America will once again embrace science!

CNN Political Analyst, David Gergen, can always be counted on to deliver an honest, eloquent, and accurate commentary on current events.  This recent commentary by Mr. Gergen is eye-opening and lays out the striking difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on the importance and validity of science.  We can breath a sigh of relief that we will once again have a government that supports and embraces science.  Let's hope it's not too late.

Mr. Gergen writes:

In coming months, public attention will heavily focus on the performance of Barack Obama’s economic and national security teams, but over the long haul, his new team in science and technology could do even more to shape the country’s future. They will arrive not a moment too soon.

Over the past seven plus years, many leaders in the science and technology community feel they have been in a virtual war with the Bush administration. They despaired, as one told me this weekend, that “no one was ever home” and that the Bush team was so dismissive of key scientific research that it threatened our future.

In a brief capsule, here are some of their key complaints:.

• The President and the men around him have been so ideologically opposed to the idea of man-made global warming that they first put their heads in the sand, refusing to accept evidence and editing reports from scientists inside the government such as the EPA, sending morale down the tubes. More recently, President Bush has acknowledged that man has contributed to warming, but the U.S. continues to drag its feet in international negotiations and Bush has resisted mandatory emission standards.
  
• Top scientific leaders in the administration have sometimes been silenced, including a top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. A number of government scientists have resigned.
  
• The President twice vetoed bills for stem cell research over the objections of many in the scientific community as well as Bill Frist, the cardio-surgeon who was a GOP leader in the Senate.
  
• The President allowed funding for the National Science Foundation to go essentially flat and after sizable increases, also allowed a flattening of the budget for the National Institutes of Health.
  
• The President did sign onto the competitiveness agenda proposed by a special commission of the national academies of science and engineering – and he helped to secure Congressional passage of legislation endorsing the agenda. But, stunningly, the Congress refused to fund it – and the President put up very little fight.
  
• This November, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science publicly lambasted the administration for putting unqualified political appointees into permanent civil service jobs that make scientific policy decisions. A case in point: Todd Harding, a 30-year old with a bachelor’s degree from Kentucky’s Centre College, was named to a permanent post at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration working on space-spaced science for geostationary and meteorological data.
  
• Even as some positions were filled with non-entities, the White House left vacant the post of Executive Director for the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
  

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the scientific community began rallying to Barack Obama months ago. Periodically, Dr. Harold Varmus, now chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering, convened informal conference calls among leading scientists to provide counsel to the Obama campaign, and they also met with Obama for a morning of conversation in Pennsylvania.

This past Saturday, Obama began filling out his appointments to his science and technology team, and it is a star-studded cast, promising a sharp break with the Bush administration. Among those who will be surrounding him are a physicist who has won a Nobel Prize (Steven Chu), a physicist and top expert on global warming who will be his top science adviser in the White House (John Holdren), a chemical engineer who has won acclaim for as an environmental leader in New Jersey (Lisa Jackson), a marine biologist is a leading expert on the impact of global warming on the oceans (Jane Lubchenco),. a polymath who heads up one of the most important genome projects in the country (Eric Lander), and a biologist who won a Nobel prize in medicine (Varmus). It doesn’t get any better than that!

For at least half a century, America has been the world’s premier nation for scientific and technological research. Remaining at the cutting edge is not only important for the advancement of knowledge, but it is also critical – absolutely critical — for the creation of high-powered jobs and meeting the challenges of global warming. In his Internet address on Saturday, Obama said, “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.” He’s right – it is none too soon to call off the war and build a strong, new alliance between government and science.

Not a policy issue, a human issue

No one is perfect.  It seems that when you might think someone is perfect, there always comes a time when you realize that in fact he or she is just like everyone else: not perfect.

This recent revelation has shown itself to me in President-Elect Obama.  It happened yesterday as he was addressing questions related to the selection of Pastor Rick Warren as the person to give the invocation at the inauguration.  

I should point out that it was not the sheer fact that Pastor Warren was chosen that elicited this revelation.  While I certainly was a little disappointed because I do not believe that a person who holds Pastor Warren's beliefs does anything to unite people, but rather divides more starkly than most.  I was disappointed because Pastor Warren was one of the biggest proponents of Proposition 8 in California and likens gay relationships to that of incest and polygamy - to men, this is not someone who should be celebrated by a campaign largely guided on the message of unity.  However, I didn't think his selection was the end of the world and in some regards I think I do understand what the President-Elect might be trying to do with this decision.

My disappointment came yesterday as President-Elect Obama said, in relation to gay rights, that, "we can disagree on policy issues." 

This is when I realized that he doesn't get it, just as so many people don't get it.  There is still this notion that there is something to disagree with in terms of what or who people are.  Imagine if Pastor Warren would have replaced the word "gay" in his hate-filled statements with "black."  Hard to believe?  Well, it wasn't that long ago that statements like that were made and if they were said today - they would not be accepted.

So, I come back to what I've been saying lately.  At the heart of this isn't a policy issue - it's a human issue.  The debate must move away from whether homosexuality is right or wrong.  This isn't something people choose, this isn't something people can change.  It shouldn't be open for debate as there is nothing we can do about it!  Once the conversation moves from this "right or wrong"/"agree or disagree" nonsense, perhaps some progress can be made.  Once people realize that gay individuals are humans who love, perhaps we can put aside the unproductive and hateful rhetoric that gets us nothing but division.

I want to clarify that I do think President-Elect Obama will do many good things on behalf of the GLBT people in America.  In the same press conference he said that he is a "fierce advocate" for equality.  I do believe this and I think that he understands he must choose his words carefully in these times of extreme division that are created by Rick Warren and the like.  Mr. Obama is such a rational person that it's hard to believe he doesn't support same-sex marriage; rational people understand that it is indeed the right thing to do and the world will not come to an end.  But he's clearly aware that he would not have been elected if he would have said that.

So, is President-Elect Obama perfect?  Of course not, and he would be the first to admit it.  Does he really understand what is at the heart of this issue and why it stings us gays so much to hear a debate on our rights?  It's hard to say, but his words, and the words of many others, appear to show that he and they do not.

I'm glad that the dialogue about this choice of Pastor Warren remains in the media days after its announcement.  While I may not be as outraged as others, I think it is important that everyone understand why people are so upset.  For me it is as simple as this:  People who hold and express divisive, hateful views should not be rewarded.

Not victims, Americans

I try to avoid posting articles/posts from other sites, but when I see something good I must share it.  The following is a post from The Bilerico Project contributor, Sara Whitman.  It is perhaps that best statement for same-sex marriage and equality that I have seen, ever.  I feel very strongly that we should not be playing the victim card.  People generally don't respond well to people who play the victim card (even if it is warranted).  If the goal is truly equality and inclusion, then that's the language we should be using to plead our case.  This is what Ms. Whitman does:

I Am An American

Sara Whitman

12/9/08

I have spent much of my life as a victim. As a lesbian, as a woman, I have been a victim of hate, of violence, of job discrimination.

I'm done. I don't want to be the other. I don't want to be on one side while the rest of the world, divided by what often feels like an arbitrary line, sits on the other.

I am an American. I am responsible for three kids, my wife- my family. I love them and it is my job to take good care of them- the best care of them I possibly can. I pay taxes and a mortgage. In order to do that, I need to be an excellent employee, work hard, put in my best effort.

I am motivated by being a good role model for my children. I need to support them emotionally, and provide the best education possible. My marriage, more than just our community wrapped around our relationship, keeps us intact. It provides laws to do so, too.

Marriage is good for society. It keeps families whole and provides safety nets- especially for children. It has for a long time. It will continue to for a long time.


I'm not looking for any special treatment- except on my birthday, when I love my kids waking me up at the crack of dawn to provide me a "leisurely" breakfast in bed. I don't except to pay less for gas, or to have a special line to get past airport security faster than anyone else.

Most of all, I don't want pity. I am stronger than most people. I can haul wood or groceries or laundry endless distances. I can stay up all night and rub a sick child's back until they can fall back asleep again. I can cook dinner for my family every night or for 50 people on Superbowl Sunday.

I can hold unbearable past experiences and still breathe in the joy of my life today.

I am a good friend. I care deeply about my neighbors, my community, my country. I donate my time, my money to help better the world.

I am not on the other side. I am not a tiny piece of a small fragment in this country.

Don't ever feel sorry for me.

Let me have the full responsibility of being an American. Because we deserve an American workforce free of discrimination, we deserve the strongest military in the world and every child in this country deserves a family.

I am an asset to this society. Let us all erase the lines of Us and Them. Think of what we can do if we do it together.

I want excellence. Don't we all?

Brothers assumed gay, attacked

The Associated Press reports that two brothers were beaten with an aluminum baseball bat in New York by four attackers.  The two were walking arm in arm Sunday morning down a Brooklyn street.  Police say one of the brothers (31-years-old) died Monday in a NYC hospital.

The assailants used anti-gay slurs and anti-Hispanic insults, city officials said at a news conference.  “We believe all of this happened simply because of who these individuals are and who these perpetrators perceived them to be,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “For some reason (they) didn’t like the two men they believed were gay … and felt so emboldened in their hatred that they acted it out in violence.”

According to Police, the attack occurred around 3:30 a.m. Sunday as the brothers were walking. One attacker jumped out of an SUV, used the anti-gay slur and smashed one of the brothers over the head with a bottle.  The other brother ran away and three more attackers joined the assault. One hit the victim in the head with the bat while the others kicked him.  At some point, the other brother returned holding a cell phone and told the men he had called police. They then drove off together.

The office of Brooklyn prosecutor Charles Hynes and the New York Police Department’s Hate Crime Task Force are investigating.  Hynes “is shocked and appalled at this senseless, bigoted, brutal act,” said Assistant District Attorney Charles Guria. “We need people out there who have any piece of information to please come forward.”

How many more times does this have to happen before people realize they need to stop teaching hate?  These two innocent people were just assumed to be gay and they were attacked and one of them died.  There is no excuse for this, obviously.  I have to think that if the lies and misconceptions about gay people were not taught, this might not have happened.

Kern delivers hate and lies

"We have to get rid of that and start curing those sinners. It's past time that this nation stopped placating sin and start putting them in education programs. Courts can force drug offenders into treatment centers and violent people into anger management. There's no reason our courts can't do that with homos."

These are the words of Pastor Steve Kern.  These are the kinds of words that perpetuate misunderstanding, lies, and hate.  These are the kinds of words that need to stop.  These words need to be called out for what they are: hateful, ridiculous, unfounded rhetoric.

Rove to 'name names'

In an interview with Cox News, Karl Rove said he will be calling out the people in Washington who never respected President Bush as a commander-in-chief.  My first thought after reading this, "is there anyone who wouldn't be on that list?"

I find this incredibly hilarious.  One of the most unpopular political figures, ever, is writing a book detailing the names of people who didn't respect one of the most unpopular presidents, ever (perhaps THE most unpopular, but I don't feel like confirming that at the moment).  Wouldn't it be easier to just look at the last U.S. census for this information?  Or maybe it would be easier to write a book about the people who did accept Bush; at least it would be shorter.

In a seemingly threatening fashion, Rove told Cox News, "I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," he continued, "I'm going to name names and show examples."  I'm sure these people are terrified (note sarcasm).  

I'm sorry, but I just can't stop laughing.

Mr. Rove, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't respect this man as their president (I wish they would have relieved that in 2004).  Nobody cares who, in Washington, was 'unreceiving' of W.  In fact, these people will most likely be lauded - they may thank you for outing them.

Rove also suggested the criticisms the president and his aides took were partly because they were not part of the Washington establishment.  No, Mr. Rove, it's because we are now facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the world hates us - just to name a couple reasons.

It's almost as if this story was in the Onion, but I promise, it's real!

My Perspective... seeks guest writers

While I certainly enjoy giving you "my perspective," from time to time I would like to hear your perspective.  

I'm inviting anyone who has a thought, opinion, or idea they would like to share, to do so as a guest writer on My Perspective...

If you are interested send me your idea for a post or your completed post by clicking the link below.  Look forward to hearing your perspective!

Submit Your Perspective

Lesson of hope from "Milk"

Just over a week ago I saw the new movie starring Sean Penn, "Milk."  For those who may not be familiar, it is the story of the first openly gay elected public official, Harvey Milk.

In the movie we experience Milk's attempts at running for office, until finally winning in 1977.  The film goes on to show the struggle that was California Proposition 6 in 1978, better known as The Briggs Initiative.

Prop 6 was an attempt, introduced by conservative state legislator John Briggs, to ban homosexuals and anyone who supported them from teaching or working in California's public schools.  The Briggs Initiative failed in California, but Oklahoma and Arkansas actually passed such measures prior to 1978.

The film roused within me myriad emotions.  Sadness, anger, confusion, excitement, empathy, and perhaps most the most prominent, hope.

California's Proposition 6 in 1978 was an awful thing, no discussion should be needed on that point.  As a former teacher, the thought of not being able to practice such an honorable profession because I'm gay is deeply distressing.  This is a profession that is starving for thoughtful, compassionate people to join its ranks, and to think that there were once individuals who believed gay people (or anyone who supported them) shouldn't be allowed to do so is frankly disgusting.

Enter: hope.  You see, I felt hope because I think you would be hard pressed to find people today who would even consider proposing such an initiative.  Well, perhaps with the exception of Michele Bachmann.  But the important thing to take from this is that progress has been achieved.  The view of homosexuality in the United States has come a long way since the days of Anita Bryant and John Briggs.  I'm certainly not suggesting that the journey to equality is complete or even close for that matter.  However, the finish line doesn't seem quite as far off as it once did.

So, in the words of Harvey Milk, "I'm here to recruit you."  Let us join together as one people, Americans, and finish this journey to ensure equality for all.  Many thought we would never be where we are today, let's show them that we can reach the finish line.

NC more progressive than I thought

The Associated Press reports that the city of Carrboro, North Carolina, has passed a resolution supporting gay marriage, sending it off to the state and federal government.

The bill was introduced by Alderwoman Jacqui Gist after California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The resolution was supported and signed by Mayor Mark Chilton, and reads:

"Whereas, the denial of such benefits has been demonstrated to have significant psychological and social impact on the physical, social, and economic well-being of gay and lesbian couples and their families; and whereas the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes marriage as one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men … [be it resolved] that civil marriage for same-sex couples must include all the benefits commonly bestowed upon opposite-sex couples, including, among other rights, healthcare coverage and related decision-making, privileges under immigration and naturalization law, survivor benefits, inheritance rights, and child custody.”

According to the AP, Carrboro is one of the most liberal cities in the south and is growing as many northern businesses move south.

Nice work, Carrboro.  You set a fine example.

Prop 8 - The Musical

It's too good to not post. Mark Shaiman, the composer for Hairspray, wrote this song about Prop 8. It's got everything: humor, truth, and stars! Enjoy!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Hope

I know this has been posted everywhere, but I couldn't help myself. It's so inspiring. Hope is alive, perhaps now more than ever - and the time to stand up for the us's is now.

Senator Marty says, "It's time..."

Minnesota state Senator John Marty introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. His letter (below) describes his plan to move the legislation into committee. It's a great letter with pragmatic, rational ideas. Get ready to show your support!

It's Time to Move forward with Gay Marriage Legislation
by Senator John Marty
December 2, 2008

Last session, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in Minnesota. Now we are asking for a hearing on the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2009 legislative session.

Minnesota's law prohibits any gay or lesbian from marrying the person they love. Our legislation would repeal that prohibition and extend equal marriage rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

This effort is made with no illusion about the difficulty of passing the legislation. In the November election, several states passed voter initiatives banning same-sex marriages. California's initiative actually took away the existing right for gay couples to marry.

But Minnesotans have a strong sense of fairness. Minnesotans are open to change when presented with new information.

Opponents have great fear and misunderstanding about gay marriage. A legislative committee hearing could begin to address those misconceptions. I am not asking for a hearing where we have hours of testimony from multiple speakers on each side, then a brief committee debate and vote.

Instead, let's have a gay couple briefly tell their story. Have them talk about their love, the challenges they face as parents, the problems they encounter because they are not allowed to marry. Opponents would have equal time to voice their concerns.

Then, instead of a debate, the Judiciary Committee could break past the heated rhetoric on the issue with a candid discussion, conducted in a civil tone. Discussions help to inform and educate people. With all of the divisiveness over gay marriage, a civil discussion might bring people closer together.

If opponents say they worry that allowing same-sex couples to marry will hurt their own marriages, I'd like to ask them to tell us how. I'd really like to know whether they feel my marriage – Connie and I just celebrated our 28th anniversary – would hurt their marriage too. And if it does not, why a gay couple's marriage would have any more impact on them than my marriage has had.

If opponents say they believe gay marriage is sinful or morally wrong, I'd like to tell them why I, as a Christian, believe we should not just allow, but actually encourage gay couples to marry. It is because of my faith, not in spite of it, that I think we should promote marriage and work to strengthen families of gay couples as well as heterosexual couples.

The Judiciary Committee could talk about the coexistence of different religious beliefs in a democratic society. We could discuss how our nation has a proud history of protecting the right of religious liberty and freedom of conscience; how every individual is entitled to his or her beliefs and has the freedom to join a church that shares those views.

I would like to ask my colleagues who oppose this legislation why they consider it acceptable for Minnesota's government to endorse their religious beliefs about gay marriage and enforce them over the religious beliefs that thousands of other Minnesotans have. Every member of the Senate took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and each of us understands that government should treat all people in a fair, non-discriminatory manner.

Opponents worry that their churches would be required to perform gay marriages. But we can reassure them that the freedom of religion that would allow gay marriages, is the same freedom of religion that allows them to perform marriages only for couples they choose to marry. We could point to the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage which was strongly opposed by many Christians at the time, and remind them that the churches objecting to those marriages have never been forced to solemnize them.

A Senate hearing that confronts these issues with a civil discussion will not end all opposition to gay marriage, but it will help break down the misunderstandings that exist.

This may be the only legislative attempt to allow gay marriage in the Midwest, but it is time for Minnesota to look forward. California's Prop 8 and other bans on gay marriage have been painful setbacks for people who want to marry the partner they love; couples who want nothing more than the same rights and responsibilities other married couples have. It's time to show them that the people of Minnesota care about their families too.

Some may say that this legislation is premature. But how long is discrimination against gay couples acceptable? I'm confident that most Minnesotans, even those uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, will recognize the fundamental fairness of allowing every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner.

Disagree?

Far too often I hear people utter the phrase, "I disagree with homosexuality."  My mind immediately enters a state of both confusion and concern.  There is no way around it - people who use that phrase are ill-informed and need to be corrected upon saying those four words.  

Please allow me to explain myself.  When people say they "disagree with homosexuality" it infers that there is some sort of choice involved on the part of gay people.  That somehow there is a choice we all, as humans, make about our sexuality.  One day we all wake up and decide if we are going to be straight or gay.  I certainly do not need to go into the ridiculousness that is that line of thinking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a mental disorder.  This is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

So if in fact homosexuality is not a choice, and we know it is not, then what is there to disagree with?  It seems that the statement of disagreeing with homosexuality is as blatantly ridiculous as saying you don't agree with someone being black or having blue eyes.  It's just the way people are, there is nothing they can do about it (contrary to the beliefs of certain religious groups).  Disagreeing with the way in which a person is born?  Doesn't make much sense to me.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice and that it is even possible for people to "disagree" with it needs to stop being taught.  

Perhaps we should say we disagree with heterosexuality.  Doesn't make much sense does it?

There Will Come A Day

Perhaps now more than ever the rights of gay Americans are a major part of the nation's debate.  The passing of Proposition 8 in California has sparked a fire within Americans on both sides of the vote.  Florida and Arizona also passed bans against gay marriage and Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.  

My initial response to these votes was anger.  Anger at the lack of compassion, understanding, and love for fellow human beings.  Perhaps it stings a little more knowing that there are people in my life that would have voted in support of these bans and feeling an overwhelming sense of an entire group of American citizens being so misunderstood and so hated for reasons that are inaccurate, ridiculous, and hateful.  As the days passed after the election,  I began to hear all of the unfounded ways the proponents of these bans convinced voters to vote yes.  The purpose of this article is not to go into those absurd lies, but rather to discuss how my anger has turned to hope.

When I consider politics, I don't think there is necessarily a right or a wrong viewpoint.  We all would like to think that the side we align with is the right side, but the truth is that these are just varying philosophies that generally have the same goal - to form a more perfect Union.  When it comes to politics, I don't think that one side or the other is inherently right, perhaps one philosophy might work better than another at certain times throughout history.  Maybe one makes some really bad decisions on one issue, but redeems itself on another.  There isn't always clear cut answers to our countries problems, but there are certainly a variety of approaches to the problems.

However, when one considers the issue of gay marriage, there is a right and a wrong.  There is not a spec of doubt in my mind or my soul - allowing gay Americans the right to marry is right.  It is correct on every level of that which is the foundation of this country, the Constitution.  Many would argue that this is a moral issue and I wholeheartedly agree.  Denying rights to gay people - fellow human beings, is immoral.  Denying this is wrong.

I've been able to sleep at night because I know I am on the right side of this issue and I know there will come a day when most agree.  This is how I know.

In 1664, the state of Maryland passed a law against interracial marriage.  The rest of the states followed suit and by the time of the Civil War, miscegenation laws were on the books throughout the country.  It wasn't until the 1830's that a group in Massachusetts challenged the law claiming that it stood in the face of the fundamental principle of civil equality.  Abolitionists fought until 1843 when then legislature finally overturned the law.

The rest of the country did not follow.  In fact, towards the end of the Civil War, white southerners worked to pass stronger miscegenation laws.  The federal government fought back during the Reconstruction giving us the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing "equal protection."  As a result, eight of the eleven formerly Confederate states overturned their laws banning interracial marriage.

In the late 1870's, as Reconstruction collapsed, lawmakers and citizens began to reinstate and strengthen miscegenation laws.  They used four main arguments to plead their case: 

1) Marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government; 

2) they began to define and label all interracial relationships as illicit sex; 

3) they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will; 

4) they were adamant that interracial marriage was "unnatural."

Between 1880 and 1950, miscegenation laws strengthened and became the norm of society.  However, in 1948, the Supreme Court of California made a move in the right direction, declaring California's miscegenation law unconstitutional.  Justice Roger Traynor spoke on the decision, "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable."  He continued, "Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains...the right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups."

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court agreed and the case of Loving v. Virginia spelled the end of America's history of miscegenation laws.  Although some states didn't give up so easily.  Alabama didn't remove its miscegenation law until 2000.

To most Americans, the idea of banning interracial marriage is now a ridiculous one, but not many years ago - it was the norm.  The reasons used to support this ban are many of the same reasons used to support the ban on gay marriage.  How are those people viewed today that held these views on interracial marriage?  My hope and firm belief is that there will come a day when the same happens with same-sex marriage.

There will come a day when Americans join in embracing all human beings.  There will come a day when this great country realizes that there is nothing to be afraid of in allowing equal rights to all its citizens.  There will come a day when all will realize that people are who they are and they should be accepted as they are.  There will come a day when those who preach and cause division and exclusion will see the error of their ways.  There will come a day when the proponents of denying rights to gay people today will be viewed just as the people who denied rights to interracial couples of the past.

There will come a day when those who are on the right side of this issue will prevail.

Thank you, Mr. Olbermann

Monday evening MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a Special Comment on Prop 8. For those of you who may not know, Prop 8 was the amendment that passed in California banning gay marriage.

I was moved and inspired by Mr. Olbermann's comments. He spoke sincerely and eloquently about a subject that affects me in a deeply personal way and I must say that I was humbled at his ability to truly understand this issue. Please read and share his comments:


Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

A New Day

The people have spoken; better days filled with hope are ahead. My mind is spinning out of control today. I'm consumed with so many thoughts and emotions. As I stood in line to vote yesterday I was overcome with emotion and a sense of pride in my country. Often during that hour and a half that I stood in line, tears filled my eyes as I thought about what was at stake. The people of America had a duty yesterday, a duty to voice their opinion on what direction they wanted the future of America to go.

While the polls were certainly favoring Sen. Obama, I was fairly nervous as the outcome of elections lay in the hands of the voters and there were so many extraneous variables - all I could do was wait.

It's safe to say that everyone in the world is now aware that Barack Obama is President-elect of the United States of America.

As a democrat, obviously this is good news to me. As I watched the remarkable scene from Chicago last night I, as a minor addict, was browsing the statuses of fellow Facebook users. Several were statements of joy and excitement, many reflected the historic nature of the event and huge step forward that America had taken. We were all waiting for the President-elect to take the stage and set the tone for tomorrow.

My almost euphoric state began to diminish as I continued to read the Facebook statuses. Several were hateful, unfounded, and just unhappy statements about what had just taken place. I was reminded that this isn't a united country and while this election was an incredible step in the right direction, there is still so much work to do - difficult work.

A lot of concern seems to be around this idea that Sen. Obama, I suppose I can now refer to him as President-elect Obama, is this extreme liberal who is going to destroy the country. Without getting into too much policy discussion, I would have to disagree. Research suggests time and time again that democrats are much better in restoring a thriving economy, an economy that works for all Americans. It seems to me that this emphasis that people are placing on taxes is unwarranted. Obama's tax policy will essentially take us back to the tax rates of the Clinton years. I would argue that during that time no one went bankrupt from their tax rate. Do people really think that Obama's goal is to tax people to the point of having nothing? This view seems to be just as extreme as they view Obama to be.

The older I get the more I realize that extremes don't get much accomplished. All extreme views do is divide and I would say that the country doesn't need to be any further divided than it has already become. I would like to live in an America in which all people are taken care of, no one is left behind - an America that embraces people of all walks of life. We aren't there yet - but the day is coming.

Sen. Obama began last night, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

"It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." This is the America I hope we can all strive for.

The most important passage from Obama's speech is one that I hope is repeated. It reads, "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

We have to join as one, there is perhaps not been a period in my lifetime when unity is more important. Our ideas and philosophies may never be all the same, but it is time that we put aside our personal pride, start a civil discussion, and get things moving in a positive direction for all Americans.

Our country is changing, and I might add changing rapidly. It is up to us to make sure that the change is in the right direction - the direction that was set forth by our found fathers. That all people are created equal and desire the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is our duty, as Americans, to work for a more perfect Union. We aren't there yet, but yesterday proved to me that this a pretty darn cool place.

My Perspective... Weekly Poll

This week's poll:

Which network did you prefer to watch during this election season?

Vote on the right side of the page!

Last week's poll results:

Will you be glad when this election is over?

Yes: 82%   

No: 18%

Do your duty, fellow Americans

In a few short days the election polls will open (for those who haven't voted early) and droves of Americans will stand in line to formally let their individual voices be heard.  Americans get a chance, every four years, to evaluate the present state and course of the country.  To review the performance of the executive and legislative branches of government and decide whether the job performance of the people in these seats meets the needs of the country or not.  

The process is similar to a performance review at one's place of employment.  If one gets a poor review, action is taken to ensure that the needs of the organization are being met and in some cases that action is termination.  If the work is acceptable, the individual will most likely keep his or her position.

Fellow citizens, this is your country.  You get to decide who runs this organization called America.  As Americans, we employ hundreds of representatives to work for us and we should hold these employees to the highest standard.  I'm referring to standards in the sense of those ideals that the founding fathers put forth for us in the Constitution - working to create a more perfect union for all people.

On November 4, perform your duty as a member of the board of directors of America.  Submit your vote for who you think should be running this beautiful organization called America.  Don't leave it up to others to decide for you.  There is too much at stake to not make your voice known.  It's the least we can do.

I think I disagree with the former president

It's no secret really: I love Bill Clinton.  I think he is a brilliant person who has done great things for the United States and continues to do great things for the world through his Foundation.  I think that he is an extremely gifted politician (perhaps the best of my lifetime, so far?) and I'm glad that he is widely recognized as such.

I generally agree with most things President Clinton says.  Not in a blind-follower sort of way, but I just usually agree with him on economic and social issues (perhaps because both of us are democrats - just a guess).  However, there was a recent occasion in which I took issue with a comment from the former president.  

On an appearance on ABC's "The View," President Clinton said that people have their reasons for voting for a candidate and you can't criticize them for those reasons, no matter how ridiculous you may think the reasons are.  I took this to mean that someone may vote for an individual based on that person's sex, race, hair color, religion, choice of clothing, or prediction of what Punxsutawney Phil will tell us about the length of winter.  I suppose you could call these people single-issue voters.

Obviously President Clinton wasn't suggesting that the latter items in that list are actually good reasons to vote for someone.  However, I think he he did intend to say that sex or race are perfectly justified reasons.  I understand that every voter has the right to vote for whom ever they want for whatever reason they want.  I'm just not convinced that it's responsible.

Don't we have to look at stances on issues and qualifications?  There is perhaps a fairly high chance that if you vote for someone based on their sex alone, you may be voting against your own interests.  I really don't think I would vote for someone who is gay, just because he or she is gay.  I say "I don't think" because the truth is that I suppose we really don't know until we are in that situation.  Perhaps women and African Americans could shed better light on this situation; for the first time they were faced with this very dilemma in this presidential election season.  

So, I've been trying to not question people who fit this mold - voting based on one identifying factor rather than issues - but it's extremely difficult for me.  It just seems irresponsible to put someone in office because they prefer the same brand of toilet paper as you do.  Am I oversimplifying the president's comments?  Certainly, but I do think there is something to my argument.  I guess the bottom line is that I think in an odd twist of reality - I don't agree with Bubba.

What are your thoughts on this?

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll

Check out the latest addition to My Perspective...

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll on the right side of the page! Every Monday morning a new poll will be posted for you participate in - check back often to see how others respond!

I want to hear your perspective!

This week's poll: Are you looking forward to this election being over?

Vote on the right side the page!

Withdrawal on the horizon

Can you believe it?  Only one week left.  Most people are anticipating the day when they can wake up and not worry about having to mute political ads.  They can turn on the news and hear stories other than the latest attacks and polls.  They will be less worried about getting annoyed with the constant use of such phrases as, "spreading the wealth," "third term for Bush," "Wall street to main street," "Joe the plumber," or the dreaded "maverick." 

Well, I have to admit that I'm not in this group of people who are counting down the days until this election is over.  I have invested countless hours of my life into this historical election - two years, really!  I feel as though many of the journalists and contributors are like family, I look forward to waking up in the morning and hearing their analyses of yesterday and their predictions for the day ahead.  I get giddy when Chuck Todd or John King has a new poll to share with us at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, complete with data on every minority.  And of course, we all feel better when David Gergen blesses our candidate with a positive assessment of his or her performance.

I know that I don't stand with many when I say that I am going to miss all of this, but it's true - I will certainly go through a bit of withdrawal over the next few weeks.  I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson trial.  People were obsessed with it!  They watched the proceedings and compared their own thoughts with the analyses of the various commentators (i.e. Greta Van Sustren).  I recall going to confirmation class when the trial was over and my pastor saying, "You'll have to bear with me, I'm going through OJ withdrawal."  I now understand, Pastor John.

As the masses rejoice in this final week, anticipating the close of the election HQ's - it will be bitter sweet for me.  Hopefully our country will elect "change we can believe in," and get things back on track.  I will truly rejoice in that, but I will need some time to adjust to my new life, a life without Paul Begala and James Carville.  I know there will be more elections and all of my favorite contributors will certainly be on giving their take on current political climates.  But you have to wonder...will it ever be the same?

So when Wednesday, November 5, rolls around and we are hopefully celebrating a victory for change - you'll have to bear with me, I'll be going through election withdrawal.

I'm more annoyed than you, Gov. Palin

At a campaign rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Saturday, Sarah Palin told a crowd of supporters that she was "annoyed" with the questions she was asked by Katie Couric in her widely criticized interview on CBS.  If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for a dark comedy.  I say dark comedy because it's funny at first, but then you realize that this is actually a real interview with an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States - and then you just get scared.

In the voice that Tina Fey has mastered, Palin said, "Last time I was here I got to tell a crowd that I had to give a national interview that didn't go so well."  I would have to agree with Palin's assessment.  Perhaps one of the few times we'll agree.

She continued, "And it was because I was kind of annoyed with the questions that I was being asked because I thought they were kind of irrelevant to, you know, national security issues and getting our economy back on track, so I kind of showed some of the annoyance."

You go girl!  Wait, what?!  What is she talking about?  Is she trying to spin the constant look of confusion and "oh crap" that she wore in that interview into just being "annoyed?"  But the more confusing part of her statement is that she suggests the questions she was being asked were "irrelevant" to national security and the economy.  Well, let's take a look at some of the questions, in no particular order, that Couric asked.

-  "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience, what did you mean by that...explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials."

-  "What do you see as the role of the United States in the world?"

-  "Governor Palin, you've had a very busy week and you're meeting with many world leaders.  You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan, I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan, but that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq.  Why do you believe additional troops will solve the problem there?"

-"The United States is deeply unpopular within Pakistan.  Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al qaeda within its borders?"

-  "What specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?"

-  "...if the bailout doesn't pass, what's the alternative?"

-  "You're talking about greater oversight, not necessarily giving Treasury Secretary Paulson the keys to the castle.  What will that oversight look like in your view?"

-  "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle class families that are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas, and groceries,  allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

-  "If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another great depression?"

-  "Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?"

So, if these questions aren't relevant to national security or the economy, what might relevant questions look like?

It remains completely incomprehensible to me how anyone in this country could think that this person is prepared to be in the executive branch of our nation's government.  Yes, she may be a "regular" person, like so many of us.  But do all of you "regular" people think that YOU are prepared to the president or vice president of the United States?  I don't want my president or vice president, or senator for that matter, to be a "regular" person.  I want him or her to be extremely well-informed and thoughtful.  To have a depth of knowledge about the world.  But also an understanding that he or she does not have every answer and thus has a willingness to seek the best advice from the best advisers available. 

So, yes, Gov. Palin is annoyed with Katie Couric.  That's fine, she has that right to be annoyed.

But guess what, Gov. Palin.  I'm annoyed as well.  I'm annoyed that you think you have the depth of understanding of national and world issues to be the vice president of the United States.  I'm not saying you are not intelligent, I'm not saying that with more years of experience, with struggling through the issues and coming to a point of forming your own views, you could never be prepared.  That's not it - I am saying that you are not ready today.  If you and and you're running mate put your "country first," as you always say, then why would you put your country in such a position as possibly having you in one of the most powerful offices in the world?

It's truly frightening, and yes...annoying.

Photo from cnn.com

But they aren't funny, Bay.

Last night on CNN's Larry King Live, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said that SNL is biased and that they need to take a look at the other side and make fun of the Obama campaign.

Ms. Buchanan, there isn't anything funny about the Obama campaign.  They don't make stupid mistakes.  They don't pick ridiculously ill-prepared running mates.  They don't change their platform on the hour.  They don't say they are going to run a campaign free of nasty tactics, and then do it anyway.  They don't have to distance themselves from the tragedy that is the Bush presidency.                                             

So, Bay, perhaps SNL has tried to come up with something to parody in the Obama campaign, but they just don't provide as much material for comedians as the Republican ticket does.

Do we always have to blame the media?

The study of psychology is largely concerned with studying human behavior and the factors or stimuli that influence that behavior.  We are often obsessed with looking for causal relationships, hypothesizing reasons why someone would behave in a certain way.  This is the basic idea behind scientific study:  what does X do to Y?

Regardless of our specific roles in society, we all seem to be inundated with media of some form. Television, print, internet, gaming, music, and the endless list goes on.  I suppose because of this saturation it is easy, and in many cases appropriate, to tag the media as a cause in many of the causal relationships of human behavior.  As Aronson (2008) writes, we are often influenced by others (including the media) without even being aware of it.  During this grueling political season, we are in no short supply (perhaps without demand) of people trying to convince and persuade us with a variety of mass media tactics.

For the purpose of this discussion I would like to focus on the media and its impact, or rather perceived impact, on the behavior of adolescents and teens.  In my lifetime there has been some intensely aggressive and negative behavior performed by teenagers that has been thrust onto the national stage.  There have been, of course, the numerous school shootings and the various stories of extreme bullying.  Perhaps a most recent example is the group beating of a teenage girl by her friends.  All of these are incredibly awful. Working in a school, I was witness to several bullying acts – physical and emotional – on a daily basis. Some more extreme than others, but nonetheless present.

I must take a moment to touch on behavior that isn’t often emphasized or studied.  On a daily basis I witnessed teenagers doing incredibly kind things to and for one another.  I experienced young people working both individually and in groups to do their part to make the world a little better.  There exists in the teenage world, a lot of people who are filled with hope, compassion, and energy to contribute something and do their part to elicit change.

So how does media play a role in all of this?  Well, it seems to me that we, as a society, are quick to blame the media when it is convenient and fall short of giving it credit at times when it deserves it.  As I stated earlier, as a people (especially students of psychology) we are constantly looking for that cause/effect relationship.  In short, who or what is to blame?  At the risk of sounding preachy, I have to wonder if we are often quick to blame others when things are not going well or not turning out the way we had desired, and  then quickly take credit when the opposite occurs.  It certainly makes sense.  If a child gets in trouble at school for punching another student – what parent would stand up and take the blame?  It’s likely that few, if any, would.  This is a fairly delicate topic.  I want to be certain to clarify that I am not suggesting that a bullying or aggressive child automatically equates to horrible parenting.  It’s not that simple.  However, it is also important to point out that this must also be true of other influences, such as the media.

One could argue that people are exposed to a variety of media throughout a lifetime – positive, negative, violent, loving, etc.  So why then do we blame the media when people are violent, but don’t give the media credit when people are loving and caring?  Hopf, Huber, and Weis (2008) point out in a recent longitudinal study that there are a variety of risk factors that contribute to the development of aggressive and violent behavior in teenagers.  A few of these include: family, media, school, peers, and personality.  Also included in this list and discussed in Aronson (2008) is attitude, specifically attitude about one’s self, violence, and others.  

To me attitude plays a much larger role than we generally give it credit for.  Attitude has a great influence on how one responds to a given situation. Throughout one’s lifetime a multitude of challenging situations and people will present and force a reaction. This reaction is informed by myriad factors and I think it is irresponsible to externalize all of the factors to the point of erasing all responsibility.  I realize that our attitudes and personalities are largely shaped by our experiences (external forces).  But external forces such as immediate environment are often brushed aside to make room for blaming a video game.

This topic is extremely complex and I certainly do not have all the answers or even a few.  I’m not trying to suggest that violent media does not play a role in certain behavior.  It just seems to me that we give it too much credit for undesirable acts and not enough for positive acts.  It’s similar to parents saying that if their child isn’t doing well in school – it’s the school’s fault, but if the child is excelling – it is because they are exceptional parents.  Why can’t it be both environments contributing to either situation?

As we continue to look at the issues of child aggression and violence, I think it is important to be responsible with the amount of influence we give certain factors.  Tagging media as the main causal factor in teenage aggression is an overly simplistic answer and truly does not address an overly complex issue.

I would like to see research start to look at both sides of this issue (positive and negative effects of media).  There is no doubt that media plays a role, lets just make sure that we are striking the appropriate balance between the power of its influence and attitude with which children respond to it.

I’ve tried not to oversimplify this topic and to be sensitive to the wide range of opinions and angles one can have. A great deal more work needs to be done to truly understand the issue, and perhaps that will never be possible. The best thing to do is to have an open mind and understand that there is generally not one simple reason people behave as they do.

Stuck

I love this country. That's right, Michele Bachmann, I'm a democrat and I love this country. This country affords anyone who is willing to face circumstantial barriers, an opportunity to live up to their God-given potential. In this country we are allowed to freely voice our opinion, even at the expense of others (which is often the case). Because this country allows me the right to speak freely, I'm going to do so.

I'm stuck today. I can usually let the ridiculous things people say roll off my back and I go about my day getting done what I need to. My thoughts are generally not consumed with the words of those who choose to speak so ill of gay people. I hear things from time to time, pause to convince myself that the majority of the people in the world may not agree with such hateful comments, and then get on with my day.

I'm unable to do that today. I'm not really sure why, but I'm just not able to accept it today. I sit back and stay pretty quiet on this topic as I don't want to create waves and offend others. I try to stay cool and allow people to have their views and not let those views affect me. I'm tired of accepting it. I'm tired of not letting my voice be heard. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around people who don't think about how their hateful words affect others and that maybe, just maybe they are really doing much more harm than anyone.

There are so many questions I have, specifically for people who are so adamantly opposed to allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. I would like to speak directly to those people for a moment: Why do you care? What is it you are so afraid of? How is your life affected by two strangers living their life peacefully together? How does the marriage of two people threaten your marriage? Why do you think you have the right to generalize the ideologies of your religious beliefs to the entire country?

The fact that a lot of the arguments are based on Biblical context is fairly disturbing to me. Since this country is based on the separation of church and state, how are Biblical texts relevant in making an argument for legislation? The simple fact that everyone in the United States doesn't believe in the Bible and doesn't have to believe in the Bible, makes it an irrelevant document in terms of legislating. It can certainly inform the values of its believers, many who happen to be lawmakers, but it cannot be used specifically as an argument.

I think I'm stuck today because of Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. In an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, she suggested that Barack Obama has "anti-American values" and that the media should investigate how many democrats in congress are actually anti-American. In what way are these comments helpful in forming a more perfect union? How does further dividing the country with these divisive comments make this a better place to live? It is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said, “This business of... a congresswoman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity." Thank you, Mr. Powell.

In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically "targeting children." Bachmann believes that people who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender suffer from "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual identity disorders." I assume these latter comments are inspired by her husband who operates a Christian counseling center.

This kind of language is hurtful. It cuts right to the center of who I am. I'm gay and there is nothing I can do about it. I have accepted that fact and frankly, it's just not a big deal. I live my life day-to-day trying to make the world a little better place to live. As much as I try to wrap my mind around it (and trust me, I try very hard to understand the opposite view) - I just can't seem to understand why people like Michele Bachmann wake up each day and work hard to ensure that I cannot enjoy the same things in life that she can. I don't understand why she thinks it's ok to pass such extreme judgment on people that she does not know or understand.

I'm stuck at the moment, but I won't be for much longer. I will be able to go about my daily business and try to make the world a better place for all. But people like Congresswoman Bachmann will be stuck in a world in which they feel the need to pass judgment and hatred and in doing so make the world a much less desirable place for a lot of people. When we are all looking back on our lives, who will feel better about what they have contributed to the world?

I suppose that's not for us to decide.

Photo from minnesotamonitor.com

Enough is right!

How incredible would it be to be in Denver, CO right now? There are so many thoughts going through my mind - this will most likely be one of those entries in which I ramble on and on in disorganized fashion.

As you will have noticed from my earlier posts in the week, I have been fairly disappointed with the DNC. I felt there was a lot of wasted time each night and I wanted a more focused message. With each night things got better, and after tonight I say: What a convention!

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the Clintons. I thought they both gave remarkable speeches at the convention that, if the Democrats win, will have played a very important role. There's a huge part of me that will always wish that Hillary would have been the nominee.

That being said, this convention was a major turning point for me and I can now say, without reservation, that I am prepared to fully support Barack Obama.

One thing that I have noticed, throughout this campaign, is how truly impressive the Obama campaign has been run. They don't screw up. Sure, there have been a few miss steps here and there, but I get the impression that everything is so well thought out and planned. Obama's speech this evening was certainly the most impressive political event that I've seen. I had fear that it was going to be a bit too much, perhaps crossing the line of being tasteful. I was wrong - class all the way.

Tonight was a great night for Democrats, but more, it was a great night for America. Barack Obama laid out his vision for this nation. A nation that just ten years ago was thriving and experiencing some of its best moments. Most of that now - destroyed. Tonight, Obama answered those who asked what change meant and he proved to me that he is ready to throw down with John McCain.

"Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land: Enough." This was one of my favorite lines in the speech. Enough is right! This is our country, not Bush and Cheney's. It is time we take it back and restore the dignity and integrity America once stood for.

Another favorite, " Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know." So true.

I think that Republicans are going to have a difficult time answering the Democrats next week. We ended our convention on such a high note. I realize that the election is basically at a dead heat, but I have to think tonight changed that.

"So I've got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first." This was another section in the speech that I really liked. Republicans have horrible policies for middle class Americans, so they ALWAYS attack their opponents patriotism; it gets really old. Why would someone run for the presidency of the United States if he or she didn't love this country?? It's a ridiculous accusation to make and I'm very glad Obama called them out on it.

Well, as I said, this was going to be one of those rambley posts. I'm very anxious to see what the next days bring. Will Obama get a bounce from tonight? How will the Republicans respond next week? Will we wake up to a different America tomorrow? It feels like it at the moment.

In the words of Tim Russert, "What a country."

Is this guy for real?

I didn't know whether to laugh or get mad when I read this! It certainly helps the Democrats though - more proof that McCain and his advisor really have no clue what's going on with "regular" people in America. Thank you, Mr. Goodman. We'll take all the help we can get!


McCain adviser: Everyone in U.S. has some health coverage
Posted: 01:09 PM ET
From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
(CNN) – A health care policy advisor for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.
"So I have a solution [to the health care crisis]. And it will cost not one thin dime," John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, told the Dallas Morning News in an interview published Thursday.
"The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."
Hospital emergency rooms cannot technically turn away anyone for financial reasons.
"So instead of producing worthless statistics that people fling around in vacuous editorials and pointless debates, the Census Bureau should produce meaningful numbers, identifying all of the sources of funds people will draw on if they need medical care," said Goodman, who helped write McCain’s health care plan.
That plan would use a combination of tax incentives and market competition to make health care more affordable. It is not a universal health care plan – it does not guarantee insurance coverage for every American.

Way to go, Hill!

Well, I've said it all along and I'll continue to say it, Hillary Clinton is amazing.  She did what she was asked to do and then some tonight.  I've been waiting for the Democratic National Convention to get focused with a message - Hillary delivered it.

Of course you have to credit some brilliant speech writers, but the skill with which that speech was delivered was at the top of the league.

I watched with pride for a person I strongly believe in.  I watched with sadness a person whom I wanted to be my president and may never be able to be.  I watched with hope as a democrat and more importantly as an American.  Better days are on the horizon.

I'm inspired.  

In the words of Hillary, "No way.  No how.  No McCain."

Photo: cnn.com