Proposition 8 and the election in general has brought out the worst side of us, as evidenced by overt racism at the McCain/Palin rallies and the growing tensions in California over marriage equality. Hate is finally out of the closet and on display for the whole world to see. In California, some Proposition 8 supporters compare gays and lesbians to Hitler, while others see us bringing about the end times. There seems to be no limit to what they will say or do.

I’ve put together a list of eight reasons why voting No on Prop 8 might not be such a terrible idea, particularly if you don’t want to be associated with the lot below. Here they are, in no particular order

1. People who want marriage equality are well, like, Hitler

Brad Dacus (pji@pacificjustice.org, (916) 857-6900) a spokesman for Proposition 8, spoke passionately in Sacramento equating their struggle against gay marriage and saving the soul of America, to the people of faith in Germany who left the soul of their country to Hitler.  Really?

2. The Mormons

By far the largest financial contributors to Proposition 8, Mormons have a long history of veiled hate and intolerance. Their church mobilized against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s. Blacks were not allowed into the temple until 1978, frowned on interracial marriage, and expelled gays and lesbians from their church who are unable to go straight. Sounds like an inclusive group to me.

3. 2012 Letter from Focus on the Family

Focus on the Family, one of Prop 8’s largest contributors, have released a fictional letter written by a Christian circa 2012, telling the story of what’s gone wrong with America in the first 4 years of an Obama presidency. Notable highlights include gay scoutmasters will be able to sleep in tents with young boys, schools can teach homosexuality as a personal choice, counselors and social workers can nolonger discriminate against homosexuals, and gays will target Christian book publishers, through defacement and censorship,  including cyber attacks against those booksellers carrrying their books. Are you kidding me?

4. The Call

Organized by religious leaders across the country, the Call brings together people to pray for the passage of Proposition 8 at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego this weekend. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has decided at the last minute to join event, at the urging of Rev. Jim Garlow, who later goes on to say that he fears the end of western civilization if Prop 8 doesn’t pass.

Don’t these folks have something better to pray for? Like world peace? Or food for the millions starving across the globe. Or cures for the sick? This is how they choose to spend there time?

5. Yes on Proposition 8 Sends out Blackmail Letters

Last week the fine folks behind Proposition 8 sent out blackmail letters to many businesses that had made No on 8 donations, threatening to “out” them if they didn’t make a matching donation to Yes on 8. Truly tasteless.

6. Cyber attack of No on Prop 8 Website

After sending out an urgent call for donations to match Yes on 8’s recent funding surge, the No on Prop 8 site was attacked by hackers, denying contributors from making donations for several hours. Hackers can be bigots too I guess.

7. Tom McClintock

Tom McClintock who is running for Congress in Southern California is quoted as saying:

“Lincoln asked, ‘If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one,'” McClintock said in a statement. “And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one.”

McClintock is no friend of the gay community.
 
8. Orange County, California

Yes,  the whole county. There’s nothing orange about it, it’s red, through and through. A bastion of support for Proposition 8, Yes on 8 signs are everywhere, from neighborhood lawns to billboards. Some of Proposition 8’s biggest contributors are from Orange County. Donors skew heavily conservative, religious, and Mormon. I suspect gays and lesbians are, well, unwelcome.

So, if you are planning to vote Yes on Prop 8, then you are associating yourself with the fine class of people mentioned in the examples above.  Is that what you really want?

Well it’s been a while but it’s nice to see a changing of the guard in the halls of Congress. For the first time in 12 years we have a Democratic majority, and here’s hoping that some much needed oversight will stop certain individuals from running roughshod over the Constitution, and the will of the people.

Also of note we have the first woman Speaker of the House, Congress woman Nancy Pelosi from the fine state of California and the even finer district of San Francisco. You go girl!

But I know many of you are fed up with our government, every politician a crook or worse, and feel the change in leadership will have no impact, no negligible effect. I ask them to keep in open mind, hold out a little hope. We’ve had six plus years of unilateral control, in an environment suppressive of alternate ideas. Now the Democrats have the majority, and a voice, and a tremendous opportunity to do some good. But despite their best efforts or good intentions, much of that could quickly be crushed by the weight of the Iraq war. Or if they buckle beneath the business-as-usual attitude, the results will be the same.

But I’m hopeful. Change is good. Anything is better then what we have now, and I think many would agree. But what will it take to make our country a better and safer place? Here are the issues I would like to see addressed with meaningful progress made or even laws passed (in no particular order):

• Immigration Reform
• Stem Cell Funding
• Job Outsourcing
• Lobby Reform
• Minimum Wage
• Climate Change
• 9/11 Commission Recommendations
• ISG Recommendations
• Prescription Drug Reform
• Healthcare Reform
• Manhattan-Style Project for Alternative Fuels
• Balanced Budget

It’s a long and meaty list, but it’s hardly complete. I’d like to hear what you think they should focus on. You’ll notice I left off gay marriage and impeachment off the list.

Gay marriage would be great, but won’t contribute to the survival of this nation, and nor do I think the electorate is ready to have it crammed down their throats. I think the gay marriage debate came too early and set it back — civil unions with equal rights first, and then gay marriage. But that’s just me.

As for impeachment, as much as I yearn for it, its all-consuming nature would lay waste to many of the issues that need to be addressed. We’ve been dug a pretty deep hole, do we need to dig any further? But if initial investigations reveal the tastiest of fruit and the will of the people demand it? Who am I to argue?

But let me be the first to say this. If little or no progress is made on any of these fronts, then they all need to be thrown out, every single one of them, by force if necessary. Like the Beatles said, sometimes you need a Revolution. Do you think I’m kidding?

Anyways, look for more changes soon! New design and more posts over the next few weeks so stay tuned!

First of all, I’m sorry to have been away for so long. My muse vanished without so much as thank you (or a playful pat on the behind) and I have been wandering aimlessly ever since. Sure I have started a number of posts over this long break, but they all sit idle, their relevancy passing into the long night. That was until Terri Schindler Schiavo.

I’ve long been on the fence about whether or not Terri Schiavo should be allowed to pass on to the next world. I can’t believe she doesn’t long for it, assuming she is capable of “longing” at all. But as time passes and the controversy and the drama surrounding her grows, it has moved well beyond what should simply be a family decision. It’s grown into something much larger and dangerous: an opportunity.

I can’t help but think that the Right who are in office are grateful for the Terri Schiavo case. She serves to polarize their base, particularly the religious right that many feel played a significant role in putting George W. Bush back into the White House. This is evident in statements made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay speaking at a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. DeLay is quoted as saying “One thing that God has brought us is Terri Schiavo, to help us elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” He later went on to say, “That Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks.” DeLay then closed by viilifying those who have attacked him and others in the Conservative movement, perhaps in reference to alleged ethics violations. These two trains of thought are practically joined at the hip.

Even Tom DeLay’s website, a press release discussing a bill he is trying to push through is quoted as saying “The few objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today, and we’re working now to resolve this in time for her to get some food and water tonight.” Sounds more than a little partisan, painting house Democrats and anyone who feels similarly as evil and heartless in allowing Terri Schiavo to starve. Mr. DeLay, I’m afraid it’s a lot more complicated then that.

As usual the rhetoric spills down into the Right’s media bastions: talk radio and Fox News. Sean Hannity, a popular right-wing talk show host, interviewed the Nobel Prize nominated neurologist William Hammesfahr on Terri Schiavo and possible treatments for improving her condition. Repeatedly Hannity and his co-host Joe Scarborough reiterated Hammesfahr’s Nobel qualifications, when in fact he was never legitimately nominated; unless of course you count the unqualified nomination by one Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) from a largely conservative district north of Tampa Bay, Florida. I’m sorry Mr. Bilirakis; you’re not qualified to make such nominations under Nobel rules.

But getting back to Hannity and Scarborough, did they knowingly twist Hammesfahr’s credentials, propping up a man who has been previously disciplined by the Florida board of medicine, accepts only cash when treating patients, and proposes treatments that are unorthodox, untested and unproven? Or were Hannity and Scarborough simply duped. I sense a Ratherism coming on… Damn I can’t find it.

I think the Right also appreciates Terri Schiavo’s wonderful sense of timing, serving up a convenient distraction from the steady but ill winds blowing through Washington: social security privatization DOA; the regular deluge of bad news from Iraq; Tom DeLay’s alleged ethics violations; a gargantuan out-of-control deficit and the passing of a budget that cut plenty of useful programs (including some that impact Terri Schiavo’s continued healthcare) but fails to account for the cost of the War on Terror?

It makes sense that most decisions made and judgments passed about Terri Schiavo are based on emotions and understandably so, but I think it’s now clear that many, more frighteningly, are politically motivated. Yes, it is emotional event, but that emotional event needs to be tempered by the hand of science, by people who are qualified and can see past emotions to help families make reasonable and informed decisions. Instead we have partisan driven diagnoses by unqualified cardiologists outside their field of expertise (Yes, I am talking to you Mr. Frist). And that too goes for Presidents/former governors from states where the law would have forced the removal of the feeding tube years ago.

And surprisingly I think much of America agrees, as the sentiment tends to cross party lines. Polls indicate more support for removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube then against, and even more feel that Congress is overstepping its boundaries by getting involved. Is this the America, neighboring on 70% that Tom DeLay is referring to as barbaric? Seems a number of those barbarians elected him and many of his peers into the offices they now hold. Be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you.

Let’s not forget this is the same government that is attempting to legislate marriage. Now it thinks it can muscle its way into the Terri Schiavo case feeling better qualified to determine her fate. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, one that is contrary to one of the primary tenants of the Republican Party and that is for the government to stay out of the way of the people. When similar cases occur in the future, will the one of the courses of action be: “Get Congress on the phone!”

As I muddle my way through this I realize I am no longer on the fence. In fact I am nowhere near the fence. I now know that I am not qualified to pass judgment. And neither are you. And neither is the government. And really not even the courts. But when the parties involved cannot reach an accord it must fall on our courts, which with the help of experts, make the most informed decision they possibly can. And while not always popular, it should be adhered too. Especially when the same conclusion is reached multiple times by multiple courts.

You just can’t keep going back to the well simply because you don’t like the taste of the water…

There it is… I found my Ratherism. Until next time.