5. September 2008 by admin.

Well, the Democratic National Convention was here in town (Denver) and we just finished with the Republican National Convention in the state where my brother and his wife live (Minnesota) so this has been an interesting connection with my family this year.  But now that they are done, I have to comment on them.

First, it is apparent who the party in power is because of the level of rancor of the protesters at the RNC.  There was a lot of anger and frustration vented in St. Paul.  And yet the people in the Xcel Energy center remain, in my view, out of touch with the common people.  I mean, really!  He owns seven houses and thinks middle class ends in the millions.  (Yes, I know he was jokingly unsure when he gave the figure)  And his pit bitch VP?  She is vicious and mean and vile, the epitome of bitch, and somehow a true representation of the party.  I mean, just look at the speeches by the two parties.  The Republicans seem to know all about the plans and future actions of the Democrats since they kept telling us what would happen.

 - A slight aside, there is a political ad on TV right now that tells you what the Democrats will do including deficit spending, higher taxes, etc.  History proves that the last balanced budget with a surplus was created by a Democrat and destroyed by a Republican…um, please get your facts straight before you try to spout them.

Anyway, the Democrats tended to be a bit more positive in their spin of things, not telling us what the Republicans will do, but what they will do when they get into the White House.  Mind you, they are not absolved of the vitriol and hate mongering, they just tended to focus more on their own agenda instead.  And I guess that’s one of the things that really toasts my buns about the political process is that candidates are so afraid of standing for something that they turn to denigrating their opponents instead.

Well, let me be clear that in my view, people who tear down their opponents are cowards and obviously don’t have any principles on which to stand.  Because people who don’t stand for anything will fall for anything.  Ok, so I stole that one from somewhere.  But it holds true.  If the only way for you to rise above your opponents is to tear them down, then maybe you aren’t worth electing.

Back to the rant, while I appreciate the efforts of John McCain to try and protray himself as a maverick and reformer, my problem is that he left that camp a number of years ago.  When I lived in Arizona and he was my senator, I loved his style and approach, but he gave that up in an effort at appealing to the “masses” and since about 1998ish he has watered down his beliefs.  He’s had 26 years to make changes and while he did try for some 18 years, he lost it before the millenium.  For that, I will have to disbelieve him.

And that’s why he brought Sarah Palin to the ticket.  Oh, believe me, I understand his tactics (and anyone who thinks this is anything other than tactics needs to drink from the fountain of reality) and I even made a comment to my staff the night before the announcement that McCain’s best choice would be a woman for his VP.  If course, I was thinking that it would be someone with a little more name recognition, but there you have it.  However, making her the attack dog for the campaign?  There is a difference between a strong woman and a bitch.  Sarah Palin is a bitch.  Hillary Clinton is a strong woman (most of the time, she had her bitchy moments) so the thought that the Republicans are actually gaining women?  Not the ones who see the hate for what it is.

Joe Biden?  He was the wrong choice as well.  I admire Barack Obama’s campaign for the message they are getting out and the fact that they tend to maintain their positive message more than their counterparts.  But a Senatorial veteran like Biden?  No, Obama had the chance for the dream team and I think he made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons.  In this case, I believe that he is afraid of Hillary and her power.  He had the message, she has the experience, and together they would have been very strong.  And, I bet that McCain would have gone with one of his white male compatriots instead of the Alaskan Mala-not-so-mute.

And here’s one particular rant that the Republicans really have to get right if they ever figure to recover their standing as the party of Lincoln: 93% of the delegates were white?  Ok, if you do not have your delegates representative of the country as a whole?  No wonder you don’t get it.  And 1/2 the delegates had a net worth in excess of $1/2 million.  Damn.  Middle class is basically $35,000 to $80,000, according to the local paper.  Even if we stretch that to $250,000 a year in income (which is 3 times the top of the range) those who “represent” the Republican voters of this nation are NOT representative of this country. 

Ok, so that was a rant, but I truly am angry with the political process in this country.  The two party system doesn’t allow us to truly express our beliefs since the “big tent” or “party umbrella” has to cover far too many people.  While I don’t think the multi-party system always works (see, Italy) it does force people to choose their philosophies and stand for something.  I see the German political process as a successful process for standing for something.  The best part of this is that while you tend to fragment into blocs based on your personal beliefs, the only way to make a government is to compromise.  You develop alliances and work out compromises to get a government together meaning that strength comes from your beliefs and alliances.

Ok, off the soapbox.  This year I am remaining with the Democrats although I vote for the best candidate regardless of party.  I voted for Reagan because he was the best candidate.  I did not vote for Bush, either time and feel smug enough to laugh at people who did.  You get what you vote for and this year, I am definitely voting for change.  The risks of change are much less than knowing what you are getting.  And I think everyone knows what we would get.

Posted in Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

11. April 2008 by admin.

It just gets better and better. Ms. Kern is not only a coward and a hypocrite, she is an out-and-out liar as well.

Apparently she met with the fine folks from PFLAG and during the course of their talks, Ms. Kern stated that she agreed with the idea that gay men and women should not be fired from their jobs because they are gay. (We are worse than terrorists but shouldn’t be fired because of it?) She said this twice in the conversation. But when she went back out into public, she denied ever saying anything of the kind! She claimed that PFLAG had “misrepresented” her comments.

In a delicious twist or irony, her perjury came to light quickly when PFLAG released the recordings of the conversation they had with her (and which was recorded with the consent of her staff!) where you can hear Ms. Kern say, in her own words, that she believes gays should not be fired from their jobs. Oy! So what we have here is not a failure to communicate but an appalling lack of brains from an individual who 1) cannot think for herself and therefore mimics words she hears in her church and 2) tailors her conversation to the audience even when it means she says two things that are complete opposites. So, does that make her a liar, or just a very good politician? Well, neither. A good politician wouldn’t be caught lying.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

21. March 2008 by admin.

Everyone should have heard of Sally Kern by now.  She’s that republican lawmaker from Oklahoma who was caught on tape comparing homosexuality to terrorism and saying that we are more of a threat to America than Al-Quaeda.  Uh huh.  Well, I was going to stay out of the fray considering that so many more eloquent people have spoken and written about this incident.  But then she goes and does something that gets to the very core of what I despise about people these days.

Ellen DeGeneres called her up to talk to her about her views and she refused to open the conversation.  Why?  She said she doesn’t want to walk into the lion’s den.  Um, hello?  Did you just say that you are afraid to defend your position?  Are you telling me that you made these statements but don’t believe in them enough to justify them to others?  You hypocritical coward!  This is exactly why I don’t believe politicians and people in general.  If you are not willing to defend your positions then shut up.  You don’t have the convictions of your beliefs then don’t tell me what they are!

I will challenge anyone in their beliefs because it is only by challenging our own beliefs that we strengthen them.  I mean, come on, if your belief system can’t handle a challenge then why do you believe in it?  Convenience?  Inertia?  I know that most people who believe in a religion came by it because someone “gave” it to them.  Very few people seek out religion by challenging themselves and the various options before coming to a decision.  They accept the religion handed to them by their parents, or find acceptance in a group that happens to be a church.  But then they don’t challenge themselves or their beliefs leaving themselve, I believe, weaker for the lack of effort.  It means we don’t have to think for ourselves, something mankind has been good at.

But the point is simple: if you don’t believe in what you say or feel strongly enough to be challenged for it, then stop spouting it in public and then running away when someone calls you on it.  Keep your weak beliefs to yourself and stop trying to force others to believe as you do.  It’s not a strong enough argument.

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

9. October 2007 by Rob.

Ok, I have been quiet about him since he first came into the light (and out of the closet, sort of) but now he’s gone and made comments that just got to me. So I have to ask the first question that came to my mind when I heard him talking about having a “wide stance” in the bathroom. Um, Larry, weren’t you wearing pants when you were in the stall? And when you were wearing those pants in the stall, weren’t you doing your “business” (I heard you say that’s why you were in there) and if so, wouldn’t your pants have been somewhere down between your knees and ankles?

If you were, in fact, in the stall trying to “cleanse the colon,” how wide a stance could you possibly have had? I mean, you’re not that fat, so your pants should have been restricting the “travel” of your legs to a reasonable distance. So you either had your pants at your knees and looked like a strange travois with your feet splayed apart or you weren’t wearing your pants in which case I would have to assume that you really were not in the stall for digestive waste removal. I mean, really!

Posted in Gay, Freedom, Politics | No Comments »

5. October 2007 by Rob.

I have to say it: this world is dominated by cowards.  Oh, there are occasional heroes out there who stand up for what is right but the majority of the world is dominated by sniveling little cowards.

Take the Chinese.  They want to be a world power but are unable to control their own manufacturing.  Their response to the repression in Myanmar?  To beg for restraint.  Why?  Because they are afraid to face the truth about themselves.  This is inherently the fatal flaw for all tyrants and tyrannical systems.  The only way to ensure that they remain in power is to deny the truth of why they are in power.   By oppressing others, a small group remains in power and controls the resources.

Welcome to the new Millenium, please pick up your reality pill and a sharp dose of truth and move to the back of the line.  The internet and advances in communication mean that you cannot keep things hidden any more.  China found this out during the SARS debacle.  Human beings have a natural urge and desire to communicate and they will share most anything about themselves or their environment.  Don’t believe me?  Just one word for an answer there: YouTube.

What is being peeled away are centuries of layers (or decades of copycat layers)  of secrecy which used to hide atrocities and secret deals.  It also advertises the excesses of those in power who try to benefit but also to hide their wealth.  More and more these days, “scandal” is a daily revelation, not something that has to be researched and pulled out like taffy.  I feel almost sorry for Woodward and Bernstein.  They could have seen Watergate come and go in the span of a week or less these days.

But it also brings to the fore the root cause of so much trouble in the world today: cowardice.  The fear that I will lose something I have leads me to twist things to benefit me.

I know I have an idealistic view of the future, but the fact is that there is enough for all of us.  Some of us want it all but that isn’t because of greed or hate or anything remotely similar.  Once again it is because those who want it all are cowards, afraid to lose it all instead.  Why are we so afraid?  Because we want something to be afraid of.  Our fear is that if we have nothing to fear, we just have to make something up.  Why are we afraid of terrorists?  Because not to be afriad would mark us as ignorant.  Nonsense.  It marks us as brave.  Not the foolhardy bravery of a teenager marching off to war with stories of bravery in his ears.  But the bravery of someone living their life without regard to the inherent danger of life itself.

So I ask you, dear reader, to look into your heart.  Why are you so afraid.  And why can’t you simply face the truth?  Because you were raised to be a coward.  Now, what are you going to do about it?

Posted in Freedom, International, Politics | No Comments »

29. September 2007 by Rob.

I had a little incident the other day with a woman who is devoutly religious, one of those “born again” Christian women who always say “amen” as a punctuation mark.  While in normal conversation I tend to ignore the overtly religious implications of her thoughts, tending to be of the “everyone has the right to their opinion” variety of person, this time she went too far.

She was agitated because two women tried to get a marriage license here in Denver and were denied.  They protested by sit-in and were arrested for trespassing.  Not entirely an uncommon event but something which was always occurring in other states, at least she thought it couldn’t happen here.

The comment which triggered my little diatribe was when she said that god had created marriage to be between one man and one woman.  Hold the phone.  God did not create marriage, man did.  In fact, if you look at marriage throughout the ages, you find that religion was either not involved until sometime around the middle ages or was only for the wealthy and powerful.  Now I have to apologize to anyone who has already recognized that this is a christian-centric thought because that, unfortunately, is the primary bias against which I have to fight.  I know a bit about other religions and apologize that my remarks tend to be a bit generic here, but they can and do apply to other religions, just not all of them.

Anyway, I asked her where she got the idea that marriage was created by god and she said that it had always been that way.  I then asked if Adam and Eve were married which seemed to startle her.  I said, there is no record in the bible of god ever marrying the two of them.  I then asked if there was marriage in the time of Jesus and she said “of course.”  You mean when the family of a girl (usually 12 to 15 and worthless to the family) was offered to the lucky family that had a son (usually much older)  along with a major bribe - in the form of a dowry - just so they could unify the two families?  You mean when the woman traded her father’s name for her husband’s since she was considered little more than property?  You mean when only the wealthiest or most powerful individuals had those unions “blessed” by the priests?  Did you know that the sacrament of matrimony is only about a thousand years old?

She went still, this wild look of shock on her face as I pounded truth after truth into the argument. You see, she had been converted by someone who told her that everything in the bible was true and she willingly believed it.  But when confronted with the truth, she was unable to process it.  I asked her how two women getting married could, in any way shape or form, harm her won marriage.  She roused long enough to answer with the expected phrase: it diminishes the institution of marriage.

She was nervous when I laughed and responded.  So the strength of your marriage depends entirely on whether or not people you dislike are allowed to have the same rights and privileges that you have?  I would think that divorce, infidelity, and the ability to get married quickly would diminish marriage, not simply allowing two men or two wome to be bonded in loven.  You make it sound like a country club where you don’t want any of “those” people invited.

She was a little flustered and I could see that her mind was spinning.  It’s not nice to toss a little chaos into the rigidly structured minds of  people who rely on religion to determine their lives.  But sometimes you need to open the window and allow a little fresh air in.  Don’t ever claim anything as absolute when there is conflicting and contradictory evidence for something else out there.  And please don’t ever attack me personally.  You get me started and I won’t stop until I have completely destroyed your position.  You see, this little thing called truth?  She’s a powerful bitch!

Posted in Religion, Your Rights, Freedom | No Comments »

25. September 2007 by Rob.

The “him” I refer to is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  And the stories over the past few days have come fast and furious.  From the initial outcry over Columbia University’s hosting him to the comments he made at the United Nations, Americans really haven’t followed the true meaning behind these events.

The fact is that his participation in the event at Columbia University was necessary to prove the true power of democracy.  I was astounded and gratefully amazed at the University President’s comments which challenged President Ahmadinejad views.  And Ahmadinejad’s reaction and subsequent fall was the most perfect example of why this effort had significant value.  The derision he was met with when he stated that there were no gays in Iran is not something he is used to.  But he, and the world, need to see that true democracy allows idiots to spout their lies and fallacies but to also be challenged for them.  He couldn’t defend his views and so he lost, a true victory.

Unfortunately, those people who protested his appearance, while they have the full right to do so, obviously didn’t get it.  They didn’t want him to have the right to speak his piece in a forum where people could choose to be…or not.   If he had been barred from participating, then, remarkably enough, his views would have been validated because we would not be living in a democracy.  If the protesters had been there to challenge his views, then I feel they would have been valid.  But to seek to deny him the opportunity to speak?  I suggest you read the Constitution of the United States again.  And thank your lucky stars that we have not (yet) fallen from that ideal.

Posted in Your Rights, Freedom, International, Politics | No Comments »