A Sad Comparison

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 Giuliani wants it repealed.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

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...

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.

Homophobe: Laura Richardson

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!

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.

The Kevin and Don Norte Bill

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

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.

Berzerkeley Politics

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.

Gender Neutral Marriage?

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.

Hot Blooded Latina to Speak with Gay Republicans

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).

Don't Be Cruel

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

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.

Cal Students for Marriage Equality

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

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.

Is Everybody Running?

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!

Hippies More Wood!

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!

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

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

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

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.