Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Gays and Politics

(Note: The original of this was posted back in October. Nobody explained anything. I figured it was because I was so terse in my writing, nobody could understand the question. I fleshed it out and dumbed it down a bit. Let's see what happens.)

Could someone please explain to me why being homosexual is a political issue? Could someone please explain to me why the sex of people who wish to marry is a political issue?

Perhaps, if I was gay, I'd understand this issue, but I'm not and I don't.

It seems to me if being gay is genetic, and I'm not saying it is, but if it was, then being gay and sexual preference would be hard-wired into the person. In a sense, that means it's a kind of birth defect. This means it could be considered by some to be a type of handicap. Should we pass marriage laws against people who are born blind or without fingers?

It seems to me that if being gay is a choice, and I'm not saying it is, how does that choice affect me or anyone? Many people choose to do things I wouldn't choose. I don't choose to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, for example. I don't (well, didn't) choose to be career military. I no longer choose to be a Republican. Should we pass laws against allowing people to marry who choose to go skydiving, stay in the military, or be Republican? All are activities I don't engage in, but that's my preference.

So what gives? I don't see any political ramifications whether being gay is a choice or it isn't.

What I see is a religious prejudice against gay people. I'm not religious, but it seems to me that if there are religious aspects to being gay, these issues would be between the gays and God only. Certainly none of MY business, and again, should have no part in politics.

It seems to me like it's a nice gimmick to stir up religious frenzy in the political process, particularly around election time. It seems like a nice, non-issue to distract from the real issues and get a bunch of sheep to the polls who will vote a certain way without bothering to rub two gray cells together in the process.

But I could be wrong.

SO, if there is a real relationship between politics and homosexuality, would someone please please please explain it to me?

Commentary: The Blog Event

Doesn't that just get you salivating? It's not merely a blog entry, it's a blog event. Only, it looks like a normal blog entry, feels like one, heck, it even smells like one. So what's the big deal? And that's precisely my question.

When was the last time any car dealer around where you live had a sale? Here in the Bay Area, I'd have to say maybe four or five years. They don't have sales any more. They have "events." Now how exactly does an "event" differ from a sale? Well, I've never gone to one personally, but I suspect the difference is in the number and choice of letters. "Event" has five letters, "sale" has four.

It doesn't stop with commercial sales either. I don't think there are television shows any more. I don't watch television, but they advertise on the radio show where I get my traffic reports, and apparently television only has "events" now. Anyone care to enlighten the poor, huddled masses?

Are people really suckered in by this? I remember a story about Abraham Lincoln where he asked someone how many legs a sheep would have if you called the tail a leg. "Five" was the answer he got. No, he explained, still only four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

What's the difference between "medicine" and "medication." Back in the 50's when I was a kid, you got prescriptions for medicine. Now you get prescriptions for medication. So what's the difference? There is one, you know. [insert quiz show music while you think of the answer] [insert buzzer] Time's up. The difference is that you can charge a lot more for medication.

It's just like you can charge a lot more for a pre-owned car than you can for a used car. You can probably spend that extra money at one of those "events." That may be because the newer models of cars no longer have dashboards. They have "well-appointed cockpits."

But hey, two can play at that game. I heard that I would save $500 dollars by switching to Geico. I also heard that I would save $338 dollars by switching to Allstate. So I did. I switched to Geico then I switched to Allstate. I made a cool $838. The following day I did it again. Another $838. I did that all month. It's a shame that Insurance Companies are closed on Sundays, because I cleared over $21,000 in November. That projects out to a salary of $250,000.

That'll learn 'em.

Commentary: Myopic Hindsight

We've all heard the phrase "20/20 Hindsight." That means what we couldn't see ahead of us became painfully clear once the deed was done. I think it was Einstein who said something like "Life is the harshest of school teachers. First it gives the test, then it teaches the lesson." Most of us prefer to study things out in advance, since our foresight is often faulty, to mitigate any potential consequences. When we slack off and don't do the homework, we often make mistakes that become clear after the fact. At least, that's the case for most of us. I understand there are some exceptions.

The following is a statement that was said by a person with more intelligence resources available at his fingertips than any other person in the free world, and probably more than any other person period. The following is what President Bush said the day before the 2006 mid-term elections:

"Republicans are going to turn out. It's going to be a great victory on November the 7th."

I see one of three possibilities with that statement. He either believes it, or he doesn't. I know that sounds like two possibilities, but bear with me.

First, if he doesn't believe it, then basically he's lying through his teeth. There are, of course, some who will suggest that comes as no surprise since he's been lying about things since he took office. But if he's lying, then he's basically a dishonest politician, the kind America has been dealing with for a couple centuries. No problem, we can do that. We also have to wonder about whether lying is considered to be one of his famous family values, or whether the other so-called values are simply more lies to further some other agenda. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume, as we usually do, that he believes he is telling the truth.

Okay, so if he believes that statement, then we have to assume that he has not been paying attention to anything going on in the country for the past year or more. Perhaps he doesn't need to. He has advisors to tell him what to do and say. This leads to some areas that may be considered by some to be kind of scary. Are these advisors morons, or liars? And who, exactly, did we elect? Him? Or the advisors. If he is this out-of-touch with reality about things like elections, one could possibly ask if there are other things he is radically out of touch with. Both possibilities do not bode well for the rest of us.

The third possibility is that he was hoping the Republicans would turn out in huge numbers to vote for Democrats to give them the great victory he referred to. This possibility provides some comfort. It suggests that the president is not out of touch with reality and is being honest about what needs to be done in this country. If that's the case, then this was a good start, and we should keep going over the next few years until everyone left who claims to be a Republican has been given the boot. I don't think he was referring to a Democrat victory, however.

So now, the day after the election, does he still think it was a Republican victory? Does he still think the Republicans should "stay the course?" I suppose it depends on his hindsight. Perhaps a cane and some dark glasses would be in order.

Commentary: Sacred Institution

“I believe [marriage is] a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.” Thus spake President Bush yesterday in reaction to a decision made earlier by the New Jersey courts. Let's ignore the fact that the decision was about a slightly different subject.

I have only three things to say about that particular statement. First, it's George Bush's opinion. He has a right to hold that opinion. I'm willing to stick my neck out and suggest that, politics aside, that really is his opinion and merely rhetoric to win votes from the Religious Right, and not merely to stir up the homophobic vote less than two weeks from Election Day. It is one of the reasons I went into the military--not to defend my opinion, but to defend all opinions, whether they agreed with mine or not. I may not agree with this opinion, but I respect it.

Second, I'd like to point out the discrepency of the rhetoric versus the reasoning. If marriage truly is "critical to the health of our society," I'd imagine that marriage should therefore be encouraged. Currently, married couples are in the minority. There are more people living together or remaining single than are married in our country. If marriage is critical, why work against a small segment from taking part and by so doing, increasing the health of society and families and the overall commonweal? If marriage is so critical, why not also encourage those living together to get hitched? I don't hear anything at all along those lines. If I didn't know the background of this contention, and looked at the President's statement at face value, I'd think it was an argument used by the homosexuals, and not an argument against them.

Third, I'd like to point out the use of the word "sacred." That's the part that scares me. That the President has an opinion doesn't bother me. That it differs from mine doesn't bother me. That it's moronically illogical doesn't bother me. Use of the word "sacred," however, does.

"Sacred" comes from the Latin to consecrate or make holy, and is defined as "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of deity." It not only has religious connotations, it has religious denotations. The scary part isn't that this happens to be someone's opinion, but that this person is an elected government official and speaking in an official capacity. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution says that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Legislative Branch shouldn't do it, the Executive Branch damn well shouldn't be doing it or advocating it be done. That is not the way to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." And if that is the best of the President's ability to do so, then he is unfit for office.

In my opinion, all citizens of the US should enjoy the same rights. Marriage, as currently defined, carries with it legal rights. The direction ahead seems perfectly clear to me. Either grant all people the same rights by allowing all people to marry, or separate the legal part of marriage from the religious part. That means that showing up before the pastor and getting married may give someone the warm fuzzies, but to receive legal recognition of the bond, that same couple must also appear before a Justice of the Peace and form a legal, civil union. Various religions will be free to restrict "marriage" however the wish, because it will have no impact legally. One or the other.

Either that, or stop quibbling about definitions and stop wasting everyone's time on these stupid non-issues and deal with the issues that are killing people.

Commentary: Why Political Junkmail Works

I don't know about you, but I live in California. That means that almost any new proposition, whether added to the ballot by the State Legislature or by petition collectors who sit at little tables in front of super markets, results in ammending the State Constitution, which is now more of a confused Gordian knot than ole Gordo ever could imagine.

But it's okay. I got my state-supplied "Official Voter Information Guide," all 191 pages. The damned thing looks thicker than the US Code. It's pretty daunting. It's the document I use to make my decisions. I can see the proposed text, the impartial summary, the impact, and arguments for and against as supplied by those individuals either for or against it. It's, in my opinion, the best way to make a decision. Weigh the relative merits and bad points, think about them, run over them again, do a gut check, then decide yea or nay, and vote that way.

But 191 pages?

I was thumbing through the mail, and scattered in amongst the bills and the people wanting me to refinance, were the slick, full-color "flyers" of the various candidates, all of whom are honest, have great values, tons of exeperience, and are not evil like their opponents. I noticed on one of the flyers a recommendation on how to vote for the various propositions. Wow, if I was to take those recommendations, I would save hours studying the issues and sweating over trying to make the right decision. Ah, but do I trust them? Or was that flyer from one of the evil ones?

Such an easy trap to fall into. Let someone else make the decision for me. But if I were to do so, how would I decide whether the recommendations were good or evil (after all, we no longer live in a full color society--everything is either black or white now)? If I was a Democrat, I'd suppose that the Democrats were good and the Republicans were evil, and vote the way the Dem party hacks would want. If I were a Republican, I'd suppose the opposite, and end up voting the way the Pubbie party hacks wanted.

I guess I'd better study the issues.

What about the candidates themselves. Should I examine the voting records (and probably the police records) of the various incumbants, and check out the positions of the challengers? That would be the right thing to do. That would also be an incredibly time consuming thing to do, and let's face it, my time is valuable. Really. Or do I remember that I'm a Dem or Pubbie and just vote the party, and give up my voice. I might feel guilty if I do that. I'd better read all the political flyers of my current party and get all the warm fuzzies that I'm making a good choice by voting their way, and decide that the others are evil.

Alas, as a moderate and affiliated with no party, I have to make an informed decision on my own. So I throw the political junk mail away, unread. I study the issues and candidates objectively. That means I have to understand them. That means I'm going to be spending many hours of my valuable time doing this. It could be as much as six to eight hours. Perhaps more. But you know, six to ten hours, once every year or two around election time, is not a bad price to pay for Democracy. In fact, it's a bargain.

I wish everybody felt the same.

Question:

Could someone please explain to me why being homosexual is a political issue? Could someone please explain to me why the sex of people who wish to marry is a political issue?

Perhaps, if I was gay, I'd understand it, but I don't.

It seems to me if being gay is genetic, then it could be considered by some a type of handicap. Should we pass laws against people who are born blind or without fingers?

It seems to me that if being gay is a choice, how does that choice affect me? Should we pass laws against people who choose to go skydiving? Both are activities I wouldn't engage in, but that's my preference.

What I see is a religious prejudice against gay people. It seems to me that if it's religious, any issues would be between the gays and God, and again, should have no part in politics. It seems to me like it's a nice gimmick to stir up religious frenzy in the the political process, particularly around election time.

If not, if there is a real relationship between politics and homosexuality, would someone please please please explain it to me?

Commentary: I remember the 60's. (cross-posted on The Donnybrook)

There are some who might suggest that this means I wasn't having a good enough time. That's fair.

What I remember in particular, at least for this piece, is the 1964 election. Goldwater versus Johnson. I was 14, politically active, and growing up in a blue-collar Democrat town. I was convinced that Goldwater was the only viable candidate running, and that if Johnson was elected, the US would fall to Communism. I couldn't understand how the people around me could be so stupid. I hoped the rest of the country wasn't so dumb.

When the election results came back, I went into a bit of a funk. How many more years would it be before we had to start learning Russian in our schools? I was determined I would never, ever, eat those damned fish eggs.

And you know? Johnson was as bad a president as I feared he would be.

But we survived. And we survived Vietnam. And Watergate. And Iran-Contra. And even a BJ. And eventually it occurred to me that maybe the US was stronger than I thought. Maybe there was something dynamic and wonderful in the Constitution. Maybe the Vietnam protesters weren't Commies after all, but concerned individuals whose right to disagree with me was a fundamental part why the American experiment was so strong and so robust. Maybe America is better than the guy who happens to be holding office.

It's like a pendulum. It may swing one way for a while, than the other way for a while, but through it all, America moves forward.

Only, it's happening again. I've become fearful the way I was back in the 60's. I don't see the pendulum moving back. I'm getting nervous.

Okay, maybe I voted Democratic for the first time in my life in 2000, but that was only because I didn't want a dimwit in the White House. I figured Gore was so bland he wouldn't hurt anything, but at least wouldn't embarrass us. But that Bush won didn't bother me that much. America was stronger than either Gore or Bush. I was encourage when I saw him select Colin Powell. He's surrounding himself with good people, I thought. Even a dimwit with good counselors can't go too far wrong. Like most people, you don't "hope" the person you didn't vote for will fail. That's stupid. It's our country, and whomever is in office we want to succeed. When 9/11 happened, I found myself hoping that this mediocre man would shine like a Lincoln. Maybe a cowboy was a good thing to have at that time.

Besides, stupidity makes for good comedy, and we can all use a good laugh now and again.

I don't feel that way any more. I don't see anything to laugh at. I'm afraid. Not of the terrorists (and yes, they'll strike again--it's what they do), but of that dimwitted cowboy, his cronies, his bobble-headed Congress, and the religious right that seems to want to do away with the separation of Church and State. For the first time since the 60's, I fear for America. Is the Constitution strong enough to withstand what appears to be an orchestrated onslaught from within? I hope it can. I fear it won't.

Commentary: God and Governments

I want to carry on with the subject raised by the Death Penalty thoughts from a few days ago. I asked about how it's possible for a government to decide to kill/execute people when Exodus pretty much says "thou shalt not kill." I was waiting for someone to point out that there is no inconsistency in the government working in behalf of God because of what it says in Romans. I'll quote:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1 (NIV)

Does anyone see an issue here? Look at it this way: if that is true, as many Christians think it is, then people like Kim Jong-il, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin have been appointed by God. So what the hell is Bush, a God-appointee himself, doing waging war against another God-appointee by the name of Saddam Hussein.

If we extend this way of thinking, than God is basically playing a massive chess game against Himself, and we are but the pawns.

I've only had one Christian dare to attempt to answer this. The answer was reasonable. They said that God set up the "concept" of governments, but does not dictate how the governments are run. M'kay. Only the answer seems to beg off the concept of having the authority from God as suggested (state explicitly?) by Romans. That answer also returns us to the unanswered question of who will bear responsibility when a government sheds innocent blood.

To bring it down to the concrete, I would like to hear how a Christian responds to the following conundrum. Will President Bush receive eternal damnation for misusing God's government to create collateral damage (is there a heavenly version of unintentional manslaughter?) or will he be facing the music for attacking another of God's governments?

Commentary: Christians and Killing

Let's face it, I live in a Christian country. In the last election here, people were not voting with their minds toward the issues, they were voting with their Bibles.

One of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill." Of course, I've heard all the counter arguments that originally it meant "thou shalt not commit murder" or "thou shalt not shed innocent blood," etc. So I can't help but wonder, how does any Christian country justify either the death penalty or going to war?

Death Penalty: One can argue that the person being executed is not "innocent," and therefore it isn't murder. But this raises several questions.

1. If non-innocent blood can be shed, WHAT, on the continuum of "guilty blood," warrants the death penalty? If I steal an apple, my blood is no longer innocent, and therefore killing me would not be murder, right? Who among us is totally innocent of everything? The standard Christian answer is "only one." Does that mean it's open season on the rest of us?

2. If this is a divine injunction, why are civil governments taking over responsibility for deciding who should or should not be killed? Shouldn't all such cases be sent to priests and whatnot who have a direct link to God for deciding which people are eligible as exceptions to the commandment? Doesn't this mean that some form of government similar to what many of the Arab nations have would be more appropriate?

3. Who bears responsibility for those executed by mistake?

War: What is war, if it is not the wholesale shedding of innocent blood? Are all the soldiers who died in all the wars deserving of being executed anyway? Are all the civilians equally deserving of it? Was the bombing of Bagdad, Hanoi, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Pearl Harbor nothing more than cleaning out nests of people who were awaiting execution? If not, some questions are raised along these lines as well.

1. Who bears the responsibility for innocent blood shed in war? The soldiers who pulled the proverbial (or literal) trigger, the officers who gave the orders, or the presidents and prime ministers who dragged their nations to war?

2. There are many nations who no longer have the death penalty, yet still go to war. How do they reconcile the two?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how Chrisitians can justify their killing, and I'm having a hard time seeing how government sanctified killing is rationalized, given the apparent contradictions. Is there some kind of divine "get out of jail free card" somewhere? I must have missed that passage in the Bible.

It kind of makes me glad I'm not a Chrisitian and not really part of the gubmint.

Chain: Five Odd Things About Me

Okay, apparently there's a chain circulating around the blogging realm where, if "tagged," the person is to write five odd or weird things about themselves, then tag five more people. I thought I'd play along. Sort of.

1. I love to break chains. For that reason, I'm not going to tag five others. I particularly like to break chains that predict vile doom for anyone who breaks them. I calculate I've died horribly several dozens of times over the years. I'm looking damn fine for a corpse.

2. I like to draw people. I mean, I really like to draw people. I like drawing faces the best, particularly interesting looking faces. If they're willing to take their clothes off, I'll draw the whole figure. Some do. Most don't. Drawing people is better than drawing anything else. I'm getting pretty good at drawing as well. I guess it's like any skill. It improves if you do it a lot.

3. I enjoy driving a 140 mile round-trip commute through the worst traffic on the planet even though I have a boss who's a moron. That's because I like the work and the rest of the people so well. Life's all about trade-offs and compromises.

4. Although I'm basically an agnostic, I'm a very spiritual agnostic. No, that doesn't mean I do wicca or pyramids or any of that other non-scientific nonsense. It means I think about the concept of God a lot and study various religions and dogmas and histories. During my early morning commute, I talk a lot to God, assuming there is a God and that God is listening, either that, or I'm talking to the roof of my car. Either way, I verbalize my thoughts and questions. I love it when Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or any of those types knock on my door. They, on the other hand, seem to become dismayed that I know more about their religion than they do, including all the counter arguments.

5. For the first 40 years of my life, I used to say "When I grow up . . . " Of late (the past 15 years) I've decided I don't want to grow up.

Actually, I don't think any of those things are particularly odd. On the other hand, the most humdrum of activities might seem odd to someone.

CaliforniansSo as not to be outdone by all the redneck, hillbilly, and Texan jokes, you know you're from California if:1. Your coworker has 8 body piercing and none are visible.2. You make over $300,000 and still can't afford a house.3. You take a bus and are shocked at two people carrying on a conversation in English.4. Your child's 3rd-grade teacher has purple hair, a nose ring, and is named Flower.5. You can't remember . . is pot illegal?6. You've been to a baby shower that has two mothers and a sperm donor.7. You have a very strong opinion about where your coffee beans are grown, and you can taste the difference between Sumatran and Ethiopian..8. You can't remember . . . is pot illegal?9. A really great parking space can totally move you to tears.10. Gas costs $1.00 per gallon more than anywhere
else in the U.S.

11. Unlike back home, the guy at 8:30 am at Starbucks wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses who looks like George Clooney really IS George Clooney.

12. Your car insurance costs as much as your house payment.

13. You can't remember . . .is pot illegal?

14. It's barely sprinkling rain and there's a report on every news station: "STORM WATCH."

15. You pass an elementary school playground and the children are all busy with their cells or pagers.

16. It's barely sprinkling rain outside, so you leave for work an hour early to avoid all the weather-related accidents.

17. HEY!!!! Is pot illegal????

18. Both you AND your dog have therapists.

19. The Terminator is your governor.

20. If you drive illegally, they take your driver's license. If you're here illegally, they want to give you one.

Commentary: The Religion of Politics

Emory University did an interesting study just prior to the 2004 elections, using both Democrat and Republican subjects. Each was presented with information that threatened their preferred candidate. Their brains were monitored as well as their responses. Anyone want to venture what they think happened? Did the subjects, perhaps, evaluate the information presented in a logical way, weighing the pros and the cons, and come to an informed decision based upon the facts? It seems that for those subjects who were very partisan in their beliefs, that did not happen. In fact, the part of the brain that deals in logic and higher functions did not light up at all. It didn't matter whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

Are we surprised?

Generally, the following scenario took place:
1. When presented with information that was contrary to their preferred candidate, the area dealing with negative emotions fired.
2. They came to a biased conclusion by ignoring the information.
3. They then got a pleasure spike identical that of an addict getting a fix.

What that means is that people in partisan politics are not interested in what's good for the country. They're trying to score cheap highs, undetectable by any drug tests. And it's happening on both sides of the aisle. It's kind of like this:

Demmie: "Neocons suck because of a, b, and c."
Pubbie: "Libs suck because of x, y, and z."
Demmie: "Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears combat boots."
Pubbie: "And your father smells of elderberries."
. . . and both walk away, having gotten their fix, and convinced more than ever that they are right and the other side is wrong.

Way to run a country, guys.

I've seen the same thing happen in a room where two different religions fling Bible texts at one another. There's this constant ebb and flow of disgust and pleasure. Neither side gives any ground, and both are convinced the other group is on an express train the Hell. What's funny is that both sides think they're Christians.

There's a reason for the separation of Church and State. Now let's see if we can take the religion out of politics.

Commentary: Moderate Power

Normally I think about what I'm going to say for a while, write it up elsewhere, let it simmer, make changes, and evenatually pop it up here. I've been swamped both at work and at home with this thing called "real life," so I haven't been very publishy for a while. I'd been thinking about this subject, but haven't had time to do much else. After reading a blog elsewhere, I decided to jump right into this one.

The subject can be interpreted two ways, depending on whether you consider the word "moderate" to be a verb or a noun. As a verb, it works quite well as a two word paraphrase of concepts like "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and documents like the U.S. Constitution. It's a lesson, or perhaps a suggestion, that should be taken to heart by the Congress, the Executive Branch, and corporations, perhaps moreso now than any time in the past 50 years.

But I really want to talk about the word as a noun.

I frequently call myself a conservative. I reason this because I believe in the things conservatives should believe in and used to. Things like a balanced budget, small government, taxes only high enough to pay for what's spent, a slow, considered approach to making changes, no riders on pieces of legislation, separation of church and state. The current crop of so-called conservatives, from my point of view, have somehow slipped further to the left than the so-called liberals.

Maybe it's the influence of computers or something. Computers only recognize two states: on and off, or "ones" and "zeros." It seems to be a tendency of late to give everything a binary classification. Things are right, or wrong; good, or evil; left, or right; black, or white." Maybe this was true back in the 1940s, but we have cameras that take color pictures and televisions with programs in color. Honest. Does it make sense to get onto ones hands and knees with a magnifying glass to determine whether a particular shade of gray should be classified as white or as black? Not to me. It's a waste of time to do that.

So I'm not going to call myself either a liberal or a conservative, a leftie or a rightie, a blackie or a whitie. I'm going to call myself a moderate. When people ask "moderate conservative or moderate liberal," I think simply respond a "yes," or simply "just moderate."

We moderates have a bad rap, you know. Some like to call us "mugwumps." You know what a mugwump is, right? It's a bird that sits on a fence with it's mug on one side and it's "wump" on the other. A fence sitter. There are some very incorrect unstated assumptions made by this attitude. The first assumes that such individuals are apathetic and don't care. The second is that such individuals lack the courage to "commit." The third, perhaps the most insidious, is that there is actually a fence. There isn't. There are two. One has been built by the "conservatives" around themselves, dividing "us" from "them." They are seeking converts. The other has been built by the liberals around themselves, also dividing an "us" from a "them." They, too, seek converts. And you should hear the conversation between the two camps. It's like getting Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses together for a "calm discussion."

Nope, I'm a moderate. I'm empowered. I don't have to be stuck part and parcel with the entire package from one group of encircled wagons or the other. I can pick and choose what I like, and what seems good for the country and my loved ones. I don't have to follow talking points and march in lock-step with one side or the other.

You know what else? I have the power. I elect the congress and the presidents, not the Demmies or the Pubbies. The "liberals" will never vote conservatively. The "conservatives" will never vote for a liberal. Talking to them is useless anyway. Just listen to their conversations.

The moderates have the power. We listen. We take the time to consider things from several angles. We make the decisions based upon what facts we have available. We can discuss things amongst ourselves and can agree to disagree without calling the other "evil" or "a nut case." We have the swing vote. We're the ones the wackos in the wings need to court. And we're the ones they better hope never get organized. Because you know what you'd have then?

Moderate power.

Commentary: Illegal Immigrants

Wow, if there's ever a subject I have mixed feelings over, it's this one. There is no black and white anywhere, because all the arguments one way seem to have counter arguments equally valid.

What's prompting this post is Bush's knuckleheaded idea of putting 6000 National Guard along the boder. Why knuckleheaded? Well, let me get this rant behind me so I can move on to the subject.

The National Guard, in my opinion, was established to protect the citizens of the US, and this before there even was a US. 370 years ago, there was a very real danger of attacks from the Indian Nations, the French, and later the British. Since that time, the National Guard has been helping out in times of natural disasters. Where was the National Guard during the Katrina disaster? Oops, in Iraq. Why did California have to borrow equipment from Oregon, Washington, and Nevada for the San Diego fires last year? Oh, yeah, California's is in Iraq.

*shakes head*

Back to the Immigrants.

First off, are they truly "illegal?" In my opinion, yes, they are. But then, it was also illegal for black people to ride at the front of buses or drink from "white only" drinking fountains prior to the 60s. Perhaps some laws are out-dated and need to be revisited. Perhaps the immigration laws are part of that category.

Are they taking jobs that could be done by American citizens who are unemployed? Again in my opinion, yes, they are. But do those who are unemployed WANT to do that kind of work? I still see the homeless in San Francisco continue to panhandle. I don't see them standing at Home Depot in hopes of getting work for the day.

Come to think of it, who do I want to see the work go to? Someone who's already dropped out of society? Or someone who's trying to make a better life for their family and put up with a lot of hardships to do so? But you know what? When I hire someone to work around my house, I'll be getting them out of the phone book, not picking them up at Home Depot.

Do I like the idea of paying for their medical? No. But I cannot ask doctors to turn away the sick, and I don't have it in my heart to want to prevent the sick from getting treatment, even if it means the State will pay and increase my taxes. I'd rather not pay the taxes and have there be some way they could pay their own medical, or get their own insurance.

Do I like the idea of having the State pay for publications in English, Spanish, Chinese, and whatever the foreign language of the week is? Nope. And you know what? I draw the line there. If you're going to vote, learn the damned language. If I, as a lazy American, can learn Dutch, German, and Russian, you as an immigrant can learn my language when you live in my country. Deal with it.

So anyway, the conservative side of me wants to pack all the illegals up and ship them back where they came from. The practical side of me says that may not be the best solution, and that a lot of needed work may not get done, and the price and availability of a lot of our produce will take turns we don't want them to take. Gasoline is bad enough, let's not compound it with food issues. The humanitarian side of me understands why they do what they do, and suggests that there, but for fortune, go I.

I guess the bottom line is that we have some serious issues with immigration and the laws. Perhaps there's a reason why many are calling for immigration "reform." It seems to me there needs to be some changes. It seems to me that there could be a possibility that when the changes are made, changes will be made to the support infrastructure that would create even more jobs, hopefully including the teaching of the damned language! It also seems to me that we should take the time to make sure we make the RIGHT changes, not just political changes.

Commentary: Asking for a Dictionary

Been listening to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial recently? In case you've forgotten who he is, he's the non-hijacker hijacker on trial for 9-11. The trial is over, and now they're in the sentencing phase. The Jury has been very quiet. The only thing they've asked for was a dictionary. That was denied by the judge, who explained that the Court would define any words that they needed. They didn't ask the Court to define anything.

I wondered why.

Then I received a class-action statement for something. We get those all the time. Buy a Microsoft product and get a class-action statement. Subscribe to cable and get a class-action statement. In this case, one of the many stocks my finance management company bought for me came under litigation. Hooray. And I got a class-action statement. I glanced it over and saw why the Jury asked for a dictionary and why they didn't ask the Court.

Let's define the word "final."

Webster's Ninth Collegiate says: "being the last in a series, process, or progress" and "of or relating to the ultimate purpose or result of a process" and "relating to or occurring at the end or conclusion." It that's still too hard, they offer a synonym: "LAST."

Here's how the Superior Court of the State of California defines it: "Final" means the later of: (a) the date of final affirmance on an appeal of the Judgment, the expiration of the time for a petition to review the Judgment and, if any such writ or petition is granted, the date of final affirmance of the Judgment following the review persuant to that grant; or (b) the date of final, non-appealable dismissal of any appeal from the Judgment or expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from the Court's Judgment approving the Stipulation. Any proceeding or order, or any appeal or petition for review pertaining solely to any claim for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in the Litigation or the Federal Securities Action shall not in any way delay or preclude the Judgment from becoming Final with the meaning of this paragraph. Provided, in no even shall the Judgement in this Litigation be deemed "Final" for purposes of this Stipulation unless and until the dismissals with prejudice in [specifics deleted] have become "Final" as defined in this paragraph.

People get paid to write that shit?

Commentary: Prostitution

Before you read any further, go back and reread the commentary about legislating morality. We'll wait for you.

Back so soon? Hm. Oh well, let's move on.

I'm a capitalist. I'm a firm believer in free enterprise and that if there is a market for goods and services, an entrepreneur should be able to make a profit. As long as nobody gets hurt by the goods or services, and take the responsibility to do the market and consumer research, and make and informed buying decision, there should be no restrictions.

So what's this got to do with Prostitution?

To understand that, we need to agree on what Prostitution is. Fortunately, we already have an agreement. It's called "English." We communicate because we all agree on certain standard meanings for words, and if we have a disagreement, we check the authoritative source listing the standards. It's called a "Dictionary." Granted, with the advent of "spell checking," many of these dictionaries haven't been opened in years, but believe it or not, dictionaries do more than just help with diction and more than just help with spelling. The words have standard meanings. Prostitution is defined by "Webster's Ninth Collegiate" as "the act or practice of indulging in promiscuous sexual relations esp. for money." Sex for money.

So why is that bad? Well, one can assume that it's bad either because sex is bad or making money is bad.

For the following discussion, let's assume the standard "guy paying the girl for sex" scenario. If we took away the money aspect, would it be okay? Is it okay to have sex if money doesn't change hands? Or is it the amount of money involved? The hundred or two hundred (whatever the going rate is) may be too small. When a guy marries a girl, he turns over all of his paychecks for the rest of his life for what amounts to a season pass. Is the current "pay per view" of prostitution too cost effective, or is it too expensive. Shouldn't that fall under a "caveat emptor?"

Or is it the sex that's bad? If prostitution is bad because sex is bad, why do we have sex so often? Perhaps it's the sex that should be outlawed.

Or is it the lack of love in the exchange? Should having sex without love be made illegal? Wouldn't that affect many married couples as well? How do you determine if love is involved? Would it be okay if the guy and the prostitute each said "I love you" before exchanging either money or bodily fluids?

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there's a bigger issue concerning the subjugation of women. There are some who feel that a woman should not have control over her own body. When married, she becomes the property of the husband. When she's not married, ownership becomes a tad more iffy. Perhaps feudalism is making a comeback.

I, for one, don't understand why prostitution is illegal. It goes against my inner capitalist.

Commentary: 51%

I guess I need a few things explained to me. I keep hearing, from the Republican side of things, how the Democrats are blocking anything from getting done. The country has all these problems, but they can't get fixed because of the Democrats. Statements like that confuse me.

We have a governmental harmonic convergence more rare than the planets lining up. The Republicans have seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices where the so-called "swing vote" was a Republican. The Executive branch is filled to the gills with Republicans and led by one who is apparently unable to even spell the word "veto." The Republicans have a majority in not only the Senate, but the House. In theory, they should be able to do anything they want and the Democrats can't do a thing about it. All they need is 51%. That 2/3 stuff only kicks in when there's a V-E-T-O.

So how can the Democrats "block" anything?

But let's assume for a moment they can. Let's also assume that by the end of election year 2006, through some miracle or disaster (you decide), the Democrats have the majority of the House and Senate. "Majority" means basically "51% or more." What this means is that the roles have changed. Doesn't this also mean that the Republicans will now be able to block the Democrats from doing anything? Won't the same tools, if such tools exist, be available to the Republicans?

If all this is true, then it seems that the minority party can effectively keep the majority party from getting anything done. This means that Congress, both Houses, is totally ineffectual. Perhaps the best solution is to get rid of Congress altogether. Granted, we'll lose one of the Checks and Balances to the government, but since they haven't done a whole lot of checking and balancing of late, we won't miss them. Think of the taxes we'd save. And on the brighter side, the Lobbyists won't have anyone to bribe, and will therefore be worthless, and the companies that employ them will fire them and could pass the savings on to their customers.

Hm. Less taxes and cheaper goods and services. Does anyone see a down side to this?

Commentary: Legislating Morality

One of the discussion points we see cropping up every so often is about whether or not we should be legislating morality. To some it seems unambiguously clear that we should, and to others just the opposite. On the one extreme, we have religious zealots who feel that their beliefs are God's beliefs, are laid out in Holy Scripture, are therefore the "definitive" morality, and ergo there is no problem to legislate it. Muslim Sharia law, or many of the "blue laws" of Utah or the Deep South are examples of this. On the other extreme, we have the cultural relativists who feel that each culture defines its own morality, and all moralities are equally valid.

Have I mentioned how I hate extremism?

One of the examples use for supporting the concept that morality can be legislated is the thing we all are supposed to agree upon, that murder is bad (bad=immoral) and that it's a good thing that it's against the law. We can't even agree upon that. Among the so-called civilized western nations, there is a huge discrepancy about the subject of state-sponsored murder. And yes, I'm using the word "murder" rather than "executions" merely to rattle some cages. I'll rattle the others later.

The problem, as I see it, is a lack of communication. I do not subscribe to any religions dogma, and I do not subscribe to the concept that what other cultures do is okay, yet I believe that there is a basic, universal morality that can safely be legislated. Perhaps all I'm doing is creating yet another cultish or culturally specific schema, based upon a cult or culture of one.

This "morality" of mine can be expressed in four, very simple words: Do not hurt others. I'll expand it a bit when I extend it to legislation: If an action hurts another (physically, monetarily, possessionally) it should be illegal. This would not apply to seeking restitution of one who has already violated the morality. A quick example, taking money from someone is an act of "hurting" and should be illegal, but taking stolen money back is an act of restitution and is not. A seeming "exception" to this basic morality can be explained by the concept of "informed, uncoerced consent." In that example, then, it's okay for a person to take money if it's given freely.

If we think about it, we would realize were we to apply this template to our current laws, most of them would remain unchanged. A few would be dumped. The dumpees would be the pet laws of the extremists.

Notice this "morality" does not apply to individuals themselves. This means that people have the right, unfettered by laws, to be stupid. They have the right to populate the Darwin Award rolls. That means that if we, as a culture, understand that coffee is hot, and that the corporation selling the coffee informs a customer that the coffee is hot, that the individual has the right to spill this coffee in their lap, but not to shift responsibility of that act to the corporation. In other words, many of our frivolous lawsuits should disappear.

You think?

Nawwwww.

Commentary: 1984 Revisited

I read George Orwell's 1984 back when I was in high school. This was in the mid-Sixties so the time setting of the book was still almost two decades off. Back then it was considered a cautionary tale about how society could devolve into a distopia. I suppose it would be considered so now, even though the year in question has come and gone. Somehow, the images of Big Brother, the Thought Police, the Hate Rallies, and rewriting history and pretending it had always been so, stick with us and have invaded our everyday speech.

Back then, I used to tell people how we were on track to 1984. We don't rewrite history, they'd say. We just changed all the clocks an hour an now we pretend the time has always been this way. We don't have hate rallies, they'd say. We're playing our cross-town rivals this weekend and our rally is scheduled at 10:00 this morning. You're wearing a button that says "Drop dead, Little Red" (the other high school's colors were red and white).

You get the picture.

I was reminded of all this over the weekend, when once again the world plunged into madness and changed all their clocks. Now, instead of getting up at 3:00 a.m. to go to work, I get up at 2:00 a.m. Thanks world. I don't even understand how anyone is "saving" an hour of daylight. All they've done is chop it off the morning and scotch tape it to the evening.

As I thought about how I used to tease my friends in school about being tools of Big Brother, I thought about what's happening today. When I pondered the Thought Police, I was reminded of the NSA and the illegal wire-tapping that is probably still going on. I thought about Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners that HE is "the only news they need to listen to." I thought about Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter preaching hatred of the Left. I thought about Randi Rhodes and Al Franken preaching hatred of the Right. I thought about the FCC, chartered to keep the RF signals and interference under control, with controlling content instead.

I thought about how congress and state senates keep trying to legislate people from being stupid. Rewrite history? In late 2002 we were all supposed to believe Iraq had WMD. Now we're supposed to believe they didn't. In the Fifties and Sixties Red China was our enemy. Now Red China is our friend and business partner, and we no longer call them "Red." Are they no longer Communists?

Hate rallies? Just tune into any talk radio and you'll get your own, personal hate rally. But if you want something official, you get two to choose from. We call them the DNC and the RNC. To invoke another Orwellian image, we need to remember although the ruling oligarchy of animals was evil, the farmers they threw off the land were equally as evil. If really doesn't matter whether you're in lock-step with one political ideology or goose-stepping with the other. As long as you succumb to the political and religious Thought Police, you're in the thrall of Big Brother.

I wonder if there's a Blog Police.

Editorial: Nipples

Well, now that I have your attention . . .

And why do I have your attention? It's just a simple word. So what attracted your attention to that word? Was it a good connotation or a bad connotation? Did you start reading because you expecting something along the lines of a terrorist attack, or something along the lines of freshly baked bread, hot out of the oven? Pause for a moment and ask yourself that before continuing on. Are nipples good or bad?

Let's face it, nine times out of ten (or perhaps more like 99 times out of 100), when someone says or writes "nipples" (particularly as I did, using the plural), the listener/reader thinks of female breasts. Naked ones.

But aren't female breasts pornographic? Let's think about that for a moment.

Place yourself in the shoes of a censor or editor somewhere, say for a magazine, and you're checking the ads to make sure nothing inappropriate gets published. The ad is using a scantily clad female to sell whatever it is they're selling, which is a common practice. Imagine the female is in a low-cut evening gown. Like dancing the limbo, how low can you go? Stop at the clavicle? Nope, you can go lower. Stop at the top of the breasts and show no cleavage? Nope you can go lower. Where do you stop? Exactly at the point where the nipple is about to be revealed. Right? If you show the nipple, you've moved into the territory of "pr0n."

Speaking of cleavage, that's okay too, right? You can show cleavage all the way down to the navel. But how wide can that cleavage gap go? You guessed it. To the nipple.

What about the other directions? How high on the breast can you show before what you show enters the shadowy world of pr0n? How much of the side of the breast can you show? The answer is the same, isn't it? You can show up to, but not including the nipple.

Do you know what that means? Breasts are not considered pornographic. Only nipples. Does that make sense? Don't males have nipples as well? And isn't it okay to show male nipples in ads, on national television, and in public? What's the difference between male and female nipples? Size. What else is there? I can only assume that all our laws of pornography, written by male legislators and enforced by males police and male judges (remember, females are only recently in those ranks), are the result of "nipple envy."

How crazy is that?

Let me leave you with one more question. What would you rather see a picture of--and keep in mind only one of the choices is allowed on national news--bloodied bodies after a terrorist attack, or nipples?

Editorial: Pulling the Plug

I don't remember my great-grandfather, mainly because he died when my mom and my aunt were still young girls. He stayed in a small "grandma house" behind the main house. He apparently became fairly seriously ill, so they called out the doctor. Back then, doctors made what were referred to as "house calls." You can look it up in older dictionaries. They'd actually come to the house, nighttime and stormy weather, with their little black bag, to check out their patients.

He checked out my great-grandfather and saw that he wasn't long for this world. He went back into the main one and addressed the family. He told them that there was really nothing to be done, to make him as comfortable as possible, and to let him have as much beer as he wanted. The family kept him comfortable and loved, and he died peacefully in his own bed.

In contrast, my dad died in a hospital bed, surrounded by antiseptic smells, and with tubes to feed him, dope him, monitor him, and help him breathe.

I remember the Terri Schiavo debate. I'm sure we all do. There were a lot of opinions about a lot of things, most of them based upon conjecture and politics, and not much on personal desires. The media and the government had placed more metaphorical tubes in that poor family than a whole team of doctors.

And, of course, the debate raged in the political forums, mostly based upon emotional responses and being true to party lines than much of anything else. I got tired of hearing the same worn-out talking points from both sides, and wanted to find out how people really believed. So I posted an anonymous poll with four rather curmudgeonly choices. I expected to get a variety of responses, based upon all the discussion. Here is the poll I posted:

If I'm tubed up the yin-yang and the question arises about whether to pull the plug or not . . .

1. Leave everything in until I'm stiff and cold, cause I plan to fight back no matter what the odds.

2. Yank 'em when they're pretty sure there's no chance--I don't want to be a burdon to my family.

3. I'm too wimpy to decide--I'll leave it to Daddy/Mummy/Wifey/Hubby.

4. I think the Gubmint has my best interests at heart. Let them decide.

What surprised me most about the results of the poll was that despite all the controversy that preceded it, everyone responded with the same choice. Which one was it? Figure it out.

As for me, I like to tell people that when I die, I want to go like my grand-father, peacefully, in my sleep, not yelling and screaming like his passengers.

Editorial: Suicide

A week or so ago I was reading about the life of Vincent van Gogh and about his suicide attempts. He initially tried to eat his paints. They were poisonous back then. They're only toxic nowadays. That didn't work very well so he went out into a field and shot himself in the heart. Only he bungled that, too. So he walked back to the inn where he was staying and laid down on the bed without telling anyone. They found him lying in a pool of blood, called the doctor who tried to save him, and van Gogh suffered a seizure which finally did him in--two days after the attempt. Or was that a successful suicide.

This caused me to start thinking about suicide. No, not that way. I'd prefer to live an extra few thousand years, learn all the stuff I'm curious about, visit all kinds of places, and relearn everything I've forgotten. I personally think committing suicide is stupid. I also feel that being stupid is neither a sin nor against the law.

Poor ole Vinnie didn't get a funeral because, well, the Catholic Church can be cranky about suicides from time to time. Was it really a suicide? Although I'm sure Nirvana fans would call it a murder (small joke), the question is, what was the real cause of death--the seizure, the loss of blood, or the gunshot wound? Suppose he didn't shoot himself, but the seizure killed him because of left-over toxins from the paint several years earlier? Suicide or no? Is there some kind of statute of limitations between attempts that contribute to death and the death itself? Three days? A fortnight? No expiration? Does anyone wish to volunteer a cut-off time? What about complications arising from suicide attempts? What about unintended results? Is dying from a game of Russian roulette considered a suicide? Or an accident? Is it true that every year in the US, there are 400,000 tobacco-related suicides and murders?

And why are we having this discussion?

If someone's affairs are in order, bills paid off, family set up with financial security, and funeral expenses paid in full--what's wrong with suicide? Maybe the person's family doesn't want it, but are their desires that significant? There are divorces against people's desires on a daily basis. There are other kinds of death against people's desires on a daily basis. Sure, maybe suicide really is "self-murder," and maybe it is a sin (contrary to my beliefs), but wouldn't that be an issue between the person and God? Why should we as a society get involved over someone else's personal decision, if society is not affected by it?

Editorial: A Christian US?

I heard something on the radio a few days back that I'd like to discuss. A couple of moderate conservatives were discussing the subject that I found strange for several reasons. First, as a moderate conservative myself, I find it rare to find moderates of any flavor on the radio. Second, the station that broadcast this also broadcasts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Brian Sussman and other radical non-moderates. Third, they broached a subject I happened to have been griping about for years and thought I was alone. I call it the polarization of America. I've also heard it called the "bi-polarization of America." They shed an interesting light on the subject.

The US of A is ostensibly a Christian nation. If we consider the fact that 85% of our country is Christian, and that at 224 million, these Christians number almost twice as many as the next country down on the list, we can see that both domestically and internationally, the Christian aspect is very important. I am not a Christian, but that's okay. I have the same rights as they have, and indeed, some of my best Christians are friends.

One of my Christian friends recently wrote to me how Paul placed Christian "Love" or "agape" above both faith and hope, and that faith and hope were subordinate to Love. Whether you agree with that assessment of Paul or not, I think it would be safe to say that Love is pretty important to Christians. "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8 (I may not be a Christian, but I still know how to read.) In fact the nominal founder of Christianity had this to say: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you . . . " Matt 5:44

As they suggested on the radio program, Christian love is about loving the unlovable. Personally, I find that a bit much, but then, I'm not a Christian. I don't have to love the unlovable. Christians, apparently, do.

I follow a few political blogs and forums, and often listen to radio programs from both sides of the spectrum. For example, for every minute I spend with Sean Hannity, I spend a minute with Randi Rhodes, and vice versa. For every minute with Rush, I spend a minute with Al Franken. To do anything less is unconscionable. The trends I've heard from sides have led to my gripe mentioned above.

When one side speaks about the other, they do not consider that the other is someone who is well-educated, has a job and a family, obeys the law, has the same likes and dislikes as everyone else, and has examined the issues thoroughly. These are people I work with and are neighbors. These people are lovable.

But you don't hear that from the rhetoric of the radio shows and the political forums.

Instead you hear that the other side are evil, or anti-Christian (excuse me, but the last election was like 51% to 49%, not 85% to 15%), or . . . fill in your own invective. The one side is dehumanizing the other side. This is not political discourse as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. This is hate rhetoric. It's purpose is to win over "converts" by encourage hatred of the other side.

This is hatred of the lovables.

When I hear this type of ranting from one side or the other, what am I, a non-Christian, to think of their so-called religion? Do I really believe that they can love the unlovable, if they can't even love those who, for all intents and purposes, are like themselves? I find myself wondering which it is that is failing--the "Noble Experiment" we call Democracy, or Christianity?

Editorial: WMD

Suppose they found the WMD, even at this late date. Suppose there was a "Well whaddaya know, they were buried in Syria all this time!"? What would this mean? Here are some possibilities:

The media would be proven wrong. Duh! It's what they get for making assumptions based upon circumstantial evidence. They should never have stated "there are no WMD," only "WMD haven't been found" and "the White House reported there were no WMD." They can leap to conclusions on the editorial pages.

The White House would be proven to be flip-floppers. Duh again. "There's WMD." "There's no WMD." Is that like voting for WMD before you vote against it?

The Intelligence Community would be embarrassed. Again. Who the hell is giving them their marching orders? Some moron? Are they spending gazillions on satellites and not the few thousands on clerks and translators? Where the heck was the NSA and their phone taps during all this?

Saddam (on cell): Looks like the Infidels are about to invade. Let's move the WMD to Syria.

Flunky (on cell): Right-o. I'll get Boris, Natasha, and Abdul on it.

Abdul (on cell in Syria): You can keep them in my basement.

Or do we have that conversation still on file, still waiting to be translated. Or have they discarded it because it's now so old the value is gone. Wasn't that the problem prior to 9/11? Didn't we have all the pieces, yet not enough clerks to put the pieces together? Has that improved at all?

You know what this also means? That President Bush was not a liar. That's a good thing. It means that he went to war with either faulty or no intelligence. That's a bad thing. That's incompetence on a grand scale. I guess we have to ask ourselves which we would rather have, a competent crook, or a naïve incompetent? If we're talking Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful war machine ever assembled in the history of the planet, I'd have to go with "neither."

Boy, I'm sure glad there are no WMD around to make things all murky and confused.

Editorial: Cartoon Riots

Apparently a discussion between a book publisher and newspaper publisher started this whole thing. The bookies said that people were afraid to do cartoons about Islam. The papies thought they'd experiment. They commissioned 12 cartoons and published them in September 2005. Four to five months later (can anyone say "quick on the draw?) Muslims all over the world began burning Danish flags and embassies. They may have even stopped importing Danish breakfast rolls, who knows? The cartoons depicted Muhammad, considered by Islam to be the last prophet of God.

Does anyone know what Muhammad looks like? I always kind of imagined him to be a guy with a beard and a turban. But then, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden have beards and turbans. So do several million others. Will the one who really looks like the Prophet Muhammad please stand up? How do we know that the cartoon isn't really depicting Sean Connery as Achmed el-Raisuli from "The Wind and the Lion?"

Muslims don't like the Prophet Muhammad represented in pictures (as in paintings, sculptures, etc.) because they don't want him to be worshipped as some graven image. If now Muslims think that cartoons are some form of blasphemy, I'd have to ask . . . blasphemy against what? If the image of Muhammad, whatever he looks like, is now sacred, haven't you just gone against your own precepts? Are you taking logic lessons from the U.S. government or something?

Can anyone say "sense of humor?"

Can anyone say "get a grip?"

Not that these fundy Muslims will listen. We've been saying the same thing to Congress for years and they haven't listened.

Editorial: Sexual Preferences

I'll admit it. I prefer sex. I prefer having sex over just about any other activity, though not to the point of being the sole focus. And, all other things equal, I'll prefer the brainy one over the dumb one, the cheerful one over the grumpy one, and the pretty one over the one structurally challenged.

I cannot glibly say, however, that I prefer women over men.

You see, it's not a preference. It's hard-wired in me. For me, it's women or nothing. I can imagine me imagining having sex with even the dumb, grumpy, and less than attractive women. I cannot imagine having sex with a guy. The thought to me is disgusting and turns my stomach. And you know, the same thing applies to having sex with animals, children, guns, and other inanimate objects. Yuck and double-yuck. That's simply not how my genetic code has been wired.

I'm what you might call "normal," that is, my wiring schematic falls within two standard deviations of the norm.

Not everyone is normal. Some do not fall within those two standard deviations. They are abnormal. But the abnormal, the mutants, the deviants, and so on, are all part of nature. Natural, but not normal.

So how does that affect us normies? It shouldn't, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If someone is too young to make an informed decision, or too incapacitated, or too ill-informed, the deviants need to keep their hands (or other body parts) off. It's that simple.

In the US, everyone, and that includes deviants, has the right to be treated equally under the law. If they hurt another because of their hard-wiring, we should come down hard upon them. If they do not hurt another, no matter what their wiring, we should not meddle. What goes on between someone and an amorous consenting vacuum cleaner in the privacy of their home is no business of mine. Nor is it the business of yours or the government's.

Now, in case you haven't sussed this out yet, that means that gays and lesbians, as long as their partners are consenting and informed adults, should have every single right and privilege as the rest of us. Why punish them for their hard-wiring and your tummy-turn attitude? Whom do they hurt? If you feel what they do is a sin, wouldn't that be between them and God? If you or your pastor or your dogma don't believe in marrying them, by all means don't. But leave the government out of this.

And if someone is hard-wired to be a child molester, so what? As long as they don't hurt any children, what do we care?

Let's hope this gets posted correctly. It took a week for the last ones to finally display as they should.

Editorial: State of the Union

When did it become such a dog-and-pony show? I'm talking about the State of the Union address, the annual communication from the president to congress as required by the Constitution.

I tried to watch one a few years back (it's been on television since 1947). It wasn't about what state the union was in. It was a photo-op stretched out to interminable length. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was correct when he discontinued delivering the speech in person and began sending it in written form. If we were to do that today, we'd all be able to read it and judge it solely on what the content was. Jefferson thought delivering it in person was too much like the Speech from the Throne, something our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from. Should we curse Woodrow Wilson for making it a circus again?

Perhaps not. People in bars can have fun throwing popcorn at the screen and heckling what is said. Others can wave their flags and salivate. The Administration gets the chance to maybe squeeze out a dead-cat bounce in the polls. Clinton delivered an address in the middle of impeachment proceedings. Bush definitely needs help in the polls right now, coming off his worst year ever.

Is there any content to the speeches? Whatever became of the Axis of Evil? One of the evil triune became a bit of a quagmire similar to Johnson's Vietnam or Carter's poorly planned and executed hostage rescue. The other two are going their way without even sanctions imposed. Perhaps they aren't so evil after all. Let's not mention the infamous "16 words" of the following year. Oops, too late.

What will be the subject of discussion this year. Hurricane relief? Exit strategy? Wire-tapping? Iran's Nukes? Social Security? Medicare? Will we hear the usual rhetoric about "doing what it takes to protect the American people from terrorists?" We'll have to wait to find out.

During the speech, while waiting for substance, there's a little game you can play to keep your mind occupied. It's called "Count the Standing Ovations." You see, every time the president says a sentence, sometimes only a clause, certain members (okay, the majority) of Congress will leap to their feet and applaud wildly as though Moses has just returned with the tablets. They'll be up and down more times than they are when they're with their mistresses. This is probably a good thing, since it may be the only exercise many of them get.

Still, I have to wonder, can anyone watch this circus and walk away with the warm and fuzzies about functional checks and balances? What kind of balance can we expect from a Congress that wildly endorses every sentence of a president no matter what the content?

Editorial: Domestic Spying

Let me be clear about one thing: I condone domestic spying. As an intel guy from way back, the best way to make a decision is to make sure you have all the facts. If I, or my family, show probable cause that we may be engaged in terrorist acts, I would hope that the authorities would be listening in to my conversations, reading my emails, and gathering as much information about me as possible.

Probable cause.

That's the kicker, isn't it? There should be probable cause. That's why you get warrants. It's part of the checks and balances process of the government to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. All you need for a warrant is to show probable cause.

In the case of probable terrorism, you don't even need to get the warrant first. If something happens that the NSA or whomever needs to jump on a lead right away, the can do it legally. The warrant can follow any time up to 72 hours later. For those bad in math, that's three days. If we're engaged in a war against terror, then the Attorney General damn well better have a pager. Granted, with three days we won't have to yank him out of a warm bed. We could wait a few hours until the sun comes up. Then the A.G. can look over the request to determine whether there is probable cause or not.

Is that so hard? It's not rocket science.

But, some may say, the law governing this was written back in the 70s, when only Dick Tracy in the comics had two-way wrist radios, and cell phones were only wet dreams in the pizza-infested slumber of geeks and yuppies. Noted. But, some may say, "probable cause" needs to be redefined in response to a thread that wasn't perceived then. Noted. Times change. Things need to be revisited. That's why there's a different branch of the government set up to make the laws and define the definitions, to make sure one branch doesn't get carried away. If the Homeland Security Act can be expedited through that different branch, an update to these laws should be a no-brainer.

Ah, but what to do in the meanwhile?

Well, consider the following two statements. Both are in response to the same need, and in response to the same actions taken in dealing with that need.

1. "The President can do whatever he wants in a time of war."

2. "We understand the concerns of the citizens. We're asking Congress to evaluate and update the old laws concerning these issues. In the meanwhile, we are going to do what it takes to protect our citizens. We will try to get warrants ahead of time, even for the terrorists. We will have the Courts review our work where that is not possible, but until we get the updated guidance from Congress, we'll do our best and accept the responsibilities for our actions."

To me, statement #2 sounds reasonable and fairly well thought-out. Statement #1 sounds like an egotistical power grab. I don't know about you, but I feel warmer and fuzzier with #2. I feel like the concept of checks and balances as established by our Founding Fathers are not being crushed under heel. I feel like all three branches, in that case, are working for a common goal. With statement #1, I feel the terrorists have already won.

No questions this week . . . only answers. Below is the list of movies I saw in 2005 IN THE THEATER. (DVD and rentals are not included here.) The best one is at the top, the worst is at the bottom. There may have been far worse ones released this year, but I didn't pay money to see any of them. The only one I regret paying to see was the second from the bottom. Though worse, "Ep III" still needed the big screen.

Of the list, I plan to own the top three on DVD (own two already), and will continue debating about the next four.

1. Serenity
2. Sin City
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4. King Kong
5. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
6. Wallace and Grommit
7. Chronicles of Narnia: LWaW
8. Good Night and Good Luck

9. Batman Begins
10. Corpse Bride
11. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
12. War of the Worlds
13. The Pacifier
14. Fantastic Four
15. Transporter 2
16. Sky High
17. Constantine
18. Miss Congeniality 2
19. Star Wars III

Only one question this week.

Iran has broken the seals. Iran will be able to produce 24-30 nuclear weapons each year. Iran has been supporting terrorism. Iran has been supporting Hamas. Iran has been supporting Syria. Iran has been supporting the insurgents in Iraq. Iran has a totalitarian government pledged to destroying Israel and the west. Iran has ballistic missiles. So . . .

Where's Dubya?

Been flying recently? Why do they keep announcing that you should report unattended packages? Didn't you just stand in a three-hour line where they confiscated fingernail clippers so the packages that got through would be safe? If the checks aren't safe and explosive fingernail clippers are still getting through, why waste time and money on them? And what's with the seats in the upright position? What will that extra three inches matter? When a plane crashes, do those extra three inches have any bearing on who survives? Do we feel safer with all this extra effort? Can't belts still be used as garrotes? Should we perhaps be allowed on planes only when naked and with no carry-ons at all?

If Christ had been hung instead of crucified, would Christian churches be sporting gibbets from the steeple rather than crosses? Would jewelry worn around the neck be small nooses, perhaps with a miniature figure strangled within? Would the game of hangman be considered blasphemous?

Isn't "Santa Claus" the same as "Saint Nicholas" and isn't he the Patron Saint of thieves? Isn't that why when you "nick" something, what you've really done is stolen it? We ask "Saint Nick" for things at Christmas, but as we check our wallets, hasn't something been nicked from us? And if we consider the government to be our Santa Claus, what happens on the Ides of April?

Why do Protestant churches have something against singing Christmas carols in Latin? Why do they have a block against singing about the Virgin Mary? Isn't Mary considered to be Biblical? And if you buy into the story, wouldn't the mother of God have to be at least extraordinary? And if you don't understand the words in Latin, so what? Do you understand the words in instrumental music? Doesn't Latin, as a language, have a certain music other languages don't? Can't songs be sung in their original languages for their original musicality?

Why is it that the apparently politically motivated right-wing Christian fundies have decided to make an issue out of Merry Christmas versus Happy Holidays? Were there no other more pressing molehills to molest? Aren't these the same Christian fundies who think the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon?" Don't they realize that "Christmas" comes from the Catholic "Christ's Mass?" Or that "holiday" comes from the non-denominational "Holy Day?" Is it possible they have their ornament on backwards?

Remember back shortly after 9/11 when many were calling for the head of Osama bin Laden? Granted, it was a feel good, warm and fuzzy emotional response, but was it wise? Would blowing him away on site be equivalent to blowing Saddam Hussein away on site? Don't the Iraqi people need to come to closure on this? Don't we need some kind of closure ourselves? Wouldn't it do us and the world good to see him on trial for the psychopathic criminal he is, and not some holy man? Where is he now, by the way?

What is "cruel and inhuman" punishment? Since freedom seems to be natural state of humans, according to some, couldn't prison be considered inhumane? Is what happened in Abu Grabe, for example, cruel or inhuman? Which parts? Or should we consider bringing backs stocks and pillory? Where is the line between cruel and not cruel, inhuman and humane?

Since we have the right to a speedy trial, shouldn't we also have a right to a speedy execution? How is it possible that it takes two and a half decades for the appeals process to run its course? Do we really want our death row inmates to die of old age first? Do we really want to give these people a chance to do something worthwhile? Wouldn't it be best to spare ourselves the embarrassment of putting to death Nobel Prize nominees?

If you do something illegal, are you a criminal? What if you don't get caught? What if it's victimless? Are speed limits laws, or suggestions? Is there a cutoff point between criminal illegality and non-criminal illegality? Is there a priority order for laws?

Did God place a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden? Did God create genetic markers and the principles that govern changes to those markers? If so, why is God telling two different stories? If it can be said that scientists may not understand the science, couldn't it also be said that believers may not understand the Bible?

If being hauled into court is no joke, why are there so many lawyer jokes? Do we still trust a system that spills McDonald's coffee into O.J.'s lap? Should we, instead of being hauled, begin overhauling?

It's a common rule of thumb on the Internet that if a person invokes Hitler, or invokes Nazism, they have automatically lost the debate/argument. Who decided that rule? Who does that rule benefit? And what if there are definite parallels or patterns showing up that seem alarmingly similar to our friendly neighborhood fascists? Are we not allowed to mention it?

If lowering taxes is good for the economy, shouldn't lowering them more be better? Would getting rid of them all together be best? Or is there a balance point below which taxes shouldn't go? What would that balance point be? Wouldn't that point be where the income from taxes balances the spending of the government? If so, what should happen when spending goes down? What should happen when spending goes up? What would happen when the balance is destroyed? Should that be a concern? Or is lowering taxes not good for the economy?

Speaking of dead foreign languages, why is our legal system couched in Latin? If we can doff the powdered wigs of the 18th century, shouldn't we be able to doff a language that hasn't been alive since the days of the ancient Romans?

Why does the Constitution need interpreting? Is it in some archaic, dead or foreign language? Or is it the pork-filled, rider-backed legislation the bozos in Congress and the states that need the interpretation?

Do we want our judges to be political, or impartial? If someone appoints a political judge, are they doing the land a disservice? Is it possible for a judge to separate their political beliefs from the job? Do we want that?

I'll only be posting here once this week. Plenty of older questions to respond to or *gasp* attempt to answer. For now, here's a silly one.

Is it okay to shout "Fire!" in a sparsely attended theater? An empty one? How about yelling "Shark!" on a crowded beach? Whatever you do, don't greet your friend Jack at the airport.

Should a country go to war if not all the people want to? Should a majority rule in this case? What kind of majority? 51%? 2/3? Overwhelming? What about pulling out of a war? Should the leaders of that country follow the majority? Or can they act independently of the will of the people?

This may seem a stereotype, but why is it that all racists are that way because of some religious belief? Why is it that beneath the white sheets of the South, one will find Baptists and Evangelicals? Or behind the swastikas, a belief in the occult? Or behind jihads, fundamentalistic Islam? Does religion have an "acceptable" dark side?

Do we believe that people CAN "pay their debt to society?" If someone does their time, are the ledger books even? What about sexual predators? When they've "done their time," have they? Why such a controversy about where they settle? Or do we need to revisit our sentencing?

Is freedom really such a good thing? Doesn't that concept include in it the freedom to be stupid, the freedom to be wrong, the freedom to make poor choices, not to mention the freedom to spill hot coffee in our laps? Worst of all, doesn't it include the freedom for others to be different than we are and the freedom for them to disagree with our holy opinions?

Why is it that Democrats flip-flop but Republicans only waffle? With all the waffles and flapjacks, do we have too much breakfast food in politics? And what's with all the pork in the legislation? Could this be the reason Americans are considered obese?

Why do we elect whom we do? Is it because of their beliefs? How they appear on television? Which church they go to? Because someone tells us and we're too lazy to think for ourselves? If we've studied the issues and the candidates, why do they disappoint us?

Who has the "right" to complain about elected officials? Everybody, because this is a free country? Nobody, because we need to show support? Those who voted for them? Those who voted against them? Has Mr. Pot met Mr. Kettle?

If filibusters and other odd rules are so bad, why does Congress keep them around? Why do both parties use them?

Why is it that the liberal pundits say that the media is controlled and in lock-step with the conservatives, and the conservatives say the media has a liberal slant? Isn't it true that both can't be right, but both CAN be wrong?

What is it with liberal talk show hosts? Why does everything seem to be a joke with them, yet they speak so intensely that the joke doesn't seem funny? Why do they maintain that everyone else is either a moron or a Nazi?

What is it with conservative talk show hosts? Why is it that they always appear ready to bust a jugular in a passionate frenzy? Why is it they speak at three decibels above the pain threshold? Why do they maintain that everyone else is their enemy?

If an adult person makes an informed choice to do something, and it does not affect others, should they be allowed to do it?

Is a two term presidency a good idea? Do we really want a president to waste an entire year of the first term campaigning? How about a six year term with no possibility of going back for seconds? No wasted time campaigning for self or others (let them stand or fall based on their own merits).

Do we have evidence of a majority of a population believing something to be true, only to learn later it wasn't? How many stuck to the old beliefs anyway?

If a person is born handicapped, should they be allowed to associate with others without losing any civil rights (assuming, of course, this handicap doesn't hurt anyone)?

Random quotes:

"I don't care what Congress does, as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses." Victor Hugo

"We have the best politicians money can buy." Will Rodgers

If the opposite of "pro" is "con," what's the opposite of "progress?"

Why is the country so divided? Wouldn't we get more done if we listened to each other and compromised?

If Daylight Savings Time is such a good idea and should be extended, why not make it year round?

At what point in recent history has "dissent" come to mean "disloyalty?"

Serenity -- finally, a good movie in a lackluster year.

What's wrong with keeping church and state separate? It seems to have worked well for so many years.