I'm talking about the War on Christmas. You know, that war where the rallying cry is "They're trying to take Christ out of Christmas!" Under the leadership of the ACLU, nativity scenes are being shoved in the closet and the big stores like Walmart and Target instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays", but are never, ever to utter the word, "Christmas".
The atheists and secularists are losing and losing shamefully. Despite the well-organized, all-out effort to remove Christ from Christmas, those pesky Christians, like terrorists, pop up everywhere to drop the "Merry Christmas" bomb.
"How", you might ask, "do you know the War on Christmas is being lost?"
Let's take my typical day, today, as an example.
I stopped in an Exxon station for my donut like I do every morning. As I left, I said to the clerk, "You have a Merry Christmas."
He responded, "Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too."
As I walked out the door, it dawned on me that his name is Wasim and he is obviously of Mideastern decent, which means there's a good chance he isn't Christian. Considering the nature and spirit of the exchange, though, I don't think Wasim lives in fear that Exxon may fire him.
I could be wrong. If he's not around next week, maybe Exxon did fire him. Not only did he dare to speak the word, Christmas, but if he's not Christian then that means he turned on his own kind. I shudder to think what might happen to him. In addition to being fired, he might be brought to trial on charges of being a traitor and have to face the death penalty.
I thought no more of the innocent exchange until I got to work. There's about 800 employees and the CEO of the company is Jewish. Surely the War on Christmas must be experiencing victory on this battlefield.
Nope. Those pesky Christians infiltrated the company and, gasp, dared to decorate their cubes with not only secularist decorations but also Christian symbols - an angel here, the word Christmas there, and the Star of Bethlehem shining over it all. Sure, the Christian symbolism is subdued, but most certainly there.
Oh, and I lost count how many employees wished me a "Merry Christmas". That word is spoken freely and without penalty on this battlefield.
I went out to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette.
Hmmm, now there is a war being won - the War on Smokers.
But back on topic.
Like a common criminal, I went to smoke my cig in hiding. I struck up a conversation with another guy, Marc, like I do every day. "So Marc, do you know where I can get a good deal on a Christmas tree, one that I can plant after the holidays?"
"Hell if I know. I'm Jewish."
"Oh. Well, Happy Hannukah, I guess."
"I don't celebrate Hannukah, but thank you. And Merry Christmas to you."
"Thank you, but I really don't celebrate Christmas. It costs too much."
We both got a good laugh, finished our cigarettes, and went back to work. Neither one of us lost our jobs, had a scolding from our supervisors, or ended up in front of our human resources rep.
I have a feeling that my experience today is typical of almost everyone's day. The War on Christmas is being fought all around us, but no one seems to notice - or care.
That's probably because there is no War on Christmas. Most people run around wondering if they can get off work early and if they can beat the crowds at the stores to finish their last minute Christmas shopping. They're making a list of last minute gifts they need to pick up and wondering if someone will be giving them the gifts they really want. Christmas morning, on the way to Church, they'll think about Jesus, but all the time building up to that genuine moment of Christmas celebration, the Christian aspect of the holiday is AWOL in most peoples' minds.
Of course, there are exceptions. There are people who live and breath Jesus. They're the ones who see the War on Christmas and they are the soldiers fighting the War. Hey, all the power to them. I wish them the best, and a Merry Christmas.
And I'm sure their daughter, Carrie, will be a big hit at her senior prom some day.
For the rest of us, another Christmas will soon be upon us and gone. Then we can shed all our compassion and goodwill to men and pick on the smokers, again. That war hasn't been won - yet.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
I Hate America
That's the common theme I've heard since I was a kid. No, no one outright says, "I hate America", but listen to them long enough and you have to wonder what they like about America if America is so wrong.
The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.
Americans [fill in the blank here].
For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)
Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.
Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?
I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.
The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.
Americans [fill in the blank here].
For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)
Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.
Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?
I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Is This a Fair Comparison?
Somone once said the difference between Muslim extremists and Christian extremists is one is 90% physically violent and 10% psychologically violent and the other is 90% psychologically violent and 10% physically violent.
We can guess which is which.
Sure, Christians don't fly planes into buildings, but remember, it was a Christian who committed the second largest terrorist attack against this country resulting in the second largest number of deaths on American soil - second only to 9/11.
And, of course, some Christians have called for the assasination of a foreign president, bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, alienated the "heathens" by demanding their "born again" conversion else burn in Hell, strive to enshrine parts of their religion in law, and have gone all out to demonize the second largest religion in the world - Islam.
In comparison, some Muslims have called for the assasination of an author, bombed just about anything, killed those who oppose Islam, alienated the "infidels" by demanding their complete acceptance of Islam else face a fatwah, make their religion the law of the land, and have gone all out to demonize anything Western or Jewish.
So how accurate is the comparison?
We can guess which is which.
Sure, Christians don't fly planes into buildings, but remember, it was a Christian who committed the second largest terrorist attack against this country resulting in the second largest number of deaths on American soil - second only to 9/11.
And, of course, some Christians have called for the assasination of a foreign president, bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, alienated the "heathens" by demanding their "born again" conversion else burn in Hell, strive to enshrine parts of their religion in law, and have gone all out to demonize the second largest religion in the world - Islam.
In comparison, some Muslims have called for the assasination of an author, bombed just about anything, killed those who oppose Islam, alienated the "infidels" by demanding their complete acceptance of Islam else face a fatwah, make their religion the law of the land, and have gone all out to demonize anything Western or Jewish.
So how accurate is the comparison?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
A Group Gone Too Far?
Or maybe outlived it's usefulness?
Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.
Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.
MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.
Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.
I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.
Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.
Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.
MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.
Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.
I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Catholic Bishops Are So Understanding
American Catholic bishops on Tuesday called on gays to live a life of celibacy, but still referred to homosexuality as "disordered". They also encouraged gay Catholics to remain in the closet, both spiritually and sexually, by only telling a close circle of family and clergy of their homosexuality. -story
The bright note?
They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.
They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.
At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.
"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."
Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.
The bright note?
They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.
They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.
At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.
"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."
Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Homophobia Is Homophobia, Mr. Hyman
Here's a new one. Yeah, I know. I've been kind of slacking. (For anyone new to this blog, periodically, I counter the general manager of the Sinclair Corporation, parent company of Fox News. I encourage everyone to lend him an earful.)
Mark Hyman took three days to try to link the ACLU to the support of pedophilia. I won't rehash all three reports here, but do encourage everyone to take a look at his remarks (use the drop down menu and choose the ones titled NAMBLA).
My response to his three-days of lying:
Wow! It took you three days to blow a thick smoke screen in an attempt to convince your viewers the ACLU supports pedophilia. The only problem is most of your viewers can see through the twisted facts and lies.
Point one: the ACLU is not against the Boy Scouts nor do they wish to not “separate men from copulating with young boys.”
First, according to the FBI, 90% of the pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. By your reasoning, there should be no scout leaders.
Second, the very homophobic implication that homosexuals want sex with young boys warrants an apology on your part to your viewers and homosexuals.
Third, the ACLU is against discrimination, born out of homophobic myths like the one you have tried to perpetuate. They only argued that if the Boy Scouts receive public money and use public facilities, then they have to scrap their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.
Point two: the ACLU did not support NAMBLA. What they did support is free speech. Since the material NAMBLA publishes is not illegal, the ACLU argued that the group cannot be held liable for any crime committed because someone “got ideas” from their literature.
Now think of the implication for a moment. Every night I watch your reporters teach me how to deal drugs, rob banks, of kill someone. Sure, they don’t give me the lessons all at once, but each story reported gives me ideas of what I should and should not do if I were to commit a crime.
Do you want every criminal behind bars suing you for putting ideas in their head that caused them to commit their crime?
Perhaps they should sue you for giving them faulty information, much like this three-day expose on the ACLU and NAMBLA.
Mark Hyman took three days to try to link the ACLU to the support of pedophilia. I won't rehash all three reports here, but do encourage everyone to take a look at his remarks (use the drop down menu and choose the ones titled NAMBLA).
My response to his three-days of lying:
Wow! It took you three days to blow a thick smoke screen in an attempt to convince your viewers the ACLU supports pedophilia. The only problem is most of your viewers can see through the twisted facts and lies.
Point one: the ACLU is not against the Boy Scouts nor do they wish to not “separate men from copulating with young boys.”
First, according to the FBI, 90% of the pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. By your reasoning, there should be no scout leaders.
Second, the very homophobic implication that homosexuals want sex with young boys warrants an apology on your part to your viewers and homosexuals.
Third, the ACLU is against discrimination, born out of homophobic myths like the one you have tried to perpetuate. They only argued that if the Boy Scouts receive public money and use public facilities, then they have to scrap their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.
Point two: the ACLU did not support NAMBLA. What they did support is free speech. Since the material NAMBLA publishes is not illegal, the ACLU argued that the group cannot be held liable for any crime committed because someone “got ideas” from their literature.
Now think of the implication for a moment. Every night I watch your reporters teach me how to deal drugs, rob banks, of kill someone. Sure, they don’t give me the lessons all at once, but each story reported gives me ideas of what I should and should not do if I were to commit a crime.
Do you want every criminal behind bars suing you for putting ideas in their head that caused them to commit their crime?
Perhaps they should sue you for giving them faulty information, much like this three-day expose on the ACLU and NAMBLA.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Protect the Everglades of the North - Final Outcome
Yesterday, it was announced that over 700 acres of the 1,000 acre proposed site will be sold to the state to become a permanent part of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. We're assured (ahem) that the announcement's timing has nothing to do with today's election.
The Critical Bay Commission nixed the hotel, convention center, retail center, and golf course but did allow the 2,700 homes since they were far back from the Little Black River. With the crux of the project (read, moneymaker) axed, the developer decided to negotiate the sale with the state and settled for building a654 homes, instead, that will mostly cater to the elderly.
The developer will still get 10.4 million for that 700 acres, though. I wonder if he will take some of his profit from the sale and donate it to the refuge he threatened to destroy.
Probably not. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can find out.
The Critical Bay Commission nixed the hotel, convention center, retail center, and golf course but did allow the 2,700 homes since they were far back from the Little Black River. With the crux of the project (read, moneymaker) axed, the developer decided to negotiate the sale with the state and settled for building a654 homes, instead, that will mostly cater to the elderly.
The developer will still get 10.4 million for that 700 acres, though. I wonder if he will take some of his profit from the sale and donate it to the refuge he threatened to destroy.
Probably not. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can find out.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Protect the Everglades of the North - Governor's & Gubantorial Candidate Letters
Here are the next two sample letters. As usual, they are presented as guidelines to help you get started on your own letter; however, feel free to use them ver batim if you feel uncomfortable writing your own.
Both these letters are important ones. The letter to Governor Ehrlich urges him to intervene in the project on behalf of the state. The letter Mayor Martin O'Malley subtlely encourages him to take a public stand on the project forcing it into a campaign issue. That may add pressure to Governor Ehrlich to intervene.
As a reminder, in order of most impressiveness on elected officials:
- Snail mail followed by phone call
- Snail mail
- Phone call
Any method you decide to use will be a great help.
Governor Ehrlich:
Contact:
Office of the Governor
The Honorable Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
State HouseAnnapolis, Maryland
21401-1925410.974.3901 (PH)
410.974.3275(Fax)
Toll Free 1.800.811.8336
TDD 410.333.3098
MD Relay 1.800.735.2258
webmail: http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail/
Dear Governor Ehrlich,
I am writing you with regards to the proposed Blackwater resort project tentatively approved by the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commisioners. I urge you to intervene on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Marylanders who, directly or indirectly, depend on the Chesapeake Bay for their livilihood.
The proposed project will butress the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. Managers of the refuge have expressed their concern that the project will put the habitat and surrounding marshlands in jeopardy. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has publically declared its firm opposition to the development. A full 73% of the voting residents of Dorchester County oppose the project.
All share the fear that the 1,000 acre project, over three hundred of which cut through critical bay habitat, will seriously damage, if not destroy, the refuge and surrounding marshlands. Damage to the wetlands will have a ripple effect far beyond the Dorchester County line. Being an important nursery for the fish and crabs of the Chesapeake Bay, fishermen and crabbers up and down the Bay will feel the crunch in lower catches and businesses dependent on the seafood harvests - both commercial and tourist orientated - will feel the pinch in higher prices or in a search for better fishing grounds outside of the Bay.
While I do appreciate the local governments' desire to spurn economic growth in their communities, the laws governing critical bay habitat development shouldn't be broken just to make a fast buck today. People come to the marshlands to enjoy its natural beauty. If the resort being built to accomodate these people end up destroying the marshlands, they will stop coming. All the jobs and revenue createdby the project will dry up tomorrow and hundreds of thousands of Marylanders up and down the Bay and in Dorchester County will pay a heavy price for the bad decisions being made today.
I urge you to step in and encourage the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commissoners to reconsider the project. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has offered a good solution: move the project closer to the heart of Cambridge to revitalize depressed sections of the city and designate the 1,000 acres of the proposed site as a buffer zone between the delicate wetlands and the future growth of Cambridge.
This sounds like a solid and smart plan to follow.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Mayor Martin O'Malley:
Contact:
Campaign Headquarters
2400 Boston Street
Suite 203
Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: 410-814-4206
Fax: 410-814-4218
email: email: campaign@martinomalley.com
Dear Mayor Martin O'Malley,
As a leading gubanatorial candidate, I would like to know your stand on the proposed Blackwater resort project tentatively approved by the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commisioners. Unfortunately, if the project goes through as planned, groundbreaking will begin in October, a month before the election, but your stand on this project will give me and Maryland voters a good idea where you might stand on any future development plans along the Chesapeake Bay.
The resort project may not be an election year hot topic, but it is extremely important to the 73% of voters in Dorchester County who oppose it and to the tens of thousands of Marylanders who have already signed the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's petition urging Governor Ehrlich to intervene on behalf of the state.
Hundreds of thousands of Marylanders depend on the Bay, either directly or indirectly, for their livlihood. They are keenly sensitive to any issues that may threaten their way of life such as destruction or damage to major wetlands that the Blackwater resort may cause. I know I, and many other Marylanders, eagerly await your public stand on the Blackwater project and the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Commisioners' Sample Letters
As part of the ongoing effort to protect the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding marshlands, below is a sample letter to use if you decide to write the Mayor of Cambridge and the Cambridge and County commissioners - all who have supported the resort project.
A few formalities first.
A few formalities first.
- The sample letter below is a guidline to help you get started on your own. However, you may feel free to use it ver batim especially if you're uncomfortable writing your own.
- In order of most impressiveness on elected officials:
-Snail mail followed by phone call
-Snail mail
-Phone call
-Email - Proper envelope addressing will be "The Honorable" for mayor and "Commisioner" for city and county commisioners.
Contacts
City of Cambridge and Cambridge Mayor:
Commisioners Kenneth P. Knox, Donald Sydnor, La-Shon M. Brooks, Gilbert (Gil) Cephas, Walter Lee Travers
[Elected official's full name]
City Hall
307 Gay Street
P.O. Box 255
Cambridge, MD 21613
Phone:
410-228-4020
410-228-4554 (Fax)
1-800-735-2258 (TTY)
Email:
info@ci.cambridge.md.us
County Commisioners:
Glenn L. BrambleWork:
(410) 228-5272
E-Mail: gbramble@docogonet.com
Effie M. Elzey
Home: (410) 228-8736 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: effie@shorecable.com
E-Mail: eelzey@council.docogonet.com
William V. Nichols
Home: (410) 221-1371 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: mailto:wnichols@docogonet.com
David Yockey
Work: (410) 943-4025
E-Mail: dyockey@docogonet.com
dyockey@comcast.net
Ricky Travers
Work: 410-228-4313
Home: 410-228-1532 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: travers@fastol.com
Jane Baynard
Work: 410-228-1700
Fax: 410-228-9641
E-Mail: jbaynard@docogonet.com
Address for all:
Commisioner [full name]
County Council of Dorchester County
County Office Building
P.O. Box 26
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
(410) 228-1700
Sample Letter:
Dear Mr. (Ms.) [mayor's or commisioners' full name here]:
I am writing you with regards to the proposed Blackwater resort project. While I do recognize your sincere desire to spurn economic growth in Cambridge and Dorchester County, I believe the site location for the proposed project will do more harm than good in the long run.
I urge you to seriously consider the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's reccomendation to move the proposed resort closer to the heart of Cambridge or another suitable location already approved for development and designate the present 1,000 acre site as a buffer zone between Cambridge's future growth and the wetlands encompassing and surrounding the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has laready been lost primarily due to natural causes. Despite the best efforts of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge managers, Army Corps of engineers, and the Baltimore National Aquarium, the marsh still looses about 130 acres per year primarily from rising sea levels due to global warming and wave action from the increased area of open water. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey ran a conservative model of the refuge showing a good portion of it will be under water within the next forty-five years. Despite the best efforts of many organizations trying to save the drowning marsh, rising sea levels can't be stopped. Hopefully, the marshlands will have time to adjust by slowly moving inland as the water levels rise.
Placing a resort on the edge of the refuge and allowing it to cut into over three hundred acres of designated critical bay areas will surely speed up the demise of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding marshlands. Storm runoff will inundate the marsh with pollutants from paved surfaces; and fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from homoeowners lawns and the golf course. The greater increase in the freshwater flow into the marsh will surely alter the salinity levels. All this can only spell disaster for the fragile ecosystem.
And even if the above scenario fails to play out as the experts fear, the marsh will have nowhere to move inland as the sea levels rise. The resort will be in the way.
The big attraction for building the resort is the refuge and marshlands. That is what people will come to see and enjoy. While the short-term spurt in economic growth may be an economic boon for a few years, once the marsh disappears so will all the people who come to enjoy it. The harmful effects won't stop at he county line, either. The death of the marshlands will have a ripple effect up and down the Chesapeake Bay's shores and will be felt by the hundreds of thousands of Marylanders - if not more - who depend, directly or indirectly, on the Bay for their livilihood.
The Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and surrounding marshlands are one of Cambridge's and Dorchester County's greatest and most valuable asset. Planned growth to benefit the citizens should be made around protecting this asset for today's and tomorrow's generations.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Update
In my previous post, point one directs you to an online petition. If you notice, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation provides a printable version for people to circulate in their communities and return to them by 23 Jun.
I just received an email from Mr. Terry Cummings of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation confirming that the deadline has been extended to 21 Jul! He stated that because of an unexpected large response to new signatures, they extended the deadline.
So please, sign the online petition and if you are inclined, gather signatures and mail the petition to the Foundation.
I just received an email from Mr. Terry Cummings of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation confirming that the deadline has been extended to 21 Jul! He stated that because of an unexpected large response to new signatures, they extended the deadline.
So please, sign the online petition and if you are inclined, gather signatures and mail the petition to the Foundation.
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Intro
The Blackwater Wildlife refuge, a 27,000 acre refuge of marshland for the threatened bald eagle and endangered Delmarva fox squirrel, is under attack. Designated a critical wetlands area, the marshes provide important habitat for over 250 species of birds, is a major wintering route under the Atlantic flyway (the main route taken by many migratory birds), is home to the largest colony of nesting bald eagles in the 48 states except for Florida, and acts as a major nursery for much of the Chesapeake Bay life - seafood many watermen up and down the Bay depend on for their livilihood. It has earned the nickname of "The Everglades of the North" because of its size and variety of wildlife.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has been lost at the rate of about 130 acres per year. Once recognizable channels and ponds are now submerged. A US Geological Survey study predicts that by 2050, most of the marshland will be open water. In effect, the marshland is drowning.
The largest contribitors to the marsh's decline has been the introduction of nutria, a South American rodent broght to the marshes to boost the fur trade, rising sea levels that alter the salinity of the marsh, and an increase in wave energy produced from the ever-expanding open water.
While the managers of the wetlands work with Baltimore's National Aquarium and the Army Corps of Engineers to restore the marsh, a new threat looms on the horizon. A developer has won approval to build an 800 acre resort comprising of 2,700 homes, a 100-room hotel, a conference center, a retail center, and a golf course next to the refuge. Three hundred thirteen of the acres will cut through the designated critical habitat of the wetlands. Normally, that means very strict building guidelines need to be followed in critical areas. For example, new homes must be separated by 20 acres of land; every tree a property owner cuts down must be replaced with a new tree; vegetation destroyed for other than maintence of an existing lawn must be replaced in certain percentages elsewhere on the property. These laws are waived for the developer of the Blackwater resort.
To date, no environmental impact study has been completed. Mangers of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, however, have expressed their concern. The project is only hundreds of feet away from the Little Black River, which feeds directly into the wildlife refuge. They estimated the project would add 12-13% more impervious surface to the area (roads and parking lots). With soil already sitting on a high water table, storm runoff from the development would inundate the marsh with pollution from the road surfaces and fetilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from the golf course and home owner lawns. Previous studies on wetlands have already shown that a 10% addition of impervious surfaces result in substantial loss of fish life in the surrounding wetlands and sharp drop in quality of the water.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is more outspoken in its opposition to the proposed project. Recognizing the city of Cambridge's desire to attract new business and spurn economic growth, they encourage the project to be moved into the city itself or in areas already designated for growth and make the presently proposed site for the project a permanent natural barrier between Cambridge's growth and the delicate wetlands.
And what do the residents of Dorchester County think? They are, after all, the ones who stand to gain the most (economic opportunities) or lose the most (loss of quality of life, destruction of their environment, loss of economic growth - those who depend on the marsh and the bay for their livilihood). A full 73% of voting residents oppose the Blackwater development plan.
But if the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge councils get their way, groundbreaking for the new resort will begin in October.
With this background, I urge all Marylanders to do any or all of the following to protect the wetlands: (You may use any letter samples ver batim or as a guidline to creating your own):
Obviously, I have quite a few letters to write. Over the next two weeks or so, I'll be posting them. But I wanted to get this up so any Marylanders can at least sign the petition (the first thing in my long list to do) before Thursday's town meeting. I reckon if you don't live in MD, but have visited the refuge, there's no reason why you shouldn't voice your concern, too. And heck, if after visiting the website of the refuge and seeing what is all there, I reckon it wouldn't hurt to voice your opinion through one of the appropriate outlets listed above like a letter to the editor or something.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has been lost at the rate of about 130 acres per year. Once recognizable channels and ponds are now submerged. A US Geological Survey study predicts that by 2050, most of the marshland will be open water. In effect, the marshland is drowning.
The largest contribitors to the marsh's decline has been the introduction of nutria, a South American rodent broght to the marshes to boost the fur trade, rising sea levels that alter the salinity of the marsh, and an increase in wave energy produced from the ever-expanding open water.
While the managers of the wetlands work with Baltimore's National Aquarium and the Army Corps of Engineers to restore the marsh, a new threat looms on the horizon. A developer has won approval to build an 800 acre resort comprising of 2,700 homes, a 100-room hotel, a conference center, a retail center, and a golf course next to the refuge. Three hundred thirteen of the acres will cut through the designated critical habitat of the wetlands. Normally, that means very strict building guidelines need to be followed in critical areas. For example, new homes must be separated by 20 acres of land; every tree a property owner cuts down must be replaced with a new tree; vegetation destroyed for other than maintence of an existing lawn must be replaced in certain percentages elsewhere on the property. These laws are waived for the developer of the Blackwater resort.
To date, no environmental impact study has been completed. Mangers of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, however, have expressed their concern. The project is only hundreds of feet away from the Little Black River, which feeds directly into the wildlife refuge. They estimated the project would add 12-13% more impervious surface to the area (roads and parking lots). With soil already sitting on a high water table, storm runoff from the development would inundate the marsh with pollution from the road surfaces and fetilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from the golf course and home owner lawns. Previous studies on wetlands have already shown that a 10% addition of impervious surfaces result in substantial loss of fish life in the surrounding wetlands and sharp drop in quality of the water.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is more outspoken in its opposition to the proposed project. Recognizing the city of Cambridge's desire to attract new business and spurn economic growth, they encourage the project to be moved into the city itself or in areas already designated for growth and make the presently proposed site for the project a permanent natural barrier between Cambridge's growth and the delicate wetlands.
And what do the residents of Dorchester County think? They are, after all, the ones who stand to gain the most (economic opportunities) or lose the most (loss of quality of life, destruction of their environment, loss of economic growth - those who depend on the marsh and the bay for their livilihood). A full 73% of voting residents oppose the Blackwater development plan.
But if the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge councils get their way, groundbreaking for the new resort will begin in October.
With this background, I urge all Marylanders to do any or all of the following to protect the wetlands: (You may use any letter samples ver batim or as a guidline to creating your own):
Sign the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Petition (http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=bw_home)
Write the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge council members, the two councils that have given the green light for the project. (Sample letter and contacts to follow.)
Write Governor Ehrlich asking for state intervention. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore and gubernatorial candidate. Force the project to become an election year hot button. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write the major news stations encouraging them to cover the story. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write an editorial/letter to the editor to the two popular newspapers. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write the state senator and rep urging state intervention. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write the Department of Interior urging federal intervention. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write MD Senators and District Rep urging federal intervention. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Obviously, I have quite a few letters to write. Over the next two weeks or so, I'll be posting them. But I wanted to get this up so any Marylanders can at least sign the petition (the first thing in my long list to do) before Thursday's town meeting. I reckon if you don't live in MD, but have visited the refuge, there's no reason why you shouldn't voice your concern, too. And heck, if after visiting the website of the refuge and seeing what is all there, I reckon it wouldn't hurt to voice your opinion through one of the appropriate outlets listed above like a letter to the editor or something.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Single Is Not A Disease
I happened to watch the Today Show this morning. I know, who in their right mind gets up before twelve noon on a Saturday? Trust me, I don’t do that often. But my getting up way too early on a Saturday morning is not the subject I want to talk about. A story they had on about being single rubbed me the wrong way. Being single is what I want to talk about.
The authors of a new book tell us why we’re single, and if you’re single, it’s your fault. No, I don’t know who the authors were nor the name of the book. My impression is they are a couple and now want to teach everyone else how to suffer with a mate. The only point I got out of the five minute interview with them was a flashback years ago to a Newsweek cover story proclaiming unmarried women over forty had a better chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack than they did falling in love and marrying.
Of course some couples would tell you that marriage is an act of terrorism.
I really want to know why so many people look at being single as some sort of disease that needs a cure. If I can get a solid answer to that question, then I am dying to know why married people are so eager to hook their single friends up as if there’s a hurry to get them married.
From a man’s perspective, I can understand the desire to get married before middle age. Thinning, gray hair can’t rightfully be called attractive. And the beer gut really gets in the way of chasing women. It slows one down and most of the pretty, young things can out run the middle aged man. All he’s left with is women judging the size of one thing in his pants – his wallet.
Women, though, seem to be in a hurry to marry, too. The other day I was smoking a cigarette at work and two young women barely out of college came out to smoke and talk. I’m not normally an eavesdropper, but they were talking loud enough that I couldn’t help but catch their conversation.
The one boasted about meeting this really nice guy at the nightclub over the weekend. He wasn’t tall like she likes nor broad-shouldered. On top of that, he’s Jewish, which she felt might clash with her Christianity if the relationship moved on to raising a family. What won her heart, though, was his being a really nice guy with a gentle personality and the fact that he had a very good paying job didn’t hurt.
Now, I really don’t understand this. She’s young with a whole life ahead of her. She has a good job that could turn into a successful career if she wanted. She knows she wants the Marlboro man, but is willing to settle for a pudgy Jew with a sweet personality and money.
What the Hell is her hurry? She’s not anywhere near the age where all she has to look forward to is a terrorist attack.
Being single is not a disease. Focusing on marriage as being important, the goal to achieve, and willing to settle for less just to get married is a disease.
The authors of a new book tell us why we’re single, and if you’re single, it’s your fault. No, I don’t know who the authors were nor the name of the book. My impression is they are a couple and now want to teach everyone else how to suffer with a mate. The only point I got out of the five minute interview with them was a flashback years ago to a Newsweek cover story proclaiming unmarried women over forty had a better chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack than they did falling in love and marrying.
Of course some couples would tell you that marriage is an act of terrorism.
I really want to know why so many people look at being single as some sort of disease that needs a cure. If I can get a solid answer to that question, then I am dying to know why married people are so eager to hook their single friends up as if there’s a hurry to get them married.
From a man’s perspective, I can understand the desire to get married before middle age. Thinning, gray hair can’t rightfully be called attractive. And the beer gut really gets in the way of chasing women. It slows one down and most of the pretty, young things can out run the middle aged man. All he’s left with is women judging the size of one thing in his pants – his wallet.
Women, though, seem to be in a hurry to marry, too. The other day I was smoking a cigarette at work and two young women barely out of college came out to smoke and talk. I’m not normally an eavesdropper, but they were talking loud enough that I couldn’t help but catch their conversation.
The one boasted about meeting this really nice guy at the nightclub over the weekend. He wasn’t tall like she likes nor broad-shouldered. On top of that, he’s Jewish, which she felt might clash with her Christianity if the relationship moved on to raising a family. What won her heart, though, was his being a really nice guy with a gentle personality and the fact that he had a very good paying job didn’t hurt.
Now, I really don’t understand this. She’s young with a whole life ahead of her. She has a good job that could turn into a successful career if she wanted. She knows she wants the Marlboro man, but is willing to settle for a pudgy Jew with a sweet personality and money.
What the Hell is her hurry? She’s not anywhere near the age where all she has to look forward to is a terrorist attack.
Being single is not a disease. Focusing on marriage as being important, the goal to achieve, and willing to settle for less just to get married is a disease.
ACLU Lynch Mob
Ok, he makes this way to easy. I met his challenge this week.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Top Ten Worst Songs Ever
I decided to post a little something fun for a change.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
10. Muskrat Love by Captain and Tenille. What perverted mind would create a love song about horny rodents?
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Open Letter to the President
Sure, I know. Today, the Senate is expected to reject a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. But the issue is far from dead. The House is expected to take it up again later this summer. And then there is the Replay of 2004 principal at play here.
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Build Your Own Platform - The War on Terror
(For details on the build your own platform project, please visit my outline in the Boston Tea Party Protests MSN group. And feel free to participate either here or over there.)
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Build Your Own Political Platform
Over at my group, The Boston Tea Party Protests, I have encouraged the members to build their own political platform. I figured I'd share it here. Of course, you are always welcomed to join the discussion over there, too. The more we talk about it, maybe the more our politicians will listen.
Worth a try anyway.
Worth a try anyway.
Preamble:
The 2008 elections are still two years away. Right now, the three major parties are building their platforms that they will present at their conventions in two more years. The average American, however, will align themselves with one or the other party, but have little to nothing to do with the development of their party's platform and many more will only understand bits and pieces of it.
The BTP group's platform aim is three-fold:
- Help members become familiar with the three main parties' platforms (Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian).
- Help members understand what the planks of the platforms actually say, debate them, and help them solidify their own opinion of what the planks should be.
- Provide a tool so that members can easily compare their own platform they will formulate here to that of the three main parties' platform to help them make more sound decisions come the 2008 election.
Recognizing that this is a huge task, at minimum, each topic will be afforded at least a one month debate time before, as a group, we move to a new plank. By the end of two years (maybe even sooner), the BTP group platform should be done and each member will have his/her own platform to compare to the national platforms of the three major parties'.
Each member is encouraged to write their own platform as the debate and formulation of BTP group's platform progresses. Probably the best way to do this would be to keep track of it in a word document, adding to it as each topic is discussed here. When we're completed with the platform, it'd be up to each member whether they want to share their version or not.
The posted BTP group's platform will only be a subjective compilation of what appears to be the majority consensus on any topic and will be used only as an example for other members to use as they build their own platform. It will not be an official stance of the group in any way nor should it be construed as such. How and when I will post the BTP group's version will be decided at a later date.
We'll be using the parties' 2004 platforms as a guideline as we develop our own platform for 2008. The following links take you to the respective party's 2004 national platform: Republican, Democratic, Libertarian.
General outline, table of contents, if you will, fo BTP group's party platform:
Overall Vision for America
International
- War on Terror
Overall Goals
Afghanistan
Iraq
Anticipated Future Problems/Solutions - Middle East Relations
Overall Goals
Israel
Palestine
Iran
Saudi Arabia - Asian-Indo-Pacific Relations
Overall Goals
China
North Korea - European Relations
Overall Goals - Latin/South American Relations
Overall Goals
Domestic
- Immigration
Overall Goals - Native Americans
Overall Goals - Health Care
Overall Goals
Every American Insured
Malpractice Lawsuit Caps - Social Security
Overall Goals
Privitization - Families
Overall Goals
Same Sex Marriage
Home Ownership
Education - Crime
Overall Goals - Jobs
Overall Goals
Outsourcing
Creating Jobs - Economy
Overall goals - Environment
Overall Goals - Energy
Overall Goals
Energy Independence
Alternative Fuels - Military
Overall Goals
Future Roles
There is the general outline we'll take one at a time to discuss so each member can formulate his/her own plank to compare with the national parties' planks.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Different Levels of Bias
It is important, as individuals, we recognize that biases and prejudices are a normal facet of being human. Through thousands of years, our tendency to catagorize and stereotype like things has helped us to find beneficial opportunities and avoid danger or trouble. It has helped us to survive.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Repeat Play of 2004?
Flashback, election year 2004: stalemate in Iraq with hundreds upon hundreds of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, thousands upon thousands of jobs outsourced to India and other developing countries, social security being held together with duct tape, and an overall gloomy outlook by the average American.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Hypocrits Exposed
Wow! Two in one week. And this one's related to the last one! Sometimes, the far right just makes it too easy....
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
It's Not About Sex, Dummy
I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point)
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Major Change to This Blog
I've neglected this blog because, simply stated, I'm much too busy to post something fresh every day that is gay-related. I am busy writing about many other things. My world quite simply does not revolve around gay issues.
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
AFA Unhappy With Ford, Again
The gay hate group, American Family Association, is upset with Ford because the company has decided to advertise its vehicles in gay publications and, get this, offers diversity training classes to its employees.
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
News Update: The AFA has renewed its call for a boycott of Ford (story). Please support Ford and let them know you aren't paying attention to AFA's call for a boycott.
The American Family Association, a gay hate group, has called on its 2.2 million members to boycott the Ford Motor Company because of Ford's perceived support of the "homosexual agenda" and gay marriage. Following the link, one becomes aware of the main complaints the AFA has of Ford:
- Ford advertises in gay publications with ads tailord to the gay market.
- Ford wishes to sell its vehicles to homosexuals.
- Ford supports diversity training throughout its company and subsidiaries.
- Ford financially contributes to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Commision.
Specifically, they are asking their members to contact their local Ford dealers and tell them that they will no longer buy Ford products as long as the Ford Motor Company supports the homosexual agenda and gay marriage.
The AFA is the same group who boycotted Disney World because Disney offered domestic partner benefits and held a "gay day." That nine year boycott officially ended practically the same day they announced the Ford boycott.
Show Ford that not everyone is as homophobic as members of the AFA. Contact your local Ford dealer and tell them that despite the boycott call, you plan on remaining or maybe becoming a Ford customer.
To find your local dealer, click on the make of your vehicle below:
Ford Jaguar Lincoln Land Rover Mercury Mazda Volvo
You may also contact the corporate headquarters in Deerborn, MI and tell them what you think about their contributions to the gay community and their push for diversity training in the automotive industry: The link provides an easy to use, online form submission. You may also contact them the old fashioned way:
In United States:
Phone:800-392-3673
800-232-5952 (TDD for the Hearing Impaired)
Mail:
Ford Motor CompanyCustomer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
In Canada:
Phone:800-565-3673
Mail:Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario L6J5E4
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)
Be sure to let the AFA know how you feel about their boycott, too. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. (The link takes you to an easy online feedback form for the AFA.)
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Soundoff to Maryland Delgate Dwyer
Last month, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdoch sided with nine gay couples and ruled Maryland’s law defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional and discriminatory, stating that the law “cannot withstand constitutional challenge.”
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A Couple of Notes About This Site....
I've been gone awhile. My apologies to any readers who may have started an interest in this site. Little Guy Protest has been taking a huge chunk of my time and I've neglected this site. Hopefully, I'll get back in the swing of things and begin posting on a more regular basis again.
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
