18,000 Gay Marriages Have Harmed Straight Marriage How?

In light of the recent CA supreme court ruling that is mixed, I'm just wondering a couple of things.
There have been 18K married gay people in California for several months now. How has that hurt the straights who have married?

Really, the argument that there just might be some other obscure allowance for marriage (read polygamy and the like) is not an argument against allowing gays to be married today. I still have not heard one plausible reason why two people in a monogamous relationship (consenting adults) can't be married regardless of gender that doesn't involve bigotry or the bible or both.

Care to try again folks?

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

Reflections on Memorial Day

Given that many view Memorial Day as simply a time to cook outside, consume large quantities of beer, and the like, I thought it would be helpful to remind ourselves what it really is about. These are snaps I took from the National Cemetery yesterday.

Judgement Day

Del died a few months later, before Proposition 8 passed. She died a married woman. As far as I know, we're still married. They haven't ruled yet about the people who got married, but most people think they're not going to cancel those marriages.

Where's the harm if Del and Phyllis are married?

They were a San Francisco couple who had been together 51 years at that time. Talk about a relationship of love and devotion and constancy: It was really what marriage should be about.

Isn't it about time the bigots lose one? I suppose we will know in a handful of minutes.

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

After Tuesday, We Will Know

Of course, the Supreme Court of the State of California will finally make public their ruling on the Prop H8 case: Tuesday at 10:00 AM. I'm hoping they stay sane and prove that the tyranny of the majority will not inflict it's warped sense of values on a minority that deserves protection under the law. After all, the Court is there to prevent such things from happening; protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

As to why any one would suggest that there is something sanctimonious and worth protecting about straight marriage is beyond me. Spare us the biblical references as I'm quite certain even those who most strictly follow the teachings therein violate some obscure and mundane rule stipulated in black and white. You can't selectively preach, teach and follow only those rules you like. As they would say, those who are without sin should cast the first stone.

This issue is about basic human rights. People should be allowed to marry and obtain the same freedoms no matter their sexual orientation. Those opposed are bigots.

Really, I know both gay and straight parents and found that some gay people are substantially better parents than the straight ones. As to why you would want to invalidate that family by disallowing their marriage simply based on gender is really foolish. If you really were wanting to do what is right for families and children you would ban three types of marriages: among the obese, smokers and celebrities. All have led to very dysfunctional and unhealthy upbringings for children. If you are about protecting families and marriage, why not start where there is some proof of harm.

I'm still waiting for the plausible explanation as to how two same sex individuals getting hitched will harm a straight marriage. Care to give it a whirl?

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

So, Let Me Get This Straight

In case you have not been watching moves that the CSU Board has been taking to offset costs of running an operation that the State seems increasingly reluctant to cover (Well, shit, lets be blunt here- it seems like the public really doesn't care much about education across the board as a social good otherwise they may complain more profusely that kids/students are being regularly used as political pawns), they have resolved to hike tuition, which would be calculated as much as a 78% increase in cost to some students. Here's the irony. Bend your mind around this.

Let's say, you are a starving student, working part time on your MBA at a CSU school. Granted, the economy is in George Bush's inelegantly-built-over-eight-years crapper and you expected tuition to go up, but here's the irony. According to the resolution: university presidents

are directed to set aside a minimum of 25% and not more than 33% of the Graduate Business Professional Fee revenue for need-based financial aid, with such funds to be used first to meet the demonstrated financial need of student in campus professional graduate degree programs in business....

So, they increase your fees and collect your money which causes you to be in greater financial duress. This in turn requires you to petition for financial aid because you need help to pay them the increased fees. Essentially, you are loaning the University your money so that they may - at best give back to you and at worse loan to you to cover that additional set of fees which you may not have needed had they not increased the fees.

Of course, the top level CSU folks make a combined total of over 10 million dollars and perks. And what does that get the students? Any one else there want to holler WTF from the roof tops yet? I say cut at the top first.

The GOP: America's Cancer

With the resurgence of the Big Dick Cheney grabbing the microphone, and the effervescent challenges to Nancy Pelosi, it seems like the GOP has become a cancer for America.

We know full well that for 8 years, the W, Rove and Co was in the business of spreading propaganda, mongering fear, and building a case to justify an illegitimate war in Iraq. But as of late, it seems the GOP cannot seem to pull itself away from their icons even though they are being led from the fifth to the sixth layer of hell by them.

Any one who believes that the CIA was fully disclosing all the details to congress way back in 2003 or earlier forgets that initially there was no congressional oversight for the moves the W, Rove and Co made back then. And, whatever oversight was allowed, it was completely de-powered and the moves were perfunctory. The W, Rove and Co had unleashed the hounds, and there was no calling them back.

There is a litany of reasons why I believe the GOP is a cancer for America, but I thought I would toss this out as a conversation generator. What say you blogosphere?

Is the GOP a Cancer, a boil that should be lanced? Or, will the GOP be able to help us out of the mess their leadership accelerated by tossing the gasoline on the fire one signing statement at a time?

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

10 June 2009 - Marking 5 Years On the Blog

Okay peeps, been a bit sidetracked as I took on a hefty volunteer assignment and needed to spend some ramp up time getting a blog rolling for the group - bringing an organization into the new Millennium isn't easy when they operate like it's 1979.

I've got two questions for today. First, as I roll up on 10 June - my five year blogaversary - I thought I would ask regular (or irregular) readers what topic I should cover. I've never asked readers for their thoughts on what to post about. Perhaps it's time to see what interests you. So, this comes up on question 1 - What would you like me to blog about as I mark the five year milestone?

Second, lately, the Big Dick Cheney seems to be getting a lot of air time. Why does the media continue to give him the microphone?

I'm wondering how much he gets paid for his "testimony" on various "talk" shows. "I don't think we should just roll over when the new administration ... accuses us of committing torture, which we did not, or somehow violating the law, which we did not," Cheney said. "I think you need to stand up and respond to that, and that's what I've done."

Last I checked water boarding was a lot like torture & the W, Rove and Co spent a great deal of time, energy and taxpayer dollars bending the law to suit their wanton lust for torture.

So, question 2) What's up with the Big Dick? Isn't he undermining the authority of the President, exactly the thing he would profusely and vociferously lament while Veep?

GIs Still Coming Home In Flag Draped Boxes

George Bush thought that letting people snap and share photographs of GIs returning home in flag draped boxes was the wrong message and disallowed it. I say, not.

The American people are not made of solidified high fructose corn syrup and we won't melt in the face of bad, rotten, or even worse news. In fact, sharing the grim reality helps us a) come to terms with how bad things really are, and b) possibly more readily contribute to a solution.

There was a lot wrong with how George Bush ran his Whitehouse. His legacy lives, unfortunately. And, the war that George Bush and his cronies brought us, is still delivering sadness in the form of dead GIs in flag draped boxes.

Fortunately, the new President is treating us like adults rather than children, and is hopefully going to put an end to the unnecessary expense of American GI lives. In the meanwhile, for the families that lost their loved ones, the grief is very real.

Blog on friends. Blog on all.

Coming Up On Five Years of Blogging

I may be a relic, with the advent of facebook and twitter which were only a twinkle in some profiteer's eye when I first started. But tempus fugit.

Come June, I'll be five years old in the Blogoshpere. Can't really explain why I'm still around. Haven't cracked 100K hits, but maybe by then.

Is it's the fame and glory that drive me? Nope. I'm not certain I'm even famous to 15 people let alone had my fifteen minutes.

Or, it's all that money I made with adsense? Given that I've not made enough so far to even have google send me my first check, nope.

Or is it the ability to exercise the First Amendment almost daily? Perhaps.

Mainly, it feels like I've been pissing in the wind, occasionally doused with my own urine. Some times it feels nice, warm and refreshing. Others, cold damp and foul, like the stench of having consumed asparagus at the last meal.

In the end, I'm feeling like I'll continue. What say you blogosphere?

Blog on friends.

Blog on all.

Windspike's Wacky Weekend Query - Subtitle: Torture; Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Given the flap related to the releasing of the "torture" memos, and the onslaught of W, Rove and Co cronies and the usual reichwinger pundits suggesting that Obama has harmed America for releasing them, I have a question:
Drum roll please....Windspike's Wacky Weekend Query........

Even if we found proof (which is debatable this exists) that torturing "detainees" led to information that stopped some kind of "terrorist" plot, did/do the ends justify the means? Explain.

As a bonus follow up question, do you think those who authorized the use of water boarding and other torture techniques should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law?

Something You Couldn't Have Gotten From The Bush Whitehouse

Cool, now you can download some higher resolution images direct from the Whitehouse.

I liked this one, and the President met Tiger Woods. Of course, these are just publicity photos. The real meat of the day has revolved around the press for a releasing of further torture memos. I say, bring it on. The American people are hearty, and can't solve the problems without all the information. They do no favors by keeping the information from us.

Q So is that an indication that you don't want to see an independent commission? I'm trying to understand.

MR. GIBBS: By dint, an independent commission would probably not be something that I would weigh in on if Congress were to create one of those. I think that -- from the larger perspective, the President believes, as both of us have said, that the release of the memos are not a time for a retribution but to reflect on what happens and that we're all best suited looking forward.

But even so, the door is left open later in the briefing.

Q Robert, does the President believe someone ought to be punished for allowing waterboarding? He changed the policy, but does he believe somebody ought to be punished?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that determination is going to be left up to, as I've said for any number of days looking backward on this now, that that's going to be made by a legal official.

Q And that legal official is the Attorney General?

MR. GIBBS: In our Constitution it is.

Q And what about this idea of the Attorney General appointing a special prosecutor?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I addressed this --

Q Is that his -- is that the Attorney General's decision or is that ultimately the President's decision?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look up, honestly, the legal statute to determine that. I don't -- I don't think the -- I don't believe that there's -- I think the Justice Department is fully capable of weighing the law.

Q You don't think a special prosecutor is necessary?

MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I don't think anybody has presented a compelling case why the Justice Department couldn't do this.

Q And then one final thing on this. Did Vice President Cheney make a specific request -- is it an official request that he wants these other memos declassified as far as you guys know?

MR. GIBBS: I would have to double-check with CIA. I think that the -- that request -- as I understand, what the Vice President has said, a request came to -- several weeks ago to the CIA. I don't -- but I have not talked to him.

Q Given that General Jones apparently was involved with helping to expedite with Jay Rockefeller, does that mean you guys will have a role in deciding whether this gets declassified or not?

MR. GIBBS: I believe so. I mean, I believe that --

Q It will come to your desk, it just hasn't happened yet?

MR. GIBBS: I think that's the case. I mean, I think declassification happens here.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Do you know if President Obama has read these memos to which Vice President Cheney is referring that showed that the enhanced interrogation techniques saved lives and didn't make America less safe, as you just said?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know if he -- I don't know if he has read the specific memos that Vice President Cheney may be referring to. But, Mark, let me broaden your question a bit. And I think you would get this from virtually every intelligence official who objectively looked at this, and that is that the efficacy of this is in many ways ambiguous, that whatever information -- I think people will tell you that there was information that was procured that was helpful, and information that was procured that was made up. Nobody could ever likely tell you that any information derived couldn't also have been derived from another mean.

But as I've said, and the President have said, what the -- if you look at the totality of the impact of this on our national security, building off of what I told Ed, our team, and many others outside of our team, have weighed in on the notion that the cost and the benefit of this -- that the benefit is greatly outweighed by the cost to our national security.

There are things that this country doesn't do. That's part of the criteria that the President used to -- on the -- in the very beginning of this administration outlaw these techniques from being used. The existence of and the use of these techniques became a recruitment tool and a rallying cry for terrorists all over the globe. And, as I mentioned, it makes it harder to -- the use of these techniques makes it harder to protect our own troops, and that that is the -- those are the reasons in total why this makes our country less safe.

There in lies the fundamental problem with the Bush approach - they authorized torture. Doing so becomes reason for others to join the terrorists. So, as to if the information gained was useful, there is no real way to measure how harmful it was, but it makes perfect sense how harmful it was to us, our way of life, and the very fabric of our Constitutional foundation.

Of course, you can question the whole of it, might the ends justify the means?

Q You also said that -- you also said that the intelligence that was derived that Cheney is talking about could have been derived from another means. You said that to Chuck.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it is -- what is unknowable is whether that could be derived. I mean, again, that is -- part of this whole process is when you decide to do something it's -- you can't then go back and decide if the same action could have happened as a result of something else. That's why I think that whatever question is discussed here, it's -- I'd go back to my answer that I gave to Mark, which is that all of this is bigger than one certain amount or one smaller question, because you have to take into account the totality of our security -- whether or not the use of and the existence of certain techniques become a rallying cry and a recruitment tool for those that seek to do us harm each day. And that the -- there are things that this country does do and certain things this country doesn't do, and that this President has determined that we are going to -- we can protect the security of our country and our people and uphold our values and not have those two conflict.

I would have to agree with the President here, at some point, the ends do not justify the means and they may actually do more harm than good.

At the tail end of the press conference, we see the President has hired some very smart guys. Do you buy this close?

MR. GIBBS: The best way to determine -- the best way to determine who's going to -- the rule of law is to have it determined by lawyers who can determine whether or not somebody knowingly broke the law.

Q We've started talking in the last 24 hours more and more about very high-ranking people -

MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked about --

Q -- Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney --

MR. GIBBS: -- you guys have.

Q If in fact it reaches that level, would the President weigh in?

MR. GIBBS: Okay, you guys and Jay Rockefeller. (Laughter.)

I'm sorry, what was --

Q Would the President weigh in --

MR. GIBBS: Now, that we've --

Q -- turn to very high-ranking levels of the government? What does he think, for example, of the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Was that a breach of the presidential duty, or should that have been left to the Attorney General?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has seen Frost/Nixon, but I do not know whether he's determined the efficacy of such a pardon.

Thanks, guys.

Very interesting. I think we see that there is a very good reason certain members of the W, Rove and Co are squawking more than others. They don't want to go to jail for doing what what they believe was right, even if in the end, it was indeed wrong and illegal.

There in lies the difference between leadership by faith versus leadership by fact. And, we see what we get from the current administration is fact based decision making. Thankfully, we have a thinking president in the Whitehouse these days. Will the rule of law win? The jury is still out on that no doubt.

Blog on friends.

Blog on all.

Whatsamada? You Can't Handle The Truth?

Of course, the republican nut balls that led our nation down the foul, stench filled, unethical and illegal path to the tawdry torture that will eventually led the perpetrators to hell are all aflutter.

A former Bush White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said if a probe is opened up, "Barack Obama will regret this as one of the worst moments of his presidency, because it will set off a multi-year, extraordinarily divisive, all-consuming Washington scandal/controversy and everyone will end up looking bad."

I would suggest the American people have a stronger stomach than many of the republicans believe, and we actually can handle the truth, and indeed will prosper for having known the full extent of the damage. I say let the investigations begin. The reason why Rove et. al. protest to much is that they know they have crossed the line for no aparrent gain, but to the detriment of the very Constitutional fabric of our great nation. The only way to fix this is to clean the stench by washing the stains out of our flag with the swift, blind and full application of justice.

Open it up. Put it on youtube. The people have a right to know what their elected officials (and their unelected but appointed chronies) did to bring us the America we have today.

As Shakespeare would say, Rove "doth protest too much:"

Don't Lay Off The Teachers, Lay Off The Superintendents

Why don't these headlines every read, "Cuts Made to Education, Starting At the Top?" Instead, we get:

Los Angeles school district officials moved forward Tuesday with plans to lay off more than 5,000 teachers, counselors, custodians, clerks and other employees, but the battle over funding will rage on for weeks -- affecting who goes, who stays and what schools and classrooms will look like for students next year.

Bottom line, kids will be injured by this move.

As a modest proposal, I suggest we cut the from the top down rather than the bottom up. This way, less people need to lose their jobs to realize savings. If we cut all the Superintendents first, the savings would be enormous. What harm would it cause the children? Not much, is my bet.

Next move would be to dissolve the Superintendents offices and push out the people who work there to serve the kids directly, if they can. If they can't, give them pink slips. Sell off or rent the office complexes that house the superintendents, and bingo, more savings that could be put toward smaller class sizes and perhaps even music, physical education, drama, and language arts, among other things.

Lastly, allow every one who is inclined to volunteer time at their local schools. This would afford everyone an opportunity who believe in high quality education to personally put their money where their mouth is. The trouble with all these cuts and threats is that the kids are being used as political pawns, and that's just reprehensible.

Blog on friends.

Blog on all.

Way To Go Husky Dogs! Undefeated Is Hard To Deny

Nice Sentiment For Monday

“We wanted more ‘Dumbo’ and less ‘Star Wars,’”

Shan't we all make this our slogan for Monday?

The article in the times is skeptical of Pixar's ability to make another hit film. Of course, you could judge for yourself by watching the trailer here. I challenge you not to laugh, if you dare watch it.

Hey, Could You Live Working One Day A Week?

Larry Summers can.

$5.2 million in just the last of his two years at one of the world’s largest funds, according to financial records released Friday by the White House.

Impressive as that might sound, it is all the more considering that Mr. Summers worked there just one day a week.

Oh, my. Should a man who has made a bundle in a hedge fund gambit be the top Econ adviser to Obama?

Unlike most hedge funds, which lost money as the markets plunged in 2008, Shaw posted returns of about 7 percent in its so-called macroeconomic fund.

Seems a little spurious. But then again, Summers, who knows how the system works, may be the best one to craft regulations to secure the system as he knows how they can cheat the system to win.

How's your one day a week job working out for you?

Is Barak Obama The Anti-Bush?

I don't know about you, but I didn't have time at work to listen to more than ten minutes of the live Q & A. But I like the format. I can't imagine a more different president than Obama. He's like the anti-Bush, like Bush was the Bizzaro President to Obama's Superman version.

Take A Look At The Canopy

A Monday Kind Of Day

Found this at the end of a short article on kids taking a "field" trip to the boys restroom. No doubt, the quote should lighten your Monday:

"I'm OK with urinals," said Chessy. "It's just another kind of toilet. It makes things easier for boys, and boys need all the help they can get."

Something You Wouldn't Have Heard From GWB

The folks of the Bush Administration were experts at deflecting and playing the blame game, despite their insistence that we not play it. Shoot, it was not for us to play, but when it came time to deflect responsibility, the W, Rove and Co were straight up experts.

In a clearly decisive position, Obama, plays quite differently. By stepping up, you see, there is power to be had by assuming the responsibility:

“Washington is all in a tizzy over who’s at fault,” Mr. Obama said. “Some say it’s the Democrats’ fault, the Republicans’ fault. Listen, I’ll take responsibility. I’m the president.”

Even if GWB uttered these words, he and his crack team of propagandists were so good at deflecting responsibility and blame that W's words were not trustworthy. Moreover, we knew W's words were empty based on his follow through and lack of action.

Obama and his team, in direct contrast, are brilliant. Now let's hope he has a chance to make good on his word. The proof, indeed, will be in the pudding.

The republicans, who voted against the stimulus and are now praying for failure so they can re-win their seats to Congress, have to be squirming in their boots at this point.