Women Cheat Too . . . and other things

Okay, I know that's an odd title, but . . . I was watching The View this morning and one of the hot topics was men cheating. The whole discussion centered on men - never once did any of the ladies of The View mention that women also cheat. It was all about the men today. Obviously, the ladies of The View have never watched Lifetime TV, because in those movies, women cheat all the time. I'm just saying . . .

Seriously, though, I think it's unfair that men were given such a hard time without recognizing the fact that women cheat on their boyfriends/husbands as well. The fact is, both men and women cheat on their significant others. Perhaps men cheat more than men. Perhaps only men get caught at cheating more. Perhaps women, possibly more clever than men, cheat more often, but only get caught cheating less. Now, there's a thought for the day.

Other topics on The View - Blackberries (the PDA) and speechwriters.

Here's my brief opinion . . .

Blackberries - don't have one, don't want one, and am perfectly content without one. I don't need to be in touch with the world 24/7. I don't want to be in touch with the world 24/7. When I come home a the end of the day, pour my glass of wine, and pick up my book, the last thing I want is an interruption, whether phone call, text message or email. The same thing applies if I am watching Project Runway. I want the solitude and the disconnect from the world. If I'm out to dinner with somebody - turn off your phone, turn off your Blackberry, and focus on me. I think it is the height of rudeness to text, email, or answer a phone when out to dinner with friends. If you can't focus on the people you are with, then perhaps you shouldn't have come out to dinner in the first place.

Speechwriting - the point raised was that the politicians hire speechwriters, so that we are not actually hearing what the speaker truly believes. Sarah Palin's RNC speech is the perfect example. It was a cleverly staged speech to present the views of the Republican Party, and not necessarily the views of Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, this dilemma plays across the board of politics and is not limited to a single party. Whoopi - like me - wants to hear what the person actually believes and feels they can do for the country, not what some highly paid speech writer feels the candidate should believe and do for the country. For the most part the other ladies of The View agreed with Whoopi. Hopefully, in the debates, the true personas of the candidates will emerge since the speech writers - should - have the night off.

S

The Honeymoon is Over!!

For those who even care . . .

• Sarah Palin's favorable rating drops, unfavorable rating rises
• Barack Obama regains lead in national polls
• Obama has been aggressively attacking John McCain's economic policies
• Neither candidate has shown expertise on economy, David Gergen says

The above bullet points come from this article.

As you'll find out if you're not lazy and actually click on the linked article, the honeymoon with Palin is over. Her favorable rating has dropped and her unfavorable rating has increased. I guess more and more people are checking out the fact websites and realizing that there is more - not necessarily better - to Sarah Palin than the Republican hype first seemed to indicate. I could have told you that much - please see earlier posts about Palin and the links to anti-Palin sites and well as political fact checker sites. In all honesty, Sarah Palin's emergence into this election was cleverly staged by the Republican Party. Her speech was written for her, and I'm she she had hours of rehearsals and couching to make her appear invincible. Obviously, the people behind her presentation failed to consider the fact that the majority of the American public is NOT stupid, and has the capability of googling Sarah Palin and learning the actual facts that she, and the Republican party, don't want them to know.

The election is far from over. Anything can, and probably will, still happen. What we, the American public, need to do is stay informed, stay involved, and keep checking those facts. The political ads are slanted and very biased. The political ads take things out of context and paint a very inaccurate picture. The only way to learn the truth is to research the facts and make an informed decision on Election Day.

Okay, I'm done with this rant . . . and very little snark was involved.

S

Credibility Takes a Nosedive

Sorry for the title of this blog, but I really couldn't think of anything better . . . or more snarky.

By now everybody knows about, and has probably seen via YouTube or someother site, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. As far as I know, everybody knows that Saturday Night Live is all about satire and making fun of people. Well, obviously - see below article - I was wrong: everbody does not know. Carly Fioriona (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) . . . well just read the article.

I mean, really, somebody obviously needs to get a life and is taking things a little bit too seriously . . . kind of like Cindy McCain attacking the ladies of The View for asking tough questions. Uh, isn't that what running for office is all about?? I'm just saying . . .

McCain Advisor Calls Tina Fey 'Sexist'
Viewers liked Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, and so did Sarah Palin. But another member of Team McCain says Fey's portrayal was sexist. "Well, I think she looked a bit like her," former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said on MSNBC. "I think, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial."I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance."The 30 Rock creator may be weirded-out to be accused of sexism. As SNL's first female head writer, she's helped women move ahead in entertainment — just as Fiorina did for women in technology.Were you offended by Fey's portrayal? Watch it again below and tell us what you think. — Tim Molloy (tvguide.com 09/16/08)

One broken pledge . . .

If Sarah Palin cannot do what she pledged to do for her state, how can anyone believe she will do what she pledges to do for the entire country?

According to this article on cnn.com, in regards to a legislative probe regarding the firing of an Alaska state official, "Palin originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation and disclosed that members of her administration had contacted state police officials nearly two dozen times to discuss Wooten. But last week, she asked the state personnel board to conduct its own probe, and a string of witnesses has failed to show up at scheduled depositions with the investigator hired by the Legislature."

First - if she made a pledge, she should stick to that pledge. Second - so, now that Palin has backed off her pledge, all these witnesses are failing to show up. Well, isn't that odd? I wonder why the witnesses aren't showing up. Could it be that they have close ties to Palin and don't want to mar her political chances???? Excuse me while I go and look for a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Oh, silly me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Okay, while I'm at it, let's talk about her "thanks, but no thanks" fairy tale she keeps telling about the bridge to no where. The facts - easily checkable on http://www.factcheck.org/ or http://www.truthout.org/ are quite different. Initially, Sarah was all for the bridge, especially with all the earmark money - something McCain is allegedly against - she could pull in for the state. The fact is, she didn't say "thanks, but no thanks" until wait late in the game after the whole bridge idea was basically dead.

Lastly, check out this blog. There are some very interesting facts. Please note, I italicized the word because the site is obviously not run by pro-Palin people. Even biased blogs contain kernels of the truth. You just have to really look at the kernels, go to the other sites already mentioned, and spend a little time googling to discover the truth. In the end, it's really worth the effort to figure out the truth.

Okay, now really last - the thing everyone has to consider is: do you want Sarah Palin as president of this country. The fact is, John McCain is not a spring chicken. The fact is, nobody knows when their time is up. My brother-in-law died at age 24. A friend of mine passed away a couple of years ago at age 59. Death happens. As a manager I used to work with once said, "you just never know when you're going to be hit by a doughnut truck on the way to work". If John McCain is - by some cruel chance of Fate - elected President and hit by a doughnut truck on the way to work . . . the woman unable to keep a pledge might just be running this country. I'm just saying . . .

S

Elvira Sat Alone

Elivra sat alone.

Elivira is a 90+ year old woman who lives at the same retirement center as my mother. I recently had dinner at the retirement home with my mother and noticed this woman sitting by herself at a table for two. I finally asked my mother about the woman. Mom’s response: Oh, that’s Elvira, she has Parkinson’s disease. I asked why she was sitting alone. Again, mother made the comment about Parkinson’s disease and that it was hard to understand Elvira when she talked. She also mentioned that she’d heard that Elvira’s family requested that she sit alone.
In counterpoint, there were tables – large and small – filled with people throughout the dining room. My mother, on a normal night, sits at a table with six other women. My mother never eats dinner alone. In fact – flashback to high school – she seems to sit at the popular table where all the other people want to sit as well. That night alone, two different women came up to mother before dinner and asked if there was space at her regular table. Go figure. Mom – 83 now – has become one of the popular girls.

Elvira, however, sits alone.

So what if Elvira is hard to understand. Companionship does not need words. Companionship needs nothing more than a smile or a nod of the head. Words, too often, are misunderstood or misinterpreted. What’s to misinterpret about a smile? A nod? A light touch on the hand to say, hey, I’m here for you? Elvira has none of that. She only has an empty chair across from her dinner after dinner, day after day, week after week, into the months and years of her golden years. How golden are the years when you have to eat alone – allegedly at the insistence of her family – at dinner when all around you are groups of people eating together?
Now, in the absence of truth, when only rumor abounds, is the alleged tale of Elvira’s family insisting she eat alone! Try as I might, three days after first seeing Elvira eating alone, I cannot understand what reason could exist for a family to be so inhumane! Was Elvira a horrible mother and this is their way of punishing her? Did/does – in their ultimate wisdom – family think she is better off eating alone, isolated from the companionship of others? What crime – real or imagined by her family – is so great that they would deny their mother friendship in her final years?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, or the many other questions that run through my mind every time I think of Elivra eating alone. All I see is a woman, alone in a room full of people. All I see is a family devoid of humanity forcing this upon their mother. I see no rhyme or reason to Elivira sitting alone night after night. I cannot – not even within the great scope of my imagination – understand the situation. I can only feel a deep sorrow that a woman – 90+ years of age – eats alone every night. I can feel anger – perhaps misplaced – at her family for insisting she eat alone.

I can feel shame at myself for not walking over and saying hi to Elvira that night once I heard the tale my mother had to tell. What harm is a smile, a nod, a hey, how’s it going, even from a stranger? Perhaps any of those things would not have made a difference in Elvira’s life. Then again, perhaps any of those things would have made the greatest difference in Elvira’s life.

Now, please understand that it is not like everybody in the retirement center ignores Elvira. I’m she sure has friends and people speak to her on a daily basis, smile at her, and ask her about her day. She does not live in complete isolation. But, at dinner, night after night, Elivra sits alone.

Careful how you filter!!

From the current issue of The Advocate (Issue 1013 - August 26, 2008):

AFA Keeps Gay at Bay - By filtering "gay" from its news site, the conservative group becomes a laughingstock.

The American Family Association hates the word gay. The organization's distaste is so strong that it's online news site, OneNewsNow.com, filters gay out of all Associated Press articles and replaces it with the anachronistic descriptor homosexual. On June 29, Tyson Gay won the 100-meter trials for a shot at the Beijing Olympics, but because of the filter, conservative Christians everywhere read that "Tyson Homosexual" clocked in at 9.68 seconds in the premier sprinting event. The story's filtered version read: "Wearing a royal blue uniform with red and white diagonal stripes across the front, along with matching shoes . . . Homosexual dominated the competition. He started well and pulled out to a comfortable lead by the 40-meter mark." While blogs had a field day with OneNewsNow's error, the site quickly fixed the gaffe, and AFA spokeswoman Cindy Roberts told The Washington Post, "It was just a fluke." Maybe so, but it could cause OneNewsNow.com bigger problems than embarrassment - AP stipulates that it stories not be rewritten upon publication, and it has been going after websites for even small attempts at re-purposing original work. - Michelle Garcia.

Okay, don't you just love irony at work. I can just see some of the other flukes caused by the AFAs dislike of the word gay.

BenGay is the perfect cure for your aches and pains becomes . . . Ben Homosexual is the perfect cure for your aches and pain.

Marcia Gay Hardin becomes Marcia Homosexual - who knew? - Hardin.

The possibilities are endless in the whole scenario set up by the AFA. I mean, can we just put these people on an island somewhere? Then again, without such conservatives going to such extremes, there would be less people to laugh at in this world. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine. While the AFAs attempts to eliminate the word gay are kind of frightening; they seem to have gotten bit in the nether regions by their own homophobia. Again, irony at it's best.

I wish everyone a gay - homosexual if your part of the AFA - old time.

Scott

Random Thoughts

Dunkin' Donuts is going to offer a healthier menu. Isn't that an oxy-moron?? Donut Shop and healthy menu??? I'm sorry, but if I'm going to a donut shop, I'm going full force for food that's bad for me. I'm just saying . . .

Irony at it's ABSOLUTE best!!!

From cnn.com:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush's years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.

The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Supporters say the idea is to commemorate the mess they claim Bush has left behind by actions such as the war in Iraq.

Hedviga Golik is dead!!!

Hedviga Golik is dead. In fact, she died 35 years ago. The problem: no one realized she was dead until just recently - see this article.

How is it, that a woman's body remained undiscovered for 35 years? How is it that neighbors did not become curious? As a small part of the article stated: The discovery of Golik's body on Tuesday prompted media debates on how it is possible for a woman to die so long ago without anyone noticing. One local journalist said it showed people were becoming more alienated - cnn.com 05/16/08. Is this true? Have we become so alienated as a society that we no longer pay attention to the world around us? Have you seen your neighbor lately? If not, have you bothered to ask someone when was the last time they saw your neighbor? Would you - the reader of this blog - even care enough to ask that question?

I guess I'm just disconcerted about how a woman could die and no one noticed. Do we, as individuals, as parts of a larger society, make such little impact on each other that a death can go unnoticed for 35 years? Well, this article obviously provides the answer to that question. Yes, we obviously make such little impact on each other that a death can go unnoticed for 35 years. The sad fact is, this is not the first such story - though probably the first 3 decade not noticing - about a death going unnoticed. Are we - the United States, the world, the population that is society - becoming too alienated, too content to live in a cyber (online banking, automated gas pumps, amazon.com, groceries online, etc.) world so that human interaction is no longer necessary? Are we - again, larger society - content to have less and less interaction with each other? Can society, as a whole, survive when interaction becomes extinct, people die and no one notices for 35 years?

I do not think society can survive such isolation. I think - as Merita Arslani wrote about the situation - that society needs to do the following: My dear neighbors! Please keep on being curious and a bit tiresome, as you have been so far" - cnn.com 05/16/08.

Curiosity might have killed the cat, but lack of curiosity let Hedviga Golik's death go unnoticed for 35 years. I think curiosity is the better option.

Scott

Neanderthal Views

It was mentioned today, by a dear friend, that I had not ranted lately. It's not that I haven't had plenty of reason - current election, Hillary Clinton, etc. - to rant; just, that I have not felt an overwhelming urge. Well, this article definitely gave me the urge. Basically, the California Supreme Court has overturned the same-sex marriage ban. Of course, the opponents have much to say about same-sex marriage:

• "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
  "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

Where do I begin to rant with such a bountiful source of material??

• "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage"
• "Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman."
• "We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and father."
• "To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

Okay, let me start with the last one. It's just too easy! Mr. Barber's alleged ignorance is deplorable. It is amazing the man can walk upright with his alleged neanderthal views.

Now, since I'm working backwards (it must be a gay thing), the next item from the bottom (that's a gay thing too, but I'm not going to explain) up: I have never understood why people think it is in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and father. My sister - for the most part - raised her children by herself after her husband left. Both her boys turned out fine and one of them is currently in Iraq serving our country. My siblings and I were basically raised by our mother. The four of us turned out fine as well. Oh, wait, I'm gay, so maybe that's what - insert heavy dose of sarcasm for the uninformed here - happened to me. Single parents, whether male or female, can be the best interest for a child. The mistaken belief that two parents are in the best interest of the child, in my lofty opinion, is . . . well . . . neanderthal. Go figure!

Mr. Barber's other two comments really are not worth responding to or ranting about. Marriage, in present day society, is nothing short of a sham. The vows spoken are easily broken. I've never been, nor will I probably ever be, a huge proponent of marriage, whether opposite or same sex. A golden band about a finger does not stop a man/woman from cheating on their spouse. A golden band about a finger, vows in a church, does not stop a marriage from imploding. Whether marriage is between opposite/same sex members is not the point. Commitment is (should be) the point. The fact is, when things go bad in a marriage, more people simply walk away than trying to fix whatever problems exist.

Now, since I'm basically forced to confront the issue. Counterfeit marriage. Give me a break! I'm at the top (another gay thing I'm not going to explain) now, just in case anybody is keeping track. Hetero marriage, in many instances, is counterfeit - see above paragraph.

Lastly, there is Mr. Barber's comment about judicial activism. I think it's awfully odd (perhaps he's thinking of running for office one day, because he sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton) that Mr. Barber considers the court's legal opinion activism, rather than following the law. I can guarantee you that if the court had agreed with him, he would be praising the justices, the court, and the allegedly hallowed ground he walks upon.

In the end, the only thing Mr. Barber is tasting is sour grapes. Hate it when that happens.

S

The High Price of Postage

Ever wonder why postage keeps increasing year after year, even though many people no longer use the postal service? Well, perhaps this little tidbit will explain why . . .

. . . In another case, USPS spent $13,500 on a dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse for employees who were attending a national postal forum in Orlando, Florida. The dinner included more than 200 appetizers and the agency paid for about $3,000 of alcoholic drinks, including more than 40 bottles of wine and top-shelf liquor, the study said. It deemed the dinner as an "excessive cost." - cnn.com (04/09/08)

The above is only one example of highly excessive government spending. See this article for more info.

If you've now read the linked article, is it any wonder the deficit keeps increasing?

Just my thoughts for the day and one of those WTF!!! moments in life.

S

The Death of a - future - Political Career

Does Secretary of State Condeleeze Rice not want a political future? Has she decided that she'll leave politics after she is no longer Secretary of State?

In my opinion, the answer is a resounding YES!

At what point, does selling your soul become commonplace? I understand, it is her job to agree with President Bush. He pays her the alleged big bucks; therefore, it is in her best interest to agree with him. BUT . . . in agreeing with him, it seems she sacrifices more and more of herself, and whatever political future she may (or may not) want beyond Secretary of State. If she were to run for any political office at a later date, her opponents would have more than enough material to destroy whatever hopes she had of being elected.

The time for blindly (blithely) agreeing with the policies of a dying regime need to end. The time for standing up for what is best for this country, needs to begin. No job, no amount of money, is worth the blind devotion - required - given to the current Administration. Free thought should still exist in this country. Congress should not be forced to act on something by a duck with two broken legs.

What brought about this latest post? Why, our dear President who is forcing Congress to vote on a trade pact with Columbia.

What was Condeleeza's response? Well . . . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the agreement in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Monday. She said the free trade bill "could strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. workers; support a democratic ally on the cusp of achieving lasting national success; weaken those who would sow instability and autocracy in our hemisphere; and send an unequivocal signal to the entire world that the United States is a confident, capable global leader that acts not only in its own interest, but in the interest of its friends. (cnn.com)"

Does she actually believe what she wrote? Has her free-will been totally decimated by her tenure as Secretary of State? Where has the greater good for our country gone?

I'm just not sure that any job is worth the alleged sacrificing of a person's soul.

S

Truth, Lies, or Convenience

As most people probably know by now (unless they're living in a remote area without access to cable or Internet), Hillary was caught in another . . . lie. It seems, poor old Hillary just can't remember the truth of her life. Suddenly, a peaceful visit to Bosnia, became a sniper laden event where she had to run for cover. The linked article is very thought provoking.

The facts are (in my humble opinion), everybody embellishes. It is a part of life. How often have people said, I've told you that a hundred times???? Of course, that's an embellishment (unless you were talking to my partner after his colonoscopy and the administration of the amnesia drug - at that point, a hundred times is not an embellishment - trust me on that one). Hillary's statement about sniper fire is a tad bit more than an embellishment.

In the end, Hillary's truth seems more a convenience to advance her political career and tout her alleged experience, which, btw, now seems less experience and more convenient embellishment. What do you think?

S

In defense of Sarah Jessica Parker

Okay, odd title for this blog. Recently Maxim magazine named Sarah Jessica Parker (Sex and the City) the 'unsexiest' star. By rights, Ms. Parker was hurt by this label. I would be too. In my opinion, what qualifications do the people at Maxim have to make this distinction? In a larger scope, what right/qualifications does/do any one on this planet have to make that distinction?

In my honest opion: no right at all. The fact is, generation by generation (for the most part) society is becoming . . . well . . . MEAN! Why? At one point did humans begin to drift away from humanity? From compassion? So, Sarah Jessica Parky is unsexy to the editors at Maxim. She's obviously sexy to her husband. Other men find her sexy. So, why should Maxim's opinion be granted a greater weight/authority? Why should - forget Freedom of Speech, for one minute - they be allowed to demean someone without thought/regard for that person's freedom? In my opinion, they shouldn't be allowed.

Free Speech is great, but there comes a time in place when people should just think about what they are saying or writing. The fact (sad but true) is: most people don't give a damn whether they hurt someone's feelings or not. Society (for the most part) is not becoming MEAN, but has become MEAN!

Just my thoughts . . .

Scott

How can you disagree with perfect logic?

When in doubt - copy and paste. If you want the prettier version, click here.

I happen to agree, more than I would like too, with much of what Glenn Beck has to say. He's forthright, direct, and gets straight to the point. I don't agree with 100% of what he has to say, but the below post is brilliance in motion.

NEW YORK (CNN) --

Glenn Beck: Florida and Michigan leaders have only themselves to blame if their delegates aren't seated.

What do these stories all have in common?

• A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.
• People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.
• Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
• Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.
  

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.

Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

From Eliot Spitzer's alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there's never been a shortage of "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrites in politics.

But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.
Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.

"But Glenn. ... Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don't want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. ... You don't understand. If we don't seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. .... The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don't let their voices be heard."

Too bad.

If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let's talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let's talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let's talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.

Americans aren't disenfranchised because our leaders won't count votes in a couple of states. They're disenfranchised because our leaders aren't doing their jobs. They're disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.

In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I've patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a "do-over," but quite honestly, they're not arguments at all. They're excuses. If this race wasn't so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.

But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.

In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.

Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules." And Brazile knows a little something about that ... she ran Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.

Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it's time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?

FL/MI Don't Deserve Revote

Okay, I stole the above title from this story; but I'm glad to see people finally agreeing with me on the whole FL/MI debacle: they knew the rules. Roland Martin, who wrote this article makes a strong point that FL/MI do not deserve a chance to re-vote, and that the people crying fowl now, are the same ones who did nothing when FL/MI were penalized in the first place.

So, at the end of the day, as I've previously mentioned, the votes either shouldn't count at all, or the delegates should be split 50/50. Our country - no matter what the ostriches running our government with their heads buried in the sand say - is in a recession. We're spending billions of dollars on a war that should have ended/never begun years ago. People are cashing out their 401Ks with alarming frequency, and suffering the taxes/penalties, to pay off their mortgages and somehow save their homes. Gas costs more than a Grande Mocha at Starbucks (at least here in TN). With all that, plus more not listed, taken into account, FL/MI want someone to come up with $20 - $30 Million to pay for another election. Boy, sounds like a perfectly logical solution to me. That's sarcasm, folks, just in case you were wondering.

In the end, the votes from FL/MI (much to Hillary's dismay) do not currently count, and should never count. She - along with all the other politicals whining right now - did not oppose the sanctions in the first place. She/they do not get a 'do-over'. We're not in preschool. Sometimes, life is just tough, and people need to learn to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Have a nice day!

S

What the . . .

You have to read this to believe it!

My comments: Get a life!

Enough said!

S

Another Day in Politics

I was hoping for a day off from politics. I refrained from watching politics on television this weekend, and resisted the urge yesterday to view stories on the Internet. I obviously failed in that endeavor.

Two stories from cnn.com - Obama advisors says . . . and Obama camp hammers . . . are the two posts in question.

First Story: Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Obama's campaign - justifiably - wants Hillary to repudiate Ms. Ferraro's comments. After all, Obama recently had an advisor resign because of her monster comment about Hillary. The question is: will Hillary comply, when in fact, Ms. Ferraro is one of her topfundraisers? Money talks! Hillary needs money to keep her campaign going. Will another Hillary double standard (i.e., MI/FL delegate debacle) ensue? Will Hillary not expect the same standards of her campaign staff that she allegedly demands of Barack's campaign staff? Only time will tell.

Second Story: Barack Obama's presidential campaign took some of its most pointed jabs to date at Hillary Clinton's claim of experience, circulating a memo to reporters Tuesday morning from former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig that suggests the New York senator uses "false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Basically, Hillary believes she has the experience to be President. Obama believes she is exaggerating those claims. Hillary thinks she has passed the 'Commander-in-Chief' test. Obama does not believe she has passed that test. It is a classic case of he/she said without a clear winner in sight. Personally, I don't think anyone is truly qualified/experience enought to be President. It is a job that basically sucks the soul out of a person and ages them quickly. It is not an easy job to do.

Is Obama unjustified in attacking Hillary like this? No. Hillary is basing her campaign on her experience and constantly attacking Barack's alleged lack of experience. If she does not have the experience she claims to have . . . well, I don't think I need to draw a picture to point out what that makes her.

In the end, I count the months until the end of election so sanity can prevail again. I'm not sure what the media will do once all is said and done, I guess go back to making Brittney and Paris the top stories of the day. Gee, something to look forward to . . .

S

FL/MI - What to do with the delegates?

I have so many responses to the title question, all brought about by this article. In the end, the FL/MI voters should - unfortunate for them - have to vote again. Case in point: Obama was not on the ballot in MI. The decision was made for the delegates not to count in those States well in advance of the primary. Many voters - again see linked article - did not vote because they knew their votes did not count. Shouldn't they get the chance to have their votes count? The only fair way for this to happen is for both States to re-hold a primary, have both candidates names on the ballot, and allow everyone a fair solution to the problem at hand.

S

No Cussing

First, you need to follow the link and read the article.

Second - I admire the principal behind what the town is attempting. Basically - for the first week in March from this point forward, no cussing is allowed in this town. Again, great principal.

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

• If you say fudge in place of f&%#, doesn't it mean the same thing?
• If you say shoot in place of sh*&, doesn't it mean the same thing?

The answer: Yes!!!

So, if everybody in this town starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, heck and whatever other sugar-coated word they can think of, aren't they still cussing? Of course they are still cussing. The only reason f&%# or sh*& are nasty words, is because someone, at some point in history, decided that those words - and many like them - were nasty. Maybe it was because of how they sounded or some other inane reason; but whatever the reason, the negative connotation on the word is society driven. Sooner or later, if everybody starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, etc., those words too will have negative connotations associated with them as well.

So, the whole no-cussing thing - again, admirable - is seemingly pointless in the long run since society will, eventually, negatively connotate those words. Just my theory.

S

The morning after primary wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton said she would consider being part of a Democratic “dream ticket” that would include both her and presidential rival Barack Obama. "That may be where this is headed,” she told the CBS Early Show during a marathon set of appearances on the network morning news shows. “But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

First, let me point out the problems with Hillary's statements:

1. Technically, Obama has more delegates at this point in the game; so, he should get the presidential nod, and Hillary - if Obama choses - would get the vice president option, not the other way around.
2. What in the heck do the people of OH have to do with who is President?

Okay, I know the whole theory that who OH chooses is normally President, but there's a first time for everything, so OH might just be wrong. OH does not choose my vote. I believe Hillary is suffering from the same delusion as current President Bush when he announced after the 2004 election that "America has chosen!" No, America did not choose, only 51% of American's chose. The logic of politicians is scary!

In another article Hillary makes the claim that she would be President. Again, definite problems with her line of thinking. Personally, right now, the country has chosen Barack Obama, not Hillary. Go figure.

S

Polls

According to CNN, the latest polls have McCain as the next President of the United States.

If I remember correctly from my statistics course, polls really aren't that accurate. If only 100 people are polled, and 46% (i.e., 46 people) say they would vote for John McCain versus 44% (i.e., 44 people) say they would vote for Barack Obama; then what about the other gazillion eligible voters not polled? The fact is, CNN does not provide the data (i.e., number of people polled, ages, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliation, conservative/liberal label) behind the polls. Did they poll the entire country? Did they poll a majority Republican versus Democrat area? Were the people polled liberals or conservatives, whites or blacks or Latinos? I guess only CNN knows, and they're not freely sharing the information.

In the end, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled, and as truthful as those same people. Another thing I remember from statistics class, sometimes people lie when being polled for fear of the information (whether as simple as a political election or as complex as did you cheat on your spouse) being used against them. Then again, there was always that famous political poll from years ago when the people doing the polling made up the answers. I'm just saying . . .

S

Project Runway

My name is Scott, and I'm a Project Runway addict!

Once upon a time, I lived an RF (reality free life). I did not watch Survivor or any of the other reality programs that soon began to choke the airwaves and drive away scripted series. I resisted the impulse to watch any reality shows. I succeeded in this endeavor for years.

I blame my Project Runway addiction solely on my partner of (now) 14 years. He got me hooked. He is an enabler. I was doing just fine without Reality TV. I had a life. He made me watch Project Runway (during Season 1 - The I Hate Wendy Pepper Season) and the rest, dear readers, is history. I was hooked from the outset. I watched the rest of Season 1 - hated Wendy with the rest of the world - and found myself watching all the reruns (Bravo does an outstanding job of reruns so you never miss an episode), and the marathons. I laughed and cried, I booed and hissed. There was no help for me.

Season 2 came along - hated Santino, but loved his impressions of Tim Gunn. Personally, I thought Daniel should have won.

Season 3 came along - Laura almost reached Wendy level, but not quite; though her stunt with Jeffery came close to Wendy's soul sucking performance. Didn't you just love when Kara told Wendy - one day you're gonna need your soul, and you're not going to have any left. Woo-hoo!

In between Season 3 and 4, Bravo hooked me with other series: Blow Out and Top Designer, never liked Top Chef. Who knew that styling hair could be so much fun? Loved Tabitha! What about the hedge clipper challenge? Too damn funny.

Yes, as you might have noticed, Bravo Reality TV has become my passion. I still do not watch Surviver, Bachelor, The Apprentice, Amazing Rest, or any of network Reality TV. I'm a Bravo Addict . . . and proud of it.

Season 4 - the end is near. I absolutely adore Rami. I wasn't sure about Christian in the beginning; as my partner put it, is that a man or woman???? Still not sure. ; ) I think it's great that Chris, after being voted off and allowed back, was in the top 4. Personally, I think Jillian will pull off the win. She might end up in an insane asylum, but she definitely has talent. Christian has talent too, but I've seen his collection, and I'm not sure (though I'll probably be proven wrong) its strong/different enough to win. As for Rami and Chris, tonight is their ultimate face-off (though, both did show at Fashion Week in Bryant Park). I've seen both of their collections, and - personally - I think Rami did a better job. Chris did a good job, but not sure if it is good enough to win the face-off. Then again, you never know with Michael, Heidi or Nina.

So, tonight I'll turn on Bravo, watch the multiple repeats of previous episodes, and then tune in for the first of the two-part season finale! After next week, the withdrawl process will begin until Season 2 of Blow Out begins, or Bravo hooks me with another reality show - better quality, better drama, than network TV could ever up for.

As Heidi says, "one day you're in, the next you're out!"

S

Another Day in Politics

Welcome to another day in the political arena!

At last nights debate, there was far too much whine! I mean really!

The point of the blog this morning is - surprisingly - to admit that I (to a certain extent) agree with Hillary regarding the photo of Obama discussed in an earlier post.

Clinton denied any knowledge of the photo coming from one of her staff. "So far as I know, it did not," she said. "That's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign - (cnn.com 02/27/08)."

On the other hand, just the other day, her campaign manager issued the following statement: In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

I still believe her campaign had something to do with the photo. Hillary is only human, and she's not omnipotent (all knowing). She does not have 100% control over the gazillions of people working on her campaign. It is highly likely that a member of her campaign allegedly released the photo. It is highly likely that Hillary allegedly did not know about the photo. Personally, that's always the greatest excuse in the world. Still, I'll give her a semi-break on this one issue.

I still won't give any of the candidates a break on the negativity they are spewing at each other. Enough already.

S

The Endless War in Iraq

"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us - John McCain, 02/2008"

Isn't it odd, how suddenly, John McCain changes his stance on the war in Iraq? His earlier comments about the war - U.S. forces may need to remain in Iraq for up to 100 years - were not what he meant. They were misinterpreted, misunderstood, and - the best of them all - distorted by his Democratic rivals. Yeah, and the Pope's about to allow all priests to marry!

The fact remains, the United States is currently fighting a war in Iraq that we cannot win. We need to pull our troops out and quit funneling billions of dollars per year into a war we cannot win.

My opinion about Senator McCain's comments: he realizes the war is no longer popular, and that his support of the war (hundreds of years of war) could result in him not getting elected (fingers and toes crossed on that option - for me at least) President of the United States. Go figure!

On the CNN scroll this morning, a little blurb floated across the screen about President Bush hoping that Republicans would elect a President who would continue the war in Iraq - or, something to that effect.

Let's hope not! As stated earlier in this post, the war in Iraq needs to end. It needs to end today, not tomorrow. Our troops need to come home. We cannot win the war in Iraq. We cannot win the war on terror. All we can do (United States, any nation) is to persevere and prepare. We need to remain strong and positive. We need to spend the billions of dollars spent on a war we cannot win, on counter-terrorism efforts, on strengthening our country. It does not take rocket science to come to that conclusion. It might take more than a third grade education, but definitely not rocket science.

My only hope for this country is that we elect a leader capable of change, capable of standing up against a governmental system that is archaic and in need of drastic repair, and who is capable of realizing our troops need to come home, our elderly need to be taken care of, that the influx of illegal immigrants into our country is not a good thing, and that the selling off of our country to other nations is a bad idea!

S

Politics - Either You Did It, or You Didn't (No Middle Ground)

Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional Somali attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

Okay, so today I thought - there's nothing worth writing about. Wrong!

A photo is circulating of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali attire. The phoe has allegedly been circulated by Hillary's camp. Hillary's camp does not deny circulating the photo, nor do they confirm circulating the photo. Typical Political BS! If you (Hillary's camp) did not circulate the photo all they have to do (real simple here folks) is say: We did not circulate the photo. Evading a denial, in my book at least, is confirming the action.

When will it end? For the love of . . . will it ever end? Issues, people, issues, not negative ads, not what somebody did 10 or 20 years ago . . . ISSUES!!

Hillary - you're losing ground. Instead of focusing on the negatives you believe Barack Obama has, why not attempt to focus on your (if any) positives? Forget the attacks; they're obviously not working. Case in point: Earlier this year, some Clinton volunteers left her campaign in those states after circulating e-mails that falsely claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim – an inaccurate rumor his campaign has worked hard to dispel — and suggesting that his drug use as a young man might make him vulnerable to Republican attacks were he to become the nominee - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

In the end, I know I cannot expect a positive political campaign. Politicians only seem to know how to fight negativiely, rather than positively. Politicians - so history has shown (and present day as well) - are incapable of running an honest campaign focusing solely on their qualifications for office.

S

Desperation in the Political Arena

As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party's front man - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

What was wrong with her initial campaign message? Oh, that's right, it's not working, Barack's in the lead, and she's scared.

"It is time to get real," Clinton said, "to get real about how we actually win this election... It is time to move from good words to good works -- from sound bites to sound solutions" - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

So, everything up to today was not real? What was it, a figment of America's collective imagination?

Clinton has also stepped up attacks on Obama's strong point -- his words. She's accused him of offering rhetoric with no specifics, and this week, based on similarities between his words and those of Obama-ally Deval Patrick, her campaign accused him of plagiarism - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the plagiarism allegation. I just think, unless Hillary can claim 100% ownership to every word in every speech she has spoken, then she just needs to let the proverbial sleeping dog lie! I guess what bothers me most, is that very few, if any, political candidates write their own words. They pay someone to do that. Personally, it is wrong. I don't want to hear what a paid speechwriter thinks the candidate should say. I want to hear what the candidate has to say. If you need a speechwriter, maybe you shouldn't be running for office. Do the candidates give their speechwriters credit? If not, hey, wait, isn't that plagiarism? Shouldn't Hillary - or candidate of choice - acknowledge the fact that they did not actually write the words they are speaking? Smells like plagiarism to me. Hmmmmmmm . . .

Other thoughts . . .

Why can't the candidates - Hillary, Oback, John - just be honest? Why do they have to attack, undermine, create controversy where none actually exists? Yes, each candidate is different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Yes, each candidate has a different message, the message they believe will get them elected. Again, no rocket science needed. There is not a perfect person on this Earth, and there is not a perfect candidate. Everybody has faults, everybody has secrets, and - in the end - none of it matters. What matters is what you - the candidate - is going to do for our country?

Lastly, why hasn't Hillary produced her income tax records like all the other candidates? What's the big secret?

S

Politics - The Neverending Battle

It appears there is a bounty of inspiration out there for my blog. I don't think I've ever wrote this often on the blog. What's the latest?

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton desperately wants meaningless wins in Florida and Michigan to turn into votes she can count on" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). As I'm sure everyone out there knows, the Democratic National Committe stripped the delegate counts from FL/MI because both states held their primaries earlier than allowed. Please note, this was not a spur of the moment decision made just weeks before the FL/MI primaries, but rather a decision made last year when FL/MI announced their plans to hold their primaries earlier than normal.

Now that Hillary (sorry, not meaning to pick on her, but she makes it so easy lately), is behind in votes, she wants her 'meaningless wins' to count. But . . . drumroll please . . . "Clinton did not object to the DNC stripping the states of their delegates when the decision was made last year" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). In fact, irony at its best (or worst if you're Sen. Hillary Clinton), some of her "backers were on the committee that made the decision to do so and activiely supported it" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). Does the word two-faced hold any meaning here?

I mean, really, people! Get a life. The fact is, Hillary wants to change the rules because they adversely affect her at the moment. If the rules were not adversely affecting her, would she be raising such a fuss? Highly unlikely. If the proverbial shoe was on the other foot (Obama's foot, though I'm not sure how he'd look wearing Hillary's shoes), would she be raising such a stink? Highly unlikely. In fact, I could probably place money on this one, I think Sen. H. Clinton would be fighting tooth and nail to uphold the DNC ruling if Obama was wearing her shoes. Heck, if Obama was wearing her shoes, she might have plenty more to say.

In the words of a good friend of mine . . . I'm just saying . . .

S

Politics - Negative Ads

I've never understood the point of negative ads. My philosophy: insecure people run negative ads. Since the majority of politicians run negative ads . . . I guess that means all politicians are insecure. I think it also - at least in my opinion - means that politicians running negatives ads are immature.

Case in point: (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday sharpened her attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as she faces what even her supporters admit are must-win situations in Texas and Ohio in the weeks ahead.

The above is from http://www.cnn.com/. Sen. Clinton, because Barack Obama is in the lead, is now 'sharpening' her claws and running negative ads. She didn't do this when she was winning, so why now? Why can't she - and all politicians - just run positive ads, highlighting what they are going to do for the country, instead of focusing on alleged negative aspects of their opponents? I'm more likely to vote for someone who runs a positive versus negative campaign.

Now, before someone leaps to a conclusion - I'm neither for nor against any candidate at this point, though I do have preferences (please refer to other posts). I just want honesty in a candidate. I want maturity. We are not in kindergarten! We are adults. Negative attacks should not exist.

Scott

Money, Money, Money

If I were a gay man, I'd make some musical quote for this blog. Oh, wait, I am a gay man, so . . . "and the money kept rolling in from every side" (Evita for you non-musical people, gay or straight, out there). Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on the current political campaigns. I just don't get it! Why is it, that political candidates can raise millions of millions of dollars to bombard an unsuspecting, and unwilling in some cases, society with political ad after political ad (95% negative, 2% positve, and 3% that make no sense at all - in my opinion), and yet cannot find money for worthwhile causes once they get into office?

Think of it - millions upon millions of dollars going for cancer research, AIDS research, border security, eliminating the deficit . . . and the list goes on. Instead, millions upon millions of dollars is wasted every time an incumbent or new candidate runs for office. Think of it - for every winner, there are one, two, if not three losers per political office. Think of the millions upon millions of dollars down the drain. It is wasted money. The money had no effect whatsoever. The candidate did not get elected.

So, why shouldn't the candidates - the money so easily accessible - not donate 65% of campaign contributions towards charitable organizations, the national deficit, border security, or some other cause? Why not make the money useful rather than useless?

S

Conservatism, and other politics.

Current President - and thankfully out of office soon - Bush wants to keep a conservative in office. My question: What have conservatives done for the country lately?

Let me make a list:

1) Sent us to fight a war we should not be fighting based on an outright lie: WMD!
2) Sent our country into a recession.

Do I need to say more? Conservatism is not what our country needs. We need to quit funneling billions of dollars into a pointless war, bring our troops home, and let them defend our country, on our soil, and not some foreign war that we cannot - and will not - win, not matter how long we stay over there. And, before the right wing conservatives take aim, I currently have one nephew in Iraq, and another set to go at some point in time. I support our troops 100%. I just do not support the administration that started a war we could not win based on false (WMD) information. We need a President/Administration that is going to see to the needs of the United States first and foremost - homelessness, illegal immigration, the economy.

We need a government that is for the people, by the people, and not the current state of government that is for the conservatives, by the conservatives, and to hell with the rest of the population.

What do I want in a political candidate?

1) Honesty - tell me what you think you can do, what you want to do, but don't give me false promises. Don't tell me, that when you're elected, you're going to create a fair tax, create national healthcare, blah, blah, blah . . . It's not gonna happen! Tell me that you would like to create a fair tax, but, you know it's probably not going to ever happen, but you'll try your best. Don't tell me about your plans for national health care, rather, tell me about your plans to set fair and stable pricing across the board by hospitals and physicians. The reason insurance companies charge so much in premiums, is because the hospitals/physicians charge so much to the consumer. A band-aid does not cost $2.99. The mark-up on hospital/physicians bills is incredible - I should know, I work in the insurance industry. So, national healthcare candidate, tell me how you want to solve that problem, outline your plan, and finish your statement with the truth: you'll do the best you can. The country has listened to the false promises of candidates since the beginning of our established government. What the country has not listened to is honest statements about what they hope to do once in office. Try that for a change and see what happens.

Okay, so I ranted off subject, but so what, since it all ties in together. The United States is failing. We are a country in crisis. It is time the energy of we the people (that means the government as well) went to fixing our problems, rather than focusing on the problems of every other country in the world.

S

Things I Don't Get

This entry will serve as a continuous entry as things just strike me.

Case in Point: In a recent article about a 10 year old boy who allegedly set his house on fire and killed four people, the pastor of a local church said he didn't think the boy set the fire because the boy is a 'churchgoer'. What the F###???

Where is the logic in the pastor's statement? Does he really live in a world that people who go to church do not commit crimes? People commit crimes on a daily basis. It happens. It's life. Just because someone goes to Church does not make them any more or less likely to commit a crime.

I just don't understand the warped logic that makes people think that just because someone goes to Church they cannot commit a crime. Whether the 10 year old boy set or did not set the fire is the question, not whether he could set or not set the fire because he goes to Church. I'm sure Ted Bundy went to Church. He also murdered a heck of a lot of people. Has anyone heard about the Catholic Church scandal? The priests allegedly invovled were leaders of the church and they allegedly committed a crime. Enough said.

Just my thoughts for today.

Scott

In Memory of . . .

Spanky

May 1, 1991 – June 6, 2007

The Rainbow Bridge

(inspired by Norse Legend)

By the edge of a woods, at the foot of a hill,

Is a lush, green meadow where time stands still.

Where the friends of man and woman do run,

When their time on earth is over and done.

For here, between this world and the next,

Is a place where each beloved creature finds rest.

On this golden land, they wait and they play,

Till the Rainbow Bridge they cross over one day.

No more do they suffer, in pain or in sadness,

For here they are whole, their lives filled with gladness.

Their limbs are restored, their health renewed,

Their bodies have healed, with strength imbued.

They romp through the grass, without even a care,

Until one day they start, and sniff at the air.

All ears prick forward, eyes dart front and back,

Then all of a sudden, one breaks from the pack.

For just at that instant, their eyes have met;

Together again, both person and pet.

So they run to each other, these friends from long past,

The time of their parting is over at last.

The sadness they felt while they were apart,

Has turned into joy once more in each heart.

They embrace with a love that will last forever,

And then, side-by-side, they cross over… together.

© 1998 Steve and Diane Bodofsky. All Rights Reserved

The Failure of Elected Officials

Why is it that elected officials are allegedly ignorant? See two separate examples below:

Nashville parks have recently installed cameras because: The homosexual sex is one of the reasons Metro Council Member Michael Craddock said he fought to have the cameras installed in the first place. Craddock said, “It has taken me a year... ...to get these cameras installed where they can use them to deter sexual deviants in the park.” (wkrn.com)

New Hampshire passes a law legalizing civil unions for homosexuals. The response of one senator: "Let's just call it what it really is, no sugarcoating," said Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau. "This creates same-sex marriage. There is no right to marriage in either the New Hampshire Constitution or the federal Constitution." He goes on to say, "We don't let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons," he said. (comcast.net – news – AP)

My response: Give me a break! I mean, really, people, grow up, get a life, and get a hobby!

First, Nashville Metro Council Member Michael Craddock – to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is no longer listed as a deviant behavior, so, his statement is false. Homosexuality is genetics. It is not a choice. It is not something people ‘try’. It is how they were born, just like Mr. Craddock was born heterosexual. He had no choice no his sexuality, just as I had no choice on my sexuality. It’s all in the genes!

Second, Senator Robert Letourneau – Are you on drugs? I mean, really, “we don’t let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons.” I understand why we don’t let blind people drive and felons vote, the reasons both good and obvious, but what does that have to do with civil unions? Can a person make a more illogical statement?

Is there anything more to say on this subject? I don’t think so. The logic, the intelligence, or lack thereof, of elected officials making important decisions for our communities, is frightening. I understand that some people choose to believe that homosexuality is a choice. It makes their hatred, their discrimination, their oppression, easier to swallow. It helps them sleep at night by calling someone a deviant, or making lame (blind people don’t drive for obvious reasons) statements, that somehow (at least in their minds) make homosexuals somehow less than human.

In the end, perhaps humanity exists in greater measures in homosexuals, in women, in people of color, who have to deal with discrimination and oppression on a daily basis by allegedly intelligent people.

I truly feel sorry for Mr. Craddock and Senator Letourneau. I feel sorry for all the people affected by their alleged ignorance. I feel sorry for the voters who put them in office, thinking they were allegedly intelligent individuals capable of making logical and justified decisions. I feel sorry for the world that is not a better place because of the power these two men hold in their hand, expressing their personal views over the greater views of the public they were elected to serve. For, in the end, they were elected to their respective positions to serve the people, and not themselves. They have failed in that duty.

Don Imus - Double Standard

By now, the world knows what Don Imus called the Rutger's Women's Basketball team. His words are inexcusable. The media frenzy and retribution over those words, to me at least, is inexcusable.

Why? Simply put: double standard.

It is perfectly okay for rap artists, hip-hop artists, filmmakers of colors, to use such language in their music and films. It is considered cultural in those contexts. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition are protesting Imus, but I have yet to see them protesting the artists who perpetrate such language for the almighty buck. Why aren't Jesse and friends picketing the record labels and movie production companies? Why aren't the news personalities so strongly deriding Don Imus, doing the same thing? If it is wrong for a white person to make such comments, based on the cultural phenomenon of rap music and certain films, then why is it all right for others to make such comments?

Simply put: It is not. Or rather, it should not be. Plan and simple: double standard.

I do not agree in any way with what Don Imus said. I think it is wrong. It is ignorance at its worst. There is no defense for his actions, not even the rampant use of similar language by hip hop and rap artists. If he has no defense, then the hip hop and rap artists, the movie directors, etc., should not have a defense either. If the punishment for Don Imus is to get fired (which is happening, so it seems), then the same punishment should apply to rap and hip hop artists, et al.

Now, before the rage and indignation begins, before the name calling, and the protests by the Rainbow Coalition, please do remember I am a gay male who has heard more than my share of derogatory comments - faggot, queer, fairy, and so many other lovely terms. I am not defending Don Imus. I am simply protesting a double standard.

Society cannot change on its own. Society cannot (rather, should not) exist with the multitude of double standards. No one - black, white, or any other color - should be able to use the terms Don Imus used to describe the Rutgers Women's Basketball team. No one - gay or straight - should be allowed to use the term faggot, queer, fairy, or any of the other more colorful terms that exist to deride gay people. No one - men or women - should be able to use the term bitch to describe a woman. The fact is, within the Races, the Sexual Orientations, the Genders, there is a tendency to take the words, the derogatory terms, and empower them, limit the negative connotation, and create a positive connotation. My friends and I sometimes refer to each other as faggot, queer, fairy, nellie, etc. We take the negative and make it positive. It is wrong. Women do the same thing with the word 'bitch'. It is wrong. It is a double standard. We - society, one unit, not separate - must move forward as a group and stop. It is that simple. If one person is punished for using derogatory language, then all people using the same language - no matter the Race, Orientation, Gender - should receive equal punishment.

S

Homosexuality Cured!!!

Reported from the Associated Press - 02/06/2007

DENVER - One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

News Flash - there is a cure for homosexuality, at least if you're Ted Haggard. See above article.

Now, let me carefully dissect that email for all concerned.

1st Paragraph - "disgraced minster emerged convinced that he is 'completely heterosexual'. Convinced! Convinced! Convinced! So, allegedly, Ted Haggard believes he is no longer a homosexual because he is 'convinced' that he is heterosexual. Can somebody spell denial?

I guess there's a lot of scientific backing to his claim. Isn't that how all scientists prove their theories? Excuse me, but we're convinced that . . . , said the scientist. Convinced, does not mean anything other than that the person believes in something, it does not make it a fact.

3rd Paragraph - his heterosexuality is something he 'discovered'. Hmmm, discovered, another tricky word that - again - does not provide scientific proof of a cure for homosexuality. It might well mean that Ted Haggard allegedly 'discovered' his heterosexuality so he can be reinstated into his church and rake in the money once again. It might mean that Ted Haggard allegedly discovered his heterosexuality so he could continue his campaign against homosexuality without having to feel guilty for being an alleged hypocrite.

1st Paragraph - the best part of all. Four ministers oversaw intensive counseling. So, the ministers technically brainwashed - a common occurence in cults - Ted Haggard to convince him that he was heterosexual. I think the man doth protest too much!

Okay, I know people out there - allegedly right wing conservatives - believe that homosexuality is a choice, and - by the above article - believe that there is a cure for homosexuality. Now, above article as proof, we can see that there is not a cure, but only 'intensive counseling' used to 'convince' a disgraced minister that he is 'completely heterosexual'. It was a 'discovery'.

I am just totally amazed at the lengths allegedly intelligent people will go to, in order to convince themselves that a) homosexuality is a choice versus genetics and b) that there is a cure for homosexuality. All I can say, is that Ted Haggard is allegedly in denial. His 'discovery' is nothing more than an alleged intensive brainwashing by four ministers probably more worried about the money not coming in because of Ted Haggard's alleged fall from grace, rather than a true belief that Ted Haggard 'discovered' he is 'completely heterosexual'.

As a final note, I'll tell the story of a certain young man who would kiss a man, have sex with a man, but was not gay because he did not have oral sex with men. Who knew that not having oral sex with a man meant you were not gay. Perhaps somebody should alert Ted Haggard to that fact.

S

Loss

This past weekend I learned that a friend had died of a massive heart attack. Shock, disbelief, and so many other emotions accompanied the news. Death, even expected, is never welcome news. It is all the more suprising - shocking - when it happens so unexpectedly. Ron ate right, excercised, and lived a good life; and yet in one fell swoop, perhaps, genetics at its worst, all the eating right and excercising are for nothing.

Death makes me think. It makes me realize how short life is, and how - sometimes - no matter what a person does - it is just not enought to forestall death.

My partner and I, my friends and I, mourn the loss of Ron. He was a good man, of which I have no bad memories (and, trust me, I can't say that about everybody I know). His death - his loss - does not make much sense to me. He leaves behind a partner, a family, and so many people who knew him. His death teaches that life is for living. I guess any death teaches that lesson, but humanity (for the most part) fails to learn. We put off today, what we can do tomorrow, but sometimes, tomorrow just doesn't happen.

Tomorrow is about regret. Today is about life. Today is about living.

I wrote to a friend, in the aftermath of death, that I did not want to wake up old one day with a life full of regret. I am not sure if I can stop that from happening, but I can try. I can create balance in my life to do the things I want to do, along with the things I have to do. I can limit my regrets in life, by living my life today, instead of always waiting for tomorrow.

Scott

A Tree Grows in Seattle

I couldn't have said it better myself . . . though I certainly tried in two previous posts. Below, is a commentary from cnn.com by Lou Dobbs. I love it! It's fantastic! It's brilliant. It's snarkiness at its best!! Enjoy.

Dobbs: A tree grows in Seattle
POSTED: 3:01 p.m. EST, December 13, 2006

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Merry Christmas! That's right, Merry Christmas. Whether you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, pagan, barbarian or whatever, Merry Christmas!
It's what most of us say in this country come this time of year. It's about who we are, where we are and where we've been. And all the namby-pamby, little sensitive darlings among us who can't handle this verbal assault on their delicate senses should immediately begin seeking emergency psychiatric care.

This week we were treated to the spectacle of an easily offended and highly offensive rabbi who walked into an airport, gazed upon Christmas trees all around him and suddenly was overwhelmed with an immense, and apparently irresistible, urge to sue the management of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport because nowhere among all the Christmas trees was a single menorah. Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Seattle even delivered to the airport's management a draft of a lawsuit he would file if they didn't sprinkle menorahs around the Christmas trees.

Political correctness in this country reached an entirely new level of absurdity some years ago. But occasionally, and the situation at Sea-Tac is just such an occasion, we exceed ourselves. The militant fundamentalist rabbi so flummoxed Sea-Tac management with his threat and their perceived obligation to be "politically correct" that, rather than think rationally or simply tell him to stuff it, they started hacking away at all those artificial Christmas trees and quickly descended into a public relations nightmare in which they managed to offend reason, cultural values and the vast majority of Americans.

As CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told me, "The Supreme Court has held since 1984, the famous 'Reindeer Rule,' that if a symbol of Christmas is mostly secular, like a reindeer or a Christmas tree or Santa Claus, that is not a violation of the separation of church and state."
The irony that escaped the rabid rabbi and the timid Sea-Tac management team is that the Christmas tree's likely origin dates back to pre-Christian pagan cultures. The Christmas tree is not by any means a religious symbol, and when we're honest about it, the tree's become a purely commercial symbol more closely associated with shopping, roasting chestnuts and guzzling eggnog than a nativity scene with baby Jesus.

And hang on, Christians, because you're in 21st Century America, and our culture celebrates your holiest day of the year with such insensitive gusto that our economy would suffer a serious setback if your religious sensibilities were as easily offended as those of the litigious rabbi.
More than 140 million shoppers spent an average of about $360 on Black Friday alone, the day after Thanksgiving and the unofficial kickoff to the Christmas shopping season, according to the National Retail Federation. And all those Christmas shoppers are expected to spend nearly a half-trillion dollars this shopping season.

Now if I were a fundamentalist Christian, that might strike me as a little politically incorrect. And I think all of you folks should think about suing somebody. You know, get in the spirit of the season.

This mindless movement of political correctness at all costs is one of the most un-American and crazy twists in our culture as anything we've witnessed. Remember, we're Americans, and we have freedom of speech, that whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. Or at least we did.

And I hope you'll celebrate the Christmas season by offending someone. If you're Jewish, how about a hearty "Happy Hanukkah" to a good Christian? If they're offended you've revealed a fool, not such a good Christian and someone you shouldn't waste your expression of good will upon. But get ready for a few robust "Merry Christmas" calls to be thrown your way as well.
The operators of the Seattle-Tacoma airport quickly righted a potentially dreadful wrong. The rabbi decided not to file a suit, Christmas trees have sprung back up throughout the concourse, and no, not a single menorah has been spotted. I can only hope this is the beginning of a major movement in America, one that regards thinking as paramount to phony feelings and heightened self-centered sensitivities. Common sense and judgment should always reign supreme over political correctness, no matter what the current trend.

And, my gosh, even Wal-Mart this year has abandoned its generic, politically correct "Happy
Holidays" greeting in favor of "Merry Christmas." I'm starting to think this may be the season to be jolly after all. Ho, ho, ho.

To all, a Merry Christmas. OK, and a Happy Hanukkah, too.

December 12, 2006

Damn, give a situation a little time, and it resolves itself. The Christmas tree – at least for this year – no longer hangs in the balance. See below story!

SEATAC, Washington (AP) -- Christmas trees are going back up at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Pat Davis, president of the Port of Seattle commission, which directs airport operations, said late Monday that maintenance staff would restore the 14 plastic holiday trees, festooned with red ribbons and bows, that were removed over the weekend because of a rabbi's complaint that holiday decor did not include a menorah.

Airport managers believed that if they allowed the addition of an 8-foot-tall menorah to the display, as Seattle Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky had requested, they would also have to display symbols of other religions and cultures, which was not something airport workers had time for during the busiest travel season of the year, Airport Director Mark Reis said earlier Monday.

Port officials received word Monday afternoon that Bogomilsky's organization would not file a lawsuit at this time to seek the placement of a menorah, Davis said in a statement.
"Given that, the holiday trees will be replaced as quickly as possible," he said.
Davis added that the rabbi "never asked us to remove the trees; it was the port's decision based on what we knew at the time."

There were no immediate plans to display a menorah, airport spokesman Bob Parker said, saying restoration of the trees was expected to take place overnight Monday.
"A key element in moving forward will be to work with the rabbi and other members of the community to develop a plan for next year's holiday decorations at the airport," the port statement said.

The rabbi has also offered to give the port an electric menorah to display, said his lawyer, Harvey Grad. "We are not going to be the instrument by which the port holds Christmas hostage," Grad said, emphasizing the rabbi never sought removal of the trees, but addition of the menorah. The rabbi had received "all kinds of calls and emails," many of them "odious," Grad said, adding he was "trying to figure out how this is consistent with the spirit of Christmas."

Thirteen trees had sat above foyers that lead outside to the airport drive. The largest tree, which Reis estimated to be 15 or 20 feet tall, was placed in a large lobby near baggage claim for international arrivals.

After the removal, some airline workers decorated ticketing counters with their own miniature Christmas trees.

Customer service agents with Frontier Airlines pooled their money Monday morning to buy four 1-foot-high Christmas trees, which they placed on the airline's ticketing counter. Atop a Delta counter, workers put up a tree several feet tall.

The airlines lease space for ticket counters from the airport, and can display trees there if they want, Reis said. (cnn.com - 12/12/2006)

It appears that the human spirit, the desire to protect the beleaguered Christmas tree, to bring it back out into the light for people to see, is stronger than I originally thought. Perhaps even more moving is the fact that, in protest of the shabby treatment of the Christmas trees at the Seattle airport, airline employees fought back in their own way. Bravo to the human spirit!!!

In the end, no matter a persons beliefs – Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Paganism, etc. – the Christmas tree is a just a tree. It is not a weapon to beat down other religions. It is a memory of childhood, of lying beneath the tree and looking up at all of the lights. It is a memory of scuffling across the carpet in sock feet, stopping in front of the tree, and tentatively reaching out with one finger – waiting, knowing – and watching that single, silvery strand of tinsel leap out to give a slight (sometimes big) electric shock. It is the memory of the smell (before artificial trees) of pine filling the room. It is so many things, and yet today, in 2006, the Christmas tree has become far more than it ever should. It is not an object to fight over, or sue over, or to demand it bear a different name to reflect a multi-cultural society. It is not a Hanukah bush, or a Kwanza tree. It is not a holiday tree. It is a Christmas tree and it should be allowed to remain just that, for time immemorial.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good life!!!

Who will defend the Christmas tree?

December 11, 2006

Why do Christmas trees threaten people? They have been around for centuries, part of various cultures for centuries, and yet in recent years it seems that Christmas trees are under attack! Why? What has a poor Christmas tree ever done to somebody? Have they committed murder? Have they robbed a bank? Have they abused a child? Have they run for political office and made promises they were not ever going to keep? No!

Yet, the poor, beleaguered Christmas tree is under attack again, this time by a Rabbi in Seattle, Washington. Now, after years of faithful service to the Seattle Airport, nine, loyal trees have had their lights dimmed, their decorations hidden away in some dark and dank storage unit, and been put away in their boxes, possible to never see the light of day again. This did not happen in the light of day, but in the wee hours of night, with few people around to witness one more step in the eradication of the life of the Christmas tree! It was as if the trees were horrible criminals, shunted away in the dark of night, a hint of communism suddenly in the United States. Christmas trees beware, your days are numbered!

There is an old saying: you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

The Christmas tree is a perfect example of this. I mean, once upon a time, it was just a simple tree. It lived its life in the forest, home to birds and squirrels, its falling needles nourishment for the ground. Then, one day, so far back that no one truly remembers when, someone began to decorate the trees and called it a Christmas tree. For centuries, it lived up to this domestic abuse by the humans who willing cut it down to build shelter or provide warmth for their families. It suffered the indignities of having lights strung through it, tinsel wrapped around it, and a lack of water so severe that its needles fell off and remained forever in the carpets of millions of houses worldwide. Then, at the end of the season, it was tossed to the curb without a second thought, some tinsel still remaining to flutter in an icy wind. Oh, the indignities suffered by the Christmas tree, and yet it never complained. It never spoke out and said, “Hey, do you mind, I’m pretty comfortable out here in the wild, with the sun shining down and the wind in my boughs. I’d rather you not chop me with an axe or cut me with a saw. Yes, I know, it gets cold out here, and dry in the heat of summer, but it’s a life, and not a bad one at that.” No, the Christmas tree suffered in silence and bore the decorations of generations. The Christmas tree stood tall and proud in Rockefeller Center, in the White House, in businesses and airports, in banks and grocery stores, and in homes both small and large. It did not ask for the honor, but accepted it none-the-less.

Now, in a multi-cultural society, the tree once again fears for its safety. It does not fear the bite of the axe or chainsaw, or the possibility of drying out, or the ravages of wildfires set by humanity’s carelessness. No, it fears a society that sees the Christmas tree as a threat to their beliefs.

In 2005, a movement (and yes, equivalent to some other stinky movement, I think) began to have the Christmas tree called a Holiday Tree to embrace all cultures. Now, a Rabbi in Seattle protests and nine trimmed trees suddenly find themselves shipped off to storage. Isn’t it about time that humanity gave the poor Christmas tree a break? Why should the Christmas tree have to change its name? Why should the Christmas trees in the Seattle Airport have to be removed in the wee hours of night with few people around? Why can’t we all just leave the poor Christmas tree alone? It is just a tree after all; a pine tree really, that once a year takes on a different name: Christmas tree. It is not a Holiday Tree, because it does not celebrate all Holidays, just one holiday – Christmas. And yet this grand tradition teeters on the edge of a great chasm.

It is not too late, to save the poor Christmas tree.

One voice – a Rabbi in Seattle – decided the fate of nine Christmas trees. Please be aware, the Rabbi did not make the decision to spirit the trees away, but his actions alone caused the airport authorities to make the decision.

A time of indecision is upon the world, upon the lives of Christmas trees everywhere. If we, the loyal followers of the Christmas tree, do not do something, then who will? The Christmas tree cannot speak for itself. If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? If nine trees are spirited away in the night, with no one to see, has it really happened? If other business across the land fail to put up Christmas trees next year, did Christmas trees ever really exist?
I do not know the answers to those questions, but I know that the idea of a Christmas tree hangs in the balance.

Unconsionable - Mary Cheney is Pregnant

Mary Cheney is pregnant. The Conservative firestorm has begun.

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America calls the pregnancy “unconscionable”. I firmly believe that Janice Crouse’s statement is “unconscionable.” What right does she have to decide whether a pregnancy is conscionable or unconscionable? What right does she have to be part of a group that promotes allegedly narrow-minded thinking and outright discrimination against other humans? I really do not have the answers to those questions. Janice Crouse, and others like her, have the right of free speech, and she does have the money behind her of other allegedly narrow-minded people so that her voice (not necessarily a wise voice) is heard over the voices of others.

Janice Crouse also made the following statement: It’s very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father.

Why? My sister raised her two children on her own after her husband left her. They grew up just fine without a father. He was a peripheral presence in their lives. My sister taught my nephews about love, respect, the difference between right and wrong, and the acceptance of responsibility. She did a fine job. Both my nephews are currently on the road to serving our country. My own father was a peripheral presence in my life. My mother taught my siblings and me the same thing my sister taught her children. My mother raised us, not my father. He worked for a living. He provided the home. He was a distant figure in our lives. He was not integral to who we each became as adults. A father is not a necessary figure in a child’s life. A mother is not a necessary figure in a child’s life. Love is the necessary figure. Has Janice Crouse considered the fact that some fathers physically abuse their children? Has she considered the fact that some father’s sexually abuse their children? Has she considered the fact that some mothers do the same thing? I really do not think so. Her statement appears biased, and based on limited information, rather than factual information.

The thing that bothers me most about Janice Crouse’s statements, and other individuals like her, is the fact that they willingly discriminate against people. Consistently, the conservatives deny equality to people. Consistently, Janice Crouse and other like-minded individuals, feel that their views should take precedence over the views of others. It is the year 2006, and yet we might as well be in the 1800s when women had few, if any rights, African Americans were fourth-class citizens, and the idea of equal rights was nothing but a dim illusion not likely to happen any time soon.

Discrimination is wrong, no matter how you color it, and no matter how a person justifies the discrimination. Mary Cheney and her partner have just as much right to have a baby, as Janice Crouse, as any Conservative, and as any human does. To call a pregnancy ‘unconscionable’ is a matter of free choice, but to promote discrimination, to promote the denial of equality, is the truly unconscionable act.