus on the economy" and shoves all their anti-gay bigotry (which is there, even if people don't want to look at it) under the rug, then they won't SEEM as anti-gay to a whole crop of independents. These voters may very well WANT to further gay civil rights, but also want to see a change (any change) in the economy and vote in the Republican right wing.

The outcome? The natural progression of civil rights stalled for another ten years. Another Supreme Court Justice (or two) placed who do not see marriage as a "right". The reinforcement of DOMA and possibly even an attempt at amending the Constitution (that will fail) to prevent marriage equality.

I would say that a de-coupling of economic and social political aims would be good for America. But I don't believe they are separable. So I guess my hope is simply that LGBT equality isn't stalled for a decade due to short term thinking and an ill-informed electorate.

Sometimes I can be rather silly...

2011-10-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

Funny story...I have these weird white spots that you have to put seltzen blue on to make go away. So, I was letting it soak and decided it would be a good time to trim my leg hairs. Unfortunately, the guard broke off and I shaved a bald spot onto the front of my leg.

"What to do??" I asked myself. The only option was to shave my legs! So, I started. But, much like when I tried to mow the lawn with a hand mower, it left big patches of hair all over my legs. So, there I was, covered in Seltzen Blue, patchy haired and otherwise feeling ridiculous.

Oh, did I mention I'm getting married in six days? Yeah...I called Peter to let him know that I had mad an ass of myself and warn him about my now pre-pubescent legs. Peter laughed at me and said that he should definitely move out here to stop me from doing anything like this anymore...he said maybe me idiocy would allow him an "exceptional family member" relocation. We laughed...and...that's really all about that. But I thought I'd share cause...it was funny.

last week...

2011-10-02T08:05:00.000-07:00

Last week was a big week for the military for several reasons. Not the least of which was the retirement of Admiral Mike Mullen. There really aren't enough good things I can say about this flag Officer or his leadership. Obviously the most lasting change and most personal for me is his leadership on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but there are so many more things he's done. From that to his outspoken and unafraid ability to give advice to the Civilian leadership on things like Pakistan show a level of personal courage that every Service member should emulate. His attempts to bridge the civil-military gap are laudable, and I hope his successor continues in that process. His farewell letter is here.

Less well known, but no less instrumental to the success of the Army is the retirement of one of the best NCO's I have ever worked with. He was not "my" NCO, nor have I worked with him long. However, his dedication through the years, and the sheer love he has for what he does was impossible to miss as soon as you met SFC Guerrieri. From the moment I got to Fort Riley, I knew that he was one of those guys to whom you could go with any problem and he would find a solution. It's a loss to the Army, but a well deserved retirement. While SFC G is just one man, he's representative of so many like him...

His bio is here, from the Fort Riley Flickr page:

Sergeant first class guerrieri and his wife christine have two children: Princess and ligaya.
Sergeant first class guerrieri is commended for his outstanding service to the nation, culminating with his assignment as battalion s3 operations plans nco, 97th military police battalion, united states army garrison, fort riley, kansas.
The guerrieri family will retire in junction city, kansas where he plans to enjoy more time with his family and enjoy the retired life.
Today, sergeant first class guerrieri is receiving is receiving the meritorious service medal, the department of the army certificate of retirement and a certificate of appreciation.
By order of the secretary of the army, sergeant first class bradley jay guerrieri, having qualified for retirement, is released from active duty and placed on the retired list.
His wife christine, though not in attendance, will receive the department of the army certificate of appreciation and a single red rose for her dedication to her husband and the nation.

I'll probably never see either of the two men above to thank them, but for some reason I felt the need to write about them this morning. For those of you who aren't in the Military, you will probably never know about what kind of an impact these two, and so many like them, have had on your lives, but know that it is lasting, and that they deserve all the gratitude we can give them.

GOProud vs Ann Coulter strange bedfellows

2011-09-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

Not that Ann Coulter or GOProud matter in any meaningful way, but what do you make of the fact that she's on their board and they have completely opposing views to the one moment in time gay and republican intersect?

The whole debacle at the last debate debacle where the crowd booed a gay Soldier asking a question about Don't Ask Don't Tell prompted GOProud to post:

“Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, an immediate apology.
“That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done – put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.
“Stephen Hill is serving our country in Iraq, fighting a war Senator Santorum says he supports. How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn’t support the brave men and women who are fighting it?”

Previously, GOProud had added Ann Coulter as an advisor releasing the following statement:

Ann Coulter is a brilliant and fearless leader of the conservative movement, we are honored to have her as part of GOProud’s leadership

So, she advises them, they are proud of her leadership, and yet she says the following about the debate debacle:

It is beyond absurd to demand that Republican candidates pledge not to consider altering a recent rule change overturning a military policy that had been in effect from the beginning of warfare until the last few weeks of the 111th Congress.

Of course there was booing for that!

At the time of the vote -- five minutes ago -- only eight Republicans in the entire U.S. Senate supported eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's safe to assume that no one on the stage supported this sexualization of the military, except maybe one of the nut candidates polling at 3 percent.

This is not an anti-gay position; it's a pro-military position. The basic idea is that sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond.

Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered.

My straight dual-military friends would probably be shocked to hear they'd be slaughtered by single, straight men, but I digress--

The celebrity pandering that is the GOProud groveling at the feet of Ann Coulter, as displayed in their diametrically opposing views regarding the subject above should prove that it is nothing more than a political ploy designed to garner publicity. But I'm sure they'll still throw parties and fund raise together because clearly nothing is more important to GOProud than money, nor celebrity to Ann Coulter, so theirs is a marriage made in Republican heaven.

artist friends, help me!

2011-09-29T05:44:00.000-07:00

There are a few pieces of art in life that I can vividly remember encountering. Lavender Mist: Number 1 and Self Portrait at 17 Years Old are the two that continue to float around in my brain when my eyes are closed or the right chords are struck in a moving piece of music.

This morning, I saw an article about a building that will soon be built that is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous. However, the sculpture the building it is based on has now caught my attention. It is a black sculpted bust with a large piece of wood sticking through the face. I don't know why...but I have fallen in love with it. Go figure. I cannot, however, find any more information about it other than the name, and only one other image online.

If you know anything further about this piece, please let me know!

I heard it from someone...

2011-09-23T12:59:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note--I've written before about how some ridiculous things that are put forward as "fact" come from online or "I heard someone say". Here are two examples, GOV Nikki Haley of SC who "sooo wanted" mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients because:

Down on River Site, they were hiring a few hundred people, and when we sat down and talked to them — this was back before the campaign — when we sat down and talked to them, they said of everybody they interviewed, half of them failed a drug test, and of the half that was left, of that 50 percent, the other half couldn’t read and write properly

The other, more widely seen comment came from Michelle Bachmann who said that,

There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine, She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.

Now, clearly they can't be BLAMED for having false information. Haley later found out the number was less than one percent and explained herself by saying,

I've never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you're given good information. And now I'm learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something

As for Bachmann, her walk-back was even less impressive saying,

During the debate, I didn't make any statements that would indicate I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist, or making any conclusions about the drug one way or the other, I didn't make any statements about that

The bigger problem I have with this kind of thinking isn't just how lazy it is, but how despite the fact the given premise for their position is proven false, they stick to their conclusion. GOV Haley is still "convinced" of the need to test people for drugs before receiving welfare and Bachmann is still against giving the HPV vaccine. This proves, I think, that people who adhere so adamantly to their political beliefs are not politically influenced, but dogmatic believers, as Andrew Sullivan would say--the Republican Party is not a party of ideals, but religious beliefs. If your conclusions are held despite their premises being based on falsehood, this is no longer a reality based party, but a party of "faith".

gay conservatives

2011-09-23T12:15:00.000-07:00

There is a bit of a identity crisis going on within the gay military community. The military is a little more conservative than the population in general for various reasons (although, not as conservative as most people might think). As such, the military gay population likewise has a larger share of conservative gays than your general gay population (this is all my observation, not scientific of course).

After last night's Republican Debate, as we do after most happenings, we took to facebook to voice our opinions. Obviously, the video of someone in the audience booing a Soldier for asking about Don't Ask, Don't Tell caught our attention. The first comments immediately were from the left about how the GOP is the anti-Christ, and then, after a short period, the more conservative block chimed in.

Some of you may wonder how the typical gay-conservative can hold his head high. There are many ways, as I've outlined before, but here is some other justification that I wanted to discuss in more detail. After being told that this was more than just one guy in the crowd, but was part of the GOP platform, the conservative member asked for "proof" it was platform. I linked to the 2008 Platform (the last online) and his response was the following (And, I apologize for sharing three quotes from what is, in essence, a flame war, but it's necessary):

That's the 2008 party platform, Adam. If I were a betting man, I'd say you won't see such language in the 2012 platform now that the policy has actually changed as is largely a non-issue as the economy continues to tank. As to your post, [X], all individual opinions, and answers to a hypothetical question as well. Not quite political dogma. Do we not remember that it was a GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, who succeeded in getting the injunction filed against DADT in the first place while Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Congressional Democrats played endless (and needless) political games trying to tie DADT repeal to an omnibus spending bill that guaranteed zero republican support? It wasn't until they made it a stand-alone that it was passed (with GOP support and co-sponsors such as Scott Brown and the ladies from Maine, btw). Come on guys, that was less than a year ago.

I responded with:

So the official platform as it stands doesn't matter... The position of the presidential candidate (whomever he/she is) don't matter, but a group w/ no recognition by the national party as well as the (admittedly courageous) efforts of very small minority of congressmen prove the republican party ISN'T homophobic or something? You asked for the party's official position. When provided it, you dismissed it.

his response:

No, you guys have valid points, and I'm not trying to paint the GOP as getting it acceptably right on the issue by any means, all I'm saying is that there are plenty of republicans (including more than a handful in this group) who do get it right and understand the party is defined by hundreds of issues. You cause more conflict in incessantly singling out this issue as if it solely defines national politics today. I would think reaching out to this "wing" of the party would be a more important consideration than trashing the party as a whole. We aren't all bad guys, I promise :-)

I share that because I think there are two things happening. There is the second response from him, which I think is where gay conservatives have a stronger argument--that civil rights are only one issue, and that if you feel more strongly about other issues, then it's valid to weight them more heavily. More importantly, those of us who are strongly advocating for LGBT change need to focus on getting those libertarian Conservatives actively on our side instead of grouping all conservatives together as "crazies".

However, the same people generally have an impulse to respond as he did at first--to simultaneously dismiss the fact that it was VASTLY attributable to the Democrats to have gotten DADT repealed, and to over-state the significance of the minority of Republicans who supported it. Instead of admitting the party platform is wrong and say, "I disagree with this", they tend to say, "But Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are Republicans, so Republicans aren't bad."

I would venture to say that I think it's sad that when LGBT rights (or, more accurately, LGB rights) are achieved that a lot of those who fought for them will forget about the T and forget about women and other minorities basking in their new found freedom and forgetting those behind. But, from what I've seen, those who are gay-conservatives (other than a very few who tend to be Log Cabin Republicans) also tend to be the kind of gay who don't actively push for change AT ALL. The status quo is fine for them. In that sense, it won't be too big a loss for civil rights groups or progressives at all when the conservative block leaves the LGBT caucus in politics--while they don't actively work against rights, they haven't really been actively fighting for them either.

"political statements"

2011-09-22T09:19:00.000-07:00

I want to make an It Gets Better video. I've wanted to for a long time and had thought about doing so before repeal, but I thought it entirely too ironic NOT to show my face because I can't while simultaneously telling kids, "hey, don't kill yourselves, it gets better...I just can't tell you who I am because the government says I'm detrimental". So, I waited.

Now, I'm getting some friends together to make a video and people are saying that if we wear our uniforms, it would be a "political statement". What, pray tell, is "political" about saying, "hey, it might suck to be bullied, but your life will get better. Don't kill yourself."

Here's a list of things I've been FORCED to do in uniform:

Attend a religious service with an alter call
listen to Dick Cheney speak, twice, about politics
listen to Al Franken talk about Iraq
"bow my head and pray" at every official function I've ever been to
support the Special Olympics (in uniform)
support the Boy Scouts of America (an organization that actively denies membership to two groups of people who are legally allowed to be in the military--homosexuals and atheists)
attend the Association of the United States Army, the lobbying arm of the US Army

None of these are particularly "bad" things, nor are they "good", but they're surely less innocuous than saying, "don't kill yourself." Unless the mere recognition that things are getting better for gay people is, in and of itself, too political?

What's my point? I wrote about it on Peter and my blog, but the fact that simply by acknowledging homosexuality we're making a "political point" is ridiculous to me, but unfortunately true. Things are still at a level where there is "normal" (which is straight and, frankly, white) and anything outside of that is a "statement". What people need to realize is that it's NOT a statement to be different, and recognizing differences aren't political.

military waste, fraud and abuse

2011-09-21T08:28:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, waste, fraud and abuse isn't as clear or obvious as it seems. For example, today I had to "certify" that I had completed an online training course. The course allows for multiple attempts as well as "guess and check". So, basically, the training doesn't require one to KNOW anything to pass the test. To take it, you need to log into a military ".mil" website, and print a paper certificate. I then sign the certificate, my "certifier" (in my case, my NCO signs it) and then it is taken to my company. At the company level, someone looks at each of them, then logs into ANOTHER website to "certify" that we've done it by clicking a button.

So, if this is going on in every company in the army, how many MILLIONS of pieces of paper annually is this when an easier, and more accurate method would be simply to "certify" by having the first website link directly with the second? Instead, we'll print and shred thousands and thousands of reams of paper and dollars of ink.

9/20/11

2011-09-21T08:17:00.000-07:00

I would like to write a glowing review of yesterday, and it WAS historic, but I think the best possible thing I can say (and what actually happened) was that nothing happened. I went to work, as always, and sat in lots of long and boring meetings, as always, and went home...and that (as they way) was that.

After work, Mom and I went to a presentation at K-State put on by the LGBT group there on the history of DADT. I should have known before I went to temper my expectations--this was a presentation by civilians for civilians. In any case, I came away from it angry. Not because it was necessarily a BAD presentation, but because it was a very typical example of how those of us in the LGBT community so often think the whole movement was born two years ago. The presentation didn't mention Leonard Matlovich, the first person to fight DADT in court. It didn't mention the Log Cabin Republicans, who successfully got a judge to declare DADT un-constitutional. Didn't mention Servicemembes United, American Veterans for Equal Rights, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Palm Center or The Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Association, all organizations that have been fighting this for more than a decade. It didn't mention Barry Winchell, the unfortunately killed "martyr" of the movement or any others. If I were a student at K-State right now, I'd think that in 1993, President Clinton put the policy in place and in 2011 it was rescinded because Dan Choi started Knights Out. (As an aside, can someone with PTSD "re-enlist", do former Commissioned Officers "re-enlist" and did Choi ever receive UCMJ for protesting in uniform?)

I guess I shouldn't be too critical becuase if there is ANY reaching out of the civilian community to the military community, that is for the best and I shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good, but still--knowing so many of the people who have fought for so long and seeing them sidelined in what is the history we are currently writing is really disapointing to me. I can at least console myself in knowing that they didn't do it for glory or attention, but simply to right a wrong...but it still hurt a little.

Anyway, afterwards, Mom and I had a skype dinner date with Peter during which my godmother called. The four of us laughed and talked for the better part of an hour about our pasts, the future and anything in between. Mom and I then went to a party at the local bar sponsored by the LGBT group again. There, I was interviewed by two young journalists. I haven't yet seen the article, but I did what I could to answer their questions honestly while still not giving them the answers the questions were clearly leading toward.

All things considered, it was a good and historic day I got to share with my Mom and Peter, and for that, I'm grateful.

random stuff...

2011-09-15T05:12:00.000-07:00

Just some quick reading this morning as I wait to take an AWESOME urinalysis (btw...can't WAIT until my job DOESN'T involve peeing in a cup at a moment's notice).

Anderson Cooper calls out Michelle Bachmann for...well...what she always does--repeating things that make no sense because she heard it on the Internet or "someone said." He asks, "So are these 'things' written out in advance for her, or are these 'things' in her head and pop out?" One of her previous advisers explains, "At the end of the day she was repeating what somebody told her. But that's not the issue."

The point is that this woman wants to be President of the United States and the only place she gets her information is apparently from email forwards. I'd like to imagine the President does a little better than "repeating what somebody told her."
The California Court of Appeals tells a math teacher he can't put up seven foot by two foot banners celebrating our "religious heritage" because it has nothing to do with Math. In a related story, conservative heads explode across the nation.
Anyway, I saw this video and figure if Megyn Kelly's on board with NOT being a bigot, then FoxNews should really reconsider who they have giving medical advice.

living as a political statement...

2011-09-14T06:53:00.000-07:00

Something I heard a lot growing up was some variation of "you're not one of THOSE Mexicans." People who said it generally meant that I was "ok" in polite society because, I guess, I didn't speak Spanish and didn't hang out with Mexicans who did.

A variation I soon learned was the "I don't mind gay people, I just don't understand why they have to flaunt it." As a young man, I agreed. Pride Parades were unseemly (why so much glitter? Why the speedos? In retrospect, there was a part of me that really WANTED to wear Speedos, but knew I didn't have the body for them...oh if only young, twink Adam knew what middle-aged Adam does about my body...I'd have rocked the speedos the church and the grocery store!) And why did "all" gays have to be so damned effeminate? (I had never considered that there were plenty of "masculine" gays that I simply didn't know were gay because I had defined "gay" as "effeminate" to begin with...but I digress...)

I never really questioned what "flaunting it" meant. Having made the assumption they were talking about parades, I never really questioned the other thousands of "flaunts" that people make in every day life. The first time this really hit me was two years ago or so when I was in DC with my boyfriend of the time, David. We went to Arlington Cemetery where I now, unfortunately, have friends buried. We spent the day walking the cemetary, visited graves, and made our way back to the subway. While we were waiting for the train, I broke down in tears. David hugged me and gave me a very chaste kiss on the forehead. A man with his sons on the platform with us made a disgusted "guffaw" noise and said something similar to "Do they have to do that here?" and took his sons around the corner to protect him from our blatant display of...what?

That was the first inclination I had that my very "life"...the simple things that one does on a daily basis, would be by definition, "political". I had two choices--to make a constant decision about everything I did that I should hide one aspect of myself, or to live like anyone else, but know that the perception would be (ironically) that by making the one-time decision NOT to hide something, everything I did would be perceived as a "political statement" or, "flaunting."

Peter and I had our moment in Austin. One night, Peter, Timothy and I were walking down the street. It was the first or second night that Peter and I were un-officially together and that feeling of euphoria that you get when you realize how much you like someone, and he's new and amazing to your life, sets in. We had gone to a bar and were walking to a friend's house from there. Peter and I were holding hands and, as we passed a restaurant, we let go. I don't remember who said it first, but we noticed that we had done it without thinking or saying anything--we were hiding who we were so as not to "flaunt." The decision was made then that we would never do that again, and we have stuck by that.

I am half-way through an article on Salon about a lesbian couple who moves from NYC to the suburbs of upstate. A lot of what she describes I feel a very strong connection to. When the cable guy or the plumber comes, and you don't want to deal with that look of recognition, in your own house, that you are somehow "other"...it's very well written and struck a chord with me.

I've been told my blog is political...and it is. But my life is political. I have no choice in that. By choosing to simply BE, without hiding anything, without changing anything, and without fear, that is in itself a political act. And, until things change, as they slowly are, my life will be a statement.

Atlas Spiked...

2011-09-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

I read as much of Atlas Shrugged as I could. It was hard...frankly she's one of the WORST writers I've ever read. Unless you completely overlook the writing and focus only on the premise of the book (which you must have already accepted to consider slugging through the 19287047907 pages of bad writing), then really it's just a lot of bad descriptions. (Example: It was the kind of blue that wasn't blue, but a suggestion of blue like aura hanging over her." That's a description of a fur coat, if you couldn't figure it out...)

In any case, I figured it was one of those books like the Bible that you can't really ignore if you hope to engage with the world because it's simply had such an impact on how people think...and so, I read it. I won't synopsis for those of you who haven't read it because there are enough websites that do so already, just google it and you can find it.

So, the three biggest take-aways I can remember are below:

The whole idea that Daphne "pulled herself up" by her bootstraps because, by her own skill and intelligence worked her way up from mail room to owner (even though she didn't have to) simply ignores the fact that the only way she was able to do so was because society had skewed things in her favor. By ignoring the fact that people are more or less born into different starting positions in the game of life, it's easy to show someone like Daphne as proof positive that with "can do spirit" anything is possible. However, it's fair to ask that if Daphne had not had the education she did...if she hadn't been taught to read and write at home...would she have been a success? It's not likely, but it's an inconvenient fact to the story, so Rand simply ignores it.
Rearden and Tagert are the benevolent Gods of Industry who want nothing more than to create the Best Business they can and make money doing so. Great! But it's not reality. Why? Because in reality, Rearden wouldn't have spent YEARS developing a metal alloy that had ridiculously amazing properties. In a free market, all he'd have done is spent half as long developing something that APPEARED to work as well and would disintegrate in five or six years. He'd sell it to the train companies (because there would be no testing or god-damned regulations) and take his profits and run.
The whole story-line about the conductors and coal-men and waiters just REALLY wanting to get onto that first train because they just love their jobs SO much they REALLY want to be a part of something big struck me as incredibly patronizing. The only people who see that kind of pure, unadulterated JOY in doing manual labor aren't laborers, it's the people who idealize labor to make money for themselves. This isn't to say that there isn't joy in labor, nor that there is no pride in labor. There are both. However, people who DO manual labor also know that it's ridiculously hard and thankless. They also know that the people who are generally crushed in the name of "free markets" and "deregulation" are those laborers and workers. They are the ones who deal with the cancers of asbestos, the crushed hands from poor work conditions and the life-long complications from various ailments caused by taking the cheapest route to get the most profit possible.

I just read this article about a whistle blower in the Coal Industry that I thought illustrated this well. Basically, it's the story of Atlas Shrugged from the end of the worker (who Rand so lovingly attributes so much "folksy" wisdom). In this story, however, the benevolent company doesn't try hard to create the best damned-mine they can in order to make a profit, the company creates the cheapest-damn mine it can and in the process places the bulk of the risk onto the backs of the employees. Creating one of the most dangerous jobs in America with known, life-long health risks associated with it, the company continues to reap profits, pays politicians to NOT regulate it any further and uses those profits to sway public opinion in its favor.

"But," you say, "it's a free market! The workers can move to another plant or another job and work there!" Refer to my first take-away from Atlas Shrugged. This makes sense if you ignore the fact that as the sole industry in many areas of Appalachia, Coal Mining is not just the only employer, but drives the entire culture. Schools are funded by property taxes, which are incredibly low due to the low wages the company pays and in turn offers a poor education to children who can then, rarely, qualify for higher education. The "opportunity" to move is simply non-existent in anything other than a theoretical way.

In closing...this guy makes me want to write my own book, Atlas Spiked. In it, the Titans of Industry manipulate workers, place all risk upon them, reap the benefits and in the process create a system wherein "choice" is a theoretical constant but a practical illusion. In my book, the workers bear the brunt of the risk and receive none of the profits. In my book, the government isn't full of "looters" looking only to maximise their own power and wealth, but naively manipulated people who eventually only serve to increase the wealth of the wealthy.

I doubt it would sell well though. It doesn't have the same "feel good" ending as Atlas Shrugged. But then again, Atlas Shrugged is a work of pure fiction whereas mine could be prefaced with "based on a true story"...

Changes

2011-09-13T14:24:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I only post negative things...that's generally because that's what boils the blood and garners a reaction. Today, however, I read three things that I felt were hopeful, or at least bode well for the future(if you read towleroad, don't bother reading on as these are all cross-linked there as well).

The first seems negative on its face. North Carolina is about to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality in the state. It is already illegal there, but to quote my favorite blogger, they want to "make it more illegaler."

Why is that "hopeful"? Because in Oregon, the Republican Party, realizing that it is a losing war and slowly evolving to a more accepting position, has stripped their party platform of the anti-gay bigotry pervasive elsewhere in its party. See how that works!? Slowly, people are realizing that marginalizing the LGBT community is not just a losing battle, but also self-defeating. Gays are just as money hungry as the rest of Republicans, so why shouldn't they be allowed to cheer death too? (<-snark)

Lastly...one of the pioneers of the LGBT rights movement has been "adopted" by the owners of a historic lesbian bar in the West Village. The sense of "community" I've tried to explain to people is sometimes hard to get across...or the way we refer to one another as "family", but this should go far to explain why. I'm glad to see we've not lost total sense of history as a community and that we look after our own...maybe someday I can meet this woman?

And so things change, slowly, and as the quote says, "the long arc of history bends toward equality..."

Tea Party Express Debate Live Blog

2011-09-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

2115: Mitt Romney says he'd bring Churchill's bust back? Um...is he going to steal it? Ask for it? It was a LOAN! God...I swear these people just read e-mail forwards and that's it...

2046: A question designed to address the non-controversy of a Rockwell painting in the White House. Good...we need more faux-rage...

2044: They all stand there and say that we should pull out of Afghanistan now. They are the same people who said we shouldn't have pulled out of Iraq, and who said questioning if we should go in was un-American.

2042: Santorum says we were NOT attacked because of our actions, but because of a clash of cultures? This is a clear mis-understanding of what every study shows, what every international theorist has written and what anyone who study this stuff believes. But, by saying something reality based gets Ron Paul booed by this crowd. Not surprised. Funniest line of the night, Paul telling the audience, "I'm trying to get you to understand..." HA! Welcome to the club Mr. Paul!

2038: I get the feeling that Republicans just love crisis. Now we have a "national security crisis" to justify our defense spending? Interesting Mr. Gingrich

2036: Perry's the sane Republican on immigration? Is that possible?

2034: Who are all these immigrants on handouts?? This is the definition of a straw man

2033: missed some talking to Peter. Came back to hear Huntsman call Perry treasonous...too clever by half.

2015: Santorum just made it sound like this vaccine was a way of admitting children are promiscuous. ridiculous...utterly ridiculous

2008: Bachmann just made vaccinating children sound like child-rape.

2007: Perry--vaccinating little girls is good. Teaching them to use condoms...bad.

2004: this idea the tax rate is "unfair" to rich people is...ridiculous

1958: Bachmann skirts the treason question, but at least Blitzer holds her to the question. Perry stands by his remarks.

1957: crowd cheers for calling Bernake treasonous. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is their ideology

1955: small business idea: sell XXL red-white and blue clothing outside a Tea Party rally

1952: Thank God I'll be out of the Army by the next election...for the first time in my adult life I'll be comfortable volunteering...

1948: Best quote so far, Andrew Sullivan: So far, we have repealed universal health insurance, Dodd-Frank, much of the Pentagon, the Department of Education, and are so-so on Medicare and social security. What should government actually do to help the economy? Cut and reform taxes. Unless Obama proposes to cut taxes. Then that's more spending.

1948: I thought Bachmann had left the stage already...

1947: Perry scares me. His total lack of substance while spouting doctrine is red-meat to these people

1945: the four aces line was good. Perry turns it around to saying a lot without addressing the question. no surprise, the but crowd goes wild!

1941: Bachmann--history shows repatriation act doesn't work! We've tried it! I feel like it's easy to debate when you just completely ignore reality...

1938: Where do Republicans get this insight into "uncertainty with small business owners?" Just curious

1938: These questions are like a section of the GRE. "fill in the blanks with the two words that don't change the meeting of the question." why don't they just start asking, "how would you cut taxes and cut spending?"

1937: Listening to these people try hard to support things that they say they don't support because they're popular is fun...like watching gymnasts contort their bodies...

1929: Do these people REALLY think there is more corruption than good in the government? "crooks on medicaid"...is it THAT bad? Somehow I feel like they're being ridiculously hyperbolic

1927: prescription drug benefit...nice call. Santorum, I voted for it. I wouldn't now. It works well, but we need to get rid of it? WTF

1923: how do we fix social security? Newt, "We have full employment..." good idea. With answers like that, how do we fix Afghanistan? "We have full support of the people" how do we fix the environment? "We have zero pollution energy!" Those aren't answers, those are just nice sounding things...

1923: First hit on Obama "he scares the American people" garners Arsenio Hall styled "hoo-hoo-hoo" with fist pump

1922: Huntsman thought ref. Curt Kobain would garner reaction in front of this crowd? They have NO idea who that is

1921: Herman Cain double-downs on the Chilean model...

1919: When Perry's not talking, he looks like a bobble head doll in the wind. That being said, Ron Paul got off in mid-sentence after he said, "because..."

1917: Does Perry think SS is Un Constitutional? His answer? He doesn't answer it. "we can have that conversation..." "we're having it right now, so answer the question!" But...the crowd cheers for Perry for not answering? This place is bizarro world...

1916: Mitt goes after Perry's book quotes...thank God someone stops ignoring reality.

1915: God Perry seems slick in a car-salesman way. Is "A slam dunk take it home" supposed to reassure America?? Is that what people really want?

1913: minute one, Bachmann claims Obama "stole" 5 Million. She then says, "I've had feet in the private sector and a foot in the govt. sector." That's a lot of feet!

1912: Is it a requirement that Republicans say Washington with an "R"? Warshington...where does that come from??

1911: Mitt Romney, of course you know where jobs go...you sent them away!

1906: When did we start debates w/ the national anthem? Also...this girl is horrible. It's "Dawns Early" not "donzerly" They should have just gotten a cadet to do it...they know how to sing it right.

1905: Rick Perry, stop saluting...it looks ridiculous.

1903: Why do I feel like the Tea Party questioning Republican candidates reminds me of the family I knew from high school who tried to get our priest kicked out for being not "Catholic enough". At some point, people have to accept that any group that purely ideological will be a group of one...

socialism...?

2011-09-12T14:37:00.000-07:00

Let's pretend there's an item, we'll call it "product X" that is made on the "Free Market". This product, however, cannot be used without billions of dollars worth of infrastructure paid for, maintained, and expanded by the government. Moreover, product X also requires the addition of another product (we'll call it "Product Y") to use, which the government also subsidizes.

Over the years, Product X and Product Y receive subsidies, support and infrastructure that literally make it impossible to live without these products in many areas of the country--people are literally beholden to these products, can't study, live or eat without products X and Y--and this drives the government to subsidize X and Y even MORE.

Now, product Z is on the market and always has been. Product Z requires 1/10 of the infrastructure subsidies of product X AND nullifies the need for product Y. You would think it's a no brainer that shifting some of the subsidies from a portion of the subsidies spent on X to product Z. You would also imagine that "free market" conservatives would rail against the subsidies provided to X and Y as government intervention shifting the hand of the market and skewing the free market in a way that is anathema to their anti-regulation, free market mantra.

You'd be wrong, however, because the opposite is true. Right now, the Republicans are threatening to stop ANY spending on transportation infrastructure unless they can stop the government for funding safe bike lanes in places where people ride. Not only does this mean they are even further skewing the market in favor of a resource intensive more of transportation that's damaging to the environment, they're doing so in a way that is detrimental and unsafe to those who chose NOT to use that more of transportation.

How we, as a nation, continue to enact policies that are so grossly skewed in favor of two corporations (Auto and Oil) while ignoring the fact that doing so completely negates the policy proscriptions of the same political party that pushes so heavily for them is beyond me. Vehicles and roads are not "freedom" despite what we've been raised to believe. They are the ultimate government "planning" that otherwise is railed against.

2011-09-12T14:18:00.000-07:00

I've consistently said that the Republican Party (NOT Conservatives) are a party that is devoid of a reality-based platform or belief system. I think there is now enough of an Obama record to judge that as valid. Why? Because he has cut taxes MORE than Bush, but is still called a Socialist. And, while he presided over the killing of Osama Bin Laden as well as the pull out from Iraq, the fall of Egypt as well as facilitated the fall of Libya, but is still called "weak".

These things lead me to believe that it is not any ideological belief in anything other than "Obama bad" that the Republican Party really believes in. If there were something more substantial, then they would have stood on it by now. But instead, there is just diatribes against perceived slights to religion, absurd and anti-reality based blanket statements about "socialism" and fear mongering. Sadly, the general state of the American Psyche is such that someone making general claims and fear mongering is enough to grasp when the other side can't provide a "warm and fuzzy" that things will be OK. Obama will be undermined by his persistently acting upon the belief that America would rather hear hard truths than platitudes.

political parties and thier opposing views

2011-09-09T13:28:00.000-07:00

This post is prompted by a conversation I've been having with a friend on facebook, but which I'll elaborate and extend here. The basic premise of our conversation was a discussion about a thought I had--that the stimulus and the surge were litmus tests for how one perceives each administration. Why? Because generally people who don't think "The Surge" was a success do credit "The Stimulus" as a success and vice versa--"The Surge" WAS a success, but "The Stimulus" was not.

Why? Because each "side" uses two different definitions of "success". If you define "success" as "accomplished the mission it set out to accomplish" then the Surge wasn't a success because the purpose of the surge wasn't to "bring Iraq from the brink of collapse to relative peace" but to create an environment in which to allow a political solution to Iraqi's sectarian divisions. In this case, it was not a success. See Stephen Walt's take here.

Now, if you look at the stimulus, the "purpose" was also two-fold: to stimulate the economy, but also to avoid an utter economic disaster. Things aren't good, but they would have been a hell of a lot worse without the stimulus...but one can never prove a negative.

My point? Only that if you credit to one "success" based upon any good that comes of it, intended or otherwise, they're both equally "successful". If you credit them with "success" in terms of achieving the goal as defined when undertaken, they're both equally failures. Has either one been a "resounding success"? No. Has either been an "utter failure"? No. But depending upon how one views either president, I would venture to guess that's how one also views the success or failure of his primary endeavour.

Now, I would also like to posit another "difference" between the two political ideologies. In listening to them lately, I think the terms liberal or conservative no longer apply. We still use them, but they're so amorphous as to be useless. I would say that the difference between the two parties could be described as this:

Democrats focus on addressing the actual problem (ie. unemployment, poverty, education) while not addressing the cause and do so without much attention paid to ideology behind their efforts.
Republicans focus on implementing their ideology (ie. smaller government, cut taxes, free markets) while not considering the practical effects of their ideology.

What does this lead to? It leads to Democrats constantly creating programs that never address the root cause of the issues they're trying to fix. It leads to Republicans constantly attempting to implement programs that in practice have disastrous effects on class stratification and the economy, but more completely implement their ideology.

Somewhere, there are politicians who understand the two are not mutually synonymous (one of whom, in my opinion, occupies the Oval Office)...but they're a dying breed.

Jobs Speech live blog

2011-09-08T15:53:00.001-07:00

1840: when he recites lines like the ones he's reciting now, quoting Kennedy, are when he really inspires and hits his stride.

1838: "the next election is 14 months away and the people who sent us here to work for them don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months..." Amen.

1837: he's hitting some high notes...showing how government can help. It's like a long rebuttal to "government isn't the problem, it's the solution"

1834: "I reject the argument that we have to choose between jobs and safety..."

1832: "some of you sincerely believe..." I like that he often makes it clear that those opposed to his views aren't un-american.

1830: patent reform...those details will be interesting...trade agreements? Is he talking about the free trade agreement w/ panama et al? that's interesting...wonder what the details about that are...

1825: "Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary, an outrage he has asked us to fix..." good call.

1824: To everyone who's said numerous times something like "Obama won't touch medicare or medicaid" feel free to backpedal...but I won't wait.

1822: a plan a week from Monday...why does he always release stuff not right now, but later? I find that odd

1822: Bullseye! call a spade a spade and point out the hypocrisy of letting the lower income tax cut expire.

1821: "Pass this jobs bill" is begining to sounds like the refrain of a bad church song it's being said so often...

1820: tax credit if you hire someone six months off work? Hmm, unintended consequence? People newly off work won't get jobs for six months. Also, Georgia plan he references hasn't shown ANY solid results and, as of last week, had only 12 people enrolled.

1819: tax credits for hiring veterans...hmm...will THIS get two sided applause??

1816: Ah! There's details...and that sounds like a good two-pronged plan to me...

1813: Hmm...there aren't a lot of details yet other than saying lots of good things. "Who wants to eat chiminichongas??"

1812: "There should be nothing controversial in this bill..." somehow I feel like this Congress couldn't pass a bill the President wrote if it were the "salute the flag and breathe if you love America Bill"

1809: Addressing the political crap upfront is a good call and I was thinking the same as I listened to the news broadcast right beforehand...

1759: Hillary Clinton enters looking triumphant...Hilda Solis also looks less worn down than I'd expect for the Labor Secretary

1757: They just explained that middle aisle seats are "prime territory" and that congressmen go as early as 0900 to get them. Does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that seating is something that our congressmen care that much about? Why not just draw numbers?

1753: Apparently a bunch of Republicans haven't come because they are either boycotting, uninterested, don't want to deal with "politics" or (seriously) wanted to watch football. How's that for dysfunction?

1753: Boehner calls to order. So far...no tears

post repeal...

2011-09-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

This post, by Peter, and other conversations like it have had me thinking lately--thinking about self-worth, about catharsis, about acceptance and assimilation, but mostly about myself.

Sep 11, 2000 is the day I joined the Army. Nine days short of eleven years later I will finally, officially, be able to say that I am a gay man, and have been since I joined. I've dealt with my share of bigots, my share of support and a full spectrum in between. From friends who have stopped talking to me, friends who have said, "Why would you think I care?", friends who ask me, still, years later, "You're kidding right?" and others who said, "You should met my brother..."

But the weight, as I see it lifted not just off my shoulders, but also off my friends' shoulders is amazing. The sense of belonging and relief that is palpable is...nothing short of remarkable. I told Peter last night, it's like the moment after a 12 mile ruck march when everyone drops their rucks and walks to the water buffalo looking as though they'd suddenly lost forty pounds. I've had more skype conversations, phone calls, IM chats and other communications with Captains, Cadets, Lieutenants and others finally no longer scared to tell their friends, roommates, parents...

I've written, over the years, in code and anonymously, here in 2005 for the Service Members Legal Defense Network about my conflict between wanting to quit the Academy and wanting to stay in, after that decision, which Andrew Sullivan posted on his blog (and I can no longer find a link to).

But, today what I was thinking about in particular was how people like Peter and others are proving, very quickly, that the real reason the right didn't want to repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell had nothing to do with military readiness or "the troops" and it had everything to do with using the military as a firewall against the collapse of bigotry.

My own Representative, Darrell Issa, was at least open about it (again...I'm lacking a quote)--he didn't want to repeal DADT because he knew it would lead to marriage equality. Republicans (yes, this is a partisan issue), have continued to hold fast to the idea that if they could keep the military segregated, then they could also count on the military and Servicemembers remaining blissfully ignorant of the LGB (and yes, T) comrades already among them. If they didn't know their friends, bunkmates, shipmates, battlebuddes, wingmen and A-gunners were LGBT, then they would return to their civilian lives espousing the same ignorant bigotry as before they joined.

However, because of situations like the one Peter wrote of above (and despite fear-mongering to the contrary), Servicemembers are some of the most fiercely loyal to their comrades. No real Soldier will serve side by side with me or Peter and walk away knowing that we're not equals and not say anything. When you see a fellow Soldier wronged, you do something to help, it's just how it is.

And now, the most "absolutely American" institution there is, the military, is on the verge of no longer denying that those soldiers are LGBT and thus, their rights will be fought for by every one of us (of course there will be a few hold-outs, but they will be negligable). And society at large will follow suit because they too can no longer deny the reality of equality.

We are close to putting this debate behind us...and THAT...is amazing in itself.

Jon Huntsman

2011-09-01T20:51:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of things I like about Huntsman, and a lot of things I don't. He's a little hard to judge because he is, by profession, a diplomat...and a good one. What does that mean? He's good at selling what he wants to you so you think you want it.

What I mean by that is, when someone says "we need to have shared sacrifice" and "we'll broaden the revenue base", what they generally mean is that poorer people will pay more, but in diplomatic terms. That being said, his Tax Plan seems pretty reasonable and probably shows the best understanding of the economy and taxes of any of the Republican plans.

Moreover, his statement that the US's future is NOT tied to Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya is pretty bold for a Republican to say.

What scares me about his boldness is that he may just be running for Vice President and 2016 candidate. It scares me because someone unpalatable to the masses like Bachman, Perry or Palin could chose him to moderate him/herself if chosen the candidate. Imagine, a cowboy like Perry with Huntsman following behind soothing the waters. He'd be the anti-palin--the frosting to swallow the pill.

There's a part of me who has enough faith in him that I hope he could be the Republican Lieberman, but I doubt it. One could hope that if the Republican party gets crazy enough that someone like him could step forward and say, "whoa...I disagree with Obama, but this guy will literally drive us off a cliff." I hope he wins the Republican nomination, but I doubt it.

Bush II the moderate

2011-09-01T06:31:00.000-07:00

I have to write this quickly, as I'm heading out the door, but did anyone else ever think that a Republican nominating race could make Bush II seem "moderate"? I remember Bush II's first election, when he talked about "compassionate conservatism", when he talked about immigration reform, when he (at least) gave lip service to the idea that global warming was real and that, while he disagrees about the cause didn't argue that something need be done about it.

I'm not at all saying he WAS moderate. But, listening to Perry (the secessionist who simultaneously claims that the "jury is out" on global warming, but wrote in his book that it's a sham that scientists use to get money and that Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional), Bachmann (the ideological purist who thinks the EPA should be eliminated altogether and we should drill in the Adirondacks and the Everglades), Romney (who thinks his own, successful health care reform is now unconstitutional) and Ron Paul (need I go there?), it makes my head spin.

After Bush II's election, I thought surely a moderate Republican would bring the party back to a place of legitimate governance. I was wrong. They will drive their party off the cliff. My only hope is that they don't succeed in taking the entire govt down with them. Sure, I'd love to see their crazy ideas proven wrong, but not if the price is utter failure of govt.

Creepy McCreeperson...

2011-08-25T08:52:00.000-07:00

Apparently the Lybian ruler had a "thing" for Condoleeza. Creepy! I wonder if other dictators have albums full of Hillary...or Powell...hidden below their mattresses?
In the ruins of Gadhafi's lair, rebels find album filled with photos of his 'darling' Condoleezza Rice

Adam for Senior Class President!

2011-08-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

I'm a political optimist--I always have been. I say that in terms of "politics" (the mess of electing people) not in terms of being a realist or idealist (I'm more of a realist). When I was in High School, I ran for office three times...and lost three times.

Junior year, I ran for Senior Class President. My date to Prom, Sara, was a shoe-in for ASB President. She was bright (4.0), popular and talented (lead in the school music etc. etc.). What she didn't see coming was the 1998 high school version of Obama; Travis. Travis was a DIFFERENT popular. He was outside the "clique" and he and his brother, Spencer, were loved by everyone, not just the "cool kids". Travis was also a member of the local CTK (Christ the King, but we only referred to it as "CTK") and thus had a built-in voting bloc for him.

Sara lost, badly, and decided to then run for Class President--her consolation prize. I was hurt, as she was my friend and knew how badly I wanted to be Class President. But, I had faith (optimism really) that people would see two things 1. they'd recognize that she didn't REALLY want to be Class President, but only wanted to be on the Student Council and 2. that I "deserved" the position. Why? Because (in my mind) I had been ridiculously involved all four years, but only because I wanted to--I wasn't applying to college so it didn't matter, I didn't need to pad my resume.

In stepped Tom, the football kid, and long story short, Sara and I split our votes and both lost.

Why do I write about this now, 12 years later? (13?) Because as I read about the President, and I read about politics, I'm still an optimist. I still think people will "see through" the bull. They'll SEE that the obstinacy of the Republicans has led to stalled government unable to accomplish anything. They'll see that he HAS compromised (so much so liberal dems don't like him any longer). They'll SEE that the Perry's and Bachmann's of the world are know-nothing blow-hards who have nary a political understanding of the PTA let alone the Presidency--and because of all this, he'll win.

The realist inside me knows that the Tom's and Travis's wait in the wings, and while I'd like to believe otherwise, the general electorate isn't that much more informed, educated or less fickle than my high school. The last few years have proved that. Buyers remorse over Bush II's second term proved as much. Renee Elmers and Sara Palin re-enforce that. And so, I hope for the best, but I'm preparing for the worst.

unemployed veteran fix

2011-08-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

I was listening to NPR the other day and there was a special about how, while well intentioned, the disclaimer that the VA Home Loan cannot be used for homes that are not "move in ready" is making it harder for Veterans to find homes that are in their price range. Later, I read an article about how veterans are experiencing higher unemployment rates than the population at large.

One of the reasons for the high unemployment rate is simply that most "job skills" acquired in the Army are just not transferable--so, you can drive a HMMWV, shoot a 249, run quickly and take orders...thanks, but we don't need you in our Fortune 500 and we're scared to have you around kids.

So, I've come up with a genius solution and just need people to fund/implement it:
We hire veterans, and give them useful skills (mostly in the home building field--installing/weatherproofing windows, roofing, flooring, plumbing, electrical etc.). A company is created that signs a contract with foreclosed homes that are NOT move-in ready and work is done gratis by the company on the contingency that only enough work to make a home "move in ready" is done, and that it be sold through the VA Home Loan program.

Bam! We've now hired veterans as well as set up a separate home market for other Veterans to buy homes at a low rate that are "move in ready" that they can then improve upon further if they choose to do so. We help rid the market of a glut of homes that can't be sold and thus help stabilize the economy as well.

I deserve an award or something for this stellar idea...

Two years and what a difference

2011-08-24T12:03:00.000-07:00

Does anyone beside me seem to remember almost two years ago exactly when the Democratically controlled Congress was trying to enact Universal Health Care? They went home for their break and held town hall meetings where all hell broke loose. The Tea Party, just recently established, sent people in to shout down Congressmen. Despite all evidence to the contrary that this was a "grassroots" organization, the Democratic lawmakers continued to hold their town halls, get shouted down, and returned to DC. Their constituents, however, were heard.

So, now we have another Congressional recess, and this time things have changed. One house of 1/3 of the government is controlled by the Republicans, but as we all know, this means anything shy of Republicans getting their way on everything means Democrats aren't "compromising". They are in the middle of their nomination process (well, closer to the beginning) and have a few unpopular issues plaguing them--namely their House passed bill to completely tear down and re-shape Medicare as well as their votes to push the country to the brink of default.

You'd think they'd be holding town hall meetings to meet their constituents in similar displays of "democracy" and "grassroots" organizing. But, you'd be wrong. Instead, we have the author of the Tea Party/House budget locking his doors, banning cameras and recorders, (unless you can afford the $15 luncheon) and a rash of Republicans (including Ben Quayle) who refuse to allow their voters to question them--unless you can afford to attend a ten dollar a head luncheon (well, $35 a head if you're Ben Quayle, the guy whose political ad was him staring into a camera saying, "Obama is the worst. President. EVER.).

One, Cravaack, was pressured by protesters and will now be holding a town hall tomorrow.

My point? I just think it's funny how before, the Tea Party was the great democratic grassroots wave of American voters here to save the day. Now, two years later when the Republicans are de-facto in power, the voters are to be kept at arms length...unless you represent business groups.

artistic renderings

2011-08-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

Why do so many architectural artistic renderings have things like glowing people and buildings? Am I supposed to assume that if a building/memorial gets built, that we'll all live in TRON or something?

Fox News Doesn’t “Begrudge” Obama A Vacation…. Except That It Does

2011-08-23T13:25:00.000-07:00

Too funny...a synopsis of Fox News reporters begruding the President a vacation while simultaneously saying "I'm not begrudging..."
Fox News Doesn’t “Begrudge” Obama A Vacation…. Except That It Does

lawerly humor...

2011-08-23T12:32:00.000-07:00

I don't know if this should be called "passive aggressive", "aggressive aggressive" or just "what happens when you piss off a lawyer and he gets all lawyerly snide on you", but either way it's interesting.

For background, some law school professor started a blog about how Law School is a sham designed to milk students out of their money while improving their own lot. He was later un-anonymousized by someone and then people came out writing about how wrong he was, some of whom got quite ad hominem. This is his response to one of those guys. Funny...if you catch the humor between the sarcasm.

Bachmann's circular reasoning

2011-08-23T11:03:00.000-07:00

There is circular reasoning, then there's CIRCULAR REASONING. This is such a great and perfect example of illogical statements that I had to post it. Here goes, Michelle Bachmann on marriage in-equality:

We all know that marriage is between one man and one woman. If it were two men together, then it wouldn't be one man and one woman, so therefore it wouldn’t be marriage. This reasoning is clear.

Seriously. This woman hopes to be President of the United States of America. People, millions support her. If this is the level of thinking that goes into her Presidential aspirations, I fear for the future if she were to become President. An issue as simple as this, being so poorly construed and thought through, should be evidence that she shouldn't...can't...be trusted with anything weightier.

addendum
As an added logical bonus, I just read the following on a legal blog:

Judge Walker’s extensive findings of fact suggest that this pitched battle over marriage largely emanates from religious believers – he concludes, among other things, that “[r]eligious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” This is far too simplistic. Public opinion polls show that many religious believers support legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Even religious institutions fail to fall squarely on one side of the issue, with some opposing same-sex marriage legislation while others prepare to celebrate same-sex marriage rites.

I'm sure there's a more official term, but unless I'm mistaken, this is a case of inverse Venn diagrams.

What I mean to write is; Judge Walker didn't write that all religious people are against marriage equality, but that all (most) reasons against marriage equality are religiously motivated. The difference is important. One is an attack upon a certain class of people (the religious). The other serves to legally nullify the reasoning behind anti-equality laws due to the purpose of the laws being outside the realm of the state. It's an easy mistake, and one made too often. In fact, I find myself telling people often that they've "got their Venn diagrams backwards." Normally that garners an awkward look since in passing conversation it's a strange thing to say...but it makes sense.

Things I'm reading:

2011-08-22T13:26:00.000-07:00

Things I'm reading:

Less than a year ago, Governor Perry published a book about governance titled, Fed Up!. Now, his communications director is realizing what he wrote doesn't sell well. So, how do you backpedal? How about:
“Fed Up!” is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix [Social Security].
Because, clearly, a year has passed, so he's changed quite a bit...or something.
My favorite tweet of the day:
Not the cause for me being an urbanist, but at least it's evidence to support my already held decision: for every doubling in population density, the population becomes 15% more productive.
And evidence to support why marijuana should be legalized, as well as why most people who think like me view the "war on drugs" as an inherently racist endeavor.

gay is not a diminutive form of straight...

2011-08-20T08:50:00.000-07:00

People (like Rick Santorum) who simultaneously say that they "don't hate gays" and/or "respect our decision" but don't support our rights need to face the reality/cognitive dissonance that position puts them in to hold. Simply put, no one knows better what is real for me than me. I was not: abused as a child, abandoned by my father, coddled by my mother, affected by in utero-drug use, exposed to sex at a young age or any of the many other things that people who AREN'T gay often peg homosexuality upon.

When straight people tell me, things like, "I love you, and support your decision, but we can disagree about this." they are, simply put, wrong. We cannot "disagree about this" if you really love me. Sure, that may sound harsh, but let's examine this in the reverse--

Imagine you were getting married and I told you, "I'm so happy for you." and followed that up with 1. voting against your right to be married 2. donating money to politicians who want to stop you from having children and 3. saying things like, "I support your decision to be straight, but we can disagree about that." where "that" means your being straight to begin with, that means you think my relationship, my love, is either delusional or something "less" than what you have.

It's a fairly simple concept to grasp. It is, in fact, so simple that it's almost hard to articulate. It's as easy to understand as the need to breathe air or drink water--it's a fact of life. A persons sexuality simply IS. It's how I was born, it's part of who I am inasmuch as being brown-skinned and dark-haired is. I cannot change it. I did not choose it. It is not a diminutive version of "normal" or just some "valid choice" it simply IS who I AM.

I know some of you are probably sick of having to read this so often lately, or my political posts about such, and I'm sorry for that. But, the reality is that for those of us who are in this position, it matters not how much love and support I get from friends and family, we are still not equal.

So, therein is the challenge. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. No more conflict, no more speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Either you do, or do not, believe that I am equal with you. If you do not, say so and hold true to that. Tell me "I'm sorry...I'm not happy for you. Your relationship is not just a joke, but a dangerous and self-destructive thing, and I cannot be happy for you." or say, "Congratulations." and stand with us and fight for us. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

The issue of equality is too simple, too black and white and too important for me to continue to be as invisible as I have been. Let's settle it now and move on.

Jon Huntsman for Republican sanity!

2011-08-20T08:34:00.000-07:00

To my Republican friends...PLEASE SAVE YOUR PARTY and elect Jon Huntsman! He's the sane Conservative who can save your party from self-destruction. You may win the election with someone else, but you'd lose the longer war for responsible governance, sane leadership and a future plan for the country. Jon Huntsman is a smart, experienced and practical politician. Compare below:

Jon Huntsman:

vs. Rick Perry:

If you want a President who adheres to his political beliefs as religious dogma (and blurs the lines between the two at will) then, please, continue to support Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann or Sara Palin. But, if you want someone who can articulate your party's position as well as lead them away from a cliff instead of going off the end to prove a point, then vote Jon Huntsman--the rest of us are waiting for a viable second party and you haven't provided one in years.

Amer'ca!

2011-08-16T06:59:00.000-07:00

I'm reading Andrew Sullivan before work and noticed something that "got me thinking..."

There is this weird sense in America that we want our politicians to "be like us". At the same time, there is no definition of "us" that fits everyone. One thing I've learned traveling everywhere is how amazingly diverse and different places are. You don't even have to compare San Diego, CA to Salina, KS, you can look at Manhattan, KS vs. Colby, KS and see a rather amazing diversity of people and cultures.

However, our political culture demands that our politicians do their best to be "average Joe" while at the same time being somehow above average. What does this cause? It causes things like this:

Now, I'm not saying that Clinton doesn't drink beer, Pawlenty isn't an avid hunter or that Perry doesn't generally at pork chops by hand. What I'm saying is the political pandering and strong desire to get the image across that this is how they really are when they're off stage is ridiculous. But, it's all part of the calculation to make sure they seem the most "normal" to widest audience possible.

Obama has never been very good at this--he eats arugula and fancy mustard.

I was talking to Peter the other day about perceptions of "normal" and what "normal" is in America. He comes from a vastly different background than I. Even within our subculture (gay) there are variations of "normal" and differences in upbringing. For Peter, he's always felt "normal" because he went to a school where a teenager could be openly gay. I did not, so for me, my sexuality will always to some degree make me feel like an "other".

At the same time, I often tweak the more common "square peg" cliche and say I'm an octagonal peg--I don't fit in anywhere. I'm an atheist who grew up Catholic. I'm a Mexican who doesn't speak Spanish. I'm too brown to fit the WASP expectation that I see in the mall. I'm "butch" enough to have been in the military and graduate West Point, but clearly too "gay" to do so without most people figuring it out without me having to spell it out. For every group I could associate myself with in the hyphenated-American forms, there's a conflicting side to my upbringing and culture that negates it.

A quick look at our old typical family fourth of July parties would show what I grew up considering "normal" American culture...a family where kids who were almost all half-Mexican and half (take your pick, Taiwanese, American-Indian, Filipino, Polish, or other) would eat Carnitas, wave small American flags and dance to live mariachi music). It's probably not what most people would consider "normal" American culture, but it was more normal and more American than anything I can think of right now.

But, how ridiculous would any one of the candidates for President look, standing there with a corona in one hand, small flag in the other and mariachis behind them to celebrate America's birth? Likewise, how silly would I look in an orange jacket holding a rifle, or chugging some typically American beer (side-note, I got laughed at here in Kansas for ordering a Blue Moon). I may not ever fit the mold of "American", but that's only because the mold is a joke. It's a construct that's devoid of real meaning, but has instead been created and bullet formatted:

hunt something
drink a beer
eat at a diner
flag lapel pin
end with "and may God Bless America!"

I don't know if this posting has a point other than to share my observation. In any case, I like my "normal" better--it's more fun and more interesting.

2011-08-12T11:53:00.000-07:00

So Perry is officially in the race.

His combination of ignorance and recklessness will put Bush's to shame were he ever to become elected President. Unfortunately, it seems the time is ripe for just such a person to capture the national sentiment--the masses are looking for someone not with answers, but with guts. His swagger will mask his lack of substance. He'll be the cowboy version of Palin; low on substance, high on assurances, and both "giving it to God" when nothing else helps.

By way of stating loud and stating early what I think of him:

He is a secessionist
He is against allowing us to elect our own Senators
The budget he championed without raising taxes will have $25 Billion dollar deficit

He staved off larger debt by shifting state sponsored education funding to the federal government...by $17 billion

He thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional

Those, friends, are the things I know only from reading about him over the last few months. I am sure, if I actually read into his speeches are more, there is a veritable treasure trove of crazy out there. Republicans, you can do better. Nominate someone who is NOT an ideologue, and who has the ability to lead the country away from the wide-eyed crazies who would have us default on our debt, invade Iran and otherwise push us over the brink of empire. Please...

surprising...or not so, actually.

2011-08-09T09:37:00.000-07:00

What would you call a candidate for President who:

received more than $250K in government subsidies for a private business
secured more than $3.7 million in pork for the district represented in Congress
requested bridge and highway projects under the stimulus plan in order to "promote economic prosperity"

Surprising who that description fits. Of course, I doubt the Tea Party or Palin will refer to said candidate as a Socialist or "un-American" because...well...just because.

random musings on today...

2011-08-03T15:18:00.000-07:00

I've had a little to drink. I'm on TDY to TX and have no car, and no computer, so you can imagine that the happy hour at the bar called my name. That being said, I've been watching the news--or what passes as it lately.

Here's my take:

I think it's ridiculous in so many ways that the same party that now claims that the debt is the most crushing thing to America is the same party responsible for most of it. (see chart below)When Rove said, "deficits don't matter" there was a parenthetical unsaid, of "deficits don't matter (unless there's a democratic in charge)".

That being said, after the debt ceiling fiasco (in which, and I'll agree with this assessment, a minority of a party that is in control of 1/3 of the government quite literally held hostage the rest of the country's fiscal stability in order to get their way), I asked some friends if they thought we (the military) could absorb the cuts, and if so how?

The answers were as follows:

Better oversight of budgets and contracts
stop "use it or lose it" funds and ammunition
change promotions and ratings to allow for easier "trimming" of excess personnel

Another thing? The Tea Party is ridiculous. Across the board ridiculous. They're NOT Federalists. How do you know they're ridiculous? When they turn on someone like Alan West as a "communist", then they're ridiculous. Also, when will Palin call him out for calling her and her ilk "schizophrenic"?

defense spending

2011-08-03T15:13:00.000-07:00

funny things...

2011-08-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

Said at work today:

"terroristic"
Let's push this noodle up the hill
don't try to bite the whole elephant at once
"We'll end today's briefings on the military decision making process [a seven hour brief] with an hour on rapid decision making"

2011-07-29T09:49:00.000-07:00

I'm reading again, due to some down time. I thought I'd share with you all the awesomeness going on in the world, insofar as I've read:

While some of our own citizens can't see the downright crazy that is some of the current GOP Senators, the Ambassador from Russia to NATO sat down with Senators Kyl and Kirk. His reaction? As quoted in Foreign Policy:
"Today in the Senate, I met with Senators Jon Kyl and Mark Kirk. The meeting is very useful because it shows that the alternative to Barack Obama is a collapse of all the programs of cooperation with Russia," he said. "Today, I had the impression that I was transported in a time machine back several decades, and in front of me sat two monsters of the Cold War, who looked at me not through pupils, but targeting sights."

What is the Grand Plan of some members of the Tea Party Freshmen currently holding the country hostage through their tenuous grip over just over 1/2 of 1/3 of government? Leave it to God! Here's Rep. Tim Scott on his plan to stave off economic meltdown:
"Where’s the chapel?” Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) asked as he emerged from an arm-twisting session with Majority Leader Eric Cantor Thursday night. The freshman lawmaker explained that he wanted to “go to the divine source.”
In a room off the Capitol Rotunda, Scott joined a prayer session with fellow South Carolinian lawmakers. “I hope the Lord. . . gives men wisdom when they desperately need it,” Scott explained.
As it happens, the Lord gave Scott the wisdom to oppose Boehner. “I think divine inspiration already happened,” Scott said. “I was a ‘lean no’ and now I’m a ‘no.’” And he’s not much worried about default, saying: “I hope the Lord blesses our nation in a way that is measurable.”

World Net Daily, the least useful of all news-sources (and thus most quoted from current crazy congressmen and one particular Presidential hopeful), blames the fall of America on...it's founding fathers while comparing Obama to Hitler

And last, Paul Krugman explainswhy centrism isn't always the answer (and why calling one a "centrist" despite shifting goalposts is probably an invalid title to begin with). It reminds me of a quote I've kept on my facebook wall for sometime:

When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.~ Richard

And so, such is the nature of things. Crazies on foreign policy, crazies ignoring reality and just imploring their God to make all better and crazies writing newspapers just shilling more crazy because if you say it loud enough and it echoes long enough, people will believe to forget the truth.

Pete&Adam

2011-07-29T09:37:00.000-07:00

Due to the fact that for the short term future, Peter and I will not be co-located, we've decided to start a blog about...us. Why? Because we like "us" and because to write everything I'd want on my own blog or on my facebook wall would unnecessarily bully everyone with sappy and romantic crap that most of you probably won't want to read. But, for those of you who do...the blog is here. Pete & Adam.

I cannot get the settings as we'd like them yet, so please be kind as we attempt to fix it to our specifications. Also, this is a new undertaking, so posting will be sparse, and probably incredibly random in terms of content as we empty our brains of thoughts pertaining to "us". I hope you enjoy!

2011-07-29T07:24:00.000-07:00

If I were Karl Rove and writing commercials for the Democrats, this is what I'd be compiling now:

voice over quoting economists that not increasing the debt ceiling would create economic catastrophe

quotes from Tea Party Republicans, including Michelle Bachmann, saying that they would not under any circumstances raise the debt ceiling. Examples:
- Tea Party founder Jenny Beth Martin, "Do not raise the debt ceiling, it's that simple."
- Rep. Allen West,
  
  "there's revenue that will be there, about 250 billion, that will allow us to prioritize and then take care of that debt interest payment, take care of our seniors and take care of our military as well."
- Rep. Jeff Duncan:
  
  I will be voting against increasing our nation’s debt ceiling and against any attempt to raise taxes.

The commercial would cut to a pictureof John McCain on the floor of the House with the text quotes, "The Tea Party Hobbits could return to middle earth" "bizzaro" and "that's the kind of cracked political thinking"

It would close with the video of Obama's speech imploring the Republicans to pass a debt ceiling increase.

Politically, I can imagine such a commercial being toxic--paint the President as the one who wanted to negotiate, paint the Tea Party as the obstructionists. If you really wanted to sink it in, throw in a clip of Boehner looking sad as his coalition falls apart and he can't pass a bill even past his own Party and viola--you've turned out a political ad that I think can turn a pile of crap into election gold.

reading...

2011-07-28T13:15:00.000-07:00

A quick wrap up of what I'm reading:

Michelle Bachmann, yes, the same one who said Obama was un-American because of what his pastor said and who said Congressmen should be investigated for being un-American, doesn't like when people question her associations. Her husband owns a clinic teaching people to not be gay anymore, and while she's "proud of his work", when asked about it she replied, "I am running for the presidency … My husband is not running for the presidency … Neither is our business.”

The GOV of Texas quickly backpedals to remind us he's no REAL Federalist and that he doesn't like the gays as much as the next (republican) guy...

Hillary Clinton continues to impress with her diplomatic acumen and professionalism. While the DC politicians embarrass the country with their bickering, Sec. Clinton is out there reminding the world that we can still do things right.

California GOV Jerry Brown appoints Goodwyn Liu to the State Supreme Court, rebuking the Republican filibuster of his nomination to the Court of Appeals.

roads, money and a study

2011-07-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

I've had some ongoing conversations with friends about America's transportation system, funding and public transportation. The conversations usually revolve around how much money the US should put toward public transportation and how much toward roads. (This is where I'd add in something about how the more "libertarian" of my friends tend to support publicly subsidized roads, lots of them, and as far and wide as possible whereas my argument for more public mass transportation is assailed as hippie and/or communist).

Then I stumbled upon this report, "Where We Need To Go: A Civil Rights Road Map to Transportation Equality". There are a lot of staggering statistics in it, which I won't re-print here because you can just click the link and read it yourself, but it does frame the debate in a way that I have not been able to previously.

If there is a tie between transportation, access to jobs and poverty, then the Country needs to consider this when allocating funds. Public goods are only "public" if they are equally accessible to all people. If, however, public funds are spent on "goods" that are monopolized by a small percentage of the population, then they are no longer public.

In any case...it's an interesting read, and if you have the time, take a gander.

2011-07-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

Today, the debt talks collapsed.

This will be a short post, but I've already updated my facebook status too often to respond there. What I want to point out is, only today...in 2011...do we call a President who has offered to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax increases than the bi-partisan Senate Panel a "Socialist". If that doesn't demonstrate where the Republican party has degenerated into today, I don't know what has. Combine that with the primary where each of the candidates feels the need to out-anti-Islam, out-anti-gay and out-Christian the others and it's genuinely scary this party is considered a valid governing body.

I thought last election that with the rise of Palin, four years later we'd see a re-generated and newly thoughtful party that returned to its genuinely Conservative roots, but apparently not. Instead of stepping out of the hole, they've entrenched themselves deeper. It's a pity really. There was a chance, today, to achieve genuine change in the American entitlement system, and to help bring down the deficit. Instead, we get nothing...because of a dogmatic, religious-like zeal against any kind of tax increase.

Taxed. Enough. Already. they say...and they remember the days when things were good. The funny part is, the days that current Republicans become so nostalgic for were neither romantic for Women or Minorities, but they were also spurred by MASSIVE government spending in almost every sector of the economy. Moreover, tax rates are lower now than they have been since, what, the fifties?

I sometimes get the impression Obama wants to just put the ball up and go home. Not because he's defeated, but it's like playing cards with a three year old. They make up rules that don't make sense and just throw down a two and say, "I win!" Any grown up would be exasperated. The unfortunate part is, he has to keep playing because he knows in the end, we must win this fight or the nation will lose in the long term.

2011-07-09T15:30:00.001-07:00

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have both singed The Pledge against all kinds of things, including pornography, spousal infidelity, women in combat roles, marriage equality and lots of other things. It includes the words:

Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or
intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policy makers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.

It seems an odd pledge, to me, for many reasons. But, just the quote above, which implies that sending men to be enslaved, tortured, raped or otherwise is totally fine.

I'm interested to see how many of the other ones will sign this awesome pledge during the primaries and then pretend they didn't know what it meant in the general.

wha happened???

2011-06-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

Another short note--I have been and continue to slack--

But, who would have thought four years ago that:

Wisconsin would be the political epicenter of America (because of this, this, this and this)...

A Republican controlled State Senate might double the number of gays and lesbians allowed to marry... (Sure, completely divided by party lines, but still...it IS a Republican controlled State Senate.)

That Obama would be running afoul of the War Powers Act by expanding us involvement in two more countries...

That Republicans would be voting to limit Presidential authority...

Things change incredibly fast, and if you weren't paying attention, your head might be spinning.

Oh, and John Huntsman is the first Republican to run for President in a while I really like. Here's to hoping he doesn't take a turn for the crazy to out-crazy the rest of the primary contenders in order to get the nomination.

self-imposed "honey-do"

2011-06-10T16:23:00.000-07:00

So, one of the big projects I've been meaning to tackle for sometime now is re-vamping a dresser of my moms. It's been in her room as long as I can remember and has a great shape, but has seen some wear for its years. It's missing handles and has some chips and the white varnish it came with has peeled away over the years. But, I love it and wanted to make it nice again...and so the project begins.

The first step was to take off all the crap that has accumulatedthere...Then, take off all the hardware...

Then sand down the drawers to get rid of the cracks and help wear away imperfections...And then a base coat to further hide the imperfections as well as bond the paint to the wood so it doesn't flake off...Then a coat of glossy black. Well, semi-gloss. My mom said she didn't want it "shiny". It dries much less glossy than it looks here...

That one drawer took me roughly fifteen hours with the Bear running around. So, this should be done by Tuesday of next year...

Day Two

I added two coats of varnish to help protect it and hoped that the sheen would go away. I only used "semi-gloss" because that's what the paint lustre was as well. I also used a power sander, which made it go more quickly.

Next, I had to replace the knobs on the sides. The ones it came with had broken and I only had three, but needed six. I went to Hobby Lobby, but everything was tacky. These were the closest to "nice" I could find event though they didn't really match ANYTHING I have.
And so, after two days, here's the finished product. It looks like it belongs in a Chinese Food restaurant and doesn't match a thing I have. Perfect.

2011-06-10T12:12:00.000-07:00

I know, I know. I've been ridiculously slacking in posting. This will be short as well as I have a lot of painting, sanding and cleaning to do. That being said, this video cracked me up! Apparently back when blue-screens were a novelty seen only in movies, someone had a promotion at a hotel where you could lip sing to a video and they'd blue screen for you. This little boy chose Madonna! He posted it online twenty years later and it's amazing...

ME AT NINE, PERFORMING TO MADONNA IN SUMMER '91! from Robert Jeffrey on Vimeo.

Mary's Be a GoodDog Blog: Kansas State University Graduation 2011: phelps-we...

2011-05-21T07:17:00.000-07:00

A couple of weekends ago, me, Jeremy and Shanon went to K-State's graduation to help counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church. The local LGBT group sponsored it, but a lot of others showed up as well. The local Christian Biker's Club, some local families and others all showed up. We stood in front of them telling people "Congratulations" and "Have a good day!" just to help drown out the hate of the Westboro guys.

Some good pictures here of the whole thing...including my awesome BEAR!

Mary's Be a GoodDog Blog: Kansas State University Graduation 2011: phelps-we...

2011-05-19T18:59:00.000-07:00

I didn't read this article fully--I had to scan it because I needed to breathe and I found myself holding my breath as I read it. From the beginning, with its description as being about the rise of "Mommy Patriots", I knew I was in for a ride--there have ALWAYS been "Mommy Patriots", where do you think Mother's Day came from?

That being the case, instead of dissecting the article point by point (well, not the article, but all the ridiculous stuff that's quoted), I'll only point out a few of the more particularly egregious things.

First, the whole way these women define and understand feminism is just a complete misunderstanding, to the point of ignorance, of what feminism is. The article reads,

When I ask if it’s fair to compare the rise of their movement to the birth of feminism, Doll bristles. If anything, she says, today’s conservative women reject feminist ideals. She remembers when “the feminism thing,” as she calls it, began “creeping into our magazines” in the 1960s. Women were being inundated with articles about the “drudgery” of being a mom and how to avoid the boredom of housework by finding paid employment. “They were really putting our job down,” Doll says.

Feminism was never ABOUT affirmative action. That is a completely different issue. Feminism is about equality--equality not just in pay and opportunities, but in choices. If one read early articles about feminism, and about equality, they weren't about saying being a housewife is boring, they were simply saying assigning women that task/job without any choice of her own was condemnation to a fate not her own choosing. I would imagine most women would agree with this. To quote a great speech by Isabel Allende, "Once, when my daughter Paula was in her twenties, she said to me that feminism was dated and I should move on...if you don't like the term, change it for Goddess sake--call it Aphrodite, or Venus or bimbo, call it whatever you like so long as you understand it, and support it." The way these women speak of feminism reminds me of the way GOProud talks about gay rights--their desire to be "accepted" by the groups in power makes them reject their own advocates out of spite.

Then, there's Michelle Bachmann who claims,

You’re not going to see conservative women demand an affirmative action spot on a presidential ticket. You’ll see conservative women rise to the national stage based on their own merit.

A quick reading of recent history tells us this simply isn't true. Geraldine Ferrarro was nominated as Vice President because she was qualified. Hillary Clinton almost got the Democratic nomination after a lifetime of service. Who have the conservatives (I use a small c purposely) put forward?? Sara Palin and Harriet Meiers. And she claims it's based on merit?

In an impressive bout of not coordinating their messages, two paragraphs later, Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell is quoted as follows:

O’Donnell argues that women won’t be able to reach top political office until they start supporting one another. “Not enough women have each other’s back,” she says. “Women on both sides of the political aisle need to unite so that we can send a message to future female candidates that if you step up into a political arena that is mostly male dominated . . . you’re not going to be alone.”

So, Conservative women don't believe in affirmative action, but should "band together across the aisle to support one another." And, while they speak of a "double standard", immediately she pulls out the gender card to point to why she lost--not because of her ridiculous stances, her inability to articulate herself, her lack of knowledge about basic issues or the fact she was far right of the voters of Delaware.

These "Momma Patriots" cannot have it both ways--they can step into the arena of politics and prove themselves as many, many women have before (on BOTH sides of the aisle), or they can sit down and go away. But, to play up the "momma" aspect and then hide behind it from any criticism but then claim it is also the REASON for criticism is disingenuous, at best. Until the Republicans start putting forward women like Peggy Noonan or even Kay Bailey Hutchison, then yes, the rest of us will laugh and snicker at the likes of the Bachmann's, Palins and other "Momma Patriots".

O'Donnell does try to square that circle, poorly, by saying,

The fact that you’re a good mother almost in and of itself qualifies you . . . There is something very profound in that observation—that there’s a difference between female candidates and mother candidates.

But, to me that's not good enough. That, to me, is ridiculous. The reason why, I think, was best expressed during the debates by VP Biden. When Palin tried to say basically the same thing, he teared up, speaking of his son. He went over the story of their family, and what he'd been through as a father, and said (paraphrase) that if she thought he didn't know what it was like to be a father and parent, then she was dead wrong. In fact, I think this view shows a little anti-paternal bias on her part. Too often we overlook the contributions of fathers to the family and to relationships. O'Donnell, here, doesn't just overlook it, she completely dismisses it.

I don't discourage these women from what they're doing--involvement. That's a good thing. But, the general lack of knowledge that influences what's said here and elsewhere is what bothers me. Our democracy rests upon an informed electorate, and it seems that while the electorate is getting more involved, it's no more informed. That is where the trouble lies. And, candidates like Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, who make their ignorance a point of pride instead of a weakness to be addressed, not only prey upon, but encourage more ignorance instead, and that seems Un-American.

Blue Texas?

2011-05-19T15:38:00.000-07:00

Just a short note as I have to run, but there is a development in Texas that I think could change the next elections quite drastically. If Rick Perry runs for President, and General Sanchez runs for Senator, depending upon how the economy in Texas is a year from now (with all the cuts the Republicans have been passing there to education and health benefits), it could be a game changer.

Hear me out--I don't particularly like Sanchez (I don't know much about him other than Abu Gharib happened under his watch), however, let's face it--he's Mexican. There are a LOT of Latinos in Texas and like it or not, identity politics still plays a roll. Combine that with anger over how things are going in Texas, a fired-up Democratic base, and you could have the makings of a Texas going damn-near blue in the next Presidential elections.

My first inclination was to say "No Way", but then I remembered that Perry is no Bush. He's not all "folksy" (even though he did assume the crappy fake accent). He's more like the Mitt Romney, Texas version. What I mean is, he's too slick for most of the Texans I met (even outside of Austin) to really love him as emblematic of Texas. And, if Democrats can manage to tap into the Millions of eligible Latino voters, while also banking on Sanchez to drive them to the polls...who know??

tumble with me

2011-05-12T08:46:00.000-07:00

here

the triumph of politics

2011-05-12T08:29:00.000-07:00

My posting has been sparse as my work has been busier than usual--which isn't to say "busy" just "busier".

That being said, a quick reaction to something I'm reading right now that illustrates a point I often make--that politics always trumps policy. One can look at McCain or others over the years, and how their "position" shifts so that immigration reform, while not changing in terms of policy, changes in terms of the politics. So, one year the same policy is "good policy" the next it's "bad" and then it's "toxic" or even, god forbid, "liberal".

See this article about Romneycare where Ezra Klein talks about how Mitt Romney's Health Care law in Massachusetts will drive the Republican debate. His conclusion is written here:

The only solution-like proposal left on the table is to devolve responsibility to the states, and Romney is smart to get there first. The question, I think, is whether the GOP unites around some version of this idea or whether Romney has become so radioactive on health care that by proposing a federalist solution, he actually takes it off the table for the Republicans running against him.

Did you see what happened there? If Republicans coalesce around an idea that is policy-wise right up what they've always preached, it would be politically unpopular, and thus, should be avoided.

2011-05-05T09:23:00.000-07:00

I was just putting jelly on my toast and trying very hard to get it all the way to the edges. They brought my toast out on its own plate, and because I'd also asked for no potatoes, everything was on its own plate. As I held the toast, I suddenly flashed back to fourth grade and Mr. G's restaurant in Lomita.

It was my Grandfather's favorite restaurant, in walking distance from his house and only a block or so away from Saint Margaret Mary's Church. I don't think my Grandpa went to Mass every day at 6 AM, but if I was an alter server with the AM mass, then he went. At the end of the week, he'd take me to breakfast. We'd walk, together, from church to Mr. G's, and stop to buy a lottery ticket en route.

He didn't like his food to touch, and the toast had to be buttered and jellied completely--he ensured each nook in the bread was complete or he wouldn't eat it. His eggs had to come on a separate plate because he didn't like his food to mix.

When I was even younger than that, I liked to have "sleep overs" at my Grandpas. My Grandmother had died already, so he lived alone, next door to me. I'd go over and we'd play go-fish until I won. If I won, he's start playing Solitare. I'd ask if I could play and he's say, with a very stern voice, "No. This is a one person game." And I'd watch him play. I imagine I was annoying. His house was immaculate, everything in its place and the guest room bed being perfectly made (later, when I was in high school, I'd get the bed frame for my own). There was a Sacred Heart of Jesus lighted statue that "bled" electronically and other trinkets that I now know were typically Mexican, but at the time seemed simply "grandfatherly".

I just thought I'd share that with you all today. My Grandpa--someone who died when I was too young to know him as well as I'd like, but who left a great impression on me and probably changed who I am today.

I didn't realize, then, that the memory would stay with me this long.

unpopular but wise idea

2011-05-05T08:46:00.000-07:00

It is political unpopular to tax--that's a simple and true statement. However, taxing is not only needed, it's sometimes simply useful. If we assume that the purpose of taxing is two-fold (1. to raise govt. revenues and 2. to encourage or discourage behavior), then a gas tax seems like a simple and good idea. For the last three years or so, gas prices have fluctuated wildly based upon political factors. However, what has happened at least twice now is that when gas prices hit four dollars a gallon (give or take), two things occurred: 1. people began to ration their driving and 2. gas prices dropped.

Why? Because we have discovered the point (and there's an economic term for this I'm sure) where consumers have decided that gas is not worth the cost. We are paying the full cost of our consumption. You could even argue that the political cost of our wars and the political environment we've created is being "paid" at the pump.

Is this a bad thing? I say no. Sure, it sucks paying that much at the pump...but if it just means that the costs of our politics are being shared equitably across the board, and it improves overall behavior, then it's probably a good thing.

That being said, I think a gas tax is probably a good idea...and no, not a couple of cents a gallon--if four dollars a gallon is what makes people stop driving as much, increases fuel efficient car sales and lowers the price of gasoline in the long term, then we should do that. We would raise revenue, create jobs (in the car market) lower costs (roads would be less-used and thus need fewer repairs) and we could use the increase in revenue to improve public transportation.

A gas tax is regressive in nature, so maybe a tax credit for lower income workers would be beneficial as well, but in my imaginary world, the revenues for public transport would also most likely benefit the lower income families the most. (As an example, right now a maid who works in downtown Los Angeles has to drive probably an hour to and from work, costing her quite a bit. If we were to have less traffic and a better public transit system, that maid would have to drive less in both distance and time, and her trip could quite possibly be done via public transport instead. So, while she'd pay more in gas, she'd save in the long run by not driving nearly as much).

my thoughts on Usama's death

2011-05-02T08:50:00.000-07:00

Last night, Usama bin Laden was reported killed. I was on my couch when I recieved a text message, watching TV with Jeremy. I'm sure I will not forget that in the future. It's one of those moments that I'll remember as long as I remember the towers falling.

This morning, a saw a message that I will share here, since my reaction to the facebook post is what is prompting this post. The exchange is paraphrased, since it's been deleted:

friend: Pretty sure it's a conspiracy to get Obama re-elected. Just wondering...

Me: Are you serious?

Her: yes.

Me: For this to be a conspiracy is preposterous. It would require lies of omission or commission from SEAL Team 6, the Sec of Defense, Secretary Clinton, GEN Petreaus and the President, at the least. Sometimes not everything is political, even when there are political reprecussions.

Her: Don’t take this so seriously.

Me: When I have friends in Arlington, I will always take these things seriously. (also, in my defense, I gave you the opportunity to say, “I was just kidding”.)

This was followed by an email asking simply, “What does what I posted have to do with your friends in Arlington?”

The response she is getting is longer than expected, but flows from my thoughts last night.
As I sat, watching the news, I felt a catharsis. I thought about all the moments between then (9/11) and now, and what I was feeling, seeing and thinking. The events between then and now seem, in hindsight, to flow naturally, and of course there were plenty of decision points that led us to where we are today and any of them could have changed the outcome. But, here they are, as I remember them:

1. 9/11- I was just twenty-one years old. I was on my way from my barracks room in DLI to the DFAC and walked past a TV and saw the Pentagon on fire. I thought, “Someone crashed into the Pentagon? Man, that sucks…” by the time I got to the DFAC, people were crying, standing in the aisles unable to eat and the reality hit us—we were under attack. We were studying Arabic and had a test that day on the dual form. We pushed the test back a day, and all of us tried quickly to lean new vocabulary. What was the Arabic word for “terrorist” “crash” “demolish”?

Bush declares we will go to Afghanistan- His speech on TV is one I won’t forget. I watched it in the dayroom with friends, and we knew that he was talking about us—about our future—not something abstract. We, my friends and I, were sure we were going to Afghanistan.

Graduation Leave—The week I graduated West Point, I looked around and realized that it wasn’t a question of “if” but of “who” we would lose in the GWOT. I didn’t know who, but knew that one or more of my classmates would never grasp my shoulder or share a laugh again.

These aren’t the only points in the arc from there to now, nor is “now” the final point. But how do my friends who have given their lives have anything to do with someone calling Usama’s killing a hoax?? Because what they, and we, have been fighting for lasting the better part of a decade happened, partially, yesterday. To some degree, they are vindicated. When we went into Afghanistan, it was for two aims. The first was to deny the enemy sanctuary in safe havens by toppling the Taliban, and the second was to find, kill or capture Usama bin Laden. His death is the rightful vengeance for the violence that happened on 9/11. When I think about my friends, and ask myself, “why” I can now say that, to some degree, Justice was served. Afghanistan may never be a stable nation, Iraq may not be a thriving democracy and the Taliban may not be vanquished—but Usama, the man who has spread for years the myth of a clash of cultures, the man whose ideology and hate started directly or otherwise two wars that have put more of my friends in the dirt than I care to think about, is dead.

To hear, or read, that people think this is an elaborate hoax, involving the President of the United States, from whom we take our orders, verges on offensive to me. To be told not to “take this seriously” when “this”—the search for Americas most wanted—has been going on for the better part of a decade and has adversely affected the lives of almost every single one of my friends, when millions of years of our lives have been wasted sitting in the dirt and reading intelligence reports and patrolling streets and questioning locals, when thousands upon thousands of Americans have lost their lives in its pursuit—that is when I become offended. What happened last night didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened in a War. It happened in a War that people are fighting, currently. It happened because a politician made the right decision, because service members trained correctly, because diplomats set the stage for the right sharing of intelligence, and it happened because people were willing to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of the goal of killing Usama bin Laden.

That is how my friends and their sacrifice relates to implying that this death is an elaborate election ploy.

(I apologize if this was rambling. Work is hectic and I wrote it in my off minutes here and there over the course of a few hours)

2011-05-01T18:18:00.000-07:00

I spent some time tonight trying to pinpoint the exact moment I realized that saying, "when I grow up..." is no longer a valid option.

Texas sized Fail.

2011-04-25T13:07:00.001-07:00

I've written before about gender identity issues and it's something I'm learning more about and, as I do so, realizing how little is known about it. While people are at least fairly comfortable acknowledging that there are gay and lesbians (insofar as "they exist"), there tends to be an awkward and embarrassing silence about gender issues.

When people hear the word "transgender" they immediately think "cross dresser" or "drag queen" or "gay"...none of which is the same. I'm going to avoid defining all those terms for the moment because it's much easier to just move onto the "work around".

I wrote previously about the first time I'd dealt with transgenderism on a personal level, having a friend tell me she was a transgendered woman. Simply put, the "work around" is just to accept people at their word--if s/he says that s/he's a man or woman, accept it and move on. That person knows their gender far more than you could by looking at them.

That's why articles like this one upset me so. Not only do the legislators know very little about transgenderism, but they also recognize that the law they are writing is damaging to its own citizens. When presented with the fact that people are born with multiple sex organs and are often simply mis-labeled as one or the other, only to determine later in life that they are NOT the gender assigned at birth, the evidence is dismissed and ignored. "Sure," they seem to be saying, "this law will hurt people and goes against evidence--but we think that your reality is damaging to how I want to see the world."

It basically boils down to that. The Texas legislature is determining, against scientific fact and evidence, that gender is determined at birth based upon the word of the doctor who births you, and that is that. I am hoping to move to Austin when I get out of the Army, but the more I read about things like this, the more it makes me think I should simply move somewhere where I won't be constantly pissed off that the political leadership is so intent on demonizing its own citizenry.

paper vs. e-forms

2011-04-25T11:57:00.000-07:00

The other day, I had to take my drivers licence, insurance and registration into work so that I could drive this weekend. You see, in the Army, at thirty years old, it's important that I have someone inspect my vehicle for seat belts and fill out a small book to ensure that I'm not driving a broken piece of crap or illegally driving without insurance.

I did so, and then came home and changed into civilian clothes. The next morning, driving my friends to a BBQ, I got pulled over for making an "improper left turn". I had turned on the green arrow into the far lane, not the near lane. The Officer told me they don't normally issue citations for this, but then asked for my insurance and drivers licence. I explained that, being in the Army, my insurance was in my uniform pocket because I'd had to show it at work, but that I could pull it up on my phone. I quickly showed him my phone with my registration PDF showing (it even has more information on the online display, such as my drivers licence number). He said it didn't count unless printed and issued me a citation which would be dropped if I brought the printed version to the Court.

I don't have a printer and didn't feel like driving all the way to work to print something off, so I came to the library. I don't have a library card, so applied to get one. I needed an ID and "proof of residence" such as--you guessed it--vehicle insurance. I explained, again, that I didn't have insurance and that this was precisely why I needed to use the library and showed her my address on the phone. She said I could get a visitor pass.

I used my visitor pass to print off the same thing I showed her--with less information actually--and am now headed to the Court to show them the paper as well.

The upside to all this ridiculous bureaucracy and technophobia on the part of government is that I've now seen the Manhattan Library, which is quite awesome. There's a really great sculpture in the foyer and a magazine reading room I will begin to use. I might try to volunteer here sometime--maybe help lost souls get library cards even.

surprisingly common

2011-04-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I forget how common I am and how typical I am due to the fact that I'm just removed from those who would be, on paper, my "peer group" (if, of course, you define "peers" as those with whom you have a lot in common).

I stumbled upon this link today showing the results of a survey of PC vs. Mac users. I am a Mac user. I looked at the list and thought, "Holy hell...this defines me without me even participating." Obviously not the entire list hit its mark, but things that I'd never thought as being definitional (is that a word) seemed to be pegging/labeling me.

For example, I found a book recently at the airport that seemed interesting titled Zeitun. The title struck me as the word is arabic and means "oil". The story was relatively well written even if overly dramatic and maudlin, but I enjoyed the quick read nonetheless. I didn't think it a particularly memorable piece of literature...but low and behold, "Mac people" like Zeitun.

What else? Apartment Therapy--a daily read for me--made the list. The Road, Dwell Magazine...even Hot Toddies, a drink my mom turned me onto to overcome a cold, made the list.

I freaked a little, that I'd be THAT predictable, but I guess none of us are really "original" in any sense of the word. And, I think computers make us feel even less so. Three decades ago, I could have developed a similar set of tastes and personal style and felt quite unique and individual without knowing that somewhere there was a subset of people living and liking the same things as I--only now they're easy to find on the internet because when I google my own tastes, I find their blogs and pages and networks and think, "oh man, I'm NOT original, some dude in Detroit already thought of it!"

As a corollary to what I wrote above, my friend Alex made a good point long ago to me when she was in college. She said that what one likes and those extraneous things don't really matter all that much and can, in fact, influence you negatively into forming a favorable impression of someone new. So, you meet someone new and think, "Oh, he likes X, Y and Z and doesn't like A, B and C, just like me! He must be good people..." Only to find out soon thereafter that said person is kind of a dick, always late and a backstabber.

Being in the military has helped me to overcome that by virtue of the fact that when you meet people, generally they're stripped of all those extraneous things and you judge them on their character. Then you throw a party and realize that people who like A, B and C and having drinks with people who like X, Y and Z and didn't even know J existed because they call it "pop" or "supper" where they're from...kind of a cool little dynamic if you ask me!

irony watch

2011-04-19T09:16:00.000-07:00

Most of you probably don't read towleroad or other LGBT blogs, but if you do, you'd have picked up on this little piece of ironic awesomeness--

With the House set to defend DOMA in the courts and assert the constitutionality of States and the Federal Government not recognizing marriages validated by the states, Speaker Boehner has hired an ex Bush appointee to do the legal work. His name is Paul Clement, and this is a page on his firm's website explaining how they respect LGBT diversity.

So, the guy who is set to defend the most anti-LGBT piece of legislation on the books is working for a firm that touts its LGBT diversity as reason to hire them or work for them? Interesting. He's probably got a copy of Atlas Shrugged sitting with his Bible on the nightstand.

I want to lose 45 lbs.

2011-04-19T08:51:00.000-07:00

The other day, I was on a Kristen Wiig kick and saw a relatively un-funny skit titled "two A-holes work out with a trainer". It made me chuckle, but that was about all. I tried to post it here, but the link is here too if it doesn't work.

The funniest part, I thought, was when the trainer asks her what she wants, and she replies without thought or hesitation, "I want to lose 45 lbs." It is funny because it's clear that she wants to appear to work out, and wants to appear to care, but obviously knows nothing about fitness or health.

This morning on the way to work, I was listening to KPR. They were interviewing people at the Tea Party Rally where Nicky Haley was speaking and asking people what they were hoping for in South Carolina where 5 out of 6 House Reps voted against the budget just passed.

One gentleman said, without thought or hesitation, "I want a trillion dollar cut from the budget."

I immediately thought of Kristen Wiig losing 45 lbs--absent reality, absent knowledge, absent an actual plan or efforts, cutting a trillion dollars in spending is an AWESOME goal. But, a lot of people who vote, a lot of people who are fired up, a lot of people who are angry about things that most, frankly, don't understand, those people will continue to wave flags and push politicians to do things that are 1. impossible and 2. ill advised.

Andrew Sullivan

2011-04-15T10:51:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite bloggers. He has been since I've been reading blogs. Here is one of his latest, and one of the reasons I like reading him so:

The Bishops are often cited by men such as Newt Gingrich as unquestionable authorities when it comes to questions of abortion, marriage and euthanasia. So it is perfectly fair to confront Newt with the stark distinction between his views on the budget and the Vatican's and the American Bishops'.

What is it that the Bishops have said about the budget crisis in the States?

The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

Obviously there are differences in the moral implications between budgeting and, say, prison or euthanasia. However, if the likes of Gingrich et al. are all too willing to ignore variations of grey when citing moral authority of the Church regarding issues of personal choice, freedom, sexuality and morality (issues that are FAR more complex emotionally and physically than budgeting), then Sullivan is right to ignore the same complexities in citing the Church as a moral authority as well. What he's done here is taken the logic of the right and applied it evenly across the spectrum of ideas--which leaves him with results the right would most definitely not like. As for me, I look for no moral authority outside myself. And as for citing the Catholic Church as a moral authority, well--there's really no point in my even addressing that as an option.

paint your toes pink!

2011-04-15T08:12:00.000-07:00

A little over a year ago, I met my first transgendered friend. Well, I should say, I'd known my friend a while, but only came to know that she was a male to female transgender about a year ago. I didn't know what exactly to make of that information at first, as it was something new to me, and made quite an ass of myself. The conversation went something like this,

her: You know that acronym, LGBT?

Me: yeah, of course.

Her: I'm a T

Me: (laughing) no...you mean G. T means transgendered, not gay.

I turned and looked at my friend, and her eyes were full of tears she was holding back as we were in public, at a bachelor party actually, and she didn't want to cry. I asked her if there was a name other than her male name that she'd prefer to go by. She said that there was, but that "I couldn't just choose to see her as a woman now..." but it was said with a slight glimmer of hope. I laughed again, and this time in a non-offensive way, as it was laughter at myself. "Of course I can!" I replied, "You know far better than I if you're a female, who am I to tell you otherwise?" Since then, we've become even better friends, knowing that this wall of deception is no longer separating us, and while we don't talk as often as I'd like, our relationship is stronger than it ever was when we were less honest. That was my first interaction with the idea of transgenderism--that one could simply be genetically male or female, but emotionally and psychologically and in all other ways--not. I can only imagine how difficult it must be, to wake up in a body that you feel is not your own and foreign, and how difficult it must be to challenge those perceptions people have of you. That is why this article published on FOX News pissed me off so terribly. The author, sadly a doctor, makes ridiculously outrageous claims and comparisons that are so false they're almost obscene. For example,

encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts

Anyone who associates painting ones toe-nails with "choosing gender identity" must have stopped paying attention sometime in 1950. The idea that little girls wear pink and love makeup is as antiquated as the idea that men are the bread earners--moreover it ignores the fact that social norms change, and change quite often. Early in the twentieth century, girls wore light blue and boys pink. Ask someone in 1940 if singing in a choir is a masculine hobby and ask someone today and you'll get vastly different answers. The author, however, makes an unstated assumption that behaviors and social norms are somehow inherent to sexual identity, which is untrue--they are learned traits and social constructs we develop and hoist upon our own children. After that, he makes the comparison between transgender and changing ones race writing,

What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?

Again, he misses the point and confuses the issue--gender is not a learned trait, it is something one is born with. It is not necessarily reflected genetically in ones body, but it is something you are born with nonetheless. Race, however, is not the case, especially when you equate heritage and race. I have a friend who is white, but was raised by an African-American family. He loves Medea movies. He watches BET. He is Caucasian, but he is culturally African-American. Race is something one is born with, culture is not. He goes on to berate the mother for "parading her son in costume"--because if he really does love pink, then it is clearly a costume whereas the cultural trappings of masculinity (one assumes camouflage and blue) he has eschewed are "natural" despite the child's' own wishes and then somehow ties it all into the military (yes, the military). He fears a time when gender identity is so thoroughly homogenized that:

neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.

Of course, this assumes that gay men, transgendered people and women aren't capable, willing or able to fight in wars, but that's beside the point obviously. I wonder what he would have us do, if our children ARE transgendered (assuming this child is, which I think is a wildly ridiculous assumption). Am I to tell my son, "No, you WILL wear a tux, and you'll like it!" Rid my house of all this is pink, flowly and possible to make a dress out of? The idea that this man thinks he knows better what a child wants and needs than his own mother--than the child himself--is disgusting.

budget

2011-04-15T07:06:00.000-07:00

I am, if nothing else, glad to see that substantive matters are finally being discussed. This should be, if this were a sane world, the time for the Palins and Bachmanns of the political stage to exit and allow those who know what they're talking about to hash out the details and come up with a budget. This won't happen. Instead, the fringe will demand ever lower taxes, talk about death panels, socialism and the like--just in time for election 2012. The sane conservatives (of whom Paul Ryan is one, even if I disagree with him) will be ignored and lambasted as "RINO's" and we'll probably default as a country on our debt. Paul Ryan's budget does the following things which, I think, are non-debatable:

proposed subsidies are tied to inflation--not the rate of the rise in health care costs

tax breaks for the top income earners (a reduction from 35% to 25% of income over $1 million annually)and corporations are included

Defunds Obama Care

Obama's plan does the following:

let's tax rates return to what they were previously on the top income earners

cuts military spending

funds Obama Care

That being said, there is now time and direction for a real debate about the budget--if it's not derailed by ridiculous partisan bickering and non-essential issues. Will we talk about the future of medicare, or will we get stuck debating the merits of letting Washingtonians pay for their own abortions? Will we talk about the overt waste in our military budget, or will we be sidetracked with discussions of gay marriage?

As a side note, I keep hearing people on the radio claim Obama is waging "class warfare". Do these people not see that if Obama is waging class warfare, so is Paul Ryan? Both budgets attempt to do the same thing--pay down the deficit, fix spending and stop waste. The difference is in how, and it is simply fact that Democrats and Republians are on opposite sides of how to do that--do we direct money at the poor in order to stabilize the economy, or the rich (trickle down)? If taxing the rich is "class warfare" then cutting spending on programs for the poor is also class warfare, just with a different target.

The 2012 elections will be vitally important--here's to hoping we don't muck it up with insincere and childish politics.

What I'm about to write, I hope, comes of as substantive and not political. I was listening to an interview on NPR (yes, that bastion of the liberal media) with Paul Ryan. In it, the interviewer asked a question which, when answered, I thought was rather poignant. The Q/A is below:

ROBERT: Congressman Ryan, critics of your idea say that the cost of insurance for members of Congress has actually gone up faster with the element of choice than the cost of Medicare has. Why would you, if turned out that indeed the government run program was more cost efficient would you favor it? Or is it in face an ideological preference for the market, even if the market is less efficient? REP. RYAN: The point I'm trying to make, and there is a difference of I think, philosophy here of what works best. We don't believe surrendering more of the health-care system over to government is an effective solution to lowering health-care costs. It simply results in rationing and price controlling. So we do believe that the current health-care system is broken and needs to be fixed. ROBERT: You're saying that even if the Medicare system were to be comparably more efficient ... that you're saying if it's not competitive... REP. RYAN: Competition ROBERT: You'd prefer what might be conceivably a more expensive system if it involves free-market competition? REP. RYAN: Actually, no we don't believe that at all. We believe it will be a less expensive system. But believe you me, we need to do more in the health-care system to get the consumer more power in the health care system so that the patient and their doctor have the real power in the health care system, so that all providers — health-insurance companies, doctors, hospitals — have to compete against each other for the health insurance beneficiaries' business.

So, the interviewer gets at the prime concern of those of us who disagree w/ the Ryan budget proposal--it pits the reality of rising costs against the belief that free markets will take care of things. When presented with the fact that the system Ryan wants to impose, while already in place for Congress creates higher costs, he simply says, "we don't believe that". One can choose to ignore evidence, but it isn't wise to do so.

army email

2011-04-14T13:53:00.000-07:00

I HAD to share this email, accidentally sent to me today, to share what it's like to be in the Army. You'll notice the lack of grammar, but overly liberal use of acronyms (which I've changed so that I don't give up secrets or anything accidentally). But, for those of you NOT in the Army...enjoy!

I finished what I needed to do, so I will take care of it. Some people weren't making since in what they had asked me and now it is fixed. I will leave here around 16:15 and run down and check and see if they have one. The question is what is the limit and are we using FCDT or LOP. The reason I ask is because we have been LOP happy lately.

2011-04-12T09:36:00.001-07:00

I am behind the times (and simultaneously getting ahead of myself and my three note teaser just posted), but am reading Justice Kagen's dissent right now. Only two paragraphs in and I'm on pins and needles! Here's the paragraph that made my little dorky heart do a leap:

This novel distinction in standing law between appropriations and tax expenditures has as little basis in principle as it has in our precedent. Cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective—to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations. Taxpayers who oppose state aid of religion have equal reason to protest whether that aid flows from the one form of subsidy or the other. Either way, the government has financed the religious activity. And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy.

It does, of course, go on from there, but I like it. It's concise, it's logical, and it doesn't ignore reality. Too often, it seems to the non-law school graduate like myself, that lawyers and judges tend to ignore reality. In this case, they start out with reality--that the distinction drawn between a tax credit and a direct subsidy is practically null since they both serve the same purpose--to divert funds to support a group or effort. Anyway, I'll finish reading it and have a full reaction later. But, my point? I haven't read a SCOTUS opinion as exciting in its language and intellectually stimulation in some time!

three posts...a preview

2011-04-12T07:27:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking quite a lot lately. Three things have been on my mind, and I will eventually write about them in full. Here, however, is a preview:

An email from a friend--a fellow West Point graduate--challenging me to be a better Officer. He is, like me, a fellow liberal, non-militant, non-combat arms, five-and-fly Officer, and as such, his challenge struck me quite directly where it hurts.

I've been reminiscing about challenges and successess and have determined to write about those moments where I suddenly felt as though I'd overcome something and accomplished something in life--they are not moments you would expect.

The budget.

And, with that, I leave you a quote from a politician.

Who the hell is for abortion? I don’t know anybody running around with a sign that says, “Have an abortion! They’re wonderful!” They’re hideous, but they’re a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don’t think men legislators should even vote on the issue.

Then you’ve got homosexuality, you’ve got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We have homophobes in our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings.

And the politician who said this isn't from the party you'd think.

makes me want to vomit

2011-04-08T12:36:00.000-07:00

Right now, there are Soldiers on the phone with home saying things like, "I don't know. Call mom, maybe she can pay our mortgage this month." or, "Well, we'll cancel our vacation, we can see Florida next time." Why? Because the government can't pass a simple bill that says, even when the politicians can't settle a budget dispute, the people who put their lives on the line daily, the people who have already spent YEARS living in the desert being shot at, the people who come in weekends and at night and on holidays to keep everyone else safe--those people will still not be paid. Why? Here's a brief rundown:

Economy goes to crap (lots of reasons, lots of blame)

Barack Obama gets elected along with a "veto-proof majority" of Democrats in both Houses of Congress

They pass Health Care Reform, which they ran on a platform of passing

The Tea Party, a group of "libertarians" worried about the debt and spending forms to fight it. This group is supposedly non-partisan

2010 elections loom and a budget is vetoed by a Republican Majority of 41 out of 100 Senators

2010 elections, Republicans retake the House along with a large wave of incoming Tea-Party affiliated Freshman pledging to cut $100 billion dollars from the budget and fight Obama Care (Health Care Reform from point 3)

The first two Bills passed out of the House do the following: Defunds Obama Care and re-defines Rape

Speaker of the House Boehner says he will not pass a bill with less than $33 Billion in cuts.

The President and Senate Majority Leader agree to a bill cutting $38 Billion from the budget

The House says it will not pass the bill unless ALL Republican House Representatives vote for it.

The bill does not pass.

The Senate passes a bill that would continue to pay Soldiers.

The House passes a bill that would continue to pay Soldiers AND defund Planned Parenthood AND change abortion laws in the District of Columbia AND defund the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both bills die and Soldiers will now not be paid.

So, why are these additions to a bill to fund Soldiers so important? How about I let a Republican Freshman speak for himself:

As Republicans, we promised in the pledge to America to cut $100 billion off of Obama's plan. If we're going to come back with less than that, we've got to come back with some policy riders to say look, I took less than $100 billion, but I've defunded Planned Parenthood or abortions in the District of Columbia. Or I've ended Obamacare, I've gotta go back home, look people in the eye and say, look, I told you $100 billion, but I went for less, and I've got to have a because... Because I don't want to be perceived as a liar back home."

And there you have it. The supposedly libertarian, supposedly budget minded, supposedly pro-America pro-Soldier Tea Party folds to the pressures of the religious right and the culture wars of the past. It's more important that we wage an ideological war against imagined enemies of the "culture" than it is for us to ensure the first line of defense for this country can pay their bills.

I've not been this disgusted by pure political madness than I am right now. There was some ridiculousness last year, pre elections, but never did it reach a point, especially about anything so ridiculous as this, that Soldiers were effected.

And yes, there is a lot of blame to go around, but if anyone has been following this, then no, it is not "equal" nor is it very hidden what's happening. Bottom line is, the President and the Senate agreed to cuts that were difficult for them in order to pass a budget. Speaker Boehner, to appease his base, changed the goal line at the last minute and now, Soldiers won't get paid.

Disgusting.

2011-04-05T15:45:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting idea today...the cost of a war should be a direct tax on gasoline. While this is a regressive tax in nature (poor people have to drive more as they generally have to live further from work, and spend a higher proportion of their income on their bills), it does seem ideal that SOMEHOW the direct costs of war are transferred to the population at large. Also, this could then be applied to Soldiers (a military ID could get one gas w/out the tax). The idea was floated as a way to make the population feel the impacts of war that are currently reserved almost entirely to service members and their families. Obviously it's not entirely workable, but I do kind of like it...any suggestions on something similar but more workable?

wicker basket of bills

2011-04-04T19:32:00.000-07:00

I often write about my reminiscences of growing up, or, more accurately, about how those memories change as I grow to understand what was really happening. You see, as a child, you take things in like one who maybe can't speak spanish, but can see the emotions and images in a telenovela--you kind of know what's going on, but you fill in the blanks with what you imagine. And, as a child, what you imagine tends to be perfect.

So, I think as a child, I remember there was once a month when my mom and dad would get out this wicker basket that sat by the door, and sort through envelopes. Dad would have a calculator out, and he and mom would both put on their glasses. They would both look flustered and frustrated and often, they would rub their temples and shuffle the papers around. They were paying bills.

It seemed, as a child, that this task was an annoyance, but nothing too terrible. Now, as I sit to pay my own bills, and have only myself to pay for, I can only imagine how terrible a task that was. My father made less money than I did, and had built a house and was feeding three kids and a wife. My mom, at the same time, was trying to keep us clothed, entertained, fed and schooled...and then would sit down to the wicker basket of bills.

We weren't, by any means, poor--but we surely weren't rich either. I remember the luxury of going to a movie and what a treat it was. When An American Tale came out, we were going to see it as a family. My dad gave my mom a twenty dollar bill and she was going to take us...but we were playing grocery store before going to the movie. Playing involved using the coffee table as a grocery checkout and one of us would bring items and the other would "scan" them making a beeping noise. At one point, someone took the twenty and put it in the "cash register", which we didn't tell my mom, and the twenty was lost.

My mom was devestated. Without the twenty, not only could we not afford to go to the movies that day, but her chance to treat us to something out of the ordinary was also gone because we could afford such a treat only very rarely. Thinking that a lost twenty dollar bill (I know...inflation means it was worth more than twenty today...but still) would keep me from seeing a movie or otherwise doing what I want seems ridiculous to me now. I guess my point is just that...money isn't easy to come by for me today, and it was even harder for my parents.

It's so strange for me to pay my bills with the annoyance once a month of going online and pushing buttons. But for me, there are no checkbooks to balance and checks to ensure clear before writing another one. There are no annoying kids yelling for attention and ripping their nice pants. There are not fears of losing the house, or of having to save for college. And yet, I can empathize with what they did...for me. It's hard to think my parents were like me, or more appropriately, that I am like them, but that is the case. As for me, I'm more than OK with that, I'm happy with it. So few people do it right, but they did it right, and hopefully I can do the same...bills and all.

TARP

2011-04-04T10:27:00.001-07:00

So, TARP has actually MADE the government money? That's interesting. I wonder why this isn't bigger news. I can see a political ad where the Tea Partiers who were so staunch in using TARP as a political issue bad governance--all their compiled quotes about socialism and how government can't do anything effectively--followed by a voiceover with pictures of GM workers whose jobs were saved saying, "TARP will contribute $20 billion to the budget and has saved the jobs of X thousand General Motors workers...why are they against it?" Simple, but effective I'd imagine.

republican primaries

2011-03-27T07:56:00.001-07:00

The 2012 Republican Primaries are basically starting, or, at least, the posturing has begun. In Iowa there was a convention of conservatives recently. Here is my quick wrap-up of where things stand:

Tim Pawlenty- So, to sound more tolerable to the base, he's begun speaking with a southern drawl, and, of course, is anti-gay as far as one can be. Including calling transgendered people "deranged cross dressers".

Newt Gingrich- Thrice married, anti marriage equality Newt has one position he keeps consistently, and that is to say that whatever Obama is doing is wrong, regardless, even if it means contradicting himself. He also believes we can un-lift the gay ban (like T-paw) on the military. So, I guess all the gays who come out will either go back in the closet and all the straight people who know about them will pretend not to know anymore?

Michele Bachmann- Besides all her usual crazy, this is a woman who thinks if she reads it online, it's true.

Haley Barbour- Other than just being ridiculously boring, he seems sane enough other than the usual anti-gay stuff....oh, there was all that semi-racist stuff and lying about basic facts of the civil rights era.

Mike Huckabee- He recently called on "spiritual warriors" to protect America from "falling into the hands of those who would enslave us" and holy and to protect those things "that are pure and that are just." He was, of course, talking about keeping gays out of the army and from marrying.

Mitt Romney- Obamacare is bad, but the same thing from his own state when he was Governor was good...?

Herman Cain- He wants to be President, but simultaneously says he will not appoint any Muslims to any position because that would lead to Sharia Law. Nothing says "America" like blanket excluding people due to their religious beliefs! Oh, he also called the Democratic party a "plantation"...because, you know, personality politics and infusing race into things is in line with Conservativism.

So there you have it folks. A whole pack of people who think a large portion of Americans aren't deserving of rights (gays, atheists & Muslims) but who want to lead this country and everyone in it. Because nothing says "America" like dividing us into "real" and "fake". Maybe they should just change the saying from "out of many, one" into whatever is latin for "unless you're one of us, get out."

2011-03-27T07:34:00.000-07:00

Kansas Public Radio is really great. If you ever come to this state, be sure to listen to it. Their coverage of local politics is really amazing and some of the best I've heard. The other day there was a story about the Kansas State House passing a bill which would basically zone out strip clubs and require strippers to remain about a billion feet from any customer. They played clips of all the debate and explained the measure.

My favorite clip was one which, I think, quite aptly demonstrates the thought process of 1/2 (give or take) the Republican Party today, wherein on the one hand, government isn't the solution, it's the problem, but on the other hand, we need government to control our personal lives. Representative Forrest Knox said,

We don't need government to be our Momma. But, there's another American principle that's just as important--traditional family values.

So, there it is in a nutshell folks. We don't need government to do things like regulate how much we pollute the environment, track which toys have lead in them or protect workers from unsafe environments...but saving us from our own sexual vices? That's what government should be doing.

2011-03-21T17:00:00.000-07:00

The most trying times in my life, I've gone through with family, but alone emotionally. What I mean to say is, when my dad was dying, there were three couples--my sisters and their husbands, and my mom and dad--and me, alone. Later, as I was trying to decide if I should stay at West Point or not, and weighing my options, I was not only alone, but I didn't let my family know that I was thinking of quitting or why.

This is how I've learned to deal with life--alone. Not only that, but I've also made myself the "go to" for my mom and sisters. While they may deny this, or at least not really see it, it's been that way, and I don't mind. In fact, I like that they can come to me. But, having built those walls, it's very difficult to let them down and ask someone else for help or accept help when given.

I prefer, or at least am more comfortable with, saying, "there's nothing wrong" and dealing with it on my own in the privacy of my room and blog. Now, however, there are family issues, a few of them, and I have someone here. It's strange. I'm not sure how to deal with this.

There's a part of me that thinks, "well, this is nice..." but there's another part that wants to completely push away and say, "hey, can you come back in a few weeks when I've got this all figured out?" It's kind of sad, I think, that at thirty I've developed the emotional response of shutting people out because alone is the only way I'd ever dealt with life before.

2011-03-17T11:00:00.000-07:00

From what I gather in the news, it seems to me GOV Brown is doing some good things in California. To sum it up, he has made some cuts (some difficult ones) and is asking the state to vote on raising taxes. It's a fair way to do what is hard to do, and it should be an easy enough proposition--do the voters want to tax themselves to close the budget gap, or would they rather reform entitlements and spending to a degree largely unseen in the state. Republican lawmakers, however, are holding up a vote, deciding that they know better than the people.

Now, I know this may seem a hypocritical way of looking at things, considering my applauding the Senate Majority leader of Illinois for doing just this (being smarter than the voters). However, when someone prevents a vote on individual rights and freedoms, that, to me, is good governence. When someone prevents a vote on funding and budgets--that's obstructionism. Context matters, and in the case of California, it's time we were allowed to vote.

the 7% problem

2011-03-16T07:45:00.000-07:00

I was listening to KPR (which, interestingly, is probably the best NPR affiliate I've listened to) this morning and switched for some reason to the local top 40 station. They were interviewing Bradley Cooper, who seems very smart, and the female radio personality asked him if he would want to take a pill that would let him use 100% of his brain.

This is where the conversation went somewhere that confused me--she then answered her own question with, "I wouldn't. If God wanted us to use 100% of our brains he'd have made it so we do it automatically."

Um...is anyone else confused by this? If one attributes our brains to God, as well as our use of those brains, then wouldn't it mean our lack of use of them is either laziness or poor design? I really can't think of a good way out of this conundrum.

If anyone else can, please let me know...it's been bothering me since this morning.

sane conservatives

2011-03-15T13:38:00.000-07:00

If you've been reading me for a while, you've read my pleas for a sane conservatism which can actually temper left wing extremism--one that is not so ridiculously right wing that its ideas are easy to dismiss without contemplating them.

The Big Tent Revue Blog seems to be that. I don't agree with it all, but most of it is rather well thought out and, if it takes off, could possibly save the Republican Party from itself.