Land of the Fruits and Nuts

Bombs Away!

2007-06-10T16:20:00.000-07:00

Picture it: Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Any other place where the US is likely to be in a war. Instead of dropping a bomb that would cause massive destruction and death, the US launches a very phallic missile. When the rocket strikes, instead of a mushroom cloud of fire and death, a light lavender scent fills the air. Subsequently, all of the unaware enemy ground forces drop their guns and start playing with their...er...other guns and each others.

No, this is not the start of a military themed gay porn nor is it a hoax pulled out of the air (I am really not that creative). On Friday, the Pentagon confirmed that US military leaders had considered a proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another. As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

It should be pointed out that the military quickly dismissed the idea and never funded the $7.5 million requested to develop the technology.

Still, if the Gay Bomb had been produced and the technology had been successful...I'll leave the fantasies to you...

Lovely Ladies of the Legislature

2007-06-06T14:55:00.000-07:00

Watching the incessant floor sessions this time of year can often be a boring chore. Young staffers are frequently required to monitor sessions to ensure Members are participating appropriately, that important bills are getting the necessary votes, and to provide bosses with all the information they want and need. In the back area of the chambers, staffers whisper critically of the long hours working in the building, the silly arguments made on the floor, and even the fashion choices made by Members.

On that final note, I have made some big observations this week about the status of fashion in the Capitol. Months ago, I critiqued the fashion choices of the boys of the legislature. Today, it’s the girl’s turn.

Assembly Member Galgiani
She is a sweetheart in the Assembly- kind, gentle, and a friend to all. Unfortunately, she needs to bleach her roots. Roots and platinum blonde hair are a deadly combination. But she isn’t the only Member that dresses well but has a horribly dye job—Fiona Ma comes to mind.

Assembly Member Walters
This Republican frequently stands alone in the legislature- both in votes and fashion. She is as likely as not to be the only no vote on a bill she passionately disagrees with. As one of the slimmest elected officials in the California Legislature, she looks like a fashion model in some of the classiest of dresses and suits.

Assembly Member Garcia
We know Ms. Garcia is proud of her curvy body because she reminds us as much frequently, although it has been a while since she has spoken publicly about her breasts. Her suits are exquisitely well tailored to showcase her hourglass figure. Perhaps, too well tailored. How much overtime does her tailor get?

Assembly Member Parra
If you are watching Floor from your TV, you are missing out on the whole picture. Ms. Parra’s shoes cry out to be seen. Seriously, great shoes! Keep an eye open for them!

Assembly Member Strickland
For a pregnant lady, Ms. Strickland is doing a simply fantastic job of keeping herself stylish. The long coats she has been sporting are fabulous.

Assembly Member Berg
Ms. Berg is a kind, older lady. Tiny and frail looking, she has been recently spotted building support for a few progressive bills she cares deeply about (including the Assisted Suicide Bill and the Gay Marriage Bill that was passed yesterday). Typically her outfits are low-waisted, flowy, and very reminiscent of the Roaring Twenties. Paired with long strings of beads and a short hairdo, Ms. Berg has one of the most stunning and unique styles in the Legislature. Kudos to her!

A Sad Comparison

2007-06-04T21:00:00.000-07:00

After watching part of the debate between the Democratic Party presidential candidates, I realized I really ought to compare the stances of the popular candidates on several of the big Gay issues of today.

Not surprisingly, the results favor the Democratic candidates. Also, not surprisingly Republican candidates were less likely to have formulated positions on certain issues...except for Mitt Romney. Romney, it seems, has a consistent answer for everything these days. A few years ago, he was supportive of Gay rights, but no longer. Today, he is universally opposed to the "radical homosexual agenda."

On Ending DADT

McCain supports Don't Ask Don't Tell, lauding it as a solution to a difficult problem. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all oppose it. Giuliani wants it repealed. Romney wants to keep it.

On Gay Marriage

None of the six major candidates openly supports federal marriage equality. However, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards support the right of states to enact Gay marriage laws. Giuliani recently spoke against the New Hampshire plan to enact strong Civil Unions because they were too similar to marriage. Romney opposes Gay Marriage, universally.

On ENDA

ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation intended to ensure that Gay people are not discriminated against in the workplace. All three major Democratic candidates have voiced their support for the bill. McCain opposes the bill. Giuliani doesn't seem to have a position on it. Romney opposes ENDA.

On Hate Crimes Legislation

All three major Democratic Candidates support legislation that would include Sexual Orientation as a basis for hate crimes. McCain, Giuliani, and Romney oppose hate crime legislation.

On Civil Unions

McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all spoken frequently supporting the civil unions or domestic partnerships as an equivalent to Gay Marriage. Although such unions are not equal to marriage, they are preferable to no legal union at all. Romney opposes Civil Unions.

On HIV/AIDS Funding

HIV/AIDS is still a monumental concern in the Gay community. As a result support for AIDS and AIDS prevention is paramount.

McCain has long been a supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act to provide AIDS funding in the US. He, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have each demonstrated their willingness to expand this funding. Giuliani supported AIDS causes as Mayor but has not taken a clear stance on HIV/AIDS funding as a presidential issue. Romney opposes AIDS funding and attempted to reduce AIDS spending as Governor.

On Comprehensive Sex Ed

Giuliani hasn't expressed a position that I could find. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all support comprehensive sex education programs. McCain doesn't support funding such programs. However he has expressed that he is unsure that condoms are effective prevention against STDs. Romney supports abstinence only sex education which, by its very nature, is not comprehensive.

In conclusion, the three main Dem candidates are fervently courting the Gay vote. Meanwhile, Guiliani and McCain have failed to take strong pro-Gay Rights stances where it really matters. No major candidate from either party is willing to allow Gay Americans to have full, equal rights.

And Mitt Romney opposes Gay Rights.

The Suspense is Killing Me

2007-06-02T10:15:00.000-07:00

For those who are keeping track, Appropriations Madness is over. More than 600 bills were rushed through the the Assembly Suspense Calendar alone. Many of these bills were "held" and virtually killed while most moved on to the floor for a full vote. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved along hundreds more bills.

Among the bills killed on Suspense was the controversial spanking bill. Among the bills passed was the measure to legalize Gay Marriage in California.

Worth noting was an article in the Sacramento Bee this week that criticized Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair of Assembly Appropriations, for hosting a fundraiser the day before the biggest Appropriations hearing of the year. While this is clearly an avenue that eases the ability for high powered lobbyists to reach the chair of Appropriations and, as the CRP said, "doesn't pass the smell test," it is hardly unique to Mr. Leno.

Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger held events during the months of August and September when he is expected to act on every piece of legislation passed by the Legislature during that year. Members of both parties from the Senate and Assembly routinely hold fundraisers during all parts of the year including Budgeting Mayhem and Floorapalooza.

Simply holding a fundraiser during a busy time of the year doesn't necessarily mean a politician is beholden to special interest groups. But in the case of Mr. Leno who is running against Ms. Miggy for the Senate, one must straighten up and fly right. Advice to Mark Leno: Keep Carole's exploits in the news. If this is the worst they've got on you, you've got it made.

Just When You Thought Bay Area Freeways Were Safe...

2007-05-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

Crazy Carole comes careening through!

Last weekend, Carole Migden, the oh-so-honorable Senator from San Francisco caused a car accident...or a few...while talking on a cell phone and driving eratically.

Some of the choice quotes witnesses used included (courtesy of Boi from Troy):

“Please get out here, she is crazy”
“I noticed the car hit the center median divide”
“Erratic and dangerous driver”
“She cut me off and afterwards she screamed that she was a Senator, ‘I am a Senator”
“She didn’t seem all there at the time”
“Going at least 80 miles per hour and swerving from one lane to another”
“It was a female who was both reading and speaking on the telephone at the same time while trying to negotiate the lanes”

Now ol' Ms. Miggy has brought forward a new revelation: CANCER!

It appears that Senator Migden has been suffering from a bout of leukemia for several years. Until now, however, she has decided not to become public with her health issues because she didn't want the sympathy.

Except now, she DOES want the sympathy. So its okay to share with the world.

She is also blaming her lapse of driving ability on her illness. Perhaps she will also blame her illness for her shrill voice, utter lack of humanity, and famously short temper. Maybe the doctors can correct the problem, and a pill can turn the General into the Queen of Nice.

But its doubtful.

We Need a Hero

2007-05-28T18:58:00.000-07:00

I hate that I am posting a liberal, anti-war, get-out-of-Iraq post on Memorial Day, but it does seem to be the most fitting time. Before people start to characterize me as a military-hating, anti-war, delusion peacenik liberal, hear me out for a moment.

I am in full support of all branches of the US Military. I think the work they have done and continue to do worldwide has been essential to world stability and America's strength and superiority. But I also think the time has come where their presence in Iraq no longer adds to American security and does seriously jeopardize the security of our boys (and girls and bois) in uniform.

I may sound callous when I suggest that American lives are more important than other lives. In the eyes of the US Government, at least, they should be. Americans both civilian and military, at home and abroad must be protected. The original premise of the war in Iraq was to ensure our safety at home. It is not the job of American forces to unilaterally solve the political problems of other nations. Our primary objective was to remove from power forces with the ability to put Americans in danger in the United States.

The mission succeeded in some ways and failed in others.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein is dead. Osama bin Laden has gone into hiding and has been unable to successfully orchestrate a large-scale attack on US soil since 9/11. Many other terrorist leaders have been killed or captured.

Unfortunately, every day, we lose more young people, primarily men of my own age, to a war that has had very little positive effect on American life.

In the months following September 11, 2001, America was in absolute fear of another attack. We were so fearful that we were willing to relinquish some of our most sacred liberties to the government to ensure our protection. While we now must live with a greater government intrusion in our personal lives than ever before, we feel only slightly more safe. This is evidenced by the paranoia that still surrounds us in public transportation, parks, and other public places. Unattended packages, groups of Arabs, and any whisper of a bomb has the potential to ground a flight. Even a bottle of shave gel or cologne can set the airlines in a panic.

The truth is, we were careless before 9/11. We, the American people, and our government should have been paying more attention and enacting policies to prevent terrorism. Now we are in a war to prevent further acts of violence. Unfortunately, our war has ceased to provide a net gain in terror prevention and is instead training guerillas that are well prepared to fight, and kill, Americans.

The best that can be done now is to reduce the situation. Our government has no other suitable option than to begin a withdrawal of troops and enact domestic policies that will prevent the war from reaching our soil.

On this Memorial Day, I want to applaud our armed services for their hard work and sacrifices, and honor those that have fallen. Their work and sacrifices have not been in vain. Their work might, however, be better suited toward other ends than a fruitless war in Iraq.

Homophobe: Laura Richardson

2007-05-15T19:44:00.000-07:00

That's the word according to Senator Sheila Kuehl: If you are a Dem voting in the 37th Congressional District primary, don't vote for Assembly Member Laura Richardson.

As the story goes, Long, Long ago (when Romney still supported Gay rights before he voted against them and when Oprah had really just lost all the weight for good) Laura Richardson fought in a hard primary battle against openly-gay Gerrie Shipske. After she lost, she claimed that Shipske was beholden to the "radical gay agenda" and strongly backed by "the only gay in the Assembly."

While it is true that Gay Rights have never really been popular in the African-American community, it was wrong of her then to speak so negatively of Gay politics. Everybody in politics (especially a seasoned liberal) knows that the phrase "Radical Gay Agenda" infuriates Gay activists more than almost any other. More recently, Richardson has repositioned herself to be very supportive of the Gay community.

At best, Laura Richardson is not trustworthy for changing a major stance so dramatically in such a short period of time. At worst, she is a homophobe. Either way, Gay and Lesbian residents in the 37th District should think twice before giving her their support.

Falwell DEAD!

2007-05-15T19:13:00.000-07:00

The leader of hateful bigots across the country died today at age 73. Preceding him in death were hundreds of thousands of Gay men and boys that died as a result of Falwell's attempts to oppress homosexuality in the US. Many of those men died from AIDS while Falwell and his "Moral Majority" prevented funding for HIV research. Others died because they were denied the love and respect they deserved while Falwell's religious coalition described openminded and inclusive people as "Satanic."

Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: "Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation."

Falwell should also be remembered as a founding contributor to the Sacramento Lambda Center. According to the Lambda Center website:

"On July 13, 1984, Jerry Falwell appeared on television and denied that he had ever referred to Metropolitan Community Church as vile, satanic and its members "brute beasts" on his Old Time Gospel Hour. He offered $5,000 to anyone who could prove that he had. Rev Jerry Sloan of MCC in Sacramento, California, called Falwell's toll-free number and purchased a copy of the tape as proof, and demanded payment of the $5,000. When Falwell refused, Sloan sued and won. With $5,000 in hand the Lambda Community Fund was reorganized in 1984 under its current name by Rev. Jerry Sloan and the late Timothy Warford with the help and guarantees of Terry Sidie, Marghe Covino and the Late C.G.N.I.E. Emperor, Randy Hartman, to mention a few, to serve the broader cross-section of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) community."

May his memory live on in the minds of all those that use the Falwell Memorial toilet at the Sacramento Lambda Center. It is important that all of those involved in the Gay Rights movement remember our powerful adversaries as a gauge of how far we have come.

President Bush Resigns

2007-05-12T07:41:00.000-07:00

Or maybe not...

Perhaps it was wishful thinking, a prophetic moment, or simply a typographical error, but CNN International placed a chyron (pictured above) with the words "Bush resigns" for approximately 12 seconds while reporting on the news of Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping down from office.

Maybe President Bush will take the hint and follow Blair's lead...

Who Doesn't Love Fast Guys and Hot Cars?

2007-05-10T20:36:00.000-07:00

And hot guys with fast cars are good too!

Japanese auto maker, Daihatsu, has a new marketing ploy in Japan that must've been designed by none other than Brian Kinney. Instead of showing off the size of the car, how fast it is, and how pretty the car looks, Daihatsu is showing a German audience a more (ahem) "sizeable" package.

That is, Daihatsu is following the traditional knowledge that sex sells with a modern Gay spin. Instead of the old pinups with bikini-clad girls posing on cars, this manufacturer is showing hot men posing with the car. Better yet, they have a whole section on the site that allows you to see the models dancing in costume. And you don't need to know German to watch a hot guy dance.

But none of this should come as any surprise. Some of us already knew that Asians and Germans are a match made in heaven...isn't that right, Alex?

Underwear Everywhere

2007-05-10T19:07:00.000-07:00

It's Thursday. And that means Brief Encounters at Faces.

Yah. You heard me. Boys in their briefs show off at the local Sacramento Gay hotspot. Apparently, Terry Sidie has something new to offer starting this week on Thursday nights- Ginch Gonch Giveaways- an offer sure to make Boi from Troy jealous for some new undies.

If you are a hot guy with the huevos to carry it off, show up at Faces commando, let them know you want to strut your stuff and check your pants at the door.

The Kevin and Don Norte Bill

2007-05-08T18:16:00.001-07:00

Assembly Bill 102 was passed off the Assembly Floor this week. The bill is a major boon to Gay rights and gender equity in California.

The bill would allow for an easier name change after the solemnization of a marriage or registration of a domestic partnership. Under existing law, women can easily change their name after becoming married and have special protections preventing discrimination in relation to changing or not changing their name as the case may be. This bill would offer those same benefits to men and women in Gay or Straight unions after the solemnization of a marriage or registration of a domestic partnership.

As is the usual practice with Gay rights bills, the Dems favored the measure with the support of civil rights organizations. Reps primarily opposed the bill under the pressure of the Anti-Gay right.

However, it is important to note those courageous individuals within the Republican Party that did not bow to the anti-Gay lobby. Assemblymen Anthony Adams, Sam Blakeslee, and Roger Niello voted in favor of the bill. Failing to cast a vote on the bill was Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia who represents the Gayest Republican assembly district in California.

Adams, Blakeslee, and Niello should all be commended for their courage to support this important issue that benefits the men and women of California without regard to their sexual orientation. Likewise, Assembly Member Ma should be thanked for her constant support of Gay rights in California.

The Land of the Fruits and Nuts Turns 100

2007-05-08T18:06:00.000-07:00

Today, the Land of the Fruits and Nuts has hit its century mark! This, my friends, is the 100th post on my blog.

Although I must apologize for taking a two-week break from blogging recently, I want to thank my readers for continuing to check to see what's new with the blog and emailing me interesting news items and comments about the GOP and the Gay rights movement in California, the US, and worldwide. Thank you!

I should also thank all of those visitors who have given me a boost in hits on this blog by looking for hot pictures of Brian Cushing, Reichen Lehmkuhl, and (my personal favorite) Cameron Smyth. It is amazing how many people find this Republican political blog when looking for pictures of gay frat dudes. But I digress...

With this 100th post, I want to renew my promise to provide interesting coverage of GOP politics, Gay Rights, and Cal sports and news with an interesting perspective. If you have interesting ideas for me to write about, questions to be answered, hot political gossip, or incriminating photos of California legislators, please don't hesitate to email me at calgrown@gmail.com.

Nobody Makes Me Bleed My Own Blood

2007-05-08T18:04:00.000-07:00

I have written many times before on homophobia engrained in US law. Usually, my focus has been on the prohibition of Gays in the military and the right for Gay people to marry.

But those are not the only anti-Gay US policies.

The US Food and Drug Administration still maintain a severely outdated policy restricting Gay men from donating blood or bone marrow because of HIV concerns. Although similar policies have been reversed in other Western nations to no ill-effect, the United States continues to uphold this policy.

Recently, Cal students led a pro-active protest against the policy while recognizing the shortage of blood donations. The protest, led by UC Berkeley student, Jeff Manassero, asked Gay men unable to donate blood to find sponsors to donate in their place. As a result of the protest, a massive amount of blood was donated and lives will be saved.

Nonetheless, as a letter to the Daily Cal proves, some of the intellectual elite at Berkeley still support the outdated policy. Professor Moshe Sternberg supports the prohibition on the assumption that Gay men are far more likely than the general population to contract the disease. Unfortunately, the professor fails to consider that other minority populations (including African-American women) should be excluded from donating blood if pathogenic diseases were the only concern. Further, the American Red Cross opposes the outdated policy because it does not serve in the interest of protecting the health of Americans.

Simply stated, the policy prohibiting blood and bone marrow donations by Gay men is homophobic and based on outdated science and statistics. HIV screening is far better than it was in 1985 when this policy was first enacted and much less centralized in the Gay community. Further, there is a more pressing public health concern in ensuring an adequate supply of donations for blood banks.

Berzerkeley Politics

2007-05-08T18:03:00.000-07:00

UC Berkeley activism has recently been seen at one of the most untimely of places – commencement.

But this should come as no surprise – the last several graduation ceremonies encountered politically motivated issues and complaints when there weren't any. Steve Westly spoke regarding his candidacy for Governor at a Political Science commencement days after a political author argued against capitalism at the graduation exercises. Johnny Mosley was met with signs asking "Why Johnny?" More recently, Speaker Fabian Núñez and former presidential candidate Howard Dean refused to cross a picket line to speak to the graduates.

According to the Daily Cal, the Californians Senior Class Council attempted to find a non-political speaker to avoid an over-politicized graduation or a last minute cancellation. Clearly, they failed in selecting Danny Glover.

Selecting Glover as a non-political candidate would be as apolitical as picking Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan to speak. He is well known for his political activities and is a frequent critic of President Bush.

This is not to say that Berkeley shouldn't have a political speaker. It should! Cal is known for being a hotbed of political activism, a fact which all sides should learn to embrace if they haven't already. Nonetheless, the graduation ceremonies are a sacred event for Cal students. Every effort should be made to ensure that it goes off without a hitch and appropriate dignity be granted to each graduate.

It is important for those planning commencement ceremonies to warn speakers in advance that labor unions may picket the events. These same labor unions should avoid picketing graduation ceremonies as injury is placed upon the students incapable of making the changes requested and not on university administrators that are able to negotiate the demands of labor.

Splash for Equality

2007-04-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

This Sunday, April 22, Faces (the famed Sacramento gay nightclub) will be hosting a fundraiser for Equality California.

Better than just another Sacramento political fundraiser, it's a pool party!

"The California Equality Project is a coalition of over 30 statewide and national groups who have joined for a public education campaign, reaching out to California's residents. Currently, we have been going door to door in Northern California to educate folks about the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage that many Gay and Lesbian couples would like to have the choice to fully and equally enjoy."

The Party's on Sunday, April 22 at Faces (on the corner of K and 20th in Midtown Sacramento) from 2pm to 6pm.

From what I hear, this is the place to be this Sunday! Three of my favorite things: Drinks, Politics, and Boys!

Leno on Top!

2007-04-14T14:45:00.000-07:00

The feud in SF is heating up! While their colleagues are waiting to put their support behind a winning horse, Assemblyman Leno and Senator Migden are in a no-holds-barred fight in Frisco.

Both are currently working to gain support among Democratic Party activists in San Francisco. The first major endorsement went to the challenger, Mark Leno. The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco, a Gay-Rights organization similar to the Stonewall Democrats, voted on Monday to offer an early endorsement to Leno. Later in the week, Leno and Migden appeared before the San Francisco Young Democrats for an endorsement debate.

The organization overwhelmingly voted to lend its support to Assemblyman Mark Leno over Senator Carole Migden.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, the debate featured a critcism of Migden's famed "Ghost Voting" incident of 2005. Miggy's response: "It was an error. We apologized. It happens all the time in the Assembly. I am proud of the product, not of the error." Leno retorted that never before had a senator ghost voted on the Assembly floor and that Migden's responses signaled an "any means to an end" approach to politics.

The Bay Area Reporter has excellent coverage of the debate. It is clear, though, that the best quotes of the night came early in the opening statements.

Leno: "We've worked together and I need your support now. We have the same mission: to challenge the status quo and fight for change. I am the best choice for change."

Migden: "My name is Carole Migden and I am the status quo."

Gender Neutral Marriage?

2007-04-14T13:31:00.000-07:00

Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco reintroduced his Gay Marriage bill this year. This week, it made its first major progress in the 2007-2008 legislative session.

On Tuesday, April 10, Assembly Bill 43 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. After a heated discussion with passionate witnesses on both sides, the bill was passed on a 7-3 vote.

In favor were Assemblymembers Evans, Feuer, Jones, Krekorian, Laird, Levine, and Lieber. In opposition were Tran, Adams, and Keene. This constituted a strict party-line vote with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.

While marriage is the last real legislative inequality faced by Gays and Lesbians in California, this bill isn't the magic pill that will cure our problems. Even if this bill is passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (who has indicated he will veto it on the same grounds he used last year), Gay Marriage in California would require a vote of the people or a ruling of the courts to be granted.

The Knight Initiative, Prop 22, banned same sex marriage. Specifically, Section 308.5 of the California Family Code states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because those words were added by an initiative passed by a majority of voters, it would require an act of the voters to remove those words--an act of the Legislature would be insufficient to repeal the Knight Initiative.

However, although Prop 22 seems clear under a first reading, it is actually quite ambiguous. Section 300, et. seq of the Family Code seem to be clearly arranged in a specific order. Section 300 governs the definition of marriage as a relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Subsequent sections govern the solemnization of marriage. Section 308 clarifies that marriages contracted outside of California are valid in this state.

It is possible, therefore, that Section 308.5 is really a subsection of 308 intended to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages obtained outside of this state.

Supporting this case, the ballot arguments in support of Proposition 22 focused on marriages from other states. For example, it was stated in the proponents' arguments: "Opponents say Proposition 22 is unnecessary. THE TRUTH IS, UNLESS WE PASS PROPOSITION 22, LEGAL LOOPHOLES COULD FORCE CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE 'SAME-SEX MARRIAGES' PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES."

While AB 43 may not be the magic, cure-all pill for marriage equality, it can't hurt our cause in California. The Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger would do well to pass and sign this bill into law. Still, it is the Court that should immediately interpret the meaning of Prop 22 and the constitutionality of any Gay Marriage ban in California. The rights of millions of Californians hang in the balance.

ASUC Endorsements

2007-04-12T17:01:00.000-07:00

Please accept my apologies for not posting my endorsements sooner, but I was giving as much time as possible to allow for candidates to return my endorsement surveys.

And the endorsements go to….

For President: Travis “SEO” Garcia

While I don’t expect Garcia to actually win this race and would have recommended that he also file to run for a Senate seat, he does bring to the table the best possible platform. Most importantly, this is the only candidate that is free from the baggage of both the Gabriel Legacy and CalSERVE’s history.

For Executive Vice President: Taylor Allbright

Taylor Allbright has a long history of working across party lines to serve students. After her first (failed) senate campaign, Allbright still worked within the system as a student leader. Moreover, this is the only candidate running that I believe actually knows what she is getting into if she were to win. Senator Allbright knows the ASUC structure, knows what students want, and knows how to get the projects done.

For Academic Affairs Vice President: Carolina “Caro” Jauregui

Jauregui lists specific, tangible goals to benefit the student body—namely restoring dead days and the drop deadline. For a long time, these were the goals of Student Action. Unfortunately, SA seems to have forgotten the role of the various officers and Curtis Lee seems to only list the constitutional duties of the AAVP as his campaign platform.

For External Affair Vice President: Justin “Screw Residents” Azadivar

Azadiver, otherwise known as Beetle, has the longest history of advocating for students in Berkeley. Also, his goal of world domination is infinitely more attainable than those of his opponents. Making use of a ridiculously liberal student organization (UCSA) or even more liberal city council (Berkeley City Council) is useless as nobody will take either entity seriously. Likewise, it is laughable to think that this office can clean the streets of Berkeley and make them safe—EAVP candidates have run on that platform for over a decade now and all have failed.

For Senate:
137. Alex Mastrodonato, Apple Engineering
95. Chad “Big Axe” Kunert, Berkeley College Republicans
70. Marybeth Moore, Unite Greek

Hot Blooded Latina to Speak with Gay Republicans

2007-04-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

Republican Assemblymember Bonnie Garcia will be making a visit to the Sacramento chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. She will be the keynote speaker for the regularly scheduled April meeting. This announcement comes on the heels of a report pubished by the California Log Cabin Republicans listing the "Gay factor" in Republican Assembly Districts throughout the state.

Palm Springs, which is a part of Garcia's Assembly District 80 is the gayest city in California, according to the report.

Garcia made headlines last year when she narrowly won reelection after Governor Schwarzenegger referred to her as a "Hot Blooded Latina" and she commented that she wouldn't throw the Governor out of bed. She is also well known in Sacramento circles for her wild, exuberant personality and sense of humor.

The Log Cabin Republicans meeting will be on Wednesday, April 25 at 7pm at Carrow's Restaurant (2800 J Street, Sacramento).

Cameron Smyth, GOP Stud

2007-04-01T12:13:00.000-07:00

As regular visitors to the Land of Fruits and Nuts will remember, last January I came up with a list of the best dressers in the California legislature. Topping that list was freshman Assemblyman, Cameron Smyth. This week, Smyth's fashion sense hit the news again. It seems I am not the only one watching legislative floor sessions as if they were red carpet specials hosted by Joan Rivers.

As a fundraiser for the YMCA model legislature, several members of the legislature participated in a Capitol version of Family Feud. On the Dem side were Senators Jenny Oropeza and Darrell Steinberg and Assemblymembers John Laird, Betty Karnette, and Laura Richardson. In the GOP family were Assemblymembers Bonnie Garcia, Greg Agharzarian, John Benoit, Roger Niello, and Senator Dick Ackerman. Members of both houses of the legislature were surveyed for the most popular responses to several questions. For example, members of the legislature were polled to determine the best dressed male. Top responses were 1. Mark Leno, 2. Cameron Smyth, and 3. Gil Cedillo.

Once again, Smyth gets recognition for being the leading GOP fashion icon.

Other interesting responses from the survey were top restaurants (1.Morton's, 2. Lucca's, 3. McCormick and Schmick's), best dressed woman (1. Asm Mimi Walters, 2. Asm Patty Berg, 3. Asm Nicole Parra), and funniest senator (1. George Runner, 2. Don Perata, 3. Dave Cox).

For the record, the Republicans won the contest and showed that they are more in touch with the general sentiment of the Legislature. The final score: Reps 19, Dems 14.

Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves

2007-03-28T23:34:00.002-07:00

Typically, I don't write many posts that don't revolve around Gay issues, GOP politics, or Cal. Still, there has been a little known news story that caught my attention in the media recently.

Way down in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley lies rural Kings County. The county's economy is primarily based on agriculture, is surrounded by dairies and fields, and is known to be one of the poorest counties in the state. Some of the largest, non-agricultural businesses operating in the county are PG&E, Chemical Waste Management, and Standard Oil. Each have been identified historically as some of the worst polluters in the region.

Now in the virtually uninhabited area South of Kettleman City (home to the In-N-Out on Interstate 5) a massive new green community is in the planning stages.

As a Californian, my heart warms a little whenever I hear of a privately planned development that would function in such a way as could conserve environmental resources. This one certainly intends to do that.

Quay Hays vision for Quay Valley Ranch is a city that would produce all of its own energy through solar panels, would rely totally on energy efficient cars, and would be the model city of the future with efficient homes with a minimal commute to work or play. The city plans call for parks, hotels, tourist attractions, schools, and (perhaps most appealing) as many as 40,000 new jobs.

Unfortunately, Hays is very much akin to the Medicine Man roaming into a small town, preying on naiveté, and selling cure-all potions before moving on to the next town. It seems that Hays has a history of selling investors more than he can provide.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Around 1985, Neal Levin, a now-retired financial adviser for Hollywood celebrities, said Hays came to him looking for money to start a Chinese restaurant called Bao Wow. Those who invested included satirist Weird Al Yankovic, singer Melissa Manchester, Olympian Bruce Jenner, rock band Devo and Elton John lyricist Bernie Taupin. The restaurant didn't make it in Beverly Hills and moved to Encino. It was sold after five years because it was not profitable, Levin said.

In 1992, Hays started the General Publishing Group out of his home. For his first book project, he persuaded the Democratic National Committee to commission a coffee-table book on the history of the Democratic Party for its 200th anniversary.

Before going bankrupt in 1999, General Publishing issued scores of titles and generated positive industry buzz for its rapid growth.

The Chronicle goes on and on about the failed business ventures started by Hays.

My hope is that these small communities don't get duped by the razzle-dazzle this big city businessman is peddling. Before investing in a green city in the shadow of three large polluters, it would be smart to make sure the city isn't sitting right in the plume, that other buyers plan to move there, and that the developer hasn't failed on every business venture he has ever attempted.

Buy California Grown

2007-03-28T23:34:00.001-07:00

It seems that gawkers everywhere are spotting royalty in interesting places. And I am not talking about Princes William and Harry. California's own Katherine Schwarzenegger, the Governor's 17 year old daughter, has been spotted touring prestigious schools on both coasts.

Back in January, blogger Frank Russo caught Miss Schwarzenegger with First Lady Maria Shriver on Berkeley's very own Telegraph Avenue. The two were taking a look at the wares sold by the iconic street vendors. At one such stop, the two looked at nearly every political t-shirt and bumper sticker sold by the vendor that usually sets up his stand on the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph nearest American Apparel. Many of these shirts are emblazoned with less-than-flattering images of dear old Arnie.

It appears, though, that Cal may have a bit of competition in courting the Governor's daughter. Recently, Katherine Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver were spotted at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Mother and Daughter (but not Grandmother, who visited the admissions office but left soon after) took a walking tour of the campus. According to the student tour guide that led the two through the Foggy Bottom campus, the Schwarzenegger family visited at least two other campuses in the DC area that day including Shriver's alma mater, Georgetown.

My always-impartial advice to Katherine: Buy California Grown. Go Bears!

Don't Be Cruel

2007-03-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

Once again, California is tossing around a Death-With-Dignity/Assisted-Suicide/Euthanasia bill modeled on Oregon's law. This one is a little more tightly controlled than past version but is no less necessary than past incarnations.

This bill would allow those with terminal illnesses to end their own life, at their own hand. It would, however, require that the patient have a prognosis of six-months or less to live and that the doctor explain, in writing, alternatives in treatment and hospice care. All patients seeking physician-assisted-suicide would be required to undergo a psychological evaluation and only those found to be mentally capable could be allowed to request a lethal dose of medication. Further, patients would have to request a lethal dose of medication in writing with at least two unrelated witnesses present. In order for the death to be legal, the patient would have to take the medication of their own volition and action without any coercion from others. Actions intended to force a patient to end their own life would be considered in the highest class of felonies.

For most healthy people, the idea of killing oneself is outrageous. However, at the end of a life already being cut short by a painful and debilitating disease, there is often little dignity left. Those who would force such individuals to endure their diseases unwillingly are cruel and unjustified.

Certainly, many of those who are nearing the end of a struggle with terminal cancer, AIDS, or any one of a plethora of painful, life-ending diseases would not choose to take their own life. Their choice to continue living with their struggle should be considered as sacred as the choice others would make to end their own life. The benefits of living longer may, in some instances, outweigh the benefits of dying. A hastened death, however, may reduce some of these costs in some instances. Such costs can be measured monetarily, psychologically, in the burden of survivors watching family members struggle, and in the pain endured by the patient. Certainly, the decision to end ones own life should not be a choice taken lightly.

Fabian Nunez's AB 374 takes each of these factors into consideration and makes every effort to ensure that the patient is well informed and acting according to his or her own wishes. The freedom to end one's own life is a liberty that should be established under the law to allow already dying individuals the ability to cut short their suffering. Any action by government officials to prevent such freedom would be cruel.

The Decline of the GOP

2007-03-23T19:53:00.000-07:00

It should come as no surprise that party loyalty among Republicans is waning in this country. Our president, proudly displaying his party loyalty, has seemingly made every effort to drive moderates, libertarians, and the intelligent (other than evil geniuses) from the ranks. Following his lead, the party leadership, both nationally and locally, have similarly done their part in maintaining ideological purity.

The obvious result has been a reduction in party loyalty by these alienated groups. We can all remember when Log Cabin Republicans famously declined to endorse President Bush during his reelection campaign, citing his lack of support on Gay issues. More recently, we saw Congress move from Republican control to the Pelosi Reich. Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to support the GOP.

A poll came out today that shows a more marked decline in Republican Party loyalty than we have seen in decades past. What’s more, the poll shows that typical voters are moving away from the socially conservative notions that are a hallmark of the Republican Platform.

Back in 1994, 84% of voters supported "old-fashioned values about family and marriage." That number has since dipped to 76%. More drastic is the reduced support for allowing school boards to have the right to fire Gay teachers, which dropped from 39% in 1994 to 28% in 2007.

These numbers show that the public sentiment is progressively more centrist on social issues. The Republican Party is hemorrhaging membership specifically because they are out of touch with voters. The Grand Old Party should focus on issues where it can agree with a majority of voters and return to a platform of small government and economic prosperity.

ASUC Elections

2007-03-21T23:10:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again! Soon, Sproul Plaza will be filled with students that haven't adequately bathed or changed their clothes in days. A veritable forest of campaign signs will spring up on every path to campus. The aggressiveness of the campaigners will leave even the most zealous member of CalPIRG jealous.

And this is not a protest to stop the war, defend equal rights, reinstate Affirmative Action, or support one of the seemingly countless candidates for President.

This is an ASUC election.

Granted, that I am no longer a student at Cal and cannot vote for ASUC officers. Still, I am a big fan of politics and spent more than my share of time in Eshleman Hall. I would like to hear from as many candidates as possible (for both executive and senate offices) as I plan to make endorsements early in the campaign.

Contact me at calgrown@gmail.com and I will ask you a few questions about what you know and how you intend to serve. Give it a try, it's free and (mostly) painless.

Faces gets a Facelift

2007-03-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

Thanks to proprietor of several local Gay businesses, Terry Sidie, Sacramento's premier gay dance club has doubled its size. Of course, if you are Gay and in Sacramento this weekend, you probably already knew that because you were probably there.

Our "beloved" old Faces is still there behind all the new glitter, but with much more to offer. Instead of entering through a crowded hallway connecting the house dancefloor to the bar and the hip-hop room, guests now enter through the annex.

Immediately, clubbers are greated with a big, new dancefloor covered in enough lights and lasers to distract anybody- at least until a hot guy comes by and offers to buy the next drink from one of the new bars set up around the perimeter of the room. A large video screen anchors one wall and projects live images of dancers from a camera suspended from above.

Watching the action from above is now possible from the upstairs lounge. Complete with yet another bar and comfortable seating and tables, this area is the perfect area to take a break from the dance floor below.

For the smokers out there, there are two new smoking patios in addition to the old one on the K Street side. One of these patios is home to the much talked about swimming pool.

Yes, the rumors are true. Faces installed a swimming pool. And, yes, partiers can swim in the pool (at least when the pool is open during Happy Hours).

Unfortunately, the new glitz and glamour doesn't cover up all the problems with the old face of Faces. The hip-hop room is still packed full of heteros, straight from the ghetto and the old front bar definitely shows its age.

Even given the line stretching around the corner and down the block on Saturday night, we can be certain that the crowds at Faces won't be quite so big at Faces in a few weeks. Hopefully, when the crowds go down, the cover will return to its old $8 (instead of the $10 charged last Saturday night).

Still, I think the new Faces is something to check out...at least until Badlands opens!

Alex Randolph, He's So Hot Right Now

2007-03-04T20:10:00.000-08:00

The Bay Area Reporter is a strong voice for the Gay community of San Francisco and the BAR seems to have a little crush on Cal alumnus, Alex Randolph. Most recently, they have included Randolph in a profile of Black, Gay politicians in San Francisco.

After Alex graduated from Berkeley, he served as Campaign Manager for another Cal alum, SF Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who represents the Castro. Randolph seems to have quickly morphed into Dufty's new protege.

After securing Dufty's reelection, Randolph picked up a post in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and covers much of the action in the Castro. He has also become active in SF's LGBT Democratic club.

According to the BAR, Randolph has indicated that he has not ruled out a possible run to replace Bevan Dufty when he terms out in 2011.

"It is a possibility, but I haven't given it any strong thought yet," he said. "When the time comes, I might, but not right now."

Gay Frat Dudes!

2007-03-02T16:08:00.000-08:00

I have also been negligent in welcoming Sigma Epsilon Omega to campus. ΣΕΩ is promoting itself as the new Gay fraternity at Berkeley. Although I welcome any attempt to expand the Cal Greek Community and wish the best for the men of Sigma Epsilon Omega, I question whether there is a need for a Gay fraternity on campus.

Most fraternities on campus are accepting of Gay members. In fact, I know of few that do not have openly Gay brothers in their active membership and do know of one that welcomed a transgendered man. When I came out of the closet, my fraternity brothers were among the most accepting people in my life at the time.

More importantly, unlike other living environments including dorms and co-ops, fraternities are values-based organizations. Dorms and Co-ops can benefit from having a random mix of people or a themed living environment. Greek houses, however, are intended to be people of similar values living together in a brotherhood or sisterhood, building familial ties. While Gay people absolutely should be included in these environments, these values transcend sexual orientation. Those that want to live in a Gay themed house should look towards Oscar Wilde House, an apartment or house shared with Gay friends, or the LGBT themed dorm.

I do welcome Sigma Epsilon Omega onto campus and wish them the best of luck. Hopefully, the brothers of that fraternity will develop a brotherhood based on shared values beyond the acceptance of homosexuality. There is always room on campus for another Greek house. Best of Luck!

Cal Students for Marriage Equality

2007-03-02T16:07:00.000-08:00

I have been neglectful in my duties to welcome Cal Students for Marriage Equality to the Blogosphere. CSME is a relatively new student group on campus (okay, not that new since it was founded by Andy Ratto before he graduated) with the intent to promote marriage equality in the Cal community. Think of it as the Human Rights Campaign or Equality California on a local scale. As one of their activities, they are maintaining a blog discussing Gay issues in the media. They are the newest addition to my blogroll. I know some of the leadership involved with CSME and expect to hear good things coming from their organization.

Unfortunately, it seems CSME is showing up a little late to the party. Most of the pressing issues facing Gay Californians have already been resolved. Although the term "marriage" is not yet awarded to Same-Sex couples, all the benefits and responsibilities the state can bestow are already granted. More notably, Cal is located in one of the most Gay-friendly regions of the world where most people are already accepting of Gays and Lesbians.

I Love a Man in Uniform

2007-03-01T18:35:00.000-08:00

I've blogged on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act before the Pelosi Reich began. Of course, we all knew the bill that would end Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't get passed by a Republican, lame duck congress.

But, the bill is back with new support under the Democratic congress. Unfortunately, I have not found the new bill number for the legislation (last year's bill number was H.R. 1059).

Bringing an end to DADT is one of the most important issues facing Gay rights at the moment. From the Gay rights perspective, it is a government field which Gay men and women are explicitly banned from serving in openly. From a military perspective, DADT diminishes the pool of qualified candidates that the military may recruit. Further, it has been shown that many of those removed from the military for being Gay are the all-important Arabic translators that our military currently has a shortage of.

Never has there been a shortage of Gay and Lesbians serving in any branch of the United States military. Rarely does a week go by that I don't meet a guy from the Marines or Air Force out at the local Gay bars. While these men and women are usually not "out" at work (and, in fact, might not come out if DADT were reversed), they deserve the opportunity to serve without fear that they might be removed from their chosen profession because of their sexual orientation.

Hopefully, this year's version of the bill will fare better than HR 1059 did.

Filthy Pigs

2007-02-16T10:54:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to a Rolling Stone article criticizing the American pig farmer. Before you click on that link, let me caution you that it is pretty graphic and I am still nauseated by the images portrayed. If you have eaten anything with pork in it in the last 4 hours, you should probably wait.

Typically, I am a proud supporter of the ag industry and have little aversion to eating meat. However, I made the unfortunate choice of eating sausage this morning before reading the article. Tasty sausage, though it was, this article exposes some of the less glamorous truths about pig farms (are there any glamorous truths?).

The particular pig farm Rolling Stone wrote about was Smithfield Farms in Smithfield, Virginia. That particular farm is one of the largest pig farms in the United States, slaughtering 27 million hogs each year for an $11 billion profit.

Another notable number is that they spilled approximately 4 million gallons of pig excrement waste into Virginia rivers and streams and have allegedly leaked much more into ground water. This is in addition to the overpowering fecal smell surrounding the plant that is so lethal pigs and men have both died from the smell.

The article reads much like a less socialist excerpt from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and I made the very same mistake President Teddy Roosevelt was purported to do: eating sausage for breakfast before reading the dirty truths of the meat industry. Seriously, I could have done without reading about pig shit this morning.

Gay Drama in the NBA

2007-02-15T19:53:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I did a sports related post here at the Land of Fruits and Nuts. Frankly, I don't like basketball much and Cal's season leaves a lot to be desired. There was once a time when Cal fans would leave football games saying, "just wait until basketball season." Now, Old Blues are wishing to bypass college hoops to get back to fall, football, and Tedford.

My basketball post today isn't so much on the sport as in the Gay drama surrounding it. Between Anna Nicole updates and news stories featuring crazed astronauts in diapers, a few news sources have featured John Amaechi's recent coming out. Amaechi is the first NBA player to admit he is Gay and the sixth pro-player of any major American sport's league.

There is nothing really all that remarkable about Amachi coming out of the closet. We all know that lots of Gay people exist and that, statistically, there must be many more closeted athletes in every major sport, probably on every team. But what is interesting, but unsurprising, is the level of homophobia present in the world's premier basketball league.

Amaechi, in his new book, Man in the Middle, reportedly wrote about his homophobic coach. Recently, former Miami Heat star

GOP Convention in Sacramento

2007-02-10T16:23:00.000-08:00

Today is the second day of the CRP Convention held in Sacramento. I haven't had much of a break here yet but have seen all of the usual faces, bloggers, movers and shakers, and other celebrities of the California Republican Party.

While GOP might not stand for Gay Old Party, there seems to be quite a delegation of out Republicans running around the convention center this weekend. In fact, prominant Gay Republican bloggers BoiFromTroy and Kevin Norte have both been spotted frequently. Tonight, one of the larger hospitality suites will be hosted by the California Log Cabin Republicans and will feature a Hawaiian Luau theme.

Tomorrow morning the general session will commence and delegates will discuss policy issues and candidates for statewide offices within the Republican party. It currently looks like Chuck DeVore's plan to remove the authority of Republican primary voters to support a Presidential candidate is going down in flames. Late in the week, Duf Sundheim, Ron Nehring, and others wrote a letter condemning the plan and urging members to vote against it.

Unfortunately, not all of the votes are going so well. Southern California members elected Jon Fleischman of the FlashReport. This, of course comes the morning after Fleischman campaigned to Log Cabin members by explaining that he will never support Gay Rights, will never attempt to understand or accept "the Gay lifestyle," or support the chartering of Log Cabin Republican chapters. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Hopefully other rightwing candidates won't find as much luck in the elections tomorrow. Most notably, Tom Bordonaro (a member of the rightwing California Republican Assembly) is running against Tom Del Becarro. Members of the party need to recognize that our relevance is at stake if we don't take a more moderate, inclusive position.

I know where my vote is.

Is Everybody Running?

2007-02-10T16:15:00.000-08:00

Apparently the only people not running for President in 2008 are Arnold Schwarzenegger and me. I attribute the lack of both of our candicacies to constitutional ineligibility for the Oval Office.

Now that Clinton and Obama have publicly announced, Giuliani has filed papers, and McCain and Romney are expected to announce their intentions soon. Add to these candidates Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, and other unlikely hopefuls and the race for the White House will be quite a crowded one.

This year will be a fun one for political crackheads!

A Post About Gavin Newsom (But Not His Affair)

2007-02-02T18:04:00.000-08:00

While California is still reeling over Mayor Gavin Newsom's latest romance, I want to focus on what made Mayor McDreamy the political star that he is today. Hint: it wasn't his looks or money.

On February 12, it will have been three years since Mayor Newsom declared same-sex marriage legal in California. While he did not have the authority to interpret state law (that role is reserved for the courts) he did force California to consider the issue with urgency. On that fateful day in 2003, Newsom's protest shook California like an earthquake and initiated a series of lawsuits now pending in the California Supreme Court to determine whether Gays and Lesbians have the legal right to marry.

I have already written about my personal views on Gay Marriage (as a refresher: I support Gay Marriage but think there are more important and urgent Gay rights issues that must be addressed immediately). Still, I applaud efforts in California to show heterosexual people the inequality faced by Gay men and women.

The Yolo County Clerk-Recorder, Freddie Oakley, was featured in the Sacramento Bee today because she is doing just that-making more apparent the inequality faced by Gay couples in this state.

Ms. Oakley is statutorily unable to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, so she has developed a certificate of inequality to grant instead. Obviously, Gay people already know that we are treated unequally under state laws, but these certificates have continued to draw attention to the disparity. Although Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation that grants every state-provided benefit and responsibility of marriage to domestic partners, Domestic Partnerships are still unequal to Marriage in both name and federal benefits.

In short, I applaud the efforts of both Newsom and Oakley for keeping Gay rights on the forefront of California politics.

Hippies More Wood!

2007-02-01T18:07:00.000-08:00

If you follow Cal sports, environmental politics, or the City of Berkeley, then chances are that you have heard about or seen the hippies living in the trees at California Memorial Stadium.

Unfortunately, this is not some giant publicity stunt to draw attention to Wonder-Coach Jeff Tedford and the California Golden Bears.

Instead, the Ewoks have taken to the trees to prevent the University from cutting them down to make progress on retrofitting the stadium and building a new sports complex near the site. The tree-sitters claim that the University is threatening to cut down one of the last old-growth woodland areas in Berkeley.

The biggest problem with their argument is that it isn't an old growth woodland area nor is it one of the last surviving woodlands around.

The trees around the stadium were planted by the University and only four predate the stadium itself: three oaks and a redwood. Those who make a short trek to another shrine to Cal athletics, the Tilden Statue near Haas Pavilion, will find themselves surrounded by a lush woodland protected by the University. In fact, many other wooded areas exist on campus, several with University protections to prevent the flora and fauna from being disturbed.

The University has agreed that some environmental disruption will occur as a result of the new construction, but plans to mitigate the damage by planting three new trees for each one that is removed. Further, it is important to note that the University planted those trees on University land several decades ago as part of a landscaping design. It should be well within the ability of the University to remove the trees. Besides, the stadium is of more historical, cultural, and economic value than the trees in question.

What is most interesting is what groups have entered into the fight: most notably, the Panoramic Hill Neighborhood Association (PHNA). PHNA has a long history of being a thorn in the side of the University, the students living on Southside, the Greeks, and Coops. It is no secret that they have opposed construction on the stadium on the basis of the noise, lights, and traffic in the area. They have latched onto tree preservation because it is just the latest in their many attempts to stop the progress of the University community.

The Panoramic Hill Neighborhood Association doesn't love trees; they hate student life.

In conclusion, Berkeley hippies, Ewoks, and the PHNA are forming an evil axis that hates students, Cal, and college football. They should be opposed at all costs.

Have No Fear, Nanny State is here!

2007-01-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

Nanny State is here to save the day! (Actually, that scares me even more!)

Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed Universal Health Care. Assemblymember Sally Lieber has proposed an anti-spanking bill. No fewer than five California legislators are attempting to ban trans fats.

Republicans, as usual, are crying foul and claiming that Big Brother is going to mess things up. As a general rule, I agree with the idea that the Government should allow the private sector to fix problems and allow maximum personal liberty. In my mind, the government is only responsible to protect the rights and property of the people and entities it serves.

But I disagree with the mainstream Republican line on these issues. I have recently posted on Healthcare, so I will focus primarily on transfats and spanking today.

TRANS FAT

Following the lead of New York City and the advice of nutritionists everywhere, California may decide to ban or limit the use of trans fat in prepared foods in the near future. Despite the tasty goodness that trans fats can lend to many delicious fried foods, I couldn't be happier!

Imagine a world without trans fats. Despite exaggerated claims from some industry folks, your favorite foods and restaurants will continue to exist with nearly identical tastes at similar prices. The biggest difference will be that your cholesterol level will be lower and all Americans will have a greater chance of being a little healthier.

It was only a few short decades ago that trans fats became an important part of the American diet. We were all informed that trans fats are significantly better than the dreaded saturated fat and might actually be good for us like polyunsaturated fats. Quickly, our society adapted recipes and our way of life to promote this new miracle substance only to learn that transfats are FAR worse for our cholesterol levels than evil saturated fats could be in their wildest dreams.

Fortunately, members of the public (like Oprah and that guy from Supersize Me) have started to realize the danger of eating poisons like partially hydrogenated corn oil and have called for it to be removed from our diets. Even more fortunately, the private sector has responded! After NYC started talking about banning the substance, many corporate foodservice providers like Starbucks and Kentucky Fried Chicken started removing trans fat from their recipes without any noticeable change in the taste of their products. In fact, if these corporations hadn't been on a massive advertising blitz to tell you that their food is healthier now, there wouldn't have been any noticeable change at all!

Yet many still complain that the government shouldn't require the private sector to remove partially hydrogenated oils from their foods. I would be inclined to agree if the average person out understood how human nutrition works, that trans fats are essentially a poison, and that most of us are eating toxic levels of it regularly. As such, we should limit the use of trans fats in foods just as we limit the use of arsenic, lead, and other dangerous substances in our foods.

SPANKING

A friend of mine recently argued with me that Americans have a right to raise children in the way that we want. I asked him to show me where that right is listed in the Constitution.

The truth is that the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has read into the Bill of Rights does not grant us the right to cause harm to others. If it did, all laws preventing people from causing harm to others would be unconstitutional!

The spanking bill that Lieber unveiled would prevent adults from spanking children under the age of three. While I would suggest that the age limit might be more fitting at two years of age, it is important to note that children do not ever have the mental capacity to comprehend the reason they are being physically punished at extremely young ages.

While Republicans argue that the Nanny State government is over-reaching its boundaries in telling parents how they can and can't raise their children, it is a fact that any time an adult strikes an infant with the intent to cause pain it should be considered child abuse. Likewise, children too young to understand the reason they are being physically punished should be struck by an adult as punishment. Those who oppose the ban on spanking are focusing on the privileges of parents but are neglecting the rights children.

Certainly, I agree that responsible adults should be able to parent in whatever way they see fit, however they should be prevented from causing harm to their children. The government has the indisputed authority to punish parents that attempt to kill, poison, or otherwise abuse their children. However, social customs have allowed parents to strike their children even though psychologists have proven that the extremely young are only harmed by the practice.

CONCLUSION

As a general rule, I think that the Nanny State still sucks and Big Brother watches us too closely. Still, I think it is worse that Americans are abusing their children and poisoning themselves because almost worth eating contains trans fats. Sure, spanking isn't as bad as locking a child into a cage nor are trans fats quite as deadly as cyanide. Still, both should be legislated against as soon as possible. Most of us won't even know the difference!

Legislative Fashion- PART 2: Top 5

2007-01-23T22:36:00.000-08:00

After scouring through pictures of all the male members of the California Legislature, I finally came up with a short list of men who understand style and take the time to look good. Granted, every man occasionally commits a "fashion don't" but these men tend to make some fashionably good decisions.

WILLIE BROWN
Honorable Mention goes to Willie Brown. Although he is a former legislator and technically not qualified to recieve this honor, Brown has a style all his own. Few men have been able to rock a hat as well as he does since they went out of style in 1960.

KEVIN DE LEON
A newcomer to the Assembly, De Leon will be trying to make his mark with a liberal agenda, but I would rather see him remembered for his style. Kevin De Leon has a certain Eric Estrada feel to him. I don't know if it his feathered hair, his casual way of ditching the tie and rolling up his sleeves, or some other je ne sais pas. He will be a legislator to keep an eye on this year.

LLOYD LEVINE
Everybody's favorite reality television star slash politician, Lloyd Levine has a definite style and earns himself recognition in my list of the most fashionable male legislators. Levine has grown and shaved a very well-trimmed goatee, made good use of pattern and texture in his wardrobe, and wears very well-fitted clothing. He would be able to rank higher on my list if he paid as much attention to his hairstyle as he does to the rest of his appearance.

FABIAN NUNEZ
Always impeccably dressed, Nunez must spend a fortune on his suits and ties. Fabian Nunez tends, however, to dress in a veritable uniform: his suits all have similar cuts, he seems always to wear a solid white shirt, must own dozens of bright solid ties. On the other hand, it works for him and he changes his look slightly by changing the color of the suit or tie.

CAMERON SMYTH
The only Republican to grace my list of the best-dressed male members of the California Legislature happens to have found himself at the top. A freshman in the Assembly, Cameron Smyth already outshines his Republican colleagues as one of the most fashionable men on his side of the aisle. When dressed for work, he plays with the colors of his shirt, tie, and suit but manages to have each complement the others and still manages to refrain from looking showy. Unlike some of his colleagues, Smyth can apparently dress both for work and for casual days away from the office. Pictures show him in an appropriately sized polo shirt (with the collar unbuttoned), tucked into casual khakis, and accessorized with the greatest of all political accessories-a baby and loving spouse.

Legislative Fashion- PART 1

2007-01-23T22:14:00.000-08:00

Today is the day that, as promised, I take a look at male fashion in the California Legislature. As expected, I found a lot of boring, outdated suits worn by boring, outdated old men.

My most major gripe with the members of the legislature is their primary accessory: the necktie.

A tie is of great importance in business and politics. It is considered a standard part of the business uniform for a man to wear a proper necktie. For fashion purposes, however, it is not okay to simply grab the first tie you see on the rack, tie a quick knot, and run to the floor (especially if cameras are around).

Far too many legislators wear ties that clash with their shirts/jackets/suits, are loud and ugly, or otherwise distract from the rest of the outfit in a bad way. Even more importantly, a lot of legislators have somehow been elected without learning to tie a knot correctly. NOTE: A THE KNOT OF A TIE SHOULD NOT LOOK PAINFULLY (AND UNFASHIONABLY) SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE REST OF THE TIE.

Gentlemen, please, look at yourself in a mirror after you tie the tie. If the tie looks awkwardly tied, untie it and start over. If you don't like how a simple four-in-hand looks, try a half-Windsor! There are lots of ways to tie a knot; learn a few and experiment!

Gentlemen of the California Legislature

2007-01-18T21:21:00.000-08:00

After reading the New York Times congressional fashion fluff piece that I blogged about earlier, a friend of mine complained that people spend far too much time addressing the fashion of powerful women but never look at the way men dress.

And that gave me an idea!

Many men in the California legislature have a very defined and unique sense of style. Some have got the fine art of looking good down to a science and others could use a little help. Interestingly, fashion sense seems not to be very well correlated with physical attractiveness. Case-in-point: Hunky Republican, Todd Spitzer, has been spotted around town wearing a "Canadian Tuxedo." Under no circumstance is it a good idea to wear a blue denim shirt with blue jeans.

If any of you know of a particular man in the California Legislature that is worthy of mention (positively or negatively) let me know! You can either leave a comment or email me at calgrown@gmail.com.

Congressional Style

2007-01-18T21:19:00.001-08:00

Today, the New York Times wrote a fluff piece on the fashion of the women of the 110th Congress and Speaker Pelosi's personal style.

Since when is Nancy Pelosi a fashion icon?! It is very true that Members of Congress are not known for their sense of fashion, but saying that the St. James uniform is overplayed and ugly does not suddenly turn Mary Bono into Joan Rivers!

I have a very hard time taking seriously the fashion choices of anybody in Congress. When I was an intern working in the House of Representatives, I saw a photo printed in one of the rags (Roll Call or Congressional Quarterly, probably) pointing out that one particular day had apparently been seersucker suit day. On that specific summer day, several members wore full seersucker suits and posed for a picture on the Senate side to show off their silly sense of dress. My office promptly cut out the picture and posted it on a bulletin board to laugh at it daily.

Perhaps the fashion sense of the 110th Congress is far better than that of year's past. Even still, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi has had any effect on the Tahitian pearl industry. While it is true that she frequently wears them, they are not half as iconic as Barbara Bush and her white pearls. The real reason women are buying Tahitian pearls is that they are exotic, attractive, and currently very stylish. Besides, although women frequently admire Pelosi's power and status, I know of none that actually wants to look like her.

New Political Reality Show?

2007-01-18T21:18:00.001-08:00

I have a hard time believing that nobody has yet made a TV reality show about four law-makers sharing a home together. But we might not have to wait long! Today, both the Boston Globe and New York Times published articles about four Democratic members of Congress sharing a home owned by George Miller.

Perhaps "home" is too strong a word. The arrangement seems to appear more along the lines of a stereotypical, "animal-house" style frat house than a home suitable for four men elected to do to the people's work.

My favorite line in the post referred to the pair of Barbara Boxer souvenir boxers left on top of the communal clothing pile. Priceless! Brings me right back to my college days!

California's legislators are rumored to have frequently lived in similar situations. From what I understand, several legislators lived together last year in a bipartisan arrangement and Jay LaSuer and Dennis Mountjoy shared an apartment with other Republican men. I am sure that after certain contentious nights in the Capitol, the bipartisan house looked like a war zone.

Perhaps a TV reality featuring politicians living together should be made for the Political Crackheads out there! For the perfect show, we would need a pretty-boy (Lloyd Levine), the upright and by the book guy (Todd Spitzer), the scary lefty (Sheila Kuehl), the one with the big boobs (Bonnie Garcia, of course!), and the crazy-slobbish-jerk (Dennis Mountjoy would have been perfect! Who is replacing him?!).

Sure, this television show wouldn't be at all popular outside of political circles, but I bet it would be the top gossip of the day inside Sacramento! I expect royalties if this show ever gets made!

Post-Partisan Depression

2007-01-18T21:16:00.000-08:00

Matt Cunningham at the Red State OC Blog posted a very short video clip of Todd Spitzer accepting the Legislator of the Year award from the Republican Party of Orange County.

While it is totally unremarkable that Spitzer got the award (he is an excellent legislator, a Moderate, a Republican, from Orange County, and helped to spearhead the criminal justice reforms we saw last year especially in regards to sex offenders), his acceptance speech is notable. Specifically, Spitzer speaks briefly on the Governor's inaugural address in which he called for Post-Partisanship.

Spitzer seems to agree that we all need to work together. He has definitely had a history of working across the party line and some consider him to have straddled it too closely on occasion. Nonetheless, the moderate Assemblyman pandered to his GOP supporters by explaining that the reason for all the successes California has seen can be credited to the hard work of the party.

This highlights the subject of some of my earlier posts regarding the reason that the California GOP is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Instead of proclaiming how far right they are, California's Republican legislators should be following Arnold a little more closely. Schwarzenegger has popularity because he is a centrist, moderate, post-partisan Republican. Most GOP candidates are unpopular because they are perceived as right-wing nuts. I would have expected Spitzer to recognize this as he has modeled himself as a thoughtful, right-leaning centrist and gained enormous popularity in his district for doing so.

A Seat at the Table

2007-01-17T17:59:00.000-08:00

CBS Anchorwoman, Katie Couric, penned an article today about the Big Meeting preceding the Big Speech. According to Couric, very high-level senior officials in the Bush Administration met with network anchors and select cable anchors to discuss the State of the Union address.

In her article, Couric expresses frustration that she was the only woman sitting at the table. While there were women on the support staff near the door, she looked at her peers around the table and found no women. Among the men seated were Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume.

I hate to be too critical of Couric-after all, I woke up to her cheerful voice through most of my growing up years-but she seems to be completely oblivious that there were bigger problems than a lack of female peers.

The women's liberation movement popularly started in the 1970s. By that time, the Civil Rights movement had already been in full swing and the Gay Liberation Movement began with the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Yet, Couric fails to mention that not a single Queer or Non-White was present at that table.

I am of the belief that promotions should be based on merit, not on race/ethnicity/orientation. Affirmative action has no place in deciding who the anchor of the TV news should be. While women and ethnic minorities have had a long history of subjugation that kept them out of schools and certain jobs, Gay men in particular have often been able to hide themselves enough to bypass that oppression and attain higher education and jobs.

It boggles my mind that no Gay man would be fit as an anchor of a major TV news program. By even the most modest of studies, Gays and Lesbians make up at least 10% of society (some studies claim more!) Yet the always-liberal Katie Couric failed to mention that while women at least have some representation at nearly every level of society, Gays don't.

Tedford to Stay at Cal, Remain Deity Until 2013

2007-01-17T17:58:00.000-08:00

In recent history, Berkeley has seen a series of losing seasons culminating in a season so bad that we only won one game...versus Rutgers...post season...in the snow...And we didn't have the Axe for most of a decade.

Then we let Tom Holmoe go and hired up Jeff Tedford.

After a stunning win in Michigan followed by other stunning wins against formidable opponents both on the road and at home (not to mention a recapture of the Axe!), Berkeley became filled with "Tedford is God" shirts. He certainly did play the part of a deity-he turned a struggling, highly overrated Kyle Boller into a quarterback worthy of playing in the NFL.

We were always proud to be the California Golden Bears, even in the dark days. But under Tedford, it is that much easier.

This week, the Cal Athletic Department has announced a tentative agreement with Tedford to extend his contract through 2013. Although he is currently making approximately $1.5 million each year, under the new contract he will see a raise. It is also assumed that the contract continues to hinge on the new athletic center and stadium renovations currently held up in the courts by the people living in the trees next to Memorial Stadium. The official contract can't be finally approved until the Regents vote on it.

Nearly $2 million is a lot to spend on a coach. He is already the highest paid employee of the University of California system. Granted that Tedford's leadership has led to a profitable football team that has bolstered Cal's popularity (leading to even more income), it is hard to imagine spending so much money each year on one man. Still, if any Pac-10 coach is worth it, it would have to be Jeff Tedford.

I haven't seen the contract, nor do I know any specifics about it. I do hope that the contract is strong enough to keep Tedford working his magic in Berkeley through 2013. Cal actually has a real shot at being a Rose Bowl contender before this contract expires. Under Tedford, we are a top-20 team and beginning to gain respect as a football school once again.

And we still have the Axe!

State of the Party

2007-01-16T18:04:00.000-08:00

With the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento just over 3 weeks away, I want to start examining the future of the California GOP.

Clearly, California has some definite Republican strongholds. Large swaths of the less urban areas of Southern California, Central California, and rural Northern California are conservative bastions and are unlikely to change voting patterns. Urban areas including SF and LA are strongly liberal areas that are unlikely to ever support GOP candidates. Though California has voted Blue in several past elections, I have already explained that I consider it to be a Purple state that could vote Republican under the right circumstances. Remember that our Governor is the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Governor Schwarzenegger has come to the same realization that I have: most Californians are not in favor of government regulation in their personal lives nor are they socially conservative. Also, people in this state tend to favor certain "liberal" policies including developing infrastructure and protecting the environment, especially if both can be done with a minimum impact on their own lives and business.

Unfortunately, the GOP has not yet come to this same realization. Founder and Editor of the FlashReport, Jon Fleishman penned a post on his views on the GOP's shortcomings recently. In it he pointed specifically GOP members of Congress becoming addicted to spending as a reason for their loss. While I agree that it certainly made them worse members of Congress and did contribute to their loss, I contend that a bigger factor was the inability of GOP members to keep themselves from meddling in the everyday lives of Americans and keep themselves out of scandal.

In California, the Republican minority in the state legislature has grown increasingly irrelevant. The only Republican sponsored bills that are passed are either totally innocuous or are parts of deals to get budget bills (and other bills that require a 2/3 supermajority) to pass. The rest of the year, it really doesn't matter what most Republicans say (unless, of course, that Republican is the Governator). Most GOP members of the Legislature hem and haw so loudly and obnoxiously that it is hard to take them seriously. Indeed, sometimes the Assembly floor has slightly resembled the British Parliament questioning the Prime Minister, with the minority party becoming insulting to the majority.

However, it need not be this way. Not long ago, Republicans were able to enjoy a majority in the Legislature. We were once relevant in California outside the Governor's Horseshoe.

What was different then was that the GOP molded itself to fit into the mainstream of political thought among voters. Without a doubt, the GOP still fell a little to the right of public opinion. However, the party continually attempted to capture the median voter both statewide and in many local districts. In those days, such people as Governor Pete Wilson, a moderate pro-choice Republican, not only was elected but maintained the support of the party and many swing voters.

Today, a moderate pro-choice Republican by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to capture the support of 63% of the state but has been practically abandoned by the party. One would expect that a popular Republican governor in a Democratic state that proposes moderate, proactive solutions would receive support from his party when he proposes landmark legislation like healthcare. Apparently, not so.

What the California Republican Party needs are leaders who are willing to step away from socially conservative notions that are out of touch with California voters. These leaders should work with the Governor and champion traditionally liberal causes in a uniquely Republican way that promotes personal liberty, small government, and free market principles.

Soon, I look forward to reviewing some of the candidates that are running for offices within the California GOP. Nominations have not yet closed and I only know of a handful of people running for party offices. If any of you are running or know of a candidate I would be interested in (either positively or negatively) please let me know!

The First 100 Continues

2007-01-16T17:56:00.000-08:00

As the Democrats first 100 hours of leadership continues into its second actual week of work, let us pause to look back and see what has occurred thus far.

Massive Time Warp achieved to allow 100 hours to last 3 weeks

Vacation to watch football

9/11 Commission Recommendations passed

Stem Cell Research bill revived and passed

Bill to allow Secretary of Health to negotiate for better drug prices passed

Holiday for Martin Luther King Jr.

Half holiday to allow recovery from MLK Jr. Holiday

After completing work on three bills last week, the Democratic-led House began this week in a true spirit of bipartisanship: they took a break together. Republicans and Democrats enjoyed a Monday off to honor MLK Jr. and most of Tuesday off to honor their own laziness.

In a less lazy display of bipartisan efforts, the House of Representatives passed a monumental bill to allow for stem cell research expansion. The only thing is, this bill passed last year and didn't go into effect because President Bush vetoed it. In fact, it is the only bill that President Bush has ever vetoed. All signals say that he is prepared to veto it again if it makes it through the Senate.

Nonetheless, the stem cell research bill passed by a 254-174 vote with more than a few Republicans voting Aye and several more not voting. Almost all the House Democrats voted in support of the bill. This shows that if the President vetoes it again, we can expect a substantively similar bill to make its way back to the Oval Office repeatedly until the President gives in or works with the Congress to develop a compromise plan.

On a vote of 255-170, the House passed a bill to allow the Secretary of Health to negotiate with drug companies for better prices. This will benefit those who use the Medicare Prescription Coverage that President Bush signed into effect. Basically, this is a cost cutting measure that fixes an apparent shortcoming in Bush's policy. I don't consider this bill to be all that earth-shattering.

Much more is still to come before the Democrats first 100 hours ends! Stay tuned!

Retired Chair of Joint Chiefs asks for end to DADT

2007-01-10T16:39:00.000-08:00

Now that President Bush is trying to find another 20,000+ troops to send to Iraq in a hurry, he may finally be thinking in terms of how to reduce the limits on who can serve in the military. Specifically, the administration should look toward lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

I have posted a few times about DADT. Any regular readers know that I think that reversing DADT is a more pressing concern than the right to marry. From a Gay rights standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be able to participate openly in any career in the United States for which they are otherwise qualified-especially those jobs provided by government. From a national security standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to serve openly because it allows a greater pool of qualified candidates to serve our nation proudly. This larger pool allows for a larger, stronger, more effective, and better military.

A recent editorial in the New York Times written by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John M. Shalikashvili, criticized DADT and declared that it may be time to reverse the policy. What is remarkable is that Shalikashvili was instrumental in establishing the policy during the Clinton years. The retired general has fully changed his mind in light of the 24 other nations that currently allow Gays to serve openly in the military and the recent polls showing that the men and women currently serving would not have a significant problem if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to serve alongside.

Supporters of DADT have argued for years that allowing Gays to serve would undermine unit cohesion, harm recruitment, and lower morale. Shalikashvili has unequivocally stated that while he believes that DADT was necessary in 1993, the time has come when the United States no longer needs to consider homosexuality incompatible with military service. This may come as the greatest strike against DADT yet!

The Bush administration needs at least 20,000 more soldiers on the ground, by their own count. While the military has never actually been very successful at preventing all Gay people from serving, DADT has very effectively prevented openly Gay men and women from entering military service. While it is unlikely that 20,000 qualified, young Gay and Lesbians would immediately enlist, the Bush administration would certainly have an easier time meeting recruitment needs.

100 Hours Update

2007-01-10T11:19:00.000-08:00

So far, the Democratic leadership has been successful and bipartisan under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We are currently nearly 3 days in to a timewarped first 100 hours lasting nearly 3 weeks.

Here is a recap of what has already been accomplished:

Speaker Pelosi drew upon Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to slow down time enough that the next 100 hours will actually take 3 weeks
Congress took a long weekend to watch college football championship games
Easily passed 9/11 Commission Recommendations

Almost all of the Dems and 68 Republicans in the House (including 3 Republicans from California) supported the efforts to implement the 9/11 recommendations. Two Democrats were suspiciously absent from the vote. Most of the Republicans that voted in favor of the measure echoed Mary Bono’s (R-CA) sentiments:

The protection of the American people is of paramount importance; and if this Congress is able to implement procedures and laws that will safeguard future generations of Americans to come, we must make every effort to do so…I am pleased that this Congress, in a bi-partisan fashion, has expedited the passage of this important piece of legislation.

America's traveling public, which includes the tens of thousands of visitors who utilize Palm Springs International Airport, will benefit from the steps Congress is taking to help ensure their safety.

I hope that this legislation will help accelerate initiatives that were already approved in the last Congress. Despite the redundancy of some initiatives, I believe legislation that places the safety of the American people first is a commendable beginning for the new Congress.

Basically, this measure passed because it really doesn’t change anything, looks really good and bipartisan, and might help alleviate fears about airport security (even if these efforts fail to, you know, actually secure our airports).

Today is “Increase the Minimum Wage Day” in Congress. I figure that even if the minimum wage is increased it won’t come close to approaching what the minimum wage is currently set at in California. As such, Californians are all winners today if Congress doesn’t increase their own salaries today!

Universal Healthcare in California

2007-01-08T18:31:00.000-08:00

After spending some time in a Idaho hospital after a holiday ski accident, the Governor has unveiled his new healthcare plan for all Californians.

Eat your heart out, Hillary! This plan actually as a chance of becoming reality!

According to the plan, all Californians will be required to maintain health insurance. This would serve to reduce emergency care costs for the uninsured that hospitals currently must “eat” and eventually pass along to insured and paying patients. The governor has likened this to a hidden tax. This would also improve the public health by encouraging early treatment and maintenance care of ailments-typically much cheaper and effective than late treatment and emergency care.

More controversially, the plan will require all business with 10 or more employees to offer insurance or pay at least 4% of their payroll to help pay for their employees’ health coverage. Additionally, this plan would require insurance companies to guarantee individuals coverage in the individual market and spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care.

There is certainly a need for healthcare coverage in California and too small of a percentage of our population currently are able to maintain coverage. Market forces have kept adequate coverage out of the hands of many who need it and want it. Because insurance companies frequently no longer offer individual plans in California, insurance is impossible for many people to obtain.

Further, because California emergency rooms must provide services to individuals without regard of their ability to pay, all Californians must carry the burden. Those that are unable to pay are also unable to obtain preventative care or treatment for most ailments until they find themselves in emergency rooms. The costs at that point are much higher and the chances of successfully treating the ailment are significantly lower. Given that we are already paying a high cost for medical care for those that cannot pay for themselves, I would much rather my dollars be used more efficiently and effectively.

All of this analysis comes without a dollar sign attached to it, so far. As far as I can tell, the Governor has not announced how much his plan is going to cost taxpayers or where the money will come from. All Californians will be required to carry insurance now and this could cause some difficult questions of enforcement and, in an unlikely worst-case scenario, could potentially lead to chronic overcrowding in hospitals. While the Governor has enjoyed a remarkable record with the economy, requiring all companies to offer health benefits could be detrimental to many small businesses. Not to mention, we have no idea what this would do to preexisting health benefits and insurance premiums.

We know what the ends are (and the ends are good!), but we don’t yet know the means by which the Governor wants to implement these plans. Will the ends justify the means?

James Fullmer on Gay Marriage

2007-01-08T17:35:00.000-08:00

The California Patriot Blog recently had a comment thread in which James Fullmer (a member of Berkeley College Republicans and managing editor of the California Patriot) and I debated Gay Marriage. However, as the comments became longer and longer, I decided that it would be appropriate to place a post on my own blog to continue the debate, already in progress.

Please feel free to add your own comments here.

“In allowing a government to determine which relationships are recognized and which aren’t, we are giving the [government] too much power.”

Then, government should stay out of marriage altogether and leave it up to individual churches. How very libertarian of you.

In general, I am very libertarian. I do believe that the government should keep its nose out of marriage except that so many of the privileges tied to marriage under federal law are based on the word “marriage” that it would be tedious to remove marriage from law. Besides, we know the government wouldn’t go along with those plans any time in the near future. So marriage should be offered equally to straight people and gay people.

The government recognizes and subsidizes marriage because marriage 1) provides a mass social framework that allows for the raising of children in two-parent homes with both a male and a female influence and 2) provides a mass social framework in which individual men protect individual women (who are generally physically the weaker sex) and individual women make sure individual men (who are generally the more idiotic sex) don’t do anything too stupid. This saves the government from having to do all the safety and police work itself. (You’ll pardon me for being unbearably traditional and generalizing in my views of the sexes.)

And the reason why two people of the same sex don’t qualify for this governmental recognition is because - at least in the eyes of society today - a relationship between two individuals of the same sex does not fulfill those two criteria. Both are up for debate, of course, and incidentally I think the strongest argument for gay marriage is that it does provide social stability. The whole “marriage tames men [and women, in this case]” argument.

Yeah. Not so much. I have a hard time taking any part of that argument seriously. For arguments sake, I will refrain from criticizing these rather sexist statements regarding the weakness of women and idiocy of men. Though such notions of sexual differences are still in vogue in places like North Korea they have been decreasing in popularity in the US since about 1910. But I digress.

If government sanctioned marriage is intended to provide a mass social framework for heterosexual, two-parent families then it has been a horribly failed experiment. The major flaw with that argument is that marriage and fertility have no correspondence, at all. Married people do not need to have or raise children to be married or even be ABLE to have or raise children to be married. If this were the case, elderly, infertile, and those without the desire to have children would be forbidden to marry for the same reason Gay people are not allowed to.

Further, last time I checked, one did not have to be married to procreate. In fact, it is not even a requirement to be heterosexual to parent a child. Lots of Gay people have children—whether from a previous heterosexual relationship, adoption, artificial insemination, or other means.
Yet, children of single parent families and Gay families are punished under a system that attempts to promote heterosexual marriage. If the government really cared for the upbringing of children, it would promote stable homes-regardless of the gender of the parents-by allowing all parents to marry and would provide shared custody to both parents (provided they are capable of caring for the child and are non-abusive) for the unfortunate event of a separation or death.

I am not convinced that there is a social benefit to children from heterosexual parenting. Clearly heterosexual homes have misinformed Mr. Fullmer regarding gender roles. The social structure promoted by heterosexual marriage is not necessarily detrimental, but neither is the social structure promoted by Gay marriage. That is to say that both can promote stable, loving, and caring homes for children to be reared in but neither necessarily provides such a functional environment. More structurally, both can raise children but neither must. Negatively, both can have the same faults—selfishness, abusiveness, and other causes of distress—but neither must.

Gay marriage has the same societal benefits that heterosexual marriage does. By this logic, there is no reason to incentivize heterosexual marriage over same-sex ones.

No, because given the two reasons government recognizes marriage that I listed above, an interracial marriage is no different from an intraracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation laws were attempts by racist idiots to preserve “racial purity” and had nothing to do with whether or not a particular marriage was beneficial to society. Racism and homophobia are both terrible things. However, there actually is a non-homophobic case against gay marriage; if there’s a non-racist argument against interracial marriage, I’ve yet to hear it. So let’s dispense with this analogy, shall we?

Gay marriage and Straight marriage are not intrinsically different. Laws preventing Gays from achieving marriage rights are put in place by homophobes trying to preserve a view of society that never actually existed. Gay marriage does not harm society any more than heterosexual marriage nor does heterosexual marriage benefit society any more than Gay marriage. If there is a non-homophobic case against gay marriage that is based in reality then I have yet to hear it.

“In allowing a government to determine which relationships are recognized and
which aren’t, we are giving the [government] too much power.”
No, quite frankly, we’re not. Marriage, as we’re discussing it, is recognized by-guess who-the government. For the purposes of this discussion, marriage is a government program. If the government has a program, it can set requirements for who qualifies for that program.

As “Republican” and “Conservative” as Fullmer claims to be, it appears that he has forgotten the greatest of Conservative tenets: promotion of small government. This nation and the GOP were both founded on the value of personal liberty over ill-placed government sovereignty.

Simply because the government can and does doesn’t mean it should set certain requirements for certain government programs. In fact, the Supreme Court has often held that the government can not impose certain requirements preventing people from partaking in government programs if they are improperly established, are discriminatory, or otherwise are wrongly imposed. Any argument that something is proper because it is status quo is illogical.

As I’ve said before, if the government interferes with our rights to enter into consensual relationships with whomever we want, then I’ll be out there with you protesting it. But don’t mistake the fact that some relationships qualify for government recognition for an inherent right to have a relationship recognized by the government.

Somehow, I do not think we will see Mr. Fullmer fighting for Gay rights on the front lines any time soon.

Governor Declares War on GOP

2007-01-06T17:15:00.000-08:00

Not only has California left the United States under the leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger, war has been declared on the Republican Party.

Thanks to a tip from a San Francisco Democrat friend of mine, I have come across a Time Magazine article claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger is in a war with the Republican party in California. Given the sentiment of many Republicans I know that listened to the inauguration speech this week, I expect this to be a common theme in articles written about the Governator in the next few weeks.

I have already posted about the Governor’s speech and his centrist, “post-partisan” agenda for his second term. Many Republicans (read: the old boys network including such figures as Mike Spence from the California Republican Assembly) are already condemning the Governor’s speech. Their argument is that this new post-partisan agenda seems to look an awful like the Democratic agenda and nothing like the Republican agenda. They believe that the Governor plans to make a number of Big Government, anti-business moves that will increase spending and require taxation. They also promise a fight against the Governor and his administration if these new policies come to the Legislature.

But this fight might be exactly what the Governor is looking for. According to my favorite Berkeley instructor (who I will henceforth call a professor out of respect, though he does not technically hold that title) Professor Dan Schnur, the governor could really benefit from some Republican opposition. Prof Schnur, who is a moderate Republican strategist, says that when Arnold runs for Senate in 4 or 6 years, “The more the conservatives do to push back at him, the more moderate he will look by comparison. As long as he doesn't raise taxes it's difficult to see a conservative candidate beating him in a primary, which means he's free to situate himself right at the political center."

California Secedes From Union, Declares War on USA

2007-01-05T16:22:00.000-08:00

Governor Schwarzenegger was sworn in today amidst much fanfare. By now, anybody who reads about politics would have already heard about the Governor’s speech applauding centrism in bringing the state forward. But what you might not have heard is that the Governor renounced parties and declared war on the United States after California’s secession from the Union. Well, maybe not quite.

But the Governor did declare that California is a nation-state. Indeed, we have a very diverse population but well defined cultural identity. Additionally, we are an important world economy and power in our own right. We are even trying to fashion ourselves a world leader in environmental progress. Stated by the Governor in his inaugural speech while surrounded by members of the California National Guard (which he commands), this could very well be considered an act of secession. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way around the constitutional provisions preventing his election to the presidency—he declared himself the chief executive of his own nation! GO GOVERNATOR!

The Governor also promoted “Post-Partisanism” a new term he coined to reflect what he hopes to achieve in this new nation—an end to parties, once and for all. No longer does he intend to act in a bipartisan manner; he wishes to run a California where a partisan label on issues doesn’t drive or kill a measure. That is, the Governor wants to promote issues that Californians want, need, and elected him to secure (namely: prison reform, healthcare, and environmental reform) without the Republicans or Democrats pulling party lines because the issue has been historically Democrat or Republican led (in these cases, Democrat led). As the Gov said, “We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.”

Not that any of this should really be news. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a partisan and has long stated his disdain for partisan politics. His views on the environment and healthcare are well-documented. Nobody should be surprised by his views today. Today’s speech, was however, a refreshingly inspiring look into the mind of the popular Governor. I may post the transcript of the speech in its entirety later. Or maybe not.

In other news: Maria Shriver looked too thin. Patrick Schwarzenegger needs a haircut, badly. Eunice Shriver looked fabulous. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as usual, was impeccably dressed in a well-tailored suit with a lavender tie needed more stylish crutches. The set he was using were plain, grey, aluminum crutches that appeared to be issued by the hospital. Perhaps he should find a more stylish set with modern appearance or an ergonomic design. That would be cool.

Political Leanings

2007-01-04T16:25:00.001-08:00

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish, I have found a more-than-decade-old political exam that rates political leanings on a scale of 0-40, 0 being a Jesse Jackson Liberal and 40 being the ultimate conservative (who the test says is Ronald Reagan…I disagree).

Fortunately, I am not in the middle of any identity crisis nor am I desperate to find myself on one end of the political spectrum or the other. According to the test, I am at 20- Colin Powell’s ideological twin. Neither am I a conservative nor am I a liberal. No wonder I hate both political parties so equally.

Hear that, parties? I am the new centrist, median voter! Hear my words! The well-educated, moderate, white, middle-class, young, Gay, male that identifies Republican will select the next US President!

President Oprah Winfrey might be on the horizon!

The California Legislature Reconvened!

2007-01-04T14:51:00.000-08:00

Then they promptly went home. Nobody noticed. Really, the only reason they are all in town is to go to the Governor's star-studded inauguration tomorrow.

The inauguration already seems a bit disappointing. Given Ahnold's own star power, one would expect high caliber celebrities to perform. While rumor has it Danny DeVito will be at the party (maybe sober, maybe not) it has been confirmed that Donna Summer and Paul Anka will be the musical entertainment at the Inaugural Gala and the event will be hosted by former Speaker of the House Willie Brown.

In all seriousness, the California Legislature isn't really covering anything right now except an esoteric argument over a particular labor-owned education appointee that needs to be reappointed. The Republicans don't like him but neither does that particular council like Republicans. Governor Schwarzenegger nominated him again anyway. If the vote goes down the party lines, Dems only need to capture a couple of GOP votes to secure his reappointment. And nothing will change.

This Week in America

2007-01-04T13:57:00.000-08:00

The new Democratic leadership has officially taken control of Congress and the big headlines, other than whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama will top the Democratic presidential ticket in ’08, is that the first 100 hours of Congress will change the course of American history.

By 100 hours, they really only mean 100 hours when they are actually in chambers during their newly extended four day work week. And by first, they really mean starting next week. So really, instead of saying first 100 hours, they should say, “first month in office including the week we don’t really do anything except talk.”

According to Steny Hoyer’s office (as a side note, I have always really liked Congressman Hoyer in a non-Mark Foley sort of way) there is a calendar of historic congressional actions events happening between the 9th and the 26th of January.

The rundown is like this:

January 9th: Enact 9/11 Commission Recommendations
January 10th: Increase Minimum Wage
January 11th: Allow Stem Cell Research
January 12th: Negotiate for Lower Prescription Drug Prices
January 13th: Saturday
January 14th: Sunday
January 15th: Monday (Doesn’t everybody have Mondays off?)
January 16th: Votes postponed until 6:30pm (to recover from Monday hangovers)
January 17th: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
January 18th: Cut Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
January 19th: Votes
January 20th: Saturday
January 21st: Sunday
January 22nd: Monday (You mean to say, You work on Mondays?!)
January 23rd: State of the Union Address (Maybe President Bush will solve this silly problem of working on Mondays)
January 24th: Votes
January 25th and 26th: Republicans Vacation after an exhausting “100 hours”

What is not on the calendar is that immediately afterward, the Pelosi Congress will solve world hunger (food instability), earthquake-proof California, find Osama bin Laden, pay off the national debt, make peace with Iran and North Korea, and still find time to keep declare Mondays a national day of rest for those of us that are not Members of Congress.

Seriously, why do we have to work on Mondays?

Let Diana Ross Decide!

2007-01-01T18:31:00.000-08:00

Ok, so the news is old now. As Kevin Norte so eloquently put it, (to paraphrase) the Supremes have unanimously decided to hear the Gay Marriage case in California.

While it might be interesting to have a Diana Ross-led court determining the outcome of Gay marriage in our state, the California Supreme Court will soon hear the case and make the ultimate determination as to whether the Knight Amendment can stand in California.

To give a recap, after Massachusetts courts declared anti-Gay marriage laws unconstitutional, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began to offer marriage licenses in California. Immediately afterward, the state of California refused to recognize these marriages as valid because they were believed to be void under the state constitution. The courts disagreed. However, before the decision went into effect, the appellate court took up the case and reversed the ruling of the lower court, in part, because Gay people are not discriminated against because Gay men can enter into marriages with women and Lesbians can enter into marriages with men just as heterosexual people can. Now the Supreme Court will be reviewing the case.

This is great news for Gay and Lesbian Californians! I continue to believe that it is of greater importance to ensure more basic rights than marriage for Gays in places outside of California than it is to achieve full marriage equality in California. But since this ball is already rolling, there is no reason to stop it. Gay men and women across the state will hopefully soon be granted full marriage equality!

I'm Back!

2007-01-01T10:49:00.000-08:00

I took an unannounced vacation from the blog for a little while. Partly because my personal life was busy and partly because there wasn't/isn't much interesting news to blog about that isn't covered in like a million places.

After all, if you want to read about President Ford's life and death or Saddam Hussein's execution, you probably aren't going to go to a Gay political blog covering California news. Even if you did, I wouldn't be giving you any interesting new spin on things.

But the greatest of news machines is gearing back into action: the California Legislature. In the coming days the legislature will return from their winter recess and continue to do what they believe is "the people's work." Only time will tell how badly the people will get worked over this year!

Straight People Partnerships

2006-12-12T17:36:00.000-08:00

The tiny but formidable Senator Carole Migden has hit the headlines again with her latest bill, SB 11. This bill would expand California’s Domestic Partnership Program to allow opposite-sex couples to register for domestic Partnerships.

Under existing law, heterosexual couples are ineligible to register for domestic partnerships unless at least one partner is over the age of 62. Seniors are allowed to register for domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage because they may want to avoid marriage in order to protect their benefits. Gay couples are totally ineligible for marriage in California but may instead obtain a domestic partnership which now affords all the rights and responsibilities that the state provides to married couples.

Still, domestic partnerships are considered differently under both state and federal law. Federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships at all and provides none of the benefits of marriage to such couples. State law allows for a much easier, faster, and often less expensive dissolution of a domestic partnership as compared to marriage.

The California courts have been reviewing Gay marriage laws in California since Mayor Gavin Newsom began to allow such unions in San Francisco two years ago. Most recently, the California appellate court ruled that California laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are non-discriminatory in part because Gay people may marry in heterosexual unions and because even if they choose to couple with those of the same sex, California provides all of the benefits of marriage in an equal institution (domestic partnerships).

Migden’s stated motivation for SB 11 has been to provide a marriage alternative to heterosexual couples. Many unwed mothers in this state currently cohabitate in a family unit with a father. Domestic partnerships would provide a more stable environment for the rearing of children, would allow both adults to share in employment benefits, offer each the ability to make critical medical decisions when the other is incapacitated, among other benefits. These changes could be extremely beneficial to nontraditional family units.

However, Migden could very well have another motive: a demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are separate and unequal institutions. Clearly there must be a difference if a number of people given a choice would predictably choose to engage in one form of partnership instead of the other. Further, it would increase the disparity by allowing straight people to choose between marriage and domestic partnerships but still only allow Gay people to obtain domestic partnerships. Already, the Christian conservative right in California have cried out claiming that this expansion of domestic partnerships is an all-out assault on traditional marriage.

This demonstration that marriage and domestic partnerships are inherently different institutions and that gay people are only allowed to obtain domestic partnerships while heterosexual people are able to choose between the two might spur the California Supreme Court to recognize the difference between the two when they take up the issue next year.

All Work and no Pay

2006-12-07T21:24:00.000-08:00

In case you haven’t been keeping up with Congressional politics, the Dems are heading out of the gate at full speed. The interesting part is that they aren’t screwing up their lead at all!

First, Steny Hoyer announced that he will expect members of the House to actually show up and work most days. Commonly referred to as the “Tuesday-Thursday Club,” members of the House are known to work approximately 3 days of the week in DC, then leave to spend time with their families, constituents, donors, and lobbyists. What has resulted is a culture in which members don’t actually schedule House meetings often enough to actually accomplish anything. The 109th Congress may go down in history as being one of the laziest in US History.

Hoyer has suggested that the House meet five-days-a-week for the first part of the new session in order to take care of many items that were neglected this year and last. As you might expect, this has caused some buzz. Republicans are claiming that this is a ploy on the part of the Dems to hurt families. In reality, those Republicans are lazy bums that are worried about being over-worked with a (gasp!) 40-hour work week!

Now it looks as if the $3,300 pay raise members expected to start getting next month is in jeopardy. Pelosi and Reid have announced that they intend to block the pay increase, claiming that it is unconscionable to increase their own pay when the national minimum wage continues to be locked at $5.15.

Really though, the Dems are sounding more and more like the fiscal conservatives that I hoped they would. They are hoping to increase the productivity of Congress without raising the already high pay for members. When did the Democrats become responsible?

EXTRA EXTRA! Read All About It!

2006-12-04T18:13:00.000-08:00

It’s the shock of the week! Hillary’s people have announced that she might be considering a possible run for the White House in 2008!

Oh, wait. That isn’t news at all! Nevermind.

But for a little fun, and to help out a friend’s website, check out this link:
http://www.anyonebuthillary2008.com

Do Your Part

2006-12-03T17:09:00.000-08:00

As promised, I have compiled a short list of organizations and resources involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundation
YouthAIDS
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
American Foundation for AIDS Research

Above all, though, know your own HIV status and get tested. There are locations near every community in the US that can provide tests for the disease that causes AIDS and provide counseling to determine your risk factors for the disease and help you to prevent contracting the virus.

National HIV Testing Centers

Check your local community for organizations that provide services to AIDS patients. Groups like Meals on Wheels, Hospice, and even churches often provide important services, companionship, and care to people dying from AIDS.

World AIDS Day

2006-11-30T17:50:00.000-08:00

World AIDS Day is tomorrow. This disease has taken the lives of more than 22 million men, women, and children worldwide. Another 42 million people are currently infected. An estimated 14,000 more people are infected every day, mostly in the 15-24 age group. In the United States alone, over 1 million people are living with HIV with 40,000 new infections each year.

AIDS has ceased to be a “Gay disease” but the GLBT community should continue to consider it a “Gay issue.” Our community was the first to see the ravages of the epidemic and continues to be one of the hardest hit. Yet, this is an issue that our nation seems to have become bored with and put aside.

Our world has made great progress in slowing the effects of the disease, allowing some of those infected to live longer lives. Still, we must not forget that this disease has claimed far more lives than the holocaust and has no end in sight. At the current rate of infection, nearly every person in Africa will be infected in only a few short years. It is unthinkable to allow an entire continent of people to die of a disease with no cure.

President Bush continues to promote an outdated abstinence only approach to avoiding STDs. While we are all aware that abstinence is the only 100% effective approach, it is not always the most appealing. Condoms may not be perfect, but they are the most effective way of preventing the spread of disease among sexually active people and should be promoted heavily.

Our congress (I won’t blame either party because both are guilty) has failed to adequately fund AIDS research and prevention efforts. The Ryan White CARE Act expired well over a year ago and has yet to be reauthorized. Further, it needs to be updated to reflect changes in the way our nation now approaches and defines the disease.

It was only two generations ago that our country led the way in eradicating polio worldwide. Only one generation ago, smallpox was eradicated largely because of American efforts. I am not saying that we can eradicate HIV in the near future, but US efforts could begin a reduction in new infections.

December 1 is World AIDS Day and we should all make an effort to donate our time and money and help to raise awareness about HIV. But the real point of tomorrow is to remind us to stop for a moment and realize how devastating the disease continues to be. That realization should be enough to drive us all to continue to push for an end to the AIDS epidemic.

Later, I will post a list of helpful resources about how each of us can get involved with the fight against AIDS.

The GOP Still Not Catching On

2006-11-30T07:32:00.000-08:00

Republicans in California still don’t look like they are getting it through their heads what will make them more popular. The new session doesn’t even start until next week, but each week it looks like the GOP caucus in each house is moving further right than they already were.

In the Assembly two weeks ago, Republicans voted down Plescia as Minority Leader because he was seen a too conciliatory. Indeed, he was pragmatic and understood that the only way to remain relevant in what appears to be a nearly permanent minority position is to bargain with the majority party. As a result, there was significant give-and-take in the budgeting process, a budget was passed on time, the legislature was seen as being the most productive in decades, and the big winner was the Governor.

To replace Plescia, Republicans tapped Mike Villines of Clovis—a hard-line Republican most recently known for his fierce opposition to the budget and bonds. The GOP would have been hard pressed to find a party leader less bipartisan than Mr. Villines, who will almost certainly try to use his position to attack the wildly popular Republican (perhaps the ONLY wildly popular Republican left in the USA) Governor’s position on a number of issues that GOP leadership might see as un-Republican.

In the Senate, incumbent Minority Leader Dick Ackerman isn’t sitting too comfortably on his thrown. Reportedly, he hasn’t been able to secure enough votes to guarantee his reelection to the post, although he has more votes than Jim Battin, his main challenger. This could potentially lead to a compromise candidate—which might not be too bad.

Unfortunately, in order to be reelected, Ackerman has promised to take a harder stance on budget issues. That is, he wants to oppose the Governor’s pragmatic and centrist attempts to form a budget that serves the needs of Californians while simultaneously reducing wasteful spending. In the process, it appears he will be throwing away his good working relationship with Democratic leader Don Perata.

The problem with all this is that the GOP hasn’t figured out why nobody in California likes them and how the Governator became so popular (even though EVERYBODY hated him a year ago). It wasn’t bad spending, poor Republican turnout, or just Bush’s coattails that have led to the Blue Wave. Governor Schwarzenegger has mastered the technique of giving voters what they want.

An old professor of mine once explained that all voters want three things and that anybody who can figure out how to give all three will win every election: 1. Lower taxes, 2. More government services, 3. a balanced budget. While we all know it is impossible to give all of these all of the time, Governor Schwarzenegger has done extremely well by keeping taxes down (he hasn’t raised taxes), keeping services high (and proposing new popular public services regarding the environment and healthcare), and paying down the state’s debt.

The GOP could easily catch on to his strategy and ride it to further victories, but have chosen to fall into irrelevancy instead.

Prager's Christianist America

2006-11-28T15:14:00.000-08:00

America is a Christian nation in which every person respects and believes in the Bible, or at least that is what Dennis Prager would have us believe.

Today, he argued that the newly-elected Congressman Ellison should be required to swear his oath of office on what he considers to be America’s book: the Bible. Heaven forbid that he would prefer to use a religious text used in his own religion!

Apparently, when I wasn’t looking, the US Constitution was redrafted with an addendum to the 1st Amendment stating that we can have all the freedom of religion we want, so long as that religion is of a Judeo-Christian nature. As such, Ellison’s Muslim faith is incompatible with the freedom of religion we honor and so he must swear his oath on the Bible instead of the Koran.

Strangely, that argument makes more sense than the arguments Prager uses in his opinion piece. He draws a poor comparison with racists stating that if a racist chose to swear his or her oath on Mein Kampf, we would certainly not allow it. Nor would we allow an agnostic liberal to swear an oath on a stack of New Yorker editorials. Both statements are probably true, but neither Mein Kampf nor the New Yorker are widely considered sacred religious texts.

To that end, why are members of Congress required to swear upon a religious text at all? Or are they even required to? Certainly, I think they should be allowed to as it can give a meaningful foundation to the oath they have spoken if they do it before their own God. However, if they have a different God or do not believe in God, what purpose does it serve to place a hand on a book with little significance to the elected official?

Brownback Probes Judge Who Might Know a Lesbian

2006-11-27T20:24:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the friendly folks at TheAngryFag for pointing us to an article about conservative Republican Senator Sam Brownback questioning whether Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Janet T. Neff should be made a US District Judge because she went to a Lesbian wedding. According to Brownback, "But what I want to know is what does it do to her look at the [same-sex marriage] law?"

From what we can read in the article, the Bush nominee was simply in attendance at the wedding (she did not perform the ceremony nor was she a bride) which was conducted entirely in Massachusetts where she is not a judge and where the wedding had absolutely no legal effect. Neff attended as a friend of one of the two brides that had been a long time neighbor.

Attendance at a Gay or Lesbian wedding should have no bearing on whether Neff is qualified to be a Federal Judge. She has given absolutely no indication as to her leanings on the legal issues involved, only that she maintains a friendship with at least one openly Gay woman.

Brownback's line of reasoning illustrates the deeper problems to be found in the Republican Party. Such distrust and hatefulness displayed at Gay people and our supporters does not benefit the image of the GOP and will contribute to future losses for the party.

More on Here's What We'll Say

2006-11-27T19:12:00.000-08:00

A reader (Leland Frances) recently made a substantial comment regarding my review of Reichen Lehmkuhl's new book, "Here's What We'll Say." While there were certainly varied opinions of the book left in the comments section, I promised to respond to Leland's particularly thoughtful comments.

I'm sorry guys. I know you mean well, and that is exactly why my anger toward this poser is so strong—playing upon the gullibility of people with exaggerated, tearjerking accounts of his life. Never has research demonstrating that "pretty people" tend to be automatically assumed to be truthful and good been so well illustrated.

But while desperation to get it on shelves before the spotlight on him as Lance's lover went out easily explains its shoddy editing, factual errors, lack of an index, etc., and whatever one thinks of him, there is less excuse for sloppy reading than there is for his sloppy writing.

I agree that the overall quality of the writing was less than excellent and would have preferred the memoir had it been given better editting. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. The quality of writing, however, has little to do with the content of the book, which was fantastic.

Certainly time considerations may have played a great role in the lackluster editting. In order to achieve the greatest distribution of this book, it makes good business sense to distribute the book while Lehmkuhl is still a newsworthy item. But I do not fault Lehmkuhl or the publishers for this. In fact, I will go so far as to credit them for making the decision because this will lead to a more widespread readership. The book does have an important message regarding Gay men and women serving in the military and we all benefit from a wider understanding of these issues.

Consider:
1. Out of his many claims, some believable, some not, he does NOT claim that his "rape" was in any way CAUSED by DADT.

On page 221, Lehmkuhl implies that the anti-Gay policies of the military are what made rape a choice, therefore causing his rape. He also states that he has forgiven his rapists

2. "gay cadet": Lehmkuhl was NOT forced to give anyone else a blow job. HE was blown by one of his "attackers;" admits to loving it, having a blazing orgasm, imagining, in retrospect, that he gave the fellator a hickey as he [Reichen] pressed his mouth so forceably against the guy as he [Reichen] shot off, and repeatedly fantasized about experiencing it again for days afterwards. What does the law say about that? HIS penetrating the other person? If I forced you at gunpoint to take a thousand dollars cash from me, could you have me arrested? I don't care what the legal definitions are--no one with any common sense, except someone wanting to get a mountain of publicity, even among mainstream media, which he has beyond probably his wildest dreams, would call that an antigay assault. The alleged punch in the stomach would have been "assault and battery," but it is an insult to those who actually have been violently attacked and sodomized or forced to fellate someone else.

I am unfamiliar with Colorado laws and cannot speak to the legal terms of that state. However, forced sexual acts are always reprehensible in our society. Whether we call it sexual assault or rape, the acts committed that night are illegal both under state laws and military codes whether or not they were performed with homosexual or heterosexual partners.

It is not uncommon for rape/sexual assault victims to partially or fully enjoy parts of their experience. The point is that he was forced unwillingly into the sexual acts. And even more importantly, he is almost certainly not the only man to be raped in the military. Given that Gay men and women are often unable to report these incidents because of anti-Gay policies, it is good that Lehmkuhl used his celebrity status to bring light to an issue most Americans would not have thought much about.

3. What is so "important" about this book? Many much more interesting, let alone better written coming out stories have appeared. While very little of the book actually discusses DADT, had either of you never heard of DADT before? Is anything he describes something that you could not have imagined on your own? The book confirms what "anonymous" wrote. Lehmkuhl was not outed at the Academy; never investigated; not even asked by anyone antigay if he was gay. He simply endured no more than millions of other closeted gays have throughout the history of our antigay military [which long precedes DADT], and, unlike others such as Leonard Matlovich all the way back to 1975 and Margarete Cammermeyer and Tracy Thorne and others more recently he did NOTHING to protest DADT while he was still active duty. Now, four years after his resigning the USAF because he wanted to "go Hollywood," he's applying for some kind of retroactive hero status and people, mesmerized by his looks, are buying it AND this shoddily edited [whatever happened to his first true love "Ben Silverman"?], factually incorrect [Matthew Shepard was not murdered three years before Lehmkuhl's junior Academy year as he writes, but two years after he graduated], vanity project. What child of divorce hasn't been traumatized? Who among those who've experienced it haven't hated boot camp?

This book is important because it brings a celebrity light to issues that still affect many in the military. It is irrelevant how well he was or wasn't able to maintain his closet while serving in the military. I think we can agree that he shouldn't have needed to maintain a closet at all.

I have already discussed that the book could have used better editting and could have been better written. Not to discredit other books on the topic of DADT, but few if any were penned by a person with celebrity status that is as sweeping as Reichen Lehmkuhl's. People will read or hear about this book that wouldn't otherwise care much about DADT or wouldn't otherwise hear about the experiences Gay people have in the military.

4. WHY did he feel the need to claim that things which happened to others happened to him? His "to protect them" doesn't wash given that he could have simply used the method authors have used forever: changing their names and enough other details to "protect them." My theory: because it makes him look like more of a martyr than he actually was. [And, despite his identifying himself as Reichen while at the Academy, he did not change his name to that until years later. He was Richard/Rick/Ricky then.]

Addressing the second part of your point first, had he referred to himself as Rick throughout the book it would have confused the reader. He is popularly known as Reichen now and must draw upon his own celebrity if he intends to sell books.

While you may be correct in your assessment regarding the need for Lehmkuhl to claim that things which happened to others actually happened to him, it could very well be that he was aware that saying they occured to him made both for better story telling and would have a greater impact if they occured to the hero of the story. Given that I do no know which incidents he "borrowed" from other people, I will give theoretical examples. For instance, supposing that Reichen was not the unofficial leader of the "Underground," it makes a better story to make him the leader than it would if he weren't.

Further, changing the names of individuals in a book may very well not have been enough to shield the identity of some individuals who might still be serving in the Air Force or have other circumstances that may prevent them from wanting to be identified. It may also serve to prevent lawsuits from those individuals.

5. What about the twisting of facts in the very first two sentences of the book, appearing on the inside dust jacket, claiming that he and he alone won "The Amazing Race" and its million dollar prize? As he finally admits in the afterword, he AND former partner Chip Arndt won as a team and split the prize. But adding insult to injury he doesn't even include Arndt in his acknowledgements, even though without their joint win there is no reason to believe we would have ever heard from him again, which until he actually DOES something other than writing self-aggrandizing books, would be a good idea. He also should have included his remarkable plastic surgeon in his thank yous.

The writing on dust jackets is usually not prepared by the author of the book but by the publisher. Also, his acknowledgements are his time to thank who he chooses to thank. Generally, neither the acknowledgements or dust jacket are considered of any real literary importance.

I get your point though--you are saying that people will only buy this book because he is a pretty face that won the Amazing Race and now dates Lance Bass. That will definitely sell the books. However, I believe that the story related inside provides the reader with a better understanding of what it is like to be Gay inside a military academy.

The Happiest Time of Year- the Holiday Shopping Season!

2006-11-23T20:14:00.000-08:00

Okay, how cliche can I be? A Gay guy excited by sales?!

For the record, it isn't the sales that I get so excited about starting on Black Friday, it is the consumerism: Capitalism at its finest!

For many, Thanksgiving is a holiday to celebrate the good fortune that we have. For others, it is simply a time to gather with loved ones and have a turkey dinner.

For me, it is a uniquely American invention to celebrate our industriousness and good productivity from the Pilgrim days of yore to the present. We spare a day each year to simply be thankful for all the things in our lives that we have been able to provide for ourselves. Not just the materal items but the security, liberty, and democracy that we Americans often overlook. But a more fitting traditional day of celebration will occur tomorrow as shoppers line up in the cold early morning to fight one another for the chance to buy a toy for 25% off its already marked down price. Tomorrow is the most American of all holidays- Black Friday!

According to a decree by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the day after Thanksgiving was named the official start to the holiday shopping season. As such, merchants have been all too happy to entice consumers to visit their shops with the promise of greater savings if they shop on that day, knowing shoppers will continue to purchase gifts until the last errant husband has bought a present for his wife on Christmas Eve.

This is the day that stores will be able to best predict their annual gains or losses based on holiday consumerism. More simply put, tomorrow many stores will see their books go from the red into the black. If they don't, they will likely not see enough sales in the remainder of the year to recoup their losses.

Although consumerism is often mistaken for simple greed, tomorrow is a fitting tribute to the Capitalism that makes our nation so great. All year long, the American people are productive. Tomorrow, we will begin to spend some of our saved productivity (our earned wages) so that we may all revel in the pleasures of the earth during the winter Holiday Season.

Is this materialism? Certainly! Isn't materialism a horrible thing? No! In December, many of us will look to self sacrifice as we give away these material items that we spent our earned wages on.

Tomorrow, though, when you look out at your local mall and see droves of middle-aged women rushing to grab the limited supply of Elmo dolls before store is sold out and hear the crying children singing their "gimme-gimmes," try to enjoy the cause of all the exciting madness. Americans are able to perform such feats because we have a free-market, generally strong economy, and relatively low unemployment.

Yes, we do this because we can, but the really remarkable thing is, WE CAN!

Tammy Bruce on the Democratic Takeover

2006-11-22T13:04:00.000-08:00

As a general rule, I like Tammy Bruce. Sometimes she comes off a little too Judge Judy in her sarcasm, but she tends to have a pretty libertarian approach to politics. Unfortunately, she isn't always as politically astute as she would like to think.

Bruce claimed today that she believes Democrats intend to put liberal social issues such as abortion, gun control, and gay rights on the back burner for the next couple of years. She says that they may be hoping that the American people forget what the party really stands for so that they can take the presidency in 2008. Her assertion is primarily based on quotes such as this one:

David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, expects Democrats to push legislation to bar workplace discrimination against gays and amend the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. Still, he says, those changes won't come until “much later” in the session.

While it could be that Bruce is correct and there is some big left-wing conspiracy in the works where single-issue groups where the Dems don’t have to cater to their constituent bases for the next two years and then offer them the world when the GOP gets evicted from the White House. But that seems far-fetched.

What her post doesn’t seem to take into account is that while conservatives have definitely lost control of the House of Representatives, they have a strong voice in the Senate. More importantly, George W. Bush is still President. He has been EXTREMELY light on the vetoes in the last six years, but he still retains the power to veto any bill he disagrees with and Congress would be hard-pressed to overturn it.

This is to say that David Smith is absolutely correct that the Dems will push Gay issues, but we should not expect any real changes to occur until much later in the session—as in after President Bush leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Here's What We'll Say

2006-11-20T21:29:00.000-08:00

I finished reading Reichen Lehmkuhl's new book today about his experience coming out while attending the US Air Force Academy. "Here's What We'll Say" is a surprisingly interesting read that was unexpectedly easy to relate to.

Lehmkuhl is certainly not an experienced writer, which is evident throughout his memoirs. He might have been well-served to have hired a ghost writer to better articulate the thoughts conveyed his his memoirs. However, I recommend not allowing the mediocre writing dissuade you from picking up a copy of this important book.

As we all know, Reichen Lehmkuhl is an Air Force Officer turned Reality TV Star turned Model. After winning the Amazing Race with his then-partner, he went on to be pushed down the throats of many in the Gay community as the new posterboy for GLBT rights. Unfortunately, at first glance it is difficult to relate to a pretty-boy model trained by the US Military to be a rugged machine and made famous on national television. This book, however, helps to show a vision of Reichen Lehmkuhl that is more realistic.

His memoirs provide a sometimes entertaining glance at his humble beginnings as a skinny, awkward kid living in a trailer park near a polluted "lake." Just like the rest of us, he was teased by bullies during his middle school years. Like some of us, he had an unusually difficult time making friends during those years, as well, because of his differences with the other children.

Through his account of his teen years, we witness Reichen first starting to recognize his own sexual identity. He hides from himself behind a long-distance girlfriend who gives him the idea to apply to the Air Force Academy and gives him the moral support to do so. We also watch as he develops an unusually close friendship with "Ben Silverman" that evolves into Reichen's first love. However, when he realized that he had fallen in love with another man, it was too late to act upon it, nor was he ready to recognize or accept his own homosexuality.

His account of the US Air Force Academy is astounding. The challenges that cadets must face in order to succeed at the academy are remarkable. Beyond the rules, strict living environment, rigorous coursework, and general hazing of underclassmen, the training that cadets must endure is simply unbelieveable. Most Americans know that military men and women must complete a difficult basic training filled with hazing from superiors, hard tasks, filthy conditions, and other varied forms of strife. However, most are unaware of the continued training that cadets must face including how to survive as a Prisoner of War in an unfriendly territory.

As a Gay man, Lehmkuhl had to face much more than the ordinary cadet. He had to discover his own identity with little help from others and then learn to cope in an environment where homosexual activity is treated as a crime.

In the midst of his own personal struggles, Lehmkuhl was raped by two unknown men. He explains that it was the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that caused his rapists to victimize him and it was the same policy that made it impossible for him to report the incident. Had he reported the crime, he would have likely been investigated for homosexuality as a part of the DADT witchhunt.

As the book goes on, Reichen finally acknowledges his sexuality, has relationships with other men both military and civilian, learns to live a double life without losing his own identity, and meets other gay and lesbians in the Academy. Eventually, he and a few friends (out of necessity) develop a tightknit underground network of Gays to provide themselves with alibies and protect themselves from DADT policies.

Though Lehmkuhl admits that some of the accounts in the final chapters of his book did not actually occur to him but were stories that happened to people close to him, this book gives a strong portrayal of what it must be like to be a gay man in a military academy. In general, however, the read is believeable, if sometimes a little fantastic.

The reality is that many people I know, including myself, some of whom are gay, considered seeking an appointment to a military academy. When I was 18 I was not prepared to declare whether I was Gay, Straight, or otherwise and neither are most high school seniors, including those entering the military. Those young people should not be forced into a position where they may serve with honor only if they deny their own identity while their heterosexual peers have no similar requirement. Meanwhile, a misguided policy initially aimed at protecting Gays serving in the armed forces not only causes gay people to live in fear but actually allows harm to come to them both physically and emotionally.

Here's What We'll Say gives a strong account of the inequities in US military academies. All Gays should be free to come out of the closet to live openly without fear. This book goes a long way to expose the problems caused by DADT and to draw public attention to them.

To Settle a Bet

2006-11-20T19:52:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Boi from Troy and I had a friendly wager over the game on Saturday.

Cal won't be going to the Rose Bowl...again.

Because I am a man of my word, below you will find a few photos of the hottest man from Troy, Brian Cushing.

Ok, so this may not be the most revealing pic of Brian Cushing ever taken...but he is cute.

He would be perfect (if he went to Cal and wore less Red)

Strong Man!

Here's to you, Brian Cushing!

Oh, wait! That's not Cushing! That's Cal freshman kicker, Nick Demopoulos, Cal's Hottest Player! If the Bears had kept the game going into the fourth quarter, we'd all be looking at pics of Nick instead of Cushing.

So that's it, folks. The bet is paid off. Luckily, Cushing is easy on the eyes.

But don't expect to see this much red on the Land of Fruits and Nuts for a long, long time.

The One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple Moderate Voter of California?

2006-11-17T08:05:00.000-08:00

A commenter on an earlier post of mine commented that:

California isn't purple, it's Blue. I'm a Democrat and I voted for the Repub. candidates for governor and for insurance commissioner because I thought they would do the best job. I'd caution you not to read too much into the election, especially as any kind of an endorsement of the Republican party. As you said earlier the California Republican Party is still way too conservative for most Californians, including me. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Shane, my point is that California voted Dem this year because it had little other choice. I still maintain that it is a Purple state because that is where it would fall on a Red-to-Blue spectrum.

Why is it that California thought Arnold would do the best job as Governor? He certainly wouldn’t have won the election by such a large margin if he had campaigned on star power alone. The reason is that he is reasonably in line with what most Californians are looking for, politically. This is the same reason Dianne Feinstein remains such a popular figure here. Both are political moderates that lean left socially and lean right economically.

California tends to vote Democrat because voters are left little other option. The California Republican Party is too conservative for voters. Economically, the state is moderate to right. Socially, the state is moderate to left. For the record, both of these generalizations are on the whole of the state.

My point is that because the California Republican Party keeps putting up such conservative candidates, Californians won't vote for them. The Democrats are not highly favored in this state, either. Economically, few are really in line with the sentiments of voters. However, outside of political blogs, academic settings, and financial institutions, who considers fiscal matters sexy? People can get riled up over social issues.

If the California Republican Party downplayed the social issues or moved a little left on them, it could gain a lot of power in statewide races. Local districts are very gerrymandered and it would take a whole new strategy for Republicans to win a majority in the California Congressional Delegation, the Assembly, or the state Senate. But that doesn’t mean California is Blue.

This election (and others before it) show that the median voter theorem is heavily at work in California. For statewide office, voters prefer a moderate candidate that is neither socially conservative nor economically liberal. This is why moderate Arnold handily beat tax-hiker Angelides. This is why moderate Democrat DiFi beats just about everybody. This is why pro-choice Pete Wilson won so often.

California’s median voter isn’t to be found in the San Francisco Bay Area or in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area any more than it is to be found in the Fresno/Clovis area. He (or she) is a strong moderate looking a little like Ahnold and DiFi.

Boi from Troy's Questions

2006-11-15T23:42:00.000-08:00

As posted earlier, Boi from Troy and I agreed to do some back and forth analysis of Saturday's game. We also placed a small wager on the game.

These are my responses to his questions:

1) It is rumored that Jeff Tedford has some magical spell to get inside the brain of Pete Carroll and give him fits: fact or fiction?

Fact! The spell was recently uncovered in a stack of papers belonging to famed Cal coach, Lynn "Pappy" Waldorf, and supposedly allows the user to get inside the mind of any worthy opponent. The spell, apparently was frequently used by Pappy in the glory days of Cal Football.

It doesn't take a spell, though, to see how Carroll has developed the USC offense. Clearly, the Trojan offense is based around an explosive rushing game with both barrels blazing. Those barrels used to be Bush and White. Now they are Moody and Washington, but are no less formidable. It isn't going to be an easy victory for us this Saturday.

2) How devastating was the loss to Arizona and how are the Bears--and campus--coping with it, or are they just moving on?

It wasn't all that long ago that losses were commonplace in Berkeley. We never expect an easy season or good luck to follow our team. Lately though, we have been a little spoiled. Ok, a LOT spoiled.

After a bit of crying on my fraternity brothers' shoulders and cursing Jeff Tedford (while momentarily forgetting his very lackluster predecessor, Tom Holmoe), I suddenly realized that the loss isn't so bad. I don't think any of us would have been the least bit upset to be vying for a BCS berth, we would really like to end our Rose Bowl drought. Remember that we haven't played on New Year's Day in Pasadena since 1959. 47 years is longer than any Pac-10 or Big-10 team has gone without a Rose Bowl, ever.

3) Which #10 scares you more as a Cal fan--John David Booty with his efficient passing or Brian Cushing with his explosiveness off the line coming around the backside?

Cushing, definitely. In Arizona the Bears showed problems with our passing game and Cushing could put a lot of pressure on us. Our passing defense may not be the best in the world, but Daymeion Hughes is always good for a few picks. We should be able to hold our own against Booty.

4) If, god forbid, Cal were to win, have the students in Berkeley, like, prepared the biggest bong ever?

When we ended the long Big Game drought in 2002, the fans not only rushed the field but tore down our own goalposts--both sets--and marched them down the streets of Berkeley. Stanfurd has long feared Cal fans and has kept a fence around their old field, lined with police officers, in case we get a little out of control.

If God willing, Cal were to win, I would expect the fans to go souvenir hunting. You might want to hide Traveler from the Cal Student Section.

5) Our wager is that the loser has to post a photo-montage of the hawtest guy from the winning team. Can we see your selection now?

My selection is Nick Demopoulos, our freshman kicker.

Honorable mention to both Joe Ayoob and Andrew Larson.

Southern California Love

2006-11-15T20:41:00.000-08:00

I have been a big fan of Boi from Troy for quite a while now. I only wish that the guys over there had gone to Cal instead of SC.

In honor of the longest-held University rivalry in California, Scott at Boi from Troy and I will be doing a little back and forth analysis of the matchup for Saturday.

To make things interesting, we've made a friendly little wager: the loser posts a picture of the hottest player from the winning team.

In related news...

USC's infamous alumnus, OJ Simpson hit headlines today. It appears that he has written a book and done a two part interview to air this week.

The book doesn't actually say that he killed Nicole but gives an account of what would have happened if he had killed her.

Apparently, OJ is now looking to find the murderer on the talk show circuit.

No Time to Smell the Roses, Yet...

2006-11-15T20:37:00.000-08:00

So last weekend’s loss to Arizona made me cry a little. That is, until I realized that there really is only one Bowl Game that matters to an Old Blue and we haven’t seen it since Eisenhower was still President. If we beat the University of Spoiled Children this week, Cal goes to the Rose Bowl.

I, for one, would take the Rose Bowl over the BCS Championship any day.

Or we could go to the Holiday Bowl, again, if we lose.

Last week, we failed pretty miserably at Arizona. An Achilles heel of our was definitely exploited. Once Marshawn Lynch got stopped, Nate Longshore had to play the game for us and just couldn’t do it alone.

And Lady Luck decided to take a vacation. DeSean Jackson pulled out some of his magic and gave us a 79-yard touchdown…but stepped out of bounds to nullify it. We intercepted twice in the third quarter but lost both to penalties.

But U$C isn’t unstoppable. We knew that when we beat them before their winning streak started, Texas knew it at the Championship game last season, and Oregon State knew it just a few weeks ago. Hell, even Tommy the Trojan knows that they aren’t 100% effective.

Cal’s special teams are among the best around.

Look at punter Andrew Larson, for instance. Besides making me sweat every time I see him on the field, he has already made us forget that Aussie kid that kicked the ball last year. DeSean Jackson is the miracle man that can turn a punt return into a touchdown without a thought.

I know he is Boi from Troy’s dream man, but Booty can get a little shaky under pressure. He’s no Matt Leinart, but he is good. It’s no secret that our pass defense is lacking, but if we can keep the pressure on for the whole game (instead of just one half) we have a chance at weakening the Southern California game.

It certainly won’t hurt that we have Daymeion Hughes out there to pick off a few interceptions for the Bears. If we can prevent penalties (which we seemed to have a hard time with in Arizona) the Trojans passing game could suffer a little.

Our defense is going to need to hold very strong against the USC rushing game. They continue to be a leader in rushing yards. Fortunately, our defense ain’t too shabby, either. Last week, though, they were a bit weak. I think on Saturday they will remember to bring their game.

Junior running back, Marshawn Lynch is so hot right now. That is, when he isn’t being stopped by an Arizona defense. In case a similar scenario happens at the Coliseum, Nate Longshore will need to pick up his game.

The key to the game is to stay focused, remain aggressive for all four quarters, and keep the pressure on. The boys in Blue and Gold have it in them to win if they can rattle the Southern Cal offense with some good pressure against Booty and some picks by Hughes. One of our biggest setbacks has been that our team only plays aggressively for about half the game. We can't risk that against USC.

Remember that the Golden Bears and the Trojans have a 5-5 record in the last 10 contests. In fact, Holmoe picked up some of those wins. Tedford can surely pull this one out and send us to the Rose Bowl.

Of course, my pick to win is California. But it will be close...too close.

Cause Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut...

2006-11-15T18:28:00.000-08:00

Boi from Troy posted that Mike Spence, head of the uber-conservative California Republican Assembly wants to audit the California Republican Party. Spence seems to claim that with the millions and millions of dollars spent, we shouldn’t have lost.

Over at FlashReport, Spence gave his views:

Was Victory '06 a success? After over 20 million dollars spent that is an open question for me. I have my doubts. The Governor was on the way to victory long before the GOTV operation was needed. Maybe Poizner benefited. Although he really benifited from Bustamante.

First, I want to point out that I know something on this scale has not been tried before. I know many Victory '06 staffers. Many of them are great operatives. People can work hard and effectively in campaigns and still not achieve objectives. To be successful in the future requires us to take a hard look at some of these things.

I admit to only knowing a few things. Turnout in GOP areas was lower than four years ago. Imagine that. A "GOP" Governor is winning by 17% and turnout is worse than when we lose by 5%. What gives?

Then, Spence goes on to blame the National GOP collapse, the Governor for not extending his coattails further, and a lack of enough GOTV efforts by the party. In fact, he does his best to place the blame on everybody and everything that went wrong.

Except of course for what the real problem was.

He placed no blame on the far right of our party for alienating voters. California voters are not excited by right-wingers like Dennis Mountjoy, Mike Spence, Dick Mountjoy, and the like who grandstand and give our party at bad name. Chuck Poochigian, Tony Strickland, Tom McClintock, and Claude Parrish are all too conservative for our state.

If the California Republican Party wants to succeed, it must take a page from Schwarzenegger's playbook. It must learn that California wants to embrace economically conservative candidates so long as they are socially moderate.

Instead of auditing CRP and blaming them for the great loss, we should be dumping people like Spence as fast as we can.

The Progress of South Africa

2006-11-14T22:51:00.000-08:00

It is frightening to realize that South Africa has recently granted Gay people more rights than the US currently offers. In my own lifetime, South Africa has transformed from Apartheid to a nation that offers Gays (of any race) the same rights as straight people.

Meanwhile, several states in the US recently passed constitutional bans on Gay Marriage and the Republican party (both nationally and statewide) specifically name a rollback in Gay Rights as a targeted party platform issue.

How is it that the great bastion of freedom attempts to deny basic rights to people like me based on sexual orientation but a nation that was among the most oppressive only two decades ago now offers full freedom to Gay people?

A Bad Year for the Roses

2006-11-14T18:54:00.000-08:00

No, I am not talking about the Rose Bowl. My hopes are still high that Cal can pull a victory against the University of South Central this weekend. In fact, I will be blogging about that that at some point this week.

Today I am predicting another bad year for the Republicans. As everybody in politics knows, the campaign starts the day after the previous election, if not sooner. Why then are the Republicans already failing?

When the voters very clearly tell you that things need to change, it would be logical to change in the direction the voters intend. Not so, according to the choices currently being made in Sacramento and DC.

Republican members of the California Assembly look like they will soon replace George Plescia with even-more-conservative Mike Villines from the Fresno-Clovis area to be the new Assembly Minority Leader. True, Plescia was no strong leader for the GOP. Susan Kennedy referred to him looking like a deer stuck in the headlights and Governor Schwarzenegger expressed his concern that Plescia couldn’t control the “wild-bunch” of Republicans in the Assembly. Still it makes little sense to find a more conservative member to lead our party out of the current quagmire. At this rate, expect the California GOP to be even more irrelevant than it already is.

But it doesn’t seem the national party is any smarter. In the Senate, it looks like the minority leader will be Senator Mitch McConell, an anti-gay “Christianist” that votes a straight Republican ticket. That doesn’t sound like change to me, folks. Why don’t we see if we can find somebody closer to the status quo? Is Dick Cheney eligible for the post?

We can’t expect the foolhardy crowd in the House to provide our party with any good leadership, can we? The three favorite candidates to move into Pelosi’s old office when she becomes Speaker are John Boehner, Joe Barton, and Mike Pence. Boehner we can all remember from his role in the Foley scandal and cover-up where he may or may not have told Speaker Hastert what he knew about Foley’s indiscretions. Pence is an extreme conservative hoping to bring change to the GOP by being even more rightwing. Barton long spouted the necessity of traditional family values before his divorce in 2003 and marriage to another woman soon after. He has received extremely large contributions from energy companies while consistently denying the existence of global warming. When he seems to be the more moderate of the candidates for the job, the GOP is in trouble.

Unless the Republican Party wakes up and realizes it needs to change, it will continue to fall by the wayside. I expected the recent election to be a sufficient wakeup call, but apparently was wrong. What will it take to make the GOP move a little left?

Military Equality Alliance

2006-11-14T18:21:00.000-08:00

Today, I discovered an organization of Gay men and women working for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies of the US Military. Most, if not all, of those involved with the organization are former servicemen and women themselves and have lived under DADT policies.

I have blogged before about my feelings regarding DADT. I believe the policy is causing harm to our military by unjustly reducing the number of individuals eligible to enlist and causing harm to the brave men and women serving in our military with the daily fear that they may eventually be “outted” and receive a Section 8 discharge.

The arguments against the full integration of Gays into the military are ridiculous. When several other countries, including Israel and England among many others, have integrated Gays, there was no noticeable difference in unit cohesion or morale. Women and ethnic minorities have served in an integrated US military with little negative incident.

In fact, Gays are already fully integrated into the military and usually fear the DADT policies more than their fellow servicemen and women.

The Military Equality Alliance has a blog that I highly recommend you all visit from time to time. Their current work is on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which they (and I) believe will have a much more fair shake under the new congressional leadership. Look for it to receive a hearing in the 110th Congress.

Three's Company

2006-11-14T07:41:00.000-08:00

And then there were three. With Giuliani’s establishment of an exploratory committee for a presidential run in 2008, there are now three Republicans that have tentatively thrown their hats in the ring.

But who are these three Republicans? After such a beating by the Democrats last week, do any of the three have what it takes to lead the party in a new direction? Do any of them have the ability to win?

Duncan Hunter has served in the House of Representatives since 1981 and currently serves the 52nd District of California. He has a strong military background and even has a son currently serving in the United States Marine Corps. His voting record on Gay Rights is less than astounding: with a vote in favor of Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment, he has earned a zero on a recent scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign. Though Hunter is relatively unknown and has little chance of being a serious contender for president, he has recently gained some notoriety for his support for a fence spanning the entire US/Mexico border.

John McCain failed as a presidential candidate against Bush before the 2000 election. The popular senator from Arizona is largely a moderate and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Once a Prisoner of War himself, McCain has been a staunch supporter of the US military. He has supported sending more troops into Iraq as a method to protect our interests and bring the war to an end in a more timely manner. Notably, he has spoken against the use of torture on prisoners we have captured in the war on terror. He has also taken a relatively pro-environment stance, is pro-life, and labels himself pro-Gay Rights. The HRC, however, has given him a score of 33 for the 109th Congress because his only pro-Gay vote was against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In the past, he has said he supports domestic partnerships but opposes Same-Sex Marriage.

Rudy Giuliani gained his infamy as the Mayor of New York City. He became a hero to millions of Americans in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 when he emerged as a strong American leader in the face of the terrorist attacks. Giuliani has called himself pro-choice and pro-Gay Rights. In fact, the former mayor famously lived with two Gay men for a time. As Mayor Giuliani signed a huge plan for domestic partners in New York City and has spoken in favor of Domestic Partnerships but not of Gay Marriage. Republicans are unlikely to find a popular candidate for the presidency that is more favorable toward the war in Iraq than Giuliani. As mayor during 9/11, Giuliani made a name for himself as a leader against anti-US terror.

For comparison purposes, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have both been tossed around as potential Democrat candidates for the White House. Both are in favor of Gay Rights but fall short of supporting Gay Marriage. Both Senators received high scores from the Human Rights Campaign. In fact, while Kerry scored a perfect score, Hillary Clinton did not support legislation that would grant same-sex partners of US citizens or permanent residents the same rights and privileges enjoyed by spouses of heterosexual citizens and permanent residents. Both Clinton and Kerry have been critics of the war in Iraq but both initially voted in favor of invading the country.

Presently, I am having a hard time supporting any of the candidates being considered for the presidency. McCain comes closest to getting my support. However, he is rapidly aging and has deteriorating health and isn’t quite where I would hope he would be ideologically. Hunter is too much of a scandal-ridden Border-Nazi for my taste. Giuliani is more of an image than a pragmatic politician. Kerry’s political sun has set and he missed his chance. Another Clinton White House scares me.

Why can’t there be a good candidate in either party that generally supports free trade, laissez-faire economics, and a balanced budget while also supporting Gay equality, constitutional rights, and other libertarian freedoms?

Gay Television

2006-11-13T18:40:00.000-08:00

Now that Queer as Folk has ended and America is between seasons on Project Runway what is there to watch on TV for a Gay guy? I have decided to take a quick look at Gay television entertainment.

Kathy Griffin's My Life on the D-List is a funny show from a funny lady. Sure she sometimes gets a little more political than I care for during my leisure time, and true she is a straight woman, but she captures a definite Gay male audience because she can be so sarcastically funny. Definitely worth an occasional watch.

The L-Word is something I have yet to see. It is definitely geared toward Lesbians more than Gay men, so it really hasn't caught my attention. If you have seen it, please comment and let me know whether it is worth watching.

American Idol starts again in January. I really only watch it to make fun of the really bad performers in the first few weeks. Then I start watching again toward the end of the season so I sound like I know what I am talking about when everybody is raving about who got kicked off and who wins. I really think the cute bald rock-star guy should've won last season instead of the weird gray-haired guy. Also, as a Cal Bear, I really hate William Hung.

I was recently turned on to Desperate Housewives. Great show. Attractive people. Outrageous drama. It may be written for an audience of middle-aged housewives, but was developed by a Gay guy who clearly knows a little something about what Gay guys want to watch on tv.

Dante's Cove has been heavily publicized among the young gay audience. Unfortunately, it isn't available on any of the tv stations I get. I supposed I could download a few episodes and see if they are any good, but I am too lazy. I have heard that if you like Buffy, Angel, or Charmed and are Gay, then this is the show for you. I loved all three. Has anybody seen the show yet? Is it worth watching?

I, for one, really miss Queer as Folk. Until I find a new cast of friends to spend an hour each week with, I will feed my crush on Michael Novatny (as played by Hal Sparks) by watching the DVDs.

Any suggestions of shows I should watch or have missed?

The Last of the Election Wrap-Up Posts

2006-11-13T17:54:00.000-08:00

I believe this will be my last post that is simply an analysis of the November election. Really, I think we are all tired of hearing about what Speaker Pelosi will do and how the country has called for bipartisan efforts, change, blah blah, Iraq, blah, etc. So, my final analysis will focus on what the election means to California Republicans and Gays, but not necessarily on Republicans that happen to be Gay.

I have always maintained that California is NOT a blue state. It is impossible to imagine it as a red state, either. Really, Californians are purple but forced left. Similarly, Gays are not hard Democrats. Even Log Cabin Republicans like myself have a hard time voting Republican because of the anti-Gay rhetoric from the right. We are forced left.

But we already knew their was an association between Gays and purple.

California showed its purple nature last week. At the top of the ticket was a very independent minded Republican winning by a huge margin. With the exception of Steve Poizner, the rest of the statewide ballot was decidedly Blue.

I have already looked at what makes Schwarzenegger different. He and Poizner both are fiscally conservatives with a background that shows that they favor business interests in general. California prides itself on a strong economy based on a combination of agriculture, natural resources, and commerce.

But, you ask, weren’t Strickland, McClintock, and other Republicans on the ballot strong economic conservatives?

Yes they were! However, Poizner and Schwarzenegger successfully painted themselves as social moderates. It also didn’t hurt that Poizner ran against Cruz Bustamante, who nobody really likes.

Schwarzenegger, especially is moderate-to-left on many social issues. He follows the majority of Californians when he discusses Gay Rights, Environmental Policy, and Criminal Justice. His basic view seems to be that government shouldn’t interfere where it doesn’t need to but should step in to protect the rights and property of individuals when necessary.

This (small-L) libertarian sentiment can be seen in his stances all over the place. He is pro-Gay Rights in protecting our rights to economic and social liberty and justice. He is pro-environment because he sees a government necessity in protecting the environment as a public good, but not so pro-environment that it would significantly impede the rights and liberty of individuals or business to operate or do as they wish (within reason) on their own property.

Californians, clearly, tend to lean left on social issues. Except in rural areas and the Central Valley, Californians tend to favor liberal social issues. Statewide, Californians tend to favor moderate economic policies.

More so, Gays tend to be socially liberal. I have met very few members of the GLBT community that are not socially liberal. It is extremely difficult to identify as a social conservative if most of what you hear from the right is how you are an abomination and living a deviant lifestyle. That does not mean, however, that Gays necessarily really identify with the Democratic platforms. Many Gays are not as economically liberal as the Democrats would like.

Last week’s election is a grand opportunity for the California Republican Party to take a serious look at itself and decide whether it wants to remain relevant. By rewriting its platforms to focus primarily on conservative economic goals while remaining socially libertarian, the CRP can win back the state.

The greatest and most successful Republicans to come through the ranks of the California Republican Party include Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All three developed conservative economic policies while remaining socially moderate or libertarian. The policies of all three believed that the government that governs best is that which governs least.

If the California Republican Party rejected its current platform based primarily on conservative social issues, it would be in a far better position to recapture the votes of Californians. Further, it would be easier for Gays to vote Republican with a clear conscience (at least in California). Over time, this could lead to major reform nationally.

My hope is that the CRP will take a few minutes to look at the current state of affairs and recognize its own shortcomings. If it continues to serve as a bastion for social conservatives, it will continue to fall into obscurity in the state. If it learns to embrace the socially moderate views of its most successful members, perhaps it will have an opportunity to reform California while limiting the power of the tax-happy socialists disguised as Democrats in this state.

Where Do We Go From Here?

2006-11-13T07:56:00.000-08:00

Again, to quote Evita, “What happens now? Where are we going to?” These seem to be some of the most relevant questions when thinking about where America will be headed in the immediate future.

I have already stated that I think Speaker Pelosi will need to move a couple steps right. Similarly, I think we have already begun to see Bush move ever-so-slightly toward the center with the acceptance of Rumsfeld’s resignation. While I certainly question whether we will see more of Pelosi’s spirit of bipartisanship, I remain skeptical that we will see much from Bush.

What we will see from Bush will be Vetoes. Lots and lots of lefty legislation will get the Presidential axe. To date, President Bush has only vetoed one piece of legislation (regarding stem cell research). Certainly a Democratically led Congress will pass more legislation that is not in keeping with the President’s views than the Republican led Congress did. If so, we should expect the President to be more willing to pull out the Veto pen than in years past.

The House of Reps will remain a wild and rambunctious chamber of politicians clamoring to push reactionary legislation to whatever happened to hit headlines that day. The conservatives will continue to push for a constitutional ban on Gay marriage while the liberals will continue to push for the US to leave Iraq. The real difference will be in what gets heard above the noise. Speaker Pelosi will control the floor schedule and will appoint the new committee chairs. The Democrats will decide what issues get significant floor time. Undoubtedly the Iraq War and other military reforms will take center stage while socially conservative issues will be quieted.

This does not mean, however, that things are going to be any better for Gay people. While the Federal Marriage Amendment is now off the table for the moment (thankfully), this opens too wide a door for the left to grandstand on the very same issue: Gay Marriage. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Gay Marriage isn’t going to help us any. We already know that any pro-Gay Marriage legislation that makes it out of Congress is almost certainly going to be Vetoed by President Bush. Further, few bills from the House make it through the Senate.

Which brings me to the more reasonable of the two houses of Congress, the Senate. The Senate has a well-earned reputation for being the place where legislation goes to die. That house tends to be much more moderate and well-regulated. Few reactionary bills get serious consideration in the Senate.

I sincerely doubt that we will see much change as a result of the shakeup in the Senate. The newly elected Democratic leaders tend to be on the moderate side, and often as conservative as their Republican counterparts. The partisan leadership of the Senate is less important than the leadership of the House because the rules of the Senate are largely traditional and based on seniority rather than party affiliation. Further, the presiding member of the Senate will remain Vice-President Dick Cheney who gets to cast tie-breaking votes. Also, this moderate house is further moderated by the close political division: the Senate is nearly divided equally in half by party.

So, in terms of where we are headed, expect little change other than President Bush getting to exercise his Veto power a little more frequently. Certainly, he will have to fight harder to continue the status quo. The prevailing political winds are calling for a change of direction. Expect Democrats to interpret this as a complete reversal of Bush policies. I remain hopeful that Pelosi will keep her word and remain level-headed, bipartisan, and fair. If not, the Senate will continue to moderate legislation.

I am Woman, Hear Me Roar!

2006-11-09T18:08:00.000-08:00

In numbers too big to ignore, a Democrat Majority was elected for Congress. This means that the United States will have its first female Speaker of the House in Nancy Pelosi. I firmly believe that the Dems did not win by merit of their own superiority but because Americans were fatigued of failing Republican policies. This leads to an interesting dilemma that I am sure Pelosi has already begun to examine.

Should she remain the Liberal San Francisco Progressive we know her to be? Or should she transform into the characterization of what the American people currently want, namely a Pragmatic Centrist?

In 1994, the Republican Party came roaring onto Capitol Hill after a long tenancy by big-government-loving Democrats. The Class of ’94 promised to be different—they promised to cut government, to be critical of the Clinton administration, and to create pragmatic solutions to the problems the nation faced.

Then they got re-elected. Again. And Again.

Soon they forgot why they were there in the first place. They had gone Washington and ceased to be the champions of their districts. To make up for it they threw lots of earmarked money back home and espoused what they claimed to be traditional Conservative values on the hill. Except the values they loved so much really looked like tax cuts mixed with lots of Big Government and bureaucratic waste.

Now the Dems get their turn at the helm again. If they learn from their own mistakes (and the GOP’s) then Pelosi could turn the whole ship around. She just needs to make the right decision and move a bit toward the center. This could be a great new day for America.

Americans have spoken. Contrary to what the media might tell you, they did not vote only according to party. They voted based on what they saw as good or bad. Big government, unbalanced budgets, overspending, and mismanagement were seen as bad. But the people did not favor overly liberal, “progressive” values either. The candidates elected were people on the Right wing of the Democratic Party or the Left wing of the Republican party. The Center is gaining momentum.

And here is where Pelosi comes in. If she fails to build a moderate House of Representatives, she will have failed America. Our nation has cried out for a centrist approach in Congress. The people generally agree that the Bush policies both foreign and domestic are not working and the Republican-led Congress had failed to find solutions. America needs her problems to be solved. If Pelosi fails to lead the House in a moderate and fair manner, she will have broken the orders given to her by the voters on Tuesday and our nation will be the worse for it. Worse, our nation will be angry.

If Pelosi begins her term as Speaker in a centrist and problem-solving way, she will be seen as the great American hero and all of us will be the better for it.

I hope for the latter solution.

Hasta la Vista, Baby!

2006-11-08T13:29:00.000-08:00

It is notable that in the sea of Republican losses last night there was a massive victory for a Republican in a well-known bastion of liberalism.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won re-election last night in a landslide victory.

It was hardly unexpected. For weeks (or months) now it has been very apparent that the Governator was going to win by a large margin. He is a seemingly unstoppable force in California politics right now, and is a Republican in a year where Republicans are getting slaughtered everywhere.

What is it about this legendary man that has given him the ability to win so handily? Can we apply his magic to the rest of our party?

The simplest answer is that he not a conservative but a moderate. Many Republicans have criticized him for ceasing to be a REAL Republican. While I don’t believe the Governor to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). In fact, he has moved in a direction other Republicans should follow.

Governor Schwarzenegger is a pragmatic centrist. He maintains strict principles that he believes to be necessary for the growth of California’s economy. His social values are more in keeping with the “Small Government” tenets of the Republican philosophy than the Republican Party Platforms are. In reality, Governor Schwarzenegger is a better Republican than any other elected in California.

He won last night because the good people of California see him for what he has accomplished and attempted to accomplish in California. During the Recall Campaign, the Governor took his seat as an outsider loved by the state because he was not a seasoned politician, had glamour and celebrity, and was promising to lead in a way that was different. Throughout this campaign, the Governor promised to continue to lead in this unique way. Instead of guiding the state through the standard party lines, he has chosen a path right down the center aisle of the Legislature, knocking a few people out of the way as he goes.

Other politicians should learn from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s technique. The reason the GOP sustained such huge losses last night was because the people are generally tired of partisan gridlock and rhetoric. The Republicans that currently control the House, Senate, and Presidency have said much, but shown little progress. The Democrats that are currently serving have done little better but have not been obligated with the responsibility for Congressional leadership. It is important to note that the Democrats that were elected to fill formerly Republican seats last night were primarily moderate to conservative, politically. This indicates that the voters were not looking to replace incumbents with politicians with radically different policies in all areas.

In general, the American people are looking for pragmatic leaders willing to work across the aisle with little or no discomfort. We are growing tired of career politicians that argue only in terms of Republican or Democrat values and would like to replace them with leaders looking for solutions without regard to parties.

Where Do We Go From Here?

2006-11-08T12:37:00.000-08:00

To quote Evita, “Where do we go from here? This isn’t where we intended to be.”

I am sure that Karl Rove didn’t even attempt to sleep last night and that President Bush woke up with a sickening knot in his stomach and a headache worse than any he has experienced since he gave up the bottle. Indeed, the Republican Party is experiencing one killer hangover today.

I for one, am not completely upset by the results of last night. Just like all other members of the GOP, I am terrified of the prospect of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. But much good could come from these election results.

There are several analyses I would like to draw from last night’s election and will be posting them soon on this blog. Among them, you will find my predictions for what will occur under a Speaker Pelosi House, how the Senate will operate with such a split membership, how policy will be changed, and how party membership will change.

I really do think that this could be a pivotal moment for both parties and for the direction of this country.

In the Navy!

2006-11-01T16:17:00.000-08:00

Gays serving in the military has long been a topic of discussion and debate. The former Democrat President, harolded by many misinformed people as "Gay-Friendly," established the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule. With friends like him, who needs enemies?

The truth is, Gay people have long served in the military. Just like every single other establishment on the planet, we have already infiltrated all branches of the military and served with distinction. Reichen Lehmkuhl is only the latest example of a successful man in uniform who served our nation with the highest of honors while hiding his sexuality from the world.

After attending the United States Air Force Academy, Lehmkuhl spent 5 highly successful years serving our country proudly. At the end of that time, he was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain.

Then he came out.

Had he been outted in high school, in the Academy, or during his service, he would have become ineligible for the military. Clearly, Captain Lehmkuhl was a good match for the US military and served his country well in peacetime and in battle. In order to do so, he was forced to keep something about himself hidden to the world, although he and his family had long known his sexual orientation.

It was once explained to me that it isn't that Gays are unfit for military service but because straight members of the military wouldn't accept them. As I remember from my history books, Black people segregated for the same reasons (read: Buffalo Soldiers). It was feared not that Blacks couldn't fight as well as Whites but that Blacks and Whites would fight amongst themselves. The rules were changed and Blacks serve right along side Whites in the US military without much incident.

But, you might ask, "Gays want to have sex with men and would make the straight men nervous or would be distracted by the other men?" Again, I remember a similar argument being made about women serving in the armed services. Women now serve in the military alongside their male counterparts. In fact, the only differences in their service are that they are ineligible to be drafted under current law and are unable to perform certain tasks because of their physical differences from men.

We may also look at other male dominated institutions to gain a better perspective of how the introduction of Gay people might affect the military. Social organizations such as men's clubs and college fraternities have both been integrated by Gay men. Notably, they have not been similarly integrated by women. College fraternities, in particular, have always been known as especially aggressive and heterocentric. Even with the addition of openly Gay men, they continue to be just as aggressive if slightly less heterocentric and certainly less homophobic. It should be noted that in most college fraternities, brothers, whether Gay or straight, cohabitate in a shared living environment including shared bedrooms, bathrooms, and showers. Athletic teams have similarly been integrated by those who are openly Gay. The result hasn't been earth shattering. While there is anecdotal evidence of physical violence or social rejection against Gays in these establishments, the results have been a far cry from the effects feared by those wishing to keep Gays out of the military.

Going back to Reichen Lehmkuhl, he has a new book that hit shelves earlier this week called "Here's What We'll Say." I haven't had the opportunity to pick up a copy yet, but I am very interested to see what Lehmkuhl wrote about his years in the military.

Given that the United States is currently in the middle of a war and has struggled to recruit enough qualified volunteers to serve, it makes sense to broaden military eligibility requirements to be inclusive of Gays. Already, the military has loosened its requirements regarding the age of an enlistee. While I don't think that allowing openly Gay people into the military is suddenly going to create a bevy of new recruits for the US military, it would be a fair thing to do.

On that note, I will leave you with a final thought. There is an old joke that essentially asks if "Homosexuality is a disease, then can I call in Gay to work?" Similarly, if there is a draft, can I respond and say, "Nope. I can't be drafted today. Still Gay."

And the Beat Goes On...

2006-10-30T19:08:00.000-08:00

Not only have my posts gotten me called a liberal heterophobe, but now it is being implied that I believe that Gay people must prove we are people before we get rights. My comments on his blog attempt to explain my posting.

Clearly you didn't read my entire post on my blog. While did say that we should withdraw our focus on winning the right to marry in the courts, my argument was for our community to focus on real progress in Gay rights.
Specifically, I live in California where Gay people are legislatively equal to straight people (with the exception of the word marriage, alone). But there are too many places in our nation where that is not the case. In many states we can not adopt children, we have no form of domestic partnerships, and have no legal protections against hate crimes. These are real issues that need real progress.
The focus on forcing the courts to grant same-sex marriage is very much hurting our push for other, more important, equal rights. We should focus on true equality first!

In reality, what I was trying to explain with my most recent post is that while Gay people want the right to marry and deserve it, it should be placed lower on our list of priorities. The Queer community is being denied a great number of rights across this country because of our sexual orientation. Those rights are of immediate necessity to many Gays and Lesbians and should be fought for now. Marriage is of less immediate necessity but is known to infuriate many of those who oppose Gay people on even the slightest level. Instead of attempting to prevent our right to marry, they go further and attempt to withhold other rights from us.

As such, I firmly believe we should not back down from our fight to secure equal rights for all Gay men, women, and children. The word "marriage" should be a part of these rights because it is part of our equality to straight people. However, we should be smart about our struggle and fight for those things most necessary to us first.

A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage

2006-10-25T19:41:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't become a straight, Christianist, homophobic operative of the religious right. Trust me, I am as Queer as I have ever been. And yes, I do think that we Gay people are totally equal to straight people and should have every equal right, including marriage. However, given the state of our nation and the Gay rights movement today, a good case can be made as to why we shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.

Today, New Jersey made a ruling that is being touted as a precursor to Gay marriage. It is not. What the court said today is that the State of New Jersey must provide all the rights that married couples enjoy to same-sex couples. They did not, however, say that Gay people can get married. Their ruling will likely provide a system identical to California's. We are seperate and almost equal.

But if we learned anything from the civil rights movement, seperate is inherently unequal. We should be allowed to marry. But the title of this post is "A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage." We shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.

In states where Gay marriage is likely to be legalized, we don't need it. In California, we have all the benefits of marriage that the state can give us, except for the word marriage. Soon, New Jersey will give those same rights to Gay people. Several other states have granted protections for the Queer community and a few have even protected Gay families.

Unfortunately, in many other states, Gay people have few (or no) protections. In some states, not only can't Gay people adopt children, they can lose custody of children that they adopted in other states. Until quite recently, it was illegal for Gay men to have sex in some places. As a community, Gays should be focusing on promoting the basic necessary rights for our families to survive in this world.

Gay marriage scares little old ladies in the South. It scares a lot of other people, too. The people that Andrew Sullivan calls "Christianists" get motivated by their homophobia and act on it. They vote. There is a reason why several states have gone so far as to repeal Gay rights in some places and enact constitutional bans on any form of domestic partnership or civil union between same-sex couples. Every time our community goes out there demanding the right to marry, more and more single-issue voters try to elect the Mountjoys of the world- namely homophobic " Biblical constructionists" that provide no benefit to society.

This isn't to say that we should give up the fight. Gay people should be recognized as completely equal to straight people. Instead of so loudly proclaiming that we want to marry, we should be focusing on protection for Gay people and families in places where there is none. We should be working to provide support for young people terrified to come out of the closet. We should be working to improve the public image of the Gay community.

We know that not all Gays are sexually promiscuous demons ready to molest innocent children and turn them Gay, too. AIDS is neither the Gay Cancer or a punishment from God for our evil ways. Further, we are not hated by God or doomed to spend an eternity in hell because we want to sleep with a person of the same gender. We also know that we do not simply choose to be Gay. But we haven't done a very good job of portraying all of that to those who fear us.

What we should be doing is attempt to live our lives as best we can. If we want to marry, we should find partners and live as married couples with whatever form of civil union we can get from our states and santify them with an appropriate ceremony. We should live in homes next to theirs, mow our lawns next to them, raise our children next to theirs, and invite them to our bbqs.

Then they might finally see us as people.

Endorsements!

2006-10-23T18:44:00.000-07:00

While I understand that many political crackheads have already submitted their ballots for the November election (I submitted mine almost a week ago), the elections are coming up. But you probably already knew that, unless, of course, you have been living under a rock for the past few months.

Here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, we have a super-sized ballot full of ballot initiatives and statewide candidates for office. To help you make sense of the madness, allow me to give you some brief advice on your ballot.

GOVERNOR- Arnold Schwarzenegger
My endorsement absolutely goes to the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has a brilliant record on Gay rights and the economy and has proven his moderate credentials. Phil Angelides is a hack that would overtax the state and drive business away without providing any substantial improvements on Schwarzenegger's social policies.

Lt. GOVERNOR- Tom McClintock
What does a Governor Lite do anyway? Since this is a post primarily concerned with waiting for the real governor to leave the state, die, or otherwise vacate his office, it is hard to come up with a good reason to have a Lt. Gov.

A harder question to answer is who is Garamendi? McClintock is a proven conservative. While I definitely disapprove of his views on Gay rights, he is a fiscal watchdog that would do a fine job...if that had anything to do with the office of Lt. Gov. I will endorse him anyway because I really don't like the idea of a no-name Democrat keeping the seat of the Governor-in-Waiting warm.

ATTORNEY GENERAL- Chuck Poochigian
I have already posted on the reasons I am not supporting Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown for Attorney General. Despite the impact the office can have on Gay issues in California, Brown won't be tough on crime. Poochigian would be. It's that simple.

SECRETARY OF STATE- No Endorsement
I heavily considered giving my endorsement to Bruce McPherson, but he doesn't excite me. After former SOS, Kevin Shelley screwed up and was forced into resignation from office in a cloud of shame, McPherson stepped up to the plate to be appointed SOS. Well, sort of.

I think somebody forgot to tell him he was named Secretary.

His term was marked, well, by nothing. Granted that Secretary of State is not the most exciting office in Sacramento, but he seems to have kept things going as business as usual without any remarkable innovation.

Bowen, on the other hand, is a rebel rouser that seems to want to go totally back to paper ballots. While it is good to have a healthy fear of electronic voting machines, her fear of technology borders on paranoid.

CONTROLLER- Tony Strickland
Who would be a better person to elect as the official fiscal watchdog of the state than the man who successfully sued Gray Davis? Strickland was the youngest person to ever serve in the Assembly, was a powerful force in YAF, and would be a strong leader to preside over the Board of Equalization. And his opponent? Some Democratic unknown.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER- Steve Poizner
I won't even pretend to have a rationale for why I am endorsing Poizner. Really, I just have a great disdain for Cruz Bustamante and his greedy ways. Cruz has spent the greater part of his adult life "earning" a paycheck in elected office. In his most recent gig, he didn't even have to do anything to keep making six-figures except wait around for a Governor to leave office...and he managed to do a poor job at that! Even more recently, Bustamante got caught taking large amounts of money from insurance companies in the form of campaign contributions. While this normally wouldn't be a big problem, he is running for a job that's sole purpose is to oversee regulations on those same companies. If that doesn't reek of impropriety, I don't know what does.

US SENATE- Dianne Feinstein
DiFi is one of my favorite politicians alive today! Sure I hate her history on gun rights and dislike her position on abortion, but she has managed to carve herself a niche as a pragmatic problemsolver. She has been a great representative of California in the US Senate to date, and I expect her to have several more good years in office. This Republican proudly supports DiFi for office.

Berkeley College Republicans in the Wall Street Journal

2006-10-22T12:26:00.000-07:00

On Friday, when I did my usual look through The Wall Street Journal, I saw a familiar face. Between the sketches of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, and various other political heavyweights was the poorly drawn image of fellow Golden Bear, Josiah Prendergast, President of the Berkeley College Republicans.

Chris Page at the Cal Patriot Blog already blogged about BCR's Wall Street Journal article. Unfortunately his coverage of the article lacks any real news. We already know BCR is a big group on campus and that the conservative mindset is a novelty in the People's Republic of Berkeley. However, he asserts that Republicans are needed in Berkeley more than anywhere and that is why they are a big group. In reality, the number of Republicans on campus is more a function of the increasingly moderate to conservative makeup of the student population. But the size of the club is mostly correlated to the activities of the organization.

The Berkeley College Republicans have fun. Students like to be involved in groups that are fun. It should come as no surprise, then, when BCR posts such large numbers. Really, who doesn't like a group that has lively political debates, fantastic guest speakers, huge events attracting worldwide media coverage, ice-skating trips, parties, bar nights, and other activities when people want to organize them? They really try to have something for everyone.

Another key to the success of BCR is that they avoid really divisive topics. The members of BCR, contrary to popular belief, don't sit around and talk about how wonderful it is that we are in Iraq right now or how awful abortion is. When those sorts of topics are brought up in meetings, it is usually in a debate format with two people passionately debating the issues with formal rules followed by the questions and comments of other members.

Berkeley College Republicans can thank their own efforts for developing an organization that people want to be a part of. Good job, guys! Thanks for keeping a conservative beacon on our liberal campus!

UPDATE: Josiah Prendergast, President of BCR, has been asked to appear on Hannity & Colmes on FoxNews on Wednesday. The show will air at 6pm and 11pm, PST.

UPDATE: The CNBC show "Kudlow & Company" is airing a debate at 2 pm tomorrow between Josiah and a representative of the Cal Democrats regarding the November election, students inpolitics, and the future of America.

Get Those Rally Comm Kids a Cigar!

2006-10-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the Big Game Week hijinks are starting a little earlier than usual this year. I couldn't be more pleased! Check out Wikipedia! Somebody (presumeably) a member of Rally Comm updated the Stanford entry with a few interesting facts.

Nobody cares more about Cal traditions, history, and spirit and the stanfurd rivalry than the good folks in the UC Rally Committee. Those kids put in long hard hours all year long to make sure all the traditions occur. Among their duties are card stunts (which Cal invented), the California Victory Cannon, the Big Game Bonfire Rally, keeping the Big C a fine shade of "King Alfred Yellow," and waving the cal flags at football games. All the while, they are running around in hideously ugly (and dirty) striped rugbys.

Let's go on a tangent for a moment, shall we? Seriously, those rugbys are ugly. And they stink. The smell is a sure testiment to the hard work that the Rally Comm kids do in that they are dirty and smell because Rally Commers are so frequently hard at work in them that they don't often get a chance to wash them properly. But there is no excuse for the ugliness. Somebody should tell them that striped rugbys went out of style in like 2002. I guess it is better than the cardigans and funny looking caps that Rally Comm members wore in ancient times. I don't have a picture of those uniforms, but check out a yearbook and take a look. The rugbys are actually an improvement. But I digress...

Go check out Wikipedia! It contains such interesting facts as stanfurd being a finishing school and it's recent losing streak to Cal.

UPDATE: It appears that the stanfurdites have gotten wise. The updates have been removed. If any of you know of any other pranks, hijinks, or other anti-stanfurd community service occurring on or around campus, please drop me a line! I won't even publish it if you don't want me to. I just hate stanfurd!

GO BEARS!

Are You Gay? Vote GOP!

2006-10-19T18:33:00.000-07:00

Ever since I came out of the closet (and especially since I started this blog), people have asked how I am able to reconcile being a Gay Republican. In this post, I hope to provide some explanation.

The answer is simple, but first I must explain that I am not a Gay Republican. I am a Republican and happen to be Gay. Alternatively, I am Gay and happen to be a Republican. My political beliefs do not determine my sexual orientation nor does my sexual orientation alone determine my political beliefs. In reality, many things influence my political beliefs, one of which happens to be my sexual orientation.

One major criticism of the Republican Right is that they tend to bow to Christian conservatives. It is very clear that the Religious Right doesn't tend to agree with what they term the "Homosexual Lifestyle" and often attempt to restrict the rights of Gay people. However, what the left forgets is that the American Christian movement is not a hateful group of people, on the whole. While not all of them adhere to the adage, "hate the sin not the sinner," most don't hate Gay people.

I don't hate them either! My best friend happens to be a (straight) right-wing religious Republican. I, myself, am a Christian and try to live accordingly. Like many other Christians, I don't believe that my religion should dictate my political beliefs. Similarly, I don't feel compelled to let my sexual orientation dictate my political beliefs. Sure, same-sex marriage is very important to me. Equal rights are even more important to me. But so are other social issues, the economy, gun rights, the environment, and national security. I don't pretend to agree with the GOP on every issue, but I certainly don't agree with the Democrats on many issues apart from Gay rights.

To vote Republican doesn't mean that I am self-hating. To the contrary, I am proud of being Gay! But that doesn't mean I have to vote the same way as other Gay people. For instance, the typical Gay party line requires that I be in favor of abortion (which I equate to murder). It also says that I need to care deeply about the rights of transgendered people, which I really don't. Trannys have a whole different set of concerns than a Gay man does. If I were to vote along Democratic party lines, I would be voting against gun rights, in favor of higher taxes, and more government spending. I really do care about these things and think the Republicans tend to have the right idea.

Republicans, in general, aren't opposed to Gay people. A few notable ones tend to oppose us every chance they get, but most are really fairly ambivalent about Gay issues. Some Republicans quietly vote against Gay rights bills because they have little to gain for voting in favor and can pick up a few votes by voting against. They believe (and rightly so) that the Queer community will NEVER vote for a Republican. What is forgotten is that Democrats feel that they can vote against Gay rights because the Queer community will ALWAYS vote for them.

If the GLBT community wants to see real change, they need to be willing to support Republicans when the Democrats won't support their cause.

We Are (almost) Equal Now

2006-10-17T20:55:00.000-07:00

Hiding under the hundreds of bills Governor Schwarzenegger signed at the last days before his deadline was a simple and almost unremarkable bill written by California State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco).

Except nothing about that bill was simple or unremarkable to hundreds of thousands of people across the state.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on SB 1827 should be cause for celebration among Gays and Lesbians all over California. Short of actually providing same-sex marriage, the State of California can provide no more rights to domestic partners than it now has. This bill will provide same-sex couples in a registered domestic partnership with the same tax rates they would recieve if married. After decades of fighting for equality, California has come closer to granting Gay people the right to marry than it ever has before.

This doesn't mean the fight is (or should be) over. According to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are still 1,049 benefits provided by the federal government that are only granted to married couples. None of these benefits are currently available to same-sex couples. Further, none of these benefits can be made available by the State of California. Certainly, we should expect the fight to continue inside the Beltway.

But this doesn't even mean that our fight is finished in California. While our government grants equal status between heterosexual married couples and gay domestic partners, the Gay community has not yet achieved equality.

I have had the benefit of spending my adult years in metropolitan areas with thriving Gay communities. Unfortunately, not all Gay and Lesbian people can live in big cities. Many live in areas where it is not acceptable or safe to live as an "out" Gay person. Despite anti-discrimination laws, many members of the GLBT community would find it difficult at best to secure a job, reasonable housing, and live a happy, free, and secure life if they allowed themselves to be labeled Queer.

Far worse, too many children are bullied each day because they are labeled Queer, either in reality or in perception. If any of us, Gay or Straight, look back on our days in middle school, we will remember just how intolerant kids can be. And how mean. But that isn't the worst of it. Adults can be just as intolerant toward Queer or effeminate children and cause an environment where a child is not free to live he or she was created by God.

While I was fortunate enough to have an amazingly accepting family that more than embraces my homosexuality (and helped teach me to do the same) I remember growing up in a town where it is not acceptable for a person to live out of the closet. Does that mean that there are no Gay people there? Absolutely Not! It just means that we need to keep up the fight for equality so that those closeted individuals might eventually be able to live freely.

I'm Too Sexy For My.....Jersey?

2006-10-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

I mentioned a while back that Cal wore hideous new uniforms when they went Duck hunting a couple weeks ago. While the Bears look a little Crayola-esque, the look is starting to grow on me. Sure, I would have preferred our team dressing in something a little more traditional and classy, but these bright yellow jerseys are helping our boys to draw a little more attention.

If you still have doubts about the new look, I suggest you check out KateOnSports.com and watch this week's episode on new jerseys. She does a great look at whether a new look can motivate a team to do better. And, damn, that girl knows her sports!

Speaking of which, go...watch KateOnSports! Our favorite Mic Lady does a great show. Whether you are an Old Blue Cal Fan, like to watch sports in general, or (God forbid) a fan of the U$C Trojans or the stanfurd cardinal, you are gonna like Kate. If she were a guy, I would be all over her!

Caution: Intolerant, Liberal, Heterophobe Post Ahead

2006-10-16T22:26:00.000-07:00

Despite the inevitable criticism that I am an intolerant, San Francisco, Left-wing, Liberal, Heterophobe, I want to draw some attention to a great column I saw in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Jon Carroll penned a fantastic article explaining that what Pete Wilson referred to as Bevan Dufty and Rebecca Goldfader's "experiment" is really no different than what every other parent experiences, and is better than most.

That is, every venture into parenting is an experiment. Sometimes, the experiment is successful and sometimes not. The goal is for parents to make more sucesses than failures...or to at least make enough successes that the child develops into a normal person. An experiment involving two parents that adore the child that they brought into the world together is much less risky than many of the minor parenting experiments that are tried each day by countless parents worldwide. Ranging from deciding what to feed a child to deciding whether the child is ready to operate a walker/tricycle/bicycle/automobile.

Unfortunately, most children seem to be born without instruction manuals that list precisely how to care for a child. Worse, most children are born to people in my age group. Frankly, I am barely able to care for myself enough to stay alive and healthy and I can't imagine being responsible for the life of a helpless infant. Then again, I have known many young people that have had children on "accident." While the parents certainly love their children, the family didn't exactly plan on bringing a child into the world.

How then is it more wrong for a man and a woman with more than sufficient life experiences and financial resources who want to bring a child into this world to have one than a couple of foolish young adults?

And The Beat Goes On...

2006-10-16T19:49:00.000-07:00

What is this? The year of the GOP congressional scandal?

If you are trying to keep track, let's see if we can recap the year to date (I am sure I will miss something):

First there was the Abramoff lobbying scandal starring Bob Ney.
Never to be outdone, Cunningham lived more like a Machiavellian Prince than a Duke.
DeLay may or may not have broken any campaign finance laws, but he sure did his best to make it look like he did.
I have already discussed Mark Foley and his follies on this blog.

Just as America was getting bored with exploring the Foley case, another Republican scandal to absorb the media! Joy of joys!

Now, it seems, Curt Weldon is under investigation for an alleged incident in which he may have used his congressional ties to secure cushy lobbying and consulting jobs for his daughter and a close friend. Though the alleged incident occured more than 2 years ago, investigators raided his daughter's home this weekend...just in time for some big media before this 10-term congressman faces a tough opponent in the November midterms. What luck!

Now it doesn't take any fancy degrees to tell you that public figures should avoid anything that even appears like impropriety. Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Foley, and Weldon each have knowingly engaged in activities that regardless of actual illegalities are absolutely questionable. Because of this, the Dems, media, and general public have already found them to be guilty. And this sentiment has tainted the rest of our party.

Rightly so! Our party gained control of congress twelve years ago when we were able to successfully show that we had a clear plan to serve the nation. The Class of '94 was so popular because they had shown that Democrats couldn't be trusted and the Republicans had defined a plan to increase the quality of life while improving the budget and lowering taxes, simultaneously.

Lately, the grand elephants of the GOP have come to bear a striking resemblance to the asses of the Democratic Party. We have mastered pork barrel spending, overspending, and now the congressional scandal. What we have forgotten is how to maintain a healthy cynicism of big government and how to portray Democrat policies as too big brotherish.

I hate to say that we no longer deserve control of Congress. When I looked at the Drudge Report this morning and saw Nancy Pelosi's portrait with the caption "21 Days," I shivered with fear that this particular liberal could potentially be the next Speaker of the House.

Still, if the GOP were to narrowly maintain control of the House, it would only be nominally. Whichever party takes control would be unable to pass significant legislation without some help from the moderates of the other party but would bear liability for the wrongs that occur in the government over the next two years. Basically, all of the responsibility of congressional leadership without the benefits. It could benefit the Republican party to narrowly lose control of the House this year and let the Democrats take some blame for a while.

I Am No Liberal!

2006-10-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

In my life, I don't think I have ever been seriously called a liberal! In fact, I am unaware of many gun-toting, Reagan-loving, pro-life Republicans out there that are included among the leftists.

Somewhat hilariously, I have gotten a few hits from a conservative blog that has characterized the Land of the Fruits and Nuts as a part of the "Intolerant Left in San Francisco." His portrayal of my blog was because of my earlier post on talk show host Pete Wilson homophobic rants on his radio show blasting Bevan Dufty. If only the folks over at RightLinx knew how much I have supported and aided the Conservative Movement, they would see that my comments on Bevan Dufty certainly fit under the Big Tent of the Republican Party. Or not.

As any good GOP historian could tell you, our party has been in dire troubles before. There was a time when we went decades without controlling Congress and could scarcely pull enough votes for President to justify running a candidate. Great men, not the least of whom was William F. Buckley, Jr., met and developed an unlikely coalition to regain political dominance. This coalition included the Religious Right, Classic Liberals, Libertarians, and Moderates all under one Big Tent. This coalition gave rise to such great leaders as Ronald Reagan and continues to bolster the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and John McCain.

Unfortunately the religious zealots on the far right end of our tent have forgotten the deals we made. Under the big tent, we fight for a moderately free-market economy as well as a few moderately socially conservative issues like abortion. However, the current Republican plan seems to call for lots of socially conservative issues without much concern about a functional budget. It should come as no surprise that the Grand Old Party is struggling to maintain control of Congress in this election cycle.

Instead of calling my end of the tent a bunch of intolerant leftists, perhaps the GOP should be reunified again. We were once the Party of Lincoln and could be again!

Where Can I Sign Up?

2006-10-13T19:26:00.000-07:00

According to the folks at Accuracy in Media there is a Vast Gay Conspiracy going on within the GOP. They claim that the party leadership has given too much power and control to Gay operatives who have infiltrated the Republican ranks to push for a pro-Gay, left-wing, Democrat agenda.

When I came out of the closet as a Gay Republican, I must not have recieved my membership packet including my copy of the fabled "Gay Agenda" and our plans to rename the party the "Gay Old Party." If anybody knows where I can get a replacement copy, please let me know. I would love to use my status as a Gay Republican to get a nice, cushy political job.

The reality is that among all the strengths of my party (and there are many), a Gay-friendly agenda is not one. If it is true that the GOP has had a (slightly) softened stance on Gay rights in recent years it is not a result of a Queer infiltration of the party ranks. It is more likely the result of more accepting attitudes of society in general. That is, the general public is finally starting to realize that we aren't evil, we won't cause the armageddon or God's wrath, and we won't turn them or their children gay. If Gay Republicans tend to look a little like Democrats sometimes, maybe it is because the Democrats aren't always wrong. They do tend to watch out for the GLBT community more regularly than my party.

So really, folks, when and where is the next meeting for the Gay World Conquest? I want to be there for that!