Beth's Contradictory Brain

Fantasy Cabinet

This became our lunch conversation - who I'd appoint to what cabinet positions. Nerdstar came up with the idea of fantasy cabinet, you know, like fantasy football.

I started off talking about Newt, and how he always plays coy with running for president. As they say, either shit or get off the pot. But even he knows he'd never win. Which led me to say I'd put him in charge of education and give him free reign. Abolish the DOE, find a way to really make schools competitive, and insure school choice.

Then we talked about how no GOP president would take that chance, because of Newt were really successful in overhauling education, then people would wonder what the president had achieved, and then Newt would be better positioned to run for president.

But I'd seriously be willing to risk being one term to see the schools in this country finally be all they can and should be.

Then I said I'd absolutely put Larry Kuldow in at Treasury and let him pick who'd be in charge of the IRS and budget stuff. We'd abolish the IRS, scrap the tax code and go to a true flat tax.

Now, I'm aware that those two moves alone would leave quite a few people unemployed. So I figure, take the total 3 year budgets of DOE and IRS and simply distribute them to all employees based on years of service as a pretty damn good severance. It'd still be cheaper in the long run.

I think I'd put Andy McCarthy in at state, unless he knew of someone who'd be better.

Charles Krauthammer would be special adviser to the WH.

As for DOD, I'm not really sure. But I'd get DOD and State together to hold a fire sale of all our older/unnecessary equipment to newly developing democracies. The proceeds would go straight to cutting the deficit.

I think it'd be cool to have Tammy Bruce as Press Secretary/PR. It'd just be fun.

I asked Nerdstar what her initiative as First Lady would be - she's not sure yet. I'm pretty sure it would involve food - but not in a nanny state way.

As I've learned from O's first 18 months. I'll just do whatever the hell I want, regardless of polls and whatnot, and see where it all ends up.

So, yeah. This is what we talk about over lunch.

Into The Fray Again

God help me... I'm going to blog about politics again. Sigh.

First, please read this post, it's short and hits on something I've been thinking about.

If gay marriage referendums have lost every time in the 31 states it's been tried... maybe it's time to change tactics.

I've been thinking and thinking about why it is conservatives are against gay marriage. Now, I am NOT going to jump into the "because they're all ignorant christianist bigots" camp. Some are, yes, but I don't think the majority of the 53% in Maine who voted against gay marriage fall into that camp. So there must be another issue.

Because true conservatism is about less govt. involvement and freedom and such (we had that discussion). So why don't the ideals of conservatism follow through to gay rights?

If gays really, really want to win over the majority in this country, and like it or not this is a basically conservative country (look at any red/blue county map of this whole country) then we've got to figure out what the basic objection is and change minds.

This is from a post on National Review's blog:

It now appears highly likely that, when all the votes are counted, Maine will join every other state in the union (which has had a popular vote on the issue) in rejecting gay marriage.

The battle will move next to D.C., while harassment will escalate against ordinary folks who have voted against same-sex marriage (especially in California and Washington).

Yes, it's absurd that a group of people who are less than 10% of the population receives such animosity instead of protection.

The one good thing every poll shows though is that younger voters are increasingly for gay rights. The bad part is it's not the young who vote.

Ok, I'm losing focus trying to write this. (I'm still short on sleep from yesterday.)

Another part of all of this - and yesterday's elections and probably 2010 elections - is that gay issues are tied to Democrat issues. And for the near future, those issues are losing ones. Health care, Cap and Trade, stimulus spending etc. were all being voted against in high numbers yesterday. And if what the Dems in DC are doing is going to cause the conservative majority in this country to come out and vote even more - well, gays have a HUGE problem. And current tactics won't change that.

All I can think is that all politics are local, and if we get involved on the local levels - like the lesbian in Houston in the blog post linked above - we can affect change.

Debate

In the comments in my past three posts or so, we're kind of having a friendly debate about which political party is better for gay rights and personal freedom. Read those comments because I don't want to write all of that again.

What I want to do in this post is just put up some links I read in the past twenty minutes of web surfing that illustrate why I'm so opposed to the current Dems and their seeming attempts to regulate every part of this country and our lives.

Outlawing TVs in California.

The effects of the government takeover of parts of the auto industry: here.

The effects of the government taking over parts of the banking industry: one and two

How about the administration's use of the television networks after the NEA and White House were already exposed for trying something similar.

This is just from this morning. And it doesn't start to address all the things the nanny state will want to impose on us if health care is passed in the efforts to make us all "healthy".

So, does it suck that we can't currently be foster parents? Yes. And it's wrong. But if any of what the Dems currently want to do happens - that stuff will suck so much more. And I believe it'll be much harder to undo than laws prohibiting gay equality.

UPDATE:

Sometimes my comments get wonky on my website - I have no idea why it denies people sometimes.

Here is an email from someone whose comment didn't go through:

sageweb wrote:

Here is what I tried to post:
I know I won't change your mind, (I am not trying too) but the articles you linked are preposterous. I live in California, and I have close friends that work for Panasonic, designing and engineering TV's that are more energy efficient. We do still build a few things here. That wasn't the point of the article but when it starts with a blatant lie, it is hard to swallow the author knows what they are talking about. Also the admin take over of TV networks is hilarious. Go to some other countries and see what tv is like when the government is in control... Nothing like that will ever happen in this country. So articles aside, I realize there are some great values and ideas on the conservative side, that said.... please look into the voting records of these politicians on gay rights. Set all other things aside. You need a politician that will help you NOW! Help you with your quest to foster a child who needs a home. There is plenty of time to change the other things in the country.

More Live and Let Live

This is sort of what I'm talking about when I say I used to feel government and I had a live and let live agreement. And that more and more I feel government is getting way to involved in my day to day life. As a lesbian I don't want them in my bedroom. As a Christian I don't want them saying their two cents about what I believe. And the one I really don't understand is how in the name of "climate change" and "saving the Earth" we've let not only the government, but also "Big Evil Corporations" such as GE tell us what light bulbs to use, what type of bag to take our groceries home in, etc. Why are people so eager to let all this stuff be regulated for them?

My Best Tax Idea

I posted this as a comment over on CaliValleyGirl's blog:

I have always wanted there to be a way on our tax forms for us to at least be able to say I want X amount of my taxes to go to X,Y and Z. That way we'd have some sort of say in how our tax dollars are spent. Even if we could only designate half of our tax dollars - then we'd have a much truer voice in government.

My First Protest

Yes, today was my first political rally/protest. Yes, I have always had lots of opinions on politics, but as I recently wrote, I also felt it was a live and let live situation. Now, I feel the current government is getting close to implementing too many policy changes that would be detrimental to this country, it's economy, and my life. Not to mention, as long as Geithner is Treasury Secretary, then the rest of us paying our taxes just seems wrong.

Anyway. It's 50 degrees with a steady rain here in DC today. At 10:15 I got in the DC Metro to head over to Lafayette Park across from the White House. Just in my train car alone there were three families with kids headed down there as well.

I got there about 11:15 and there were already over 1000 people there. (I've read there might have been 3000 there.) The weather just kept getting worse. They had a stage and speakers but I never could really see or hear whoever was speaking. That and the weather is why I didn't stay for the whole thing.

I spent a lot of time watching different, mostly small, media people talking with people at the protest. I'm never sure the people who WANT to talk to the media are always the best representatives of the majority of people there. Of course, the 3 women from Code Pink got lots of media attention. The first "media" people I encountered had "whitehouse.com" on their mic. I heard one of the women telling the other - "Just cut them off, these people tend to ramble." I laughed and asked her why even ask questions if she didn't want to hear the answers. Naturally, they spent over five minutes talking with the Code Pink chicks.

I wish the weather had been better and I'd had a chance to talk to more of the people there. They all seemed very nice. Lots of funny signs I failed to take pics of.

I think for a lot of people there, like me, it's about getting out there and being counted, being heard. The media definitely doesn't represent our point of view.

UPDATE: Some good pics I didn't take

Getting It Out

Ok, so I've probably been wearing out the political stuff on Twitter and FB, but... let me see if I can get some of this out of my brain.

I was not impressed with O before the election, but hoped he'd be benign. I had a feeling he was more liberal than a lot of people wanted to believe, but hoped that there'd be the usual checks and balances and government moving at the speed of molasses so that he wouldn't be able to do too much damage.

It's been worse than I expected. And I'm not sure a lot of people are grasping the big picture of what he wants to do in/to this country.

What really put me on the edge was watching his press conference yesterday about the auto industry. Oddly enough, we were at the Toyota service place at the time - getting great customer service.

First there's the whole issue of a president "asking" the CEO of a private company to resign. Unimaginable. To my way of thinking, literally un-American. Now, because it's not fair that the car company CEO was made to quit and not the bank CEOs, well, let's compound the wrongs by making some bank CEOs resign, too.

Now, I'm not saying these people deserve their jobs. I am saying, and will always say, that's none of the government's business. No, they shouldn't have given any of these companies taxpayers money either. The banks and the auto companies should have gone into bankruptcy back in Nov/Dec. The stock market and economy might be doing better if they had. (Water under the bridge I know.)

About 2/3 of the way through the press conference I turned to Nerdstar and asked what is O's real goal with all of this. Shortly after that, he spoke about green/energy efficient cars. Got it. This is about taking over American car companies and mandating they make green cars. Now, just making those two car companies produce green cars doesn't mean the public has to buy them. Well, that's where his broader energy policies come into play. There is plenty of drilling domestically we could be doing, but congress is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. (They just declared the areas with a big percentage of oil in the West off limits.) Don't like producing our own oil? Fine, then how about building new nuclear facilities? They don't want to do that either. What they do want to do is inflate gas prices so that those green cars are more attractive. We know from last summer that gas prices over $4 are a tipping point. So if they can - through taxes if all else fails - get gas back over $4, and make two American car companies produce green cars, well, they're halfway there.

But, there's those tricky "foreign" cars that are made here in American and are oh so popular. Well, that's easily remedied by taxing those companies/cars, imposing tariffs, and good old buyer incentive programs. (Those are already being talked about in congress.)

So far, and in a pretty short amount of time, O has tried like hell to take over the financial system - dictating salaries of lots of people on Wall Street, not just CEOs of companies who took TARP, and now the auto industry. We know health care and education aren't far behind.

Is there a role for government in any of those things? Maybe. A very limited role.

But more alarming to me is the way O is going about trying to achieve his goals. He talks a lot about openness and transparency. But do you believe if he actually came out and said the end game was taking all of this over and selling only green cars people would actually go along? No. That's why he's using the crisis and pushing things through as fast as possible.

On top of that, congress passed the mandatory community service legislation HR 1388 Give Act. While cutting tax breaks on philanthropy, so there is less private giving, he's making sure government picks up the slack. Because government is so much more efficient at helping people.

Ok Ok. I know this is long. I used to feel that my relationship with my government was live and let live. They could have their power lunches, fail to pay their taxes, take their trips all over the globe, whatever. And I'd live my little life.

But no longer. I feel big government breathing down my neck. And I just wish I knew a real way to make it stop.

Fiddling?

Let me take a little break from my house hunting woes and write about politics, it's so much more cheerful. Heh.

Ok, Obama has been in office about six weeks now. He took a break to go read to kids at some elementary school. He took a break and took the family to Camp David to check it out. He and Michelle spent Valentine's weekend in Chicago. And Friday night he took another break to check out the Wizards v Bulls and then spent a couple of hours shooting hoops. (No, I don't feel like finding links to all those news stories.)

He repeatedly tells us we're in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Is he fiddling while Rome burns, or does he not believe his own doom and gloom?

Stimulus Bullshit

Ok, I'm not going to write a very long post about this because I'd end up cussing a lot more than Christian Bale!!

This is the biggest theft of citizens by our government ever. And no one is reporting or acknowledging that the American people are increasingly - with improved information - completely rejecting this spending bill.

Our government is scaring us into giving them the biggest government we've ever seen. This is a bold faced power grab that could bankrupt this country for decades.

I'm outraged. I've written all my reps. Wish there was more I could do. Hell, I'm tempted to make some big signs and go protest outside the capital.

Watching White House Press Briefings

Yes, I'm that bored, but I'm also that interested in what the hell the O administration is up to.

So here's a little update about the stimulus package:

A reporter today asked why the bill wasn't available on the White House website in spite of O's promise of transparency - namely this that I quoted the other day: "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." (Unfortunately the reporter didn't seem to know that the bill can be found online - just not on the White House site.) What this means according to the Press Secretary is that a bill can pass the House and Senate before the O administration will put it online. The problem with that is - well - at that point a bill is already passed and ready for signature, it's not like O's going to start vetoing things because us little citizens have concerns during those 5 days any bill might be available online.

I keep thinking that O is a much better legal mind that I would have given him credit for. He's certainly good at writing and using loopholes.

A different reporter tried to ask about the real cost of the stimulus packing - saying that the total cost must include the billions in interest that will have to be paid in the future. Mr. Press Secretary tried to wiggle out of it, but ended up using buying a house as an analogy saying "what is the cost of a house you buy?" implying it's the amount of the mortgage, NOT the total cost you end up paying over the total time of the loan. Bad math, misleading math.

I feel like this stimulus package is like an earthquake out in the middle of the ocean that's going to produce a tsunami across this country that will have terrible results of a much, much bigger government resulting in a huge loss of personal freedom, and a national debt that will cripple us.

Read the Stimulus

In spite of this promise that was on change.gov: "Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." I know - the relevant phrase is "non-emergency".

The Stimulus Bill isn't available on whitehouse.gov.

Here is where it is.

Just Wondering

Now that Hollywood has apparently found patriotism, what will their upcoming movies, music, etc be like? Because I can't even imagine it. None of their anti-war/anti-Bush movies did very well at the box office. They've spent at least the last seven years thinking they live in the worst country in the world - and overnight that changed. How will that translate into their work??

Inauguration Day

TImes like this make me acutely aware that I am no writer. History was made today. 2 million people in DC today - amazing. Only God knows the number if tears of joy shed today. A flubbed oath, but it was good to see they're all just human.

Just like New Year's and birthdays - I believe dates and times of change are significant. While I believe Obama to be a good man (I've seen no evidence to the contrary), my hope for the future is not because of him, may even be a little in spite of him, but still, my hope is great.

I pray God fills him with wisdom and courage. I pray He protects and comforts him.

Hope Deferred

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

I imagine if Obama makes this change cleanly at any time in his term, he'll be fondly remembered. Still, his apparent unwillingness to be bold on something he considers a matter of both justice and wise policy--and that he has clear political support on--should be disconcerting to his fans.

I think

this video pretty much speaks for itself. Sad, sad, sad. I know this would probably hold true in my current job as well. There are three Republicans and six Democrats. Us three Republicans know a LOT more about Obama/Biden.

Before Change Changes Again

I wanted to look up some info on the inauguration, because everyone I work with is trying to figure out how to go...

I saw that The Agenda is back on Change.gov. But even just under civil rights there are a lot of changes, specifically - thankfully - regarding gay rights. Here's what's new:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Biggest Government Ever?

This is all straight from Change.gov the Homeland Security section. This doesn't even look at his ideas for education or health care.

Is that what you voted for?

Barack Obama will establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to work to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military. Who are civilian aid workers?

Barack Obama will appoint a deputy national security advisor to be in charge of coordinating all U.S. programs aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism and weapons proliferation.

Barack Obama will declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset and will establish the position of national cyber advisor who will report directly to the president and will be responsible for coordinating federal agency efforts and development of national cyber policy.

Barack Obama will improve our intelligence system by creating a senior position to coordinate domestic intelligence gathering; establishing a grant program to support thousands more state and local level intelligence analysts and increasing our capacity to share intelligence across all levels of government. I thought that's what the FBI/CIA were for.

the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board needs to be substantially reformed and empowered to safeguard against an erosion in American civil liberties. As president, Barack Obama will support efforts to strengthen the Board with subpoena powers and reporting responsibilities, will give the Board a robust mandate designed to protect American civil liberties and will demand transparency from the Board to ensure accountability. WTF?

Overseas, Barack Obama will establish a Shared Security Partnership Program to invest $5 billion over three years to improve cooperation between U.S. and foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies. again - WTF?

create a National Family Locator System to help families locate loved ones after a disaster. As president, Obama will further improve coordination between all levels of government, create better evacuation plan guidelines, ensure prompt federal assistance to emergency zones, and increase medical surge capacity.

He will appoint a National Chief Technology Officer who will have the responsibility to ensure that the current non-interoperable plans at the federal, state, and local levels are combined, funded, implemented and effective.

Barack Obama will support the virtual and physical infrastructure and manpower necessary to secure our borders and keep our nation safe. He's going to build a fence along the border?

Barack Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation.

Obama will establish a Grid Modernization Commission to facilitate adoption of Smart Grid practices to improve efficiency and security of our electricity grid. He will also build on his work in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the federal government prioritizes strengthening our critical infrastructure.

Change.Gov

The Obama team has set up a pretty decent website with lots of information about their plans. Change.gov

I'm not sure who wrote all of this or when, but there are a lot of very detailed plans - some of which sound good to me, some of which I have questions about. If you scroll to the bottom of the home page, there is a list under "The Agenda" where these plans are. Mostly I wonder where he'll get the money for most of it. Especially when I read the segment on education.

Anyway.

Only because of my faith in God am I suspending my anger and disappointment and am trying very hard to at least "wait and see" what really transpires.

Prop 8

Did not fail because of white, conservative voters, it appears it lost because of black and Latino Obama voters:

In California, it looks like Prop 8 has a good chance of passing. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, the gay marriage ban is winning 52 percent to 48 percent. And if it does pass, it will be because of black and, to a lesser extent, Latino voters.

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. (Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

Exhausted Thoughts

I am completely exhausted. I got up at 4 a.m. as planned. Got to the polling place at 4:50 as planned. Got home at 11:45 p.m. - not as planned. Our voting machine temporarily crashed and it took a long time to get it back and get all the vote tallies - all our numbers added up at the end of the night.

I am not happy with the outcome of this election - BUT...

For several days now as the election neared, I realized just how important Obama's election would be to so many of the people in this country. Decent, honest, hard working people, who have nothing to do with the media, or what I believe is Obama's desire for socialism in this country. And I realized how sad I would be - for them - if he lost.

And so in some way, there is a part of me that is truly happy for those supporters of his. (Supporters like Oprah can kiss my ass.)

I believe none of us know who Obama really is, or how he will be as president. I have to maintain faith in God and this country. Which tonight is admittedly hard to do. But in another four years is another election. And as long as those elections, and changes of power in this country continue to be peaceful - I can deal with it.

24 Hours

24 hours from now the polls will be closing here on the east coast.

I will probably be up for 24 hours starting at 4 a.m. tomorrow morning.

I have to be at the polling place before 5 a.m. so we can take our oath as election officials AT 5 a.m. Then we have an hour to get the place ready for the first voter at 6 a.m.

The polls here in Virginia close at 7 p.m. and I hope and pray a judge somewhere doesn't decide to extend the hours.

As long as someone is in line at 7 p.m. they will get to vote. I have no idea how many people will be in line at that time, or how long it will take to process them all. Our election chief dude says it then takes at least an hour and a half to close up everything, make sure all the numbers match, and sign all the necessary paperwork.

I do not get to leave the building until everything is finished tomorrow night. I'm packing lunch and dinner!

I'm nervous and excited about it all. Mostly I can't wait for it all to be over. But I'm also cautiously optimistic about McCain's chances tomorrow.

I'm also aware of just how upset, sad and disappointed Obama supporters will be if he loses. And I'll feel bad about that. But I truly pray he does.

The Role Of Government

I've written about this a little here and here.

I have very simple ideas about the role of government. It should be a small as possible.

The federal government's most important role is to protect and defend this country. That said, I also have very simple ideas about the military - there should be set requirements for any/every job and whoever can pass those requirements can do that job, regardless of any other factor - age, gender, sexuality, anything.

I believe that jail/prisons should be for violent crimes only. Things like drugs and prostitution should be legalized and taxed heavily. People in jail/prison should work, get an education, and be given very few creature comforts.

I believe the constitution is clear in it's meaning. It's not living and breathing. If people in any given state or city feel the need to pass laws regarding social issues - that's their right. It is not the role of the federal government in any way shape or form.

As I've stated time and again, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free markets. I believe in flat taxes with no loopholes. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income. I do not, will not ever believe in the welfare state and certainly not in socialism. You cannot take away the incentives and rewards of hard work and expect people to work hard.

I believe people should take care of themselves and their families. There is nothing constitutional about the welfare state, nationalized health care, etc. I believe in philanthropy and charity and neighbor helping neighbor. In no circumstances should the government be the middle man taking money from one and giving it to another - period.

So, regarding this upcoming election...

If I believed for one second that a true majority of people in this country want to vote for a more socialist government - knowing what that means and what the likely results would be - I would accept that. I would then do everything in my power to reverse that course.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the people are well informed about this choice.

If any of this comes across as making me a liberal - then I have no idea what that word means.

ADDED: I just found this post I wrote about Obama back on July 27th, 2004 - the comments are even more telling.

I Gotta Ask

What you all think of Obama's remark about wanting to "redistribute the wealth"? Do you think it accurately reflects his views, that he wants to overhaul the tax system, as he's said to, "make it more fair"?

Do you think you'd fall into the group of people whose "wealth" would be taken or would you be the one being given to? Do you really think taxes are that unfair now?

UPDATE: Here's an interview with the plumber who asked Obama about taxes.

JW is the plumber...
one part:

PM: Still, in that vein, Obama says he doesn’t want to “punish” you, but he wants to – let me see if I can see what his exact quote was…

JW: Redistribute the wealth.

PM: …taxing small businesses making $250,000 and above is going to help the people “behind you.” And yes, “spreading the wealth around.” How did you feel about that?

JW: As soon as he said it, he contradicted himself. He doesn’t want to “punish” me, but – when you use the word “but,” you pretty much negate everything you just said prior to that. So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to ...

It was just a contradiction of terms, what he said: he doesn’t want to punish me but he wants to redistribute my wealth. And what I mean when I say my wealth, I mean the collective. Eventually – I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?

part two
JW: Essentially what that would do is, I’d have to see how much money is available after everything else is paid, to see if I can one, afford a new vehicle, two, outfit it, and then three, pay a good salary. And if I’m being taxed too much, one of those three things is going to get shorted. One, I won’t be able to buy as good a good vehicle or I won’t stock it as well, or the guy I hire – if I’m able to hire somebody – is not going to make as much as he should.

PM: Obama gave you quite a long answer, I see, on Jake Tapper’s blog on ABC News. He did give you quite an extensive answer to your question talking about a 50% tax credit for healthcare costs, that sort of thing, and he talked about the reason he’s doing this – saying 95% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. He talked about your time as a plumber– you said you’ve been a plumber for 15 years?

PM: Okay, and then he talked about 10, 15 years ago maybe you weren’t making that sort of money, how would you feel – if you were just starting out, or maybe looking back – the kind of tax cut that he’s promising for other people, does that still make you think that that’s a great idea?

JW: No. See, I believe in working for what I get. I don’t want to say it’s a handout, but essentially that’s what it comes down to. You’re going to tax someone else more that’s been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you’re gonna give it to other people who – I’m not saying they don’t work as hard, but I’m sure some of them don’t – and I don’t think it’s right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even. So no, that wouldn’t – well, let me rephrase that. It would appeal to me because back then I was struggling. That kind of thing appeals to me – anybody wants to cut my taxes, I look at it very seriously, it’s like, it sounds great. But you gotta see what the other hand is doing too.

PM: Still, in that vein, Obama says he doesn’t want to “punish” you, but he wants to – let me see if I can see what his exact quote was…

JW: Redistribute the wealth.

PM: That’s fair enough. Could it be that people won’t be as productive? If you’re going to be paying more taxes, why should you be more productive when you could possibly take home the same amount without being as productive? Do you agree with that?

JW: That’s the catch right there. Some people will agree with that. Some people will say, “Well, I’m not gonna work for the stars or shoot for ‘em because if I do, I’m gonna be punished, or I’m gonna be subjugated to more taxes,” or for whatever they wanna do. So yeah, I would agree to that to a point. Some people will say, “Well you know, I still want this, I’m still gonna work hard and try to make that happen for myself” And then other people are gonna sit back – and then you look at mediocrity for the country, and I don’t like that idea.

PM: What do you think that Obama’s tax plan will do to entrepreneurship in general in this country?

JW: It’ll definitely make people think twice about it. It’s not something that they’re gonna just rush into. It’s a tax increase, but it’s not a 50% tax increase. It’s not gonna keep everybody from doing it – some people might decide not to, but I don’t think it would keep everybody from doing it.

I Voted

I had a two hour training session for working the polls on election day this afternoon. (Nerdstar keeps joking that I should do pole training instead...) Anyway. Out of at least 40 people, there were only 2 of us under 60. And you know how I feel about old people.

Because our work day on election day starts at 5 A.M. and won't end until probably 10 P.M. they encouraged us to do early/absentee voting which was available upstairs in the same building. So, I did.

I'm glad to see Virginia is moving towards paper ballots that get scanned like Scantron stuff does. They still have the touch screen machines, but my understanding is those are being phased out.

For now people have the choice between paper or touch screen. It seems it's pretty hard to screw up either way. You scan your paper ballot immediately and it kicks it out for obvious errors, like voting for two presidential candidates.

It should be an exhausting, long, long day Nov. 4, but at least I won't be at home watching the news all day!

The Court Is In Session

I got my butt out of bed at 6:15 this morning and took the Metro down to the capitol area and went and sat in on the Supreme Court hearings today. How cool is that?

I got in line about 8:00 and finally got into the courtroom about 11:15. Thank God it is an absolutely beautiful day outside! It's a very small courtroom. It'd be nice if they barred bored high schoolers from having to sit in. There are two ways to get in; one is to take your chances and stand in line and hope for an open seat for either of the two morning hearings. Or, you can do a shorter line and only be in the courtroom for 3-5 minutes. I took my chances and got to sit in on most of the second hearing.

This is the case I sat in on:

UPDATE: Thankfully, The Volokh Conspiracy has a post about the trial I sat in on yesterday, with a link to the whole transcript.

This post about the upcoming SC term is worth reading.

The Justices were engaged and even funny when questioning the lawyers. You must really, really know your case histories and everything related to your issue to argue before the Supreme Court.

After that I had to pass the Library of Congress building to get back to the Metro, so I stopped in for a while. They've got a replica of part of Thomas Jefferson's library. He had almost 7000 books and when the original LOC was burned down, he sold his library to them for them to start over. Unfortunately, 2/3 of that was later burned as well. That brings tears to my eyes.

There was also "the Giant Bible of Mainz, signifies the end of the handwritten book — and the other, the Gutenberg Bible" on display.

They also had a very cool exhibit set up in a small room about Bob Hope. He actually made a catalog of over 85,000 pages of jokes. Amazing.

McCain and the Washington Blade

Here's McCain's interview with DC's gay newspaper, The Washington Blade.

Blogging and Politics

What is it about this election that has everyone so uptight and angry and unable to talk about any of it? Most of the regular people bloggers I read (unlike Instapundit and Althouse) and are on my blogroll are refusing to blog about politics and don't even like reading about it on other people's blogs.

I mostly feel the same way. But I also find that it's just too important to me to not blog about.

As contentious as 2004 was. And Bush was much more reviled than either Obama or McCain. But I don't remember it making people feel the way we feel now.

What's going on? I guess I'm not asking why you're voting the way you're going to vote, or why you support who you support, but why we can't have civil conversations about all of it.

UPDATE: Ugh. My own blog denies my comments. Go figure. Here it is: I know comments can be icky sometimes - and I thank God I don't have that problem. But I still think there's something else going on with politics this time around.

Sarah Palin's Gay Best Friend

While the line about her friend "made a choice" doesn't thrill me, at least she has a lesbian as one of her best friends. I think that's cool.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has a much longer post about this part of the interview.

I know a lot of people are all worried that Palin wants to impose whatever religious ideas she holds on the whole country, but from what I've read she's very clear about separating her beliefs from public policy. Unlike Obama and imposing his socialist ideas as policy.

Restraint

It's taking a lot of self restraint to not start blogging politics non-stop. Unfortunately, I have a feeling both sides of this contest are pretty well entrenched, and I'm not looking to fight.

All I will say is that Obama scares the hell out of me. But his more rabid followers, those who have truly imbibed the Kool Aid scare me even more. (I do not think any of my regular readers are Kool Aid drinkers.)

If you read through a day's postings over on National Review's The Corner, that's the information about Obama that scares me. The World Poverty Bill, the suppression of dissent. That sort of thing. Things I'm sure 80% of his voters don't even know about. Which is also scary.

See, I just can't help myself. At least you're not here to listen to me yell at the tv!

Obama's Community Organizing vs deTocqueville's Democracy

This post over on Volokh by Jim Lindgren is the best I've read about what Obama tried to achieve in Chicago, how he wasn't at all successful, and how he changed over time.

There's another post over on Volokh about Obama's proposal that all public middle and high school students perform community service, such as picking up trash, for 50 hours every year and almost all college students will be induced to do 100 hours of service each year at an effective salary of $40 an hour tax free. resulting in: if a student graduates from college, he will have done on average about 11 years of community service, at a minimum of 50-100 hours each year. Almost all college graduates will have spent a total workweek equivalent of at least four to five months of their lives working in Mr. Obama’s “national security force,” starting at the tender age of 11.

That is why I could never vote for Obama. I don't share his views of the role/responsibility of the government.

I never did finish reading Democracy in America, I stopped reading when I went to Cali and just didn't pick it back up. I did, however, pick up Journey to America, deTocqueville's journals about his travels for 10 months throughout America. It's easier to read.

A couple of quotes I really liked - keep in mind this was written in 1831-32:

The greatest merit of the government of the United States is that it is powerless and passive. In the actual state of things, in order to prosper America has no need of skillful direction, profound designs or great effort. But need of liberty and still more liberty. (He's referring to personal liberty.)

Another principle of American society of which one must never lose sight: every individual being the most competent judge of his own interest, society must not carry its solicitude on his behalf too far, for fear that in the end he might come to count on society, and so a duty might be laid on society which is is incapable of performing.

If there was ever a better warning against the welfare state - over 100 years before it started - I've never read it.

One of the happiest consequences of the absence of government is the ripening of individual strength which never fails to follow therein. Each man learns to think and to act for himself without counting on the support of any outside power which, however watchful it be, can never answer all the needs of man in society.

Palin's Speech

I think it's almost to the point where the internet will break if any more people write/blog/comment on her speech last night - so I'll keep mine short.

I had a blast watching her speak last night. She was fun and tough. I also loved watching Rudy. It's a damn shame it's not him and Sarah instead of McCain.

If you're not a long time reader, you can go through my politics archives and see my political history. I vote Republican because national defense and taxes are two things that matter the most to me when voting.

Hurray For Palin

Wow. I have not been enthusiastic about McCain being the Republican nominee. Guliani was my first choice long ago, even though he probably wouldn't have made a great president.

Anyway, the more I've seen of Obama, the more the idea of him actually being president scares me.

So I was a little worried this morning waiting to hear who McCain had picked for VP.

Then once I knew it was Gov. Palin, I spent the rest of the day kinda excited. I've known for a while now there was a remote chance she'd be the pick.

For the first time in my life I'll actually be happy to vote for who I'm voting for.

That Event This Week

Anybody else watching the convention? I've mostly just watched Hillary and Bill's speeches - I wanted to watch it for myself before reading all the commentaries on different websites. I've had it on in the background a little, until I can't stand it anymore.

Yes, I'll be watching parts of the convention next week, too.

One thing I haven't mentioned yet, because it's still a ways off - I have volunteered to work at my local polling place on election day. It's a very, very small way to participate and contribute. I have to be there at 5 a.m. and stay until it's all done that night. Should be interesting.

Anyway - thoughts on any/all of it?? I'm not going to throw out my two cents just yet. I know I'm outnumbered around here politically :-)

Best Ever

While I'm sure you're going to be very tempted to just ignore the Paris Hilton political ad - DON'T. I'd say it's the best political ad ever.

Curious

Because the majority of my readers are Dems, I thought I'd ask you all about this Florida and Michigan delegate/primaries fiasco... Do you think they should stick to their original ruling and no FL/MI. Do you think there should be a redo? Do you count the votes as already cast?

And does it all embarrass you?

I don't think there's a good answer or graceful way out of this mess, but I'm not invested in the answer really.

State of the Union

I'm watching in on C-Span as I always do. Love C-Span!

I think he should have a one sentence speech.

"What is the state of the union? - Fantastic!!" And then wave and walk off! Wouldn't that be cool??

It's so weird to think that all of those people are kinda just down the street from where I'm sitting right now.

Hillary as Tracy Flick

This video cracked me up!

Thoughts on the race...

I am well aware that most of my readers are much more liberal than I am and are rooting for the Dems to win everything. I can live with that :-)

Tonight at dinner I decided that a Guiliani/Romney ticket just might be the winning ticket. Sorry readers, I just don't see the Dems pulling it out this year. And I think that G/R ticket could make enough Repubs happy. Now, I have no idea if the two men can even stand being in the same room together.

And I almost feel sorry for Hillary today. She actually had to break out the holding back the tears/poor me act today. How low for a strong feminist woman to go. But, things are not going as she has planned for all these years. I don't think she saw Obama coming. He takes away her "let's make history" side of her case - it's just as big, if not bigger, for history if a black man is elected president as if a woman is. And how terrible it must be for her that stupid ole Bill got to be president and smart her didn't. It's so unfair.

So who do you guys want on the Dem ticket as P and VP? Is there any chance in hell Hillary would take the VP spot?

Interesting

With Nerdstar away from home, I've got too much time on my hands. Well, ok, I could be doing something useful like cleaning house, but, I'm not. (I did a little earlier, then lost interest.)

My blog reading expands a lot on days like this when I can follow links from one place to another.

Today I ran across this post that rounds up the "black blogosphere's" reaction to Obama's new success. Here's another roundup. (I'm still surfing around.)

I'm actually listening to both the republican and democrat debates tonight. I've long thought Guiliani will be president, but man, Fred looks better and better all the time. And while I think it's cool Obama is doing well, I am pretty sure a republican will be president in '09.

Interesting

I've long had mixed feelings about Oprah. One the one hand you've got to give her credit for her longevity and all that m-o-n-e-y! On the other hand, well, I don't really like her.

That said.

I find that, for her, race trumps gender.

I think we can all agree that her longevity and money are both due to her loyal, white, suburban audience.

Yet, her first romp in politics is to back Obama not Hillary.

Really?

Isn't Oprah all about empowering women??

Because I can't really believe that she's baking Obama for his policies or ideas. Not that I could tell you with any certainty just what Oprah's politics are.

Too bad no one in the media/press has the balls to ask her if she'd be out campaigning for Hillary as the first woman president if Obama weren't in the race.

Somehow I don't think she would be.

Dems and DADT

Interesting point... from a comment to a post by Althouse.

IN THE COMMENTS: Simon writes:

Congressman Gary Ackerman is full of it. I never tire of pointing out that the Defense Department doesn't have a "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' [policy] when it comes to homosexuals," Congress imposes that policy on the Department of Defense by statutory law, 10 U.S.C. § 654. Since they have a nice, shiny new majority, and since they clearly have such disdain for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why doesn't the new Democratic majority repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? Has Congressman Ackerman introduced a bill so to do? Why not?

Now that they're back in the majority, Democrats have no standing whatsoever to criticize Don't Ask Don't Tell until they at least move a bill repealing it through Congress (even if it ultimately gets vetoed). This isn't a military policy. It's Congress' policy. And guess what, Democrats? That means it's now your policy. Take that back to 'Frisco on your private jet, Nancy.

Why Do We Have to Choose?

I've often wondered if it's more comfortable being more conservative living among liberals or more liberal living among conservatives. Not that I think I fall on either end of the spectrum. Having moved from Austin to KC, I can definitely tell you I prefer living amongst the liberals - they just seem to have more fun. There just aren't a lot of neighborhoods full of conservative gay people!

Eden writes similar thoughts...

I'm tired of mostly-natural, overpriced food being the exclusive domain of the left. As a libertarian, I tend to find the far left as offensive as the far right, but is it right to feel as unwelcome at a grocery store as I would at an NRA rally? I believe both in natural foods and gun ownership, but I don't buy into the political package that accompanies either. Even my neighborhood can be uncomfortable sometimes. I live in a lovely area full of community-minded people, including an unusual proportion of openly gay folks. That's great, but now democratic political signs have started sprouting up like dandelions and even our neighborhood association newsletter is full of anti-Republican rants. My car is parked among a fleet of vehicles with anti-Bush bumper stickers, some of which are downright offensive even to someone who doesn't like the man. Sure, I could have chosen to live in one of the righty enclaves instead, but I would have been no more at home there amongst the Republican signs and omnipresent flags. It's almost enough to make a gal want to join the Free State Project, if only to live somewhere that I don't have to bite my tongue and smile politely every time someone mentions politics.

Tired

I'm so tired of world events. It's not that I don't care, it's not that there aren't things I truly wish were being done. I'm just tired of it all. I'm tired of all the playing politics with such life and death issues. I'm tired if dickhead terrorists. I'm tired of politicians from all over the world being pussies when it comes to dealing with said terrorists. I'm tired of bullshit media reports.

Immigration

A few thoughts.

My Nerdstar is an immigrant. Her whole entire family came over here in bit and pieces, over many years. It took her seventeen years to get her citizenship - not even military service sped it up. (I'll get to military and citizenship in a minute.)

I've never been a big fan of this dual language stuff. I don't think forms, signs, etc. should be in anything but English. When I went to spend a week in Mexico City with a friend from college, everyone there asked why I hadn't learned Spanish - they'd all learned English when there were in that States. The difference being, they went to college here, I was only there for a week.

But I think one of the most obvious dis-incentives that has to be addressed by anyone serious about immigration reform is that currently any baby born in the US is automatically a citizen. I think it should be changed to at least one parent having to be a US citizen and the baby being born here.

Then you stop all the free healthcare, welfare, and maybe even school. Although both Nerdstar and I know it would be incredibly hard to start denying children an education.

But what's really most interesting to me is how this issue became so big over a short period of time.

Excuse me?

I can't even say how much this pisses me off.

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make
marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana,
including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do
become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for
motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was
introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's
Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the
bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this
month.

There's info in the linked site to contact relevant state reps, etc.

Found via Jeff, check out his post and the comments.

I Did It

I voted yesterday. I went to the mall where they had early voter set up, showed my voter registration card, signed my name, got instructions on the electronic voting machine and did it. I didn't ask what happens if I show up on election day proper and try to vote again - how would it be detected, but I was tempted to. They did check my voter registration card in a computer, so maybe they do keep a database of who's already voted.

Yes, I voted for Bush. You know how many people are voting for Kerry because of how much they hate Bush, well, I think it came down to me voting against Kerry like that. The way most of my readers feel about Bush and Republicans is how I feel about Kerry and Democrats, I just can't stand them. (Please be clear that I don't mean my readers who are Democrats, I mean the leaders of the Democratic Party.)

I'd give my right arm for a true third party candidate in '08. If I had any idea how to make it happen I would. I don't believe the majority of Americans are truly represented by either the Republicans or the Democrats.

On the other candidates on the ballot I admit I didn't know a damn thing about any of them. So, if there was a Liberterian (damn if I can ever spell that right) I voted for them, otherwise I left that choice blank. And I'll never understand why there are places to vote for someone running unopposed.

One of the main reasons I went ahead and voted was to vote against light rail here in Austin. Yes, it's a nice idea, but no one will use it, so why spend the money? We've got road construction going on all over the city, which while that is always behind demand, is at least logical.

Get It Over With Already

I pretty much stopped talking politics on here a while ago. It just didn't seem to be worth it, I'm pretty sure most of my regular readers have known for a long time who they were going to vote for, and any brilliant thoughts on here weren't going to change that.

Then Nerdstar's homecoming and our roadtrip pretty much got me weaned off of obsessing over this election. Yes, we listened to or watched the debates, but since then it's been more just catching news bites while channel surfing. Because I'm sick to death of this election and have been for a while now. As both sides ratchet up the rhetoric, noise, and drama, I just think - why?? The media loves to play up that there are undecided voters, but I'm certainly not convinced there are enough truly undecided people out there to matter anymore.

So when I read Michele's post this morning it made me wonder if all this big finale crap won't turn off more voters than it turns on. Nerdstar isn't going to vote, and I'm more than a little tempted not to. But, I've voted in every presidential election I've been eligible to, so I'd feel guilty if I didn't vote in this one.

I said back in August I didn't think the final vote would be close, and I still think it won't. I know we're all praying it's not. I don't understand how after the absolute debacle of 2000 every voting precinct in this country hasn't made major progress in simplifying voting. It's nuts.

So, here's happy voting to everyone, I guess we just hold our noses and do it.

Bush's Speech

I was pretty bored for a lot of it. It ended a lot better than it began.

"Even if you disagree with me, you know where I stand and what I believe" - or something close. And that's true for me. I know a lot of my readers think he's evil incarnate. I understand, I feel the same way about John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. There's no changing someone's mind if that's what they believe.

I must admit it's been hard to watch this convention as a lesbian. It's all about freedom and liberty and better lives for all, but after so many of the lines I think - but not for gays. I've written enough on how being gay isn't my entire identity, and that there are more important issues for me to vote on that gay marriage. Maybe I can overlook some of the horrible discrimination towards gays because of my Christian background. I give people like George and Laura Bush the benefit of the doubt - that their political stand isn't out of hatred, but out of misguided beliefs. I know beliefs can change.

I've thought a lot about Mary Cheney this week. I can't imagine being her. I saw her mother and sister speak to a group of Republican women the other day, they both spoke highly of her. How hard it must be for her.

Too many disconnected thoughts right now. I'll say once again though, this election won't be close. Not that it'll matter, but Cheney will kick Edwards' butt in their debate, and Bush will kick Kerry's butt.

Stephen of Vodka Pundit liveblogged the whole thing - but this blurb sums it up for me:

"...A certain swagger which, in Texas, is called walking."

I'm pretty sure a lot of people recognize that, even if only instinctively.

Last update: Just in case anyone wants to read it, here's a link to the entire speech.

Bush

I've been up since 7:30 this morning, cooked pancakes and bacon, shaved and bathed the dog, and am now watching Bush's stump speech in Ohio. He looks more energetic and relaxed than I've seen him in a long time. And what strikes me the most is that while John & John can say they're optimist till they're blue in the face, Bush actually IS. And people are smart enough to know the difference. You can bash Bush all you like, but not once has he even insinuated he's anyone other than who he is, unlike the total charade of this weeks democratic convention.

I've written about how much Bush has pissed me off about gay marriage. And I haven't changed my mind on that. But there is just no way I could vote for John & John.

As for the debates, it was agreed in 2000 that Bush beat Gore in the debates, and now he's grown considerably as a leader and a speaker. Kerry the other night looked and sounded like a meth addict. I still say it won't even be close.

Kerry

Strong military.
Strong defense.
Fiscal responsibility.
Tax cuts.
And Faith??

Who the hell is this man? What did the aliens do with the real Kerry?

This speech totally sucked. There are no memorable lines, no coherence, nothing. And he rushed thru it like a scared first timer. Not to mention the complete amnesia about his entire senate career.

I've told this to people, but haven't blogged it - Bush is going to kick Kerry's ass in the debates and win this election by no small margin.

Let's See It

If John and John and Co. are going to keep talking about helping the poor and taxing the rich - well, let's see all their tax records and all their philanthropic records. If they're so damn big on helping those in need - let's see where and how they've done it. Because don't forgot for one minute they are "the rich". And just because they're democratic senators who like to redistribute other people's money doesn't mean they're personally helping the poor.

More...

Ok, I'm calling bullshit on Edwards saying that Democrats are friends of military wives - pure bullshit. (added about ten minutes later - hmmm, ok, well, the exception to the rule is all of my wonderful friends who have been supportive this past year who are Democrats!!)

When in hell did the Democratic party become so darn pro military?? When they looked at the polls and say Bush kicking their ass on the issue. Pure bullshit.

Poor Kerry won't look and sound half as good tomorrow night.

Impressive

Ok, I've got to say WoW about Mr. Obama. I think Bill Clinton just got out spoken. But, and this is what I always think is the dividing line in politics... Mr. Obama sounded just like a preacher - which is great - but his message should be in a church and not in a political convention. I'll never be convinced it is the business of government to supplant the role of the church and the community. Yes, people should help people - but why the hell does that take the government playing the role of blood sucking middle man?

Ugh. It's a tired rant - what the role of government is and should be.

I just wanted to say that I loved listening to Mr. Obama and hope like hell if he's elected to the Senate it doesn't suck the life out of him.

Majority

Cyn brings up a good point in comments below, she says she doesn't think there is a majority. Let's see if I can elaborate or even just think thru better my response in the comments.

Think about the people you come into contact with every day, family, co-workers, friends. What are their main concerns? Do they differ that much really from yours? Most of us are concerened with making enough money to pay the bills and have some fun. Most of us just want to live our lives.

I think most political issues come down to two very basic questions - what do you think the role of government should be, and what is your basic view of humanity. Those two go hand in hand. If you don't trust people to do the right thing or think that, for whatever reason, they need help taking care of themselves or their family, then you're going to have a really different view of government than someone who thinks people are basically decent and should be self reliant. At that basic level, if people don't agree, then they probably won't on the broader issues. And maybe the current democratic and republican parties adress those two points of view - I'm not so sure.

Maybe this post 9/11 world makes it more complicated. A lot of us who really wish government would stay out of our lives, wallets, bedrooms and living rooms, also realize that government also has to protect us from the terrorist who would just as soon see us all dead.

I just don't understand why protecting us seems to go hand in hand with expanding every other area of government as well.

Hmm... nope, probably didn't make anything more clear.

Guilted Into It

Tony asks: do you have the guts to take the honest bloggers-only quiz

1. which political party do you typically agree with? libertarian

2. which political party do you typically vote for? i mix it up

3. list the last five presidents that you voted for? Harry Browne, Dole, Bush, Dukakis - the man I've voted for has never won.

4. which party do you think is smarter about the economy? republican

5. which party do you think is smarter about domestic affairs? republican

6. do you think we should keep our troops in Iraq or pull them out? finish the job

7. who, or what country, do you think is most responsible for 9/11? OBL and Al Quaida

8. do you think we will find weapons of mass destruction in iraq? yes

9. yes or no, should the u.s. legalize marijuana? hell yes.

10. do you think the republicans stole the last presidental election? no

11. do you think bill clinton should have been impeached because of what he did with monica lewinski? no, but for lying like a dog - yes

12. do you think hillary clinton would make a good president? no

13. name a current democrat who would make a great president: none

14. name a current republican who would make a great president: bush - but I can't begin to imagine who either party will have running in '08

15. do you think that women should have the right to have an abortion? no

16. what religion are you? Christian - in a heretical sort of way

17. have you read the Bible all the way through? yes, more than once.

18. what's your favorite book? A Prayer for Owen Meany

19. who is your favorite band? none

20. who do you think you'll vote for president in the next election? Bush.

21. what website did you see this on first? tonypierce.com + busblog

Then this is a follow up set of questions:

1. Do you try to look hot when you go to the grocery store just in case someone recognizes you from your blog? HA. Forget the recognized part, I generally don't try to look hot at all.

2. Are the photos you post Photoshopped or otherwise altered? Nope

3. Do you like it when creeps or dorks email you? as empty as my email is, sure.

4. Do you lie in your blog? not usually

5. Are you passive-aggressive in your blog? i'm sometimes tempted to be.

6. Do you ever threaten to quit writing so people will tell you not to stop? Nope.

7. Are you in therapy? If not, should you be? If so, is it helping? No, maybe, don't think it would help.

8. Do you delete mean comments? Do you fake nice ones? No, wow - now there's an idea.

9. Have you ever rubbed one out while reading a blog? How about after? No and no

10. If your readers knew you in person, would they like you more or like you less? hopefully more

11. Do you have a job? not currently

12. If someone offered you a decent salary to blog full-time without restrictions, would you do it? absolutely

13. Which blogger do you want to meet in real life? It'd be cool to meet everyone on my blogroll

14. How many bloggers have you made out with? 0 - Nerdstar wouldn't let me.

15. Do you usually act like you have more money or less money than you really have? Considering how poor I am, I probably act like I have more money than I do.

16. Does your family read your blog? no

17. How old is your blog? about two and a half

18. Do you get more than 1000 pageviews per day? Do you care? no, yes, sometimes.

19. Do you have another secret blog in which you write about being depressed, slutty, or a liar? no, I don't really see the point in that.

20. Have you ever given another blogger money for his/her writing? no, I'm pretty sure they all have more money than I do, most certainly have better jobs.

21. Do you report the money you earn from your blog on your taxes? I wouldn't if I earned any.

22. Is blogging narcissistic? only in the best kind of way

23. Do you feel guilty when you don't post for a long time? yeah

24. Do you like John Mayer? no but Nerdstar does.

25. Do you have enemies? I don't have enough readers to have enemies

26. Are you lonely? very

27. Why bother? because I can

Texas Taxes

It's cold and cloudy in my fair city of Austin today and I'm home on the sofa channel surfing as usual.

I've caught some of the local talk radio discussion of all the insane changes to state taxes that are being brought forth by our legislation. One of the better things about living in Texas that there is no state income tax. But, from all that I'm hearing they're either going to start taxing or dramatically increase taxes on, I'm wondering if I wouldn't pay less if we did go to a state income tax.

During my chanel surfing I've come across the Select Committee on Public School Finance meeting - because, of course, all of these new taxes will be spent on our wonderful Texas schools. Just like all of the money the lottery has brought in over the past god knows how many years has been. Ha! Because if the lottery money was truly spent on education, these new taxes would be unnecessary.

Anyway. It's crazy. Here's one of the handouts from this meeting showing current tax rates and proposed tax rates.

Most of the talk has been about "sin taxes" and the idiocy behind it, let's discourage behavior by taxing the hell out of it, then rely on that same behavior continuing to fund our schools. Brilliant. The two biggest examples are implementing a $1 MORE tax on packs of cigerettes, and the new "video lottery terminals" they're going to allow at dog and horse race tracks.

I swear the whole point of state finance processes and taxes systems is to make it as complicated as possible in hopes that no one notices how many times they're paying tax on the same dollar earned - but I think it's also in hopes that it'll confuse the hell out of everyone and they'll just stop paying attention and not try to simplify the process.

Who's your state rep? One of the best kept secrets is that all of these reps have full time staff who's job it is to listen to their constituents and answer their questions and note their concerns.

None of these proposed taxes are law yet - but could be soon. Now really is the time to tell them what you think.

Local LCR

The other event of my day was attending my first meeting of the Austin chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. It was me, four (presumably) gay men and a (mostly?) straight couple.

One of the biggest obsticles to me getting involved in politics is figuring out with which party to get involved. I've been a registered Libertarian for a while now, but God knows that party just isn't ever going to get it together. I generally feel too much like an outsider, you know, being gay and all, to be a gung-ho republican. Yet, I'm much too big on self reliance and independence and capitalism and strong defense to be a democrat.

But after reading Boi From Troy the last week or so I decided to give LCR a chance. I was actually surprised to see that Austin has a local chapter being as liberal as it is.

Right Side of the Rainbow writes a good post about whether LCR is more gay or republican. The issues he raises are definitely things I'll be thinking over and trying to decide for myself.

That ideal thirdy party I long for never stops sounding like a great thing.

Appeasment

I don't understand Europe thinking that playing nice with terrorists will keep them safe when that idea keeps being shown to be just plain wrong.

I mean, when did handing the school bully your lunch money ever keep him for beating you up and asking for more money?? The only way to stop the school bully is to beat the crap out of him and show him you're stronger (or have friends who are). Why the hell is this so hard to understand when it comes to dealing with terroristis?

Getting Involved

One of the more cool, fun things I heard about in the interactive panels over the weekend was Voter Virgin. It's a non-partisan sight dedicated to getting people to vote in November.

I'm not sure there has been a more important election. This time we know what the stakes are, and we know where the candidates stand. Apparently, you either believe there are terrorists out there who want us all dead and are the enemy, or you believe Bush is some evil dictator and must be thrown out of office if you can't have him killed. At least it certainly seems that way. I try to remember that the majority of people in this country simply go about living their lives as best they can.

And that's why voting is so damn important in November. Spain had 77% show up to vote, now yes, I'm not crazy about the outcome, but at least they voted.

Voting is the most simple way to be involved in our political process.

I'm also tempted as hell to get more involved. I keep racking my brain tyring to figure out how to start a true third party for the '08 election. Because that election is going to be wide open. I just don't know how. I've also contemplated running for mayor just to get started. I haven't seen that Austin takes it's mayoral race very seriously. But maybe that's because the office isn't very powerful.

Anyway. I'm sure I'll write more about those ideas later. For now, check out Voter Virgin.

I Don't Get It

It's been a long day. I sat in on four different interactive panels and went to see one of the movies in the festival. My brain is full and tired.

After listening to the guys from MoveOn.org and Joe Trippi and such today, then to come home and read about the elections in Spain on Instapundit (lots and lots of links and info) and A Small Victory and Jeff Jarvis, I'm struck by how the very hip and technical and informed and activist crowds have all been talking about how to "take back our country" and "get rid of Bush." In two days of the gathering there has been NO conversation about using all of these new tools to do anything to stop or prevent future terrorism here in America, or anywhere else for that matter.

I try to understand that world view. But honestly, I don't get it.

I wish I could write more coherently about all of this. I think I'm too overloaded for that right now. I also have a volunteer shift from 9 am to 6 pm tomorrow. For now I'm off to a hot bath and warm bed.

Us and Them

Really nice guys those guys from MoveOn.Org. They seemed geniunely more interested in getting people involved and giving them a platform than partisan politics.

The feeling I get from all the speakers and questions and comments in these panels is that people on the left just don’t understand why they’re not more powerful, why their side seems to be losing so much. They talk about Republicans and Republican leadership and organization like it’s like the Wizard of Oz, this powerful disembodied voice that sends down edicts from on high. They seem to completely fail to realize that there are voters just like them, except with a different ideology, behind the current Republican “power.” They just don’t understand that they are the minority, and therefore have to become the majority to have political power.

Now, is it possible for them to become the majority. Sure. There really does seem to be the passion and ideas and drive. And there does seem to be a true grassroots movement. It's tempting to think that only certain people should be voting, smart enough, old enough, informed enough. I have to remind myself that's not true. If the results of elections affects us all, like we've learned it does, then the more people voting the better.

The election this November has the potential to be one of the more interesting in a long time. You’ve got two sides who are passionately convinced they’re right and the other side is wrong at best and terribly evil at worst. Whoever loses in November will be devastated, and I think, will say they didn’t see it coming.

Personally, I just wish and dream that all of this could result in a true third party. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face. Why is it so impossible to have a party/candidate that is strong on national defense and foreign policy, for limited government, and socially liberal. I think the American population is increasingly like that, when do the political parties catch up??

What she said

Because I was up almost all night again, I missed the Bush interview on Russert. I'm sure I'll either read the transcript online or catch most of it on different news channels today.

For the record, I really do watch the democrat debates and stump speeches and such, well, at least as much as I can stand to listen to. I had really wanted to hear what Bush had to say.

Fortunatley, Michele's got it covered. This is what I've been trying to say.

UPDATE:

Read the interview for yourself.

CNBC reran the Bush interview and I recorded it and am watching it now while surfing around reading different takes on it via Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit.

The first half has been on Iraq and WMD and setting up a new government in Iraq and such. I think he answered it all very well. I'm sure it's hard not to be a smartass and say stuff like "what have I said about this a million times already?" and not to point out the obvious slant to the questions.

Some people didn't like the way he seemed to backtrack and take time to formulate answers. I'd rather see that than to get the feeling that it's all just canned answers.

Also, Mr. Jarvis echoes my sentiments (or his wife did) about just how important the president is or isn't, making the case for agencies like the FCC and our local governments actually having more of an impact on our every day lives. Go read the ways he says we can all be better informed and more active.

No brain

My sleeping schedule is so out of whack that my brain is about to cease functioning. I've still been awake at 5 a.m. the past two mornings. Got a few hours of sleep and then got out of bed around noon.

Thankfully, Lilkes brain is working just fine today - so please go read him. (You know, both of you who haven't already.)

I’m waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.

O the shrieking that would result should such an ad run. You can’t even ask those questions, even though they’re the most relevant questions of the election.

My own short sidenote on Kerry. He's not for gay marriage any more than Bush is, yet gays and lesbians will vote for him simply because he's not Bush.

I think there might could be a real, viable third party if people weren't so willing to compromise - on both sides - just to make sure the other guy lost!

Different looks at Iraq

A Minute Longer writes about seeing the abject poverty in Iraq. I think the overwhelming hopelessness those in such poverty feel contributes a lot to things like this. Hope is an amazing thing, and to live without it is true misery. I guess my hope has been that the removal of SH would bring a sense of hope for a better future to the people of Iraq and they'd embrace freedom.

When I hear people bitch and moan that we could be spending the budget for military operations in Iraq on the poor here in America, I think of stories like this and how selfish we can all be. I, for one, am glad that my government isn't as selfish as I am. Besides, there is no comparison in the amount of money we've spent on Iraq to all the money we spend on social welfare at home.

Kevin Sites has two great entries. I love the photos of the women and children in Iraq. Then he has a long entry about soldier's in the 82nd Airborne's final mission in Iraq before coming home and the decompression soldier's have to go thru before and after coming home.

9/11 and voting

Michele has another great post 9/11 entry today, about the victims she hasn't really thought about as much as the people in the Twin Towers.

I don't remember exactly where Nerdstar and I were flying to the first time we flew after 9/11 (probably Vegas) but I remember spending a lot of time that flight thinking about all the people on the four planes 9/11. I thought a lot about knowing you would die, the phone calls they made - and didn't make. And tried so hard to imagine what I would do. And honestly, I had no idea then and I have no idea now. You can't know until you're in that situation. If Nerdstar wasn't with me would I call her or my parents? How do you choose?

And every time I think about all that happened that day I still just get stunningly angry. I'm so glad there are people preserving the voices from that day.

I was thinking last night in bed after I had listened to some of the post primary speeches given by Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Lieberman. I truly believe that 9/11 was a direct result of eight years of a democrat being in the White House. And if for no other reason than that, I could never vote for a democrat. If 9/11 did not bring about a real change in democrats' view of the world and our place in it, then nothing will. And it's not like I've ever been thrilled by their domestic agenda either.

I just wish there was a presidential candidate out there whose platform was:

national defense - understanding terrorism and what it takes to prevent it.

stopping the war on drugs - we spend more on this war than the war on terrorism, and it's just stupid. legalize recreational drugs already and tax them and we'll balance the budget.

a flat tax - enough with complicated progressive taxes, stop punishing ambition.

smaller government - we don't need a nanny state, get out of our pocketbooks and bedrooms. If the government is going to act like our parents, then I wish they'd start with tough love and stop with the welfare state already.

I just don't see that message coming from anyone, and I'll never understand why not.

Big Interconnected World

I know I risk sounding like a broken record. But, I know a lot of my readers only keep up with the news in very minimal ways. I can understand that, even if I'm not like that. Life is busy, and it certainly feels like there's plenty to do taking care of our own little parts of the world without worry about "the bigger picture." So again, as always, that's why I'm thankful for the internet and blogs in particular. With one or two links, and less than fifteen minutes of reading, I can understand so much better what the people in Iraq, or Iran, or really, anywhere else that interests me, are thinking and feeling. It's unprecidented and thrills me to no end.

On that note. Zayed tries to explain his mixed feelings about Saddam.

If you had lived all your life ruled by a tough dictator elevated to the level of a god and then suddenly without warning watched that dictator displayed to the public on tv as a 'man', you probably would have related with my position.

And I'm still wondering why? Why did he have to put himself into this? Why did he have to destroy Iraq? What did he gain from all of this?

Why indeed??

Candidate Quotes

Robyn has a fantastic post on quotes from the presidential candidates on gay marriage. I've been wanting to write a post like that and, frankly, have just been too lazy.

I'd probably use slightly different quotes than hers, but basically the same. One I'd add, but haven't found online yet, is Hillary Clinton on Hardball with Chris Mathews stating that she's all for civil unions but believes marriage should only be for a man and a woman. Hmmm. And how does her stating that differ from Bush stating that? It doesn't except that Hillary is supposed to be the ultra role model for strong women and feminist and so on.

In talking with three or four other lesbians last weekend, I found that none of them had any idea that six of the nine Democrat candidates and Hillary all opposed gay marriage.

I know Bush is incredibly unpopular among gay voters. But the Dems don't always look any better on gay issues, and usually look a hell of a lot worse on most other issues.

Brain Dead

My brain isn't feeling fully functional today. I'm not sure if it's the cough syrup or the stress. I'm learning stress comes with very strange side affects.

Anyway. If my brain were fully functional I'd be writing about Hillary's cheerleading speech in Iowa Saturday night. (Yes, I really did watch it.) It was actually dead on. But I think she's overly optimistic if she thinks the Democratic party is ever going to come up with solutions instead of criticisms.

I'd be writing about how different this country will be when the defining moment in the lives of "people in power" will be 9/11 and not JFK and Vietnam.

There'd be something really insightful about how the Dems are playing to the past and not the future and it's going to cost them big time. It's not about what has happened in Iraq, by election time rolls around it will be about what is going to happen in Iraq, and really, the rest of the world.

I'd also throw in something about how this next election will clearly define us either as a nation of completely selfish bastards, or a nation with a generous heart who really does want to see freedom spread throughout the world.

But I just don't have the energy today.

3rd Graders

All I can surmise from the fury of news today is that when it comes to politics, we're a nation of 3rd graders. It's frustrating and sickening.

I recorded West Wing last night and then watched it later. I loved the first season of that show. Then after 9/11 it just couldn't compete with reality, so I didn't really watch last season. I got into Angel instead. (I much prefer the supernatural to reality these days!)

But last night I realized it is all just politics, and both sides are all about power and winning and showing the other guy up.

Call me naive, but I still think Bush is a man of principle and ideals. I think he's proven himself to be a strong leader and to have a vision not just for America, but for promoting freedom and democracy around the world. (and yes I think more is better when it comes to freedom and democracy.) But the pundits and idealogues on both sides are icky enough to make me long for life on a small island even more.

And I just don't get it. I don't get the prevalance of 3rd grade behavior of name calling, smearing, tattle telling, lying and so on. It's not like we're not living in serious times. It's not like there aren't real issues that need to be addressed and solved.

But as long as there is all of this rhetoric of you're evil and stupid, no you're evil and stupid, solutions are left behind.

I don't get it. And I can't begin to fathom why all us regular people - voters - let this shit continue year after year after year. We have elections all the time, and yet we keep putting the same kind of people in office all the time - from city councils to school boards to state government to the president.

I don't know, maybe it isn't the politicians so much as the media. It's kinda hard to tell. I fear it's too much to hope that the media will ever go back to reporting facts and not opinion. But I believe we need true unbiased journalism now more than ever. Maybe the blogosphere will help bring that about, I don't know. There's a lot of 3rd grade behavior in blog comments everywhere.

We have the power to affect the media as well. But it all seems to be about bitching and moaning (yes like this post) more than demanding change.

Not even close

I had recorded Before Night Falls sometime last week. I finally decided to watch it yesterday. It's a sad movie, but not a tear jerker. It's the story of a beautiful man, a gay writer who lives in Cuba during the "revolution."

I didn't realize how fitting it would be to watch that movie yesterday - the annivesary of 9/11. I read sometimes the rantings of those who compare Bush to Hitler (or hell, just hear it in the Democrat debates) and sometimes wish that they could live just one day under a true dictator, to know for one day what it truly means to have no freedom of association, thought, speech. To be jailed and tortored for loving the wrong person, for writing the wrong novel. Because no matter how much you think there's persecution in this country, there's not. Tim Robbins, Micheal Moore, etc. etc. etc. are free to say and write any damn thing they please. Anyone in this country can have a free website to post anything they care to about their life or political opinions without their neighbors calling the thought police on them.

We're not even close to life under a dictator.

Private Business vs Government

Business Pundit hits on aspects of something I think about sometimes - that is, why can't/don't we just privitize everything and dismantle the government for everything except national security. Then I think about how people are always saying corporations are eevvviiillll. And I watch documentaries about all the events that led to the unions forming and how companies are evil sometimes.

I think that the best point of our government is representation. Ideally, everyone has a voice in government because of our locally elected representatives. But we all know it doesn't really work that way. Not even on a local and state level. It's not that there can't be genuine politicians who look out for their constituents, it's just that there aren't actually very many. But I tend to think that if it was all privitized, who would look out for the little guy.

But Rob points out that we have much more direct power over corporations. It's much, much easier to vote with dollars than with elections every two or four years. We've certainly seen corporations fail and go under when they were evil in the past few years. Then again, we've seen two or three politicians finally get booted. But I think it's much easier for an evil politician to stay in power than for an evil CEO. The marketplace is much less forgiving than the voters. Especially with voter turnout as low as it is.

Then there's the issue of who's better at innovation, problem solving, and so on. Do I even have to answer that?

I just can't comprehend why people trust the government to do an adequate job of providing education and health care and retirement and everything else more than they would trust private industry. At least in the private industry if a company screws me over, or offers sucky products, I have a choice. Even as big as Microsoft and WalMart are - I have a choice. And in spite of worries to the contrary, I'll always have a choice. But when the government gets ahold of of something - like the public schools or social security - there are NO choices to be made. If I find the products my mandatory tax dollars supply horribly inadequate, all I can do is spend more of my own money on an outside alternative. It's like having to pay Walmart for groceries that are spoiled and damaged, then going to Target for what I really wanted and having to pay them as well.

I know people think they wouldn't be able to afford education if it was privitized, or they see how expensive health care is (that's a whole different post). So how could they afford it if everything were to be privitized? But imagine how much more you could afford if you got to keep the 30% to 40% of your paycheck that goes straight to the government.

Dem Debates

I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole hour and a half, but I did watch about forty minutes of the Black Caucus democratic candidates debate last night. UGH. The single most frustrating thing was that they wouldn't answer the question they were asked. Ms. Braun was given a specific question, and instead spent her alloted time answering a question that had been asked of someone else. If you're going to agree to do a debate by certain rules - then answer what you're asked.

I know Howard Dean is popular these days, but that man scares me. He seems slightly crazy, maniacle even. I love listening to Rev. Sharpton, and can even see where he'd be a good advisor, but I don't see him as a politician. Actually, I think if he really wanted to make a difference in the lives of black Americans, he could be most effective if he really was the reverend of a mega church. Those pastors have a lot of impact and power and can truly affect changes for the better.

In the debate there was still a lot more here's why Bush sucks than here's why I'm a great leader for this country at this time. I know that bashing Bush is popular with their crowd, but it won't get them elected.

The issues they do take on are domestic ones. They use the same old scare tactics on education and health care. Yes, these systems need help and reform. But Democrats think throwing money at a problem will solve it, and thirty years of throwing money at education hasn't improved it one bit. It's going to take radical ideas and changes to improve health care and education. That's where I wish think tanks and politicans would actually get together and make some real changes instead of politics as usual.

But what's really going to get the Democrats their butts handed to them is foreign policy. There isn't a single one of them I would trust to prevent another terrorist attack in this country. Say what you will about Bush, there have been no more attacks here. And for the 2004 election, that's still the most important issue - period.

Update: Stephen Green has a nice set of comments posted as he watched the debate. Start there and scroll up!

Where are the leaders?

Yesterday was the 40 year anniversary of Dr. King's I Have A Dream speech. Back at the first of this year I read two of Dr. King's paperback books and was riveted.

Last night, between watching the VMAs and the Dallas Cowboys, I caught part of ABC's special on Dr. King's. Mostly I just wanted to see the footage of the actual speech. Other than the founding fathers, I can't think of any one American more outstanding than Dr. King.

But what I really got to thinking about was why hasn't this country had a leader like that since him?? I'm sure there are conservatives who would argue Reagan was a great leader. And I won't argue that he accomplished some amazing things both for America and the rest of the world. But he wasn't really an inspired/inspiring leader like Dr. King. Even if he was, that was twenty years ago. Where are the leaders for my generation??

It also got me to thinking that while I've been a supporter of Bush and the war on Iraq. Bush has been really disappointing this year. He's failed miserably in being an inspired leader, in a time we still really need one. He's failed in his communication with the American people. Yes, he'd probably be criticized terribly if he appeared to be trying to use the anniversary of 9/11 for political purposes. But there are purposes other than political ones and he should be telling us all the things that are going right and wrong in this war on terror.

It's two years after one of the worst days in American history - where are the leaders with vision and the ability to communicate?

Blair's Speech

I got home a little early yesterday after taking Ramen to the vet, and I caught the last fifteen minutes or so of Blair's speech in Congress. It was a great speech!

This is part of what I caught, and stuff like this brings tears to my eyes:

"We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind -- black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent -- to be free -- free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting. And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go -- (laughter) -- I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job -- my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond -- our job is to be there with you. You're not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us."

Another exerpt:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere -- (applause) -- anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty."

Here's a link to the whole speech.

One more about Santorum

Andrew writes today: Of course, the hostility directed toward the intimate lives of gay people by Senator Santorum affects me more deeply, because I am gay. How could it not? Being gay my whole life is a huge blessing but also, of course, a difficult path. To try and reconcile it with a faith that is deep but a Church that refuses to support the innermost longings of my body and soul is not easy either. To square it with a belief in individual freedom and limited government, when so many of my gay brethren have embraced a wounded rejection of all traditional authority, and backed a radical politics in its stead, is not exactly a cakewalk either. To attempt both, and then to see that people you admire or support can actually endorse criminalizing you for expressing physical love in private, or see no problem with others' saying so, or see adult gay love casually associated with the abuse of children and not notice, is so downright dispiriting it's enough to make you despair.

Exactly. I don't think straight people, even those who are accepting of homosexuality, can understand the sense of discrimination and sometimes persecution gays feel. Some try to equate racism and the civil rights movement with the gay position today. But it always comes up that race isn't a choice, sexuality is. I'm not getting into that arguement here. But I think that there is a prevailing feeling that homosexuality is a choice, and since you don't look different than me (unless you make a concerted effort), so why the hell can't you just keep your sexuality to yourself. If you'd just keep it to yourself you wouldn't have these problems.

As a white woman who doesn't look "gay" it's usually hard to explain to people that I know what discrimination feels like. And I thank God that I've lived in cities where it's no big deal to go out in public with my girlfriend. But that doesn't mean I don't pick up on people's curious at best or disapproving looks.

Then Santorum's remarks take that a step further - he wants to make us criminals. And none of this would be sparking the debate is has this week if there wasn't a significiant part of the population that agreed with his words.

Andrew goes on to say: Look, it's possible to tolerate differences of opinion within the Republican party over homosexuality. It's absolutely legitimate for some religious people to hold that gay sex is immoral, or to oppose marriage rights, and so on. I can happily live with that, and benefit from the dialogue. I defend their right to believe it and to say it. We can agree to disagree. But Santorum has gone far further than disagreement. He let it slip that he believes gays should be put in jail for our relationships. I'm sorry but that kind of statement is unacceptable, non-negotiable, intolerable. The Senator must withdraw it. I worry that the president means well but just doesn't get it. So let me put it another way: Senator Santorum believes that the vice-president's daughter should be made a criminal for her relationship. A criminal. Now do you see what I mean?

We hear so much about the separation of church and state when it comes to flags and the pledge and the dollar and prayers in schools. But I haven't heard it mentioned this week when it truly should be. Santorum's ideas are exactly what the separation of church and state is all about. It's about protecting people from the sort of persecution he's advocating.

Even strict Catholics who believe homosexual sex is a grave sin nevertheless draw the Thomist distinction between sins and crimes. Just because something may be a sin doesn't mean it should mean jail. In fact, many things - especially in the private realm - fall into that category. But by arguing for the criminalization of gay sex, Santorum goes beyond even the traditional position and heads for a theocratic one. The more he seems to represent the face of the Republican party, the more fair-minded people will simply leave it, fear it, or vote against it. As they should.

I hope this issue doesn't get swept under the rug. I hope people within the Republican party will face this issue head on and come out with a clear inclusive message. I'm not sure at this point they realize just how many votes they can loose by letting this anti-gay sentiment stand.

Personally, I could never vote for Democrats. Now my other two choices, Libertarians and Republicans are sucking too.

Political Parties

I was saying to Nerdstar at dinner the other night that it pisses me off to no end to have to choose between a party that wants to take all of my money and give it to someone else and acts like a nanny (ie Bloomberg's smoking laws - which are spreading everywhere) and a party that wants to let me keep my money and succeed but just can't seem to get over wanting to set the morals for everyone.

I shouldn't have to choose between voting my pocket and voting my bedroom!

A true independent party needs to emerge that is based on limited government, individual rights, a free market and so on. Where is the person who can lead such a party?? Why are we all so locked into this two party system and then not even really participating in it? I guess the people who would make up a true independent party are too busy just living an independent life to get involved. But when you hear remarks like Senatorum's it should be a wake up call.

If you're still interested in just how evil Santorum is, The Light of Reason has more than enough reading for you to do.

Images and Debate

Let's see if I can tie a few ideas together.

While I was waiting to hear Andrew last night, I spent some time just hanging out on the UT campus watching all the people walk by. They all looked so serious and not very happy. Then there's all the various clothing styles, although when it came to footware half were in flip flops and half were in tennis shoes. So, I got to thinking again about how our exterior is supposed to in some way reflect our interior. Yet we all just end up trying to look like each other. Even when piercings and tattoos became popular again, it was just that, popular, and not a real statement of who we are as individuals. I always have to wonder how many other people are like me and feel like their outside doesn't represent their inside very well. Especially since we're all so guilty of judging books by covers.

Then, there was this big plywood construction that had little color posters saying "P0rn is Bad" and people were encouraged to write their thoughts on these big boards. Naturally, it was filled with all the usual lines from each side of this argument - either that p0rn degrades women blah blah blah, or p0rn is liberating blah blah blah.

Which brings me to the whole concept of blogging and communication and idea exchanges. There rarely seems to be any true discourse. People either stick with sites they agree with all the content on. Or, they go visit sites they completely disagree with, but instead of tyring to make valid arugments and bring up alternate views, it usually decays into name calling and such.

What ever happened to the true art of debate? Every once in a while I'll leave the channel on Crossfire or some such shoutfest and wonder why they can't make the program longer and more orderly and actually have a civilized debate. I know, no one would watch such a thing. So isn't that where blogs can take up the slack? There's been talk of group blogs, wouldn't it be fantastic if there really could be an ongoing debate of ideas between different ideologies - gay/straight, liberal/conservative and such on given blogs? I have seen a few efforts by the writers at National Review and the New Republic do something like this, but not very frequently or anything.

Hell, I'd just be happy with comments on this site :-)

Pro Choice For Men

The following is an exerpt from Bodies in Motion and At Rest that I couldn't agree with more:

...although I am encouraged and inclined to march in favor of a woman's right to choose a safe, legal and affordable medical procedure to abort her maternity, where are the women who will march with me to uphold the rights of my sons and their sons in the matter - to choose a safe, legal and affordable legal procedure to terminate, for reasons that range from good to not so good, their paternity? Is Choice good for one and all or only one and half of the population?

What would it look like if a million men or so, next year, within twelve weeks of impregnating their sexual partners, were to declare, for reasons they had to articulate to no one, their interest in the fetus null and void, ceased and aborted? What if there were clinics, operated by Planned Parenthood, or a benign nonprofit, where the paperwork could be conducted cleanly for a reasonable fee - these paper "procedures" done by lawyers instead of doctors, assisted by paralegals instead of nurses, the deliverance safe, legal, unilateral, constitutionally protected, the same for fathers as for mothers? Would protesters march in front of such clinics? Would signs appear calling them unflattering names? Would pictures of destitute children, poor fetuses, abandoned mothers, punctuate these protests? If most of us are, as we are frequently told, pro-choice, oughtn't the courts uphold this choice as well?

I've written before how horrible I think it is that even if a man can prove he is not the biological father of a child, he is still required by the legal system to pay child support. I can't imagine why men haven't found a way to implement something like the system described above. But I can imagine that it wouldn't be the "pro-life" movement protesting in front of such a clinic, it would be the feminists. How crazy is all of that??

If I Were Bush

This is the speech I'd give Monday around noon...

"Fellow Americans, people of the world, in light of the protests and anti war, anti American sentiment so overwhelmingly displayed over the weekend, I have had a profound change of heart and mind. Effectively immediately, I am ordering home all American soldiers stationed outside of the U.S. Those troops will instead be used to patrol our now closed borders. Also effective immediately, I am cancelling all foriegn aid - monetary, medical, and food.

The world does not want us to interfere any longer, I am now in full agreement with the world."

That's what I would be so very, very tempted to say!! Just think of the benefits to the economy, the jobless, and those on welfare. No more cheap labor or welfare recipients coming across the borders. There would be a huge increase in jobs due to having to manufacture more goods instead of importing them.

I find it fascinating that I'm reading Atlas Shrugged at this time. The struggle of the characters in the book who have been the leaders in industry is whether to stay and prop up an evil system or drop out and let the world fall apart. Obviously I'd be more than a little tempted to be one of those who drops out and leaves the rest of the world to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

This is just another example of why Nerdstar is constantly thankful I'm not the world dictator I dream of being :-)

Libertarians

Yep, I'm a libertarian - that's what my voter registration card says, that's how I voted in the last elections. And the more I read Ayn Rand, the more of a Libertarian I become. Unfortunately, the Libertarian party does not have that one main, normal enough candidate to represent it.

Libertarianism is simplicity itself. It proceeds from a single, quite beautiful, concept of the primacy of individual liberty that, in turn, infuses notions of free markets, limited government and the importance of property rights. In terms of public policy, these notions translate into free trade, free immigration, voluntary military service and user fees instead of taxes. Sometimes these policies are argued in a totally unforgiving way so that it's not easy to separate the lunatics from the libertarians. But it's a snap to separate libertarians from conservatives.

The whole article talks about the differences between conservatives and libertarians. It would also be interesting to see the differences between liberals and libertarians.

It's my money not the governments

As always, Arthur has read my mind and printed it up on his site.

...mandatory taxation, imposed under the threat of severe penalties for non-compliance, is exactly the same -- in principle -- as a robber holding a gun to your head, and demanding your money. What could possibly be the difference? The government says to us, every day: You will pay all these taxes, or we will put a lien on your property, confiscate the funds in your bank account, garnish your wages, put you in jail, etc. To paraphrase Bush the other night: "If that is not the definition of force, then force has no meaning."

Our government now forces us -- in countless ways, and most obviously through taxation -- to help and support the needy and the dispossessed, whether we want to or not. Again, the issue is not whether we might want to help them ourselves; the issue is whether the government has the right to violate our rights, and make us do so whether we choose to or not. And to frame the question clearly is to answer it: there can be no "right" to violate the rights of others.

I do not want the government involved in the economy at all: I want a complete separation of government and economics, for the same reasons that we have a complete separation of government and religion. I want the government out of the medical and insurance industries; I want the government out of the antitrust business; I want the government out of business altogether.

It's so hard not to be contradictory sometimes!! I do support Bush and I'm glad it's him in office and not a democrat. I do think, as you all know, that we should go in and liberate Iraq - partly for the sake of the Iraqi's and partly to prevent more days like 9/11. I think that defense (and offense if necessary) is a valid function of government.

Social programs of any kind however, are not a valid function of government in my view.

Where liberals get all pissed at conservatives is that they think just because we don't want the government - thru our tax dollars - giving money to every needy program in the country and world that that means we don't want the needy helped in any manner at all. That all those damn rich white folks (they don't seem to mind rich minority folks for some reason) want to do is sit around and count their money. But all stats on philanthropy show otherwise. People who think Bill Gates and Oprah should be required to give away X percentage of their money just because they can - then should everyone be required to give away X amount based on percentages?? Because esentially that's what taxes are all about. Bitch all you want about taxes paying a war instead of x y and z social programs - but I think you're completely backwards on the roll of government and don't have a clue about real world economics.

As Arthur states and states again, it should be my choice what I do with my money - not the governments. Free markets do work, even when it comes to helping the poor and needy. Those who think the government is an acceptable middle man are deluded. How many more social, medical, whatever programs could there be without the government keeping probably 80% of all money received in taxes and only giving out the other 20%.

Look at your pay stub - since it's tax season. What if you were able to keep 80% of the money you've paid in income taxes and so forth - wouldn't you be able to not only support you and your family better - but also give more to the charity of your choice?? And if every family could just support their own family better - wouldn't there be a lot less need for social programs?

I guess that will always be the big political question - is the government some rich grandparent giving the grandkids everything they need? Or is it just there for those few things stated in the Constitution?

Reason for war

Recently, for me, war with Iraq has come down to the question - if I were living in Iraq, under this dictator, in these conditions, would I want any country who was able to to come in and remove this dictator and in doing so improve my life.

Yes, there is a valid argument for a country to be isolationist - although in modern times I think it's hard to pull off. But other than that, do we (Americans) not have an obligation, not only to protect our own citizns (and Hussein is a threat to us, if not today, then in the near future), but to also help liberate oppressed people in other countries? Because if we don't, then let's stop spending so much on foreign aid and such.

So I don't really care if Bush thinks this is about oil or revenge (but I don't think he does!), I care that when it's said and done there are more people living in more freedom in this world.

Yes, there will be Iraqi casualties, as well as American soldiers who die. But, I'd be willing to bet, that unless Hussein intentionally places his citizens in harms way, there will be less Iraqi civilian casualities than there were Americans who died on 9/11. Not that I expect any press in the world to accurately report Iraqi casualties.

It's too easy to get bogged down in the political bullshit and forget about the people who need our help.

Let Me Clarify

I might have sounded as if I were actually against some big companies and thinking that they're evil. And while I know a few people who do believe such things, I'm not one of them. I'm a complete capitalist pig! The only time I believe in evolution is in business - you either get it right and serve customers well or you go out of business. I believe in the complete freedom of choice. In this country I don't understand how someone can bitch and moan about "having" to shop at such and such store. It might mean higher prices or a longer drive, but there is always an alternative in this country.

I don't drink Starbucks because I don't like coffee very much. I don't buy Nike because I've got feet that require a more specialty shoe than they make. I love Walmart because they're cheap and have everything under the sun I need. Here in Austin we're lucky enough to have several locally owned restaurants that serve great food in a nice atmosphere, but I still eat and McD's and Chilli's because I like them.

The point is, these are my choices, no one forces me to do anything, not even advertisers. In fact, there are times a company has such a stupid commercial it actually makes me NOT shop there! (Can you say Gap?)

I love this country and I love capitalism. If you want world peace, have every country in this world adopt our constitution and economic system. Bitch all you want about the details of idiocy here, but it's still the best in history.

Greed versus regulation

This entry on The Light of Reason is about how greed or self interest is a much more effective regulator of businesses than government regulation could ever be.

Something I've never understood about the "corporate is evil" idea is that it doesn't make good business sense for a corporation to be evil. At least, not for the long term. And the more free the market place - people having more choices - the less evil any given business can be. So the idea for any growing economy in any part of the world isn't more regulations, but more choices for the consumers. Where a lack of legitimate choices are found, the black market fills the void.

It's the perfect example of money talks - if enough people find Nike, WalMart, Starbucks or whoever to be some big bad evil company and don't do business with them, those businesses will cease to exist. But if those big evil conglomerations come in and "run out" the mom and pop stores, it's not the conglomeration that is at fault - it's the customers chosing to do business with them.