A modest proposal.

As you probably know, this last election carried several proposals involving gay marriage.
Like anything involved with any marriage the issue is emotionally charged.

After listening to and reading quite a bit of commentary on the issue, I have noticed several topics that are frequently brought up in this debate that REALLY need to be corrected.

First - we should make absolutely clear that being homosexual means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. It does NOT mean you are attracted to children. That is a pedophile and is a completely seperate thing. Reported cases of rape, incest and abuse are far more likely to come from those who identify themselves as heterosexual (simply due to the percentages involved) ... and not infrequently, married heterosexuals.
Bringing up things like incest, abuse and pedophileia in this discussion is a "bait and switch tactic" and frankly could be a charge leveled by the gay community as a strike against the "straight" community.

Secondly - the idea that "We the People" must marry for the sake of breeding or we will die out, is ludicras. This scenario went extinct well over a century ago (in the US) and yet somehow people still want to desperately cling to it.

Homosexuals didn't just show up on some space ship. They have been around since man has been around and they have been in our population, mostly in hiding, since the first sailors set foot here.
Yet, the US population has grown steadily and at an ever increasing pace since the turn of the century. Acknowledging the presence of what has been here all along is NOT going to suddenly stop population growth. It's time for people to stop letting themselves be frightened by this fairy tale.

Finally - marriage under assualt? Hardly.
The census numbers show that marriage has been in steady increase since the 60's. A search of both the census bureau web site and the CDC didn't show the data listed by percentages but the numbers themselves have increased steadily.
Also, data prior to 1950 is actually hard to quantify due to the way it was collected. No one went door to door back then asking if you were a single parent and if you were married or divorced like they did AFTER 1950. They just counted the number of divorce papers that had been granted and were still on file.

Lower divorce rates pre 1950 simply DO NOT equate to more successful marriages.
The fact that people weren't tracked with social security numbers like they are now, meant that men didn't have to spend the time, expense or embarrassment of going through a divorce. They could just LEAVE their families and start over somewhere else with absolutely no record being left behind. Further, men were considered legal head of the household so even if a woman was allowed to file for a divorce, it was unlike it would be granted until the judge had heard from the husband.
On top of that, having the money to file for a divorce simply wasn't an option available to many women then.

This cake is a lie people.
Marriages failed in the past just as often as they do now ... back in "the good old days" there was just less "official" divorce and more people living in their own personal hell with no hope of escape.

Final thought (for now)
Here is the most important point I would make.

Homosexuality is not some fad. Just because you deny them the right to have their unions recognized as a "legal" marriage, does not mean that they will just give-up and go away.

I don't know how many people we are talking about here but it is has proven to be a rather substantial economic and voting block. These are your neighbors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, public officials and even clergy and like it or not, society has already begun changing to fit them in. Yet, how all of this "fitting in" turns out is still very much up in the air.

If those representing "gay marriage opposition" want to have any say in how this "fitting in" will occur it is time for them to stop pretending that this will all just blow over.

"Society" is not something carved in stone. It is liquid. Sometimes a raging river, sometimes a peaceful spring but always moving. Things are going to change. They always have and they always will. Those that oppose gay rights and gay marriage would be doing themselves and the whole of society a great service if they would uncover their eyes and ears and step up to help find some middle-ground.

It is time to start behaving like responsible adults and start working together to ease society through this change rather then acting like frighten children, being dragged kicking and screaming into an inevitable future.

I don't know what the solution to this conflict is but I do know that if you don't join in to help shape the solution you shouldn't expect the outcome to be anything you like.

My message to Republicans

Like everyone else in this country (and apparently the world) I'll have a lot to say about this election but I wanted to start with this.

As an Obama supporter (I am not a Democrat) I have heard a lot of spin doctors tell you Republican's what I want to do to you. Well, hopefully the noise has died down enough now that you might be able to hear ME tell you what I hope your future holds.

I wish for you, increased economic prosperity and a renewed and strengthened national security.
I hope to see our government reinstate freedoms you had 8 years ago and to see them leave you alone to worship, love and marry as you see fit.

That's it. No malice. No vengeance.

So, you may still think that President Elect Obama's ideas will not achieve these goals but you shouldn't feel any persecution. I simply want better times for every American and I'd hope you would now be pulling for the same outcome.

Modern Day Gangsters

Hedge Funds - these are companies that take their investors money and use it to "sell short". That is, to place bets that a companies stock price will go down.

However, they are not required to say which companies they have shorted. The result is that they can massively short a company and regular investors won't know that this is what is happening. All they will know is that suddenly there is a LOT of negative sentiment about that company ... this causes THEM to sell (or buy shorts of there own) and further drives the price down.
... but wait, it get's better!
These hedge funds were allowed to short a company like Lehman Brothers (now out of business) and then buy insurance on them - betting that the company wouldn't be able to meet it's financial obligations.

The Securities and Exchange commission allowed these hedge funds to buy over 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance on the 100 Billion in debt that Lehman brothers had.


So here is the summary.
The Hedge funds made big bets that Lehman Brother's price would go down.
Then these funds were allowed to buy insurance (more then 3 times what they were worth) that paid them if Lehman Brothers got in financial trouble. Then the funds actively started rumors that Lehman was in trouble because the were so heavily shorted. This caused the companies to be downgraded by financial analysts. Which increased the stocks downward spiral and resulted in a capital problem at Lehman that kept them from meeting there debt and ran them out of business.


You get to pick up the tab.
So it seems that a major percentage of these more then 300 Billion in insurance policies that hedge funds were allowed (by the government) to take out against Lehman Bros. ... were written by AIG.
Since then the Government (our tax dollars) has stepped in and bailed out AIG, becoming part owners of that company.

So on Oct. 21st, you and I will have to pay these hedge funds the 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance policies they placed on 100 Billion in assets that they themselves then destroyed when they made a killing on there "short sells" of the company.

All of this was legal and had the blessing of lawmakers who are STILL screaming that "DEregulation" of the financial industry is the key to success.

Theirs perhaps ... but certainly NOT this country's.

Scare Tactics - does this seem familure?

Once again, reasonable America (the "middle" majority), is left wondering why the two candidates can't simply run on their ideas. Why can't they just present their plans and let us pick the one we like?

If you believe the economy is best served by giving tax breaks to Corporations with the idea that they might in turn share some of that with the bulk of the public ... then say so and be proud of your stance.
If you believe the economy is best served by giving the tax cuts directly to the bulk of the public so that they have the money to go and BUY those corporation's products ... then make THAT point and let the public decided which plan they like the best.

What McCain is doing instead, is attempting to resuscitate the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by merit of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us.

While speakers at McCain rallies have taken once again to chanting Obama's middle name -- Hussein, Gov. Sarah Palin has been, accusing Obama of ''palling around'' with terrorists. The senator maliciously told an audience that Obama doesn't like the troops and doesn't see America ''the way you and I see America.'' McCain himself has been muttering ''Who is the real Barack Obama?'

That many McCain supporters embrace such words (and deeds?) is plain from the racial invective, death threats and visceral anger of his recent rallies. Enough that the senator was required -- to a chorus of boos -- to ask them to dial it down.

It's an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation such as ours that has been subjected to 8 years of planned divisiveness and incessant fear mongering from it's ruling party, it is also a dangerous one.

Nice work, Dubya.

Trashing the U.S. economy so that immigrants won't want to come here seems counter productive. Then again, "Counter Productive" is the Bush Administrations Legacy.

Read more here -
Illegal immigration declines as U.S. economy falters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_re_us/illegal_immigration

Duck and cover - Palin Speaks

When ask by a voter on Monday what SHE would do about Pakistan, Sarah Palin gave an answer similar to Barack Obama. Problem is John McCain chided Obama during Friday's presidential debate for taking that stance.

Once again, she has blamed her misstatement on being ask a question she hadn't been given an answer to and on the media for telling everyone about it.

As she wants to be on standby for the office of the President, you have to ask "What part of "strong leadership" is any of that?"

You can read the article here -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pakistan;_ylt=AhYonm6uz6flazEQo9zgCJTCw5R4

Taxing my patients.

If there is one thing that the RNC is REALLY good at, it's repeating , misinformation until the average Joe thinks it's the true.

I still have people (whom I consider intellegent and aware) telling me, "But I hear from non-"Faux News" sources that Obama is going to raise our taxes and put the country in debt from his proposals.
As for the taxes, this is just plain WRONG (unless you make more then $200,000 and even then it would only be a 1% increase). As for increasing the debt, the Republicans have done this for 8 years and McCain's plan will continue to do this.

So, according to the Tax Policy Center, both candidates will increase the debt.
McCain does so while offering a larger tax cut then Obama but McCain would give the bulk of those cuts to about 5% of the tax payers (the highest income brackets).
McCain would essentially be continuing the "tax cuts" that the Bush Administration ram-rodded through a Republican controlled congress.

Obama on the other hand, would maintain the "Bush Tax Cut" but turn it upside down, giving the tax cuts to the lower and middle classes while covering some of these cost by increasing taxes on those highest income 5%.

Here is some info -
++++++++++++++
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750

This short paper summarizes the Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised September 15, 2008
Abstract

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion.

Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

Obama sees gains

Obama inches ahead in tight race

Entire article at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080929/ts_csm/akickoff;_ylt=AiD2R27Rary1wmZ_xxSIPLus0NUE

Pundits point to a variety of reasons for the shift in the dynamics of the presidential race. First is the steady stream of bad economic news. Polls consistently show that voters think Democrats are better at handling the economy.

Then there's the way Senator McCain reacted to the crisis. Initially calling the fundamentals of the economy strong, he then decided the crisis was so bad he needed to suspend his campaign, even calling for a postponement of the first presidential debate on Friday.

His campaign had hoped that would reinforce his stance as a leader that put the country first. But to many people it instead reinforced the notion that McCain could be impulsive and erratic.

(Encouraging ... and yet, not far enough ahead to overcome the "Diebold Factor")

Get a Job!!!!

"WASHINGTON - New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to their highest level in seven years"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims;_ylt=Aqlw4pq7hsaR9prvCXLZL92s0NUE

WASHINGTON - New home sales tumbled in August to the slowest pace in 17 years, while the average sales price fell by the largest amount on record, demonstrating the depth of the problem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy;_ylt=Ah9a4.i10EQF36M.9bBpMd.s0NUE

A flailing economy - Just another facet of the Bush Legacy.

One would hope that the lesson learned from this last 8 years is that the Republican ideals of "Give tax breaks to the top 5% and they will re-distribute it to the rest of the tax payers" and "If you want the economy to flourish, leave corporations and financial firms to regulate themselves" are complete fantasy.

These ideals have proven themselves time and again to be failed policies. I can only hope that this time around the country will have learn from this lesson because it has been a VERY expensive one.

... pssst! Hey taxpayers, want to buy a bridge?

Watching the testimony and questions from Congress on this Trillion dollar bank bailout.

The CNBC talking heads keep pitching the bailout as an idea that should make the taxpayers money.

Should? SHOULD!!!!!

Time for a reality check here people. We are in this very mess because some "really smart" CEO's from the BIGGEST financial institutions in this country agreed to deals that they were convinced "SHOULD" make them money.
THEY DIDN'T !!! In fact several of those companies have ceased to exist!
The Government (taxpayers) making money should have nothing to do with this decision. As these very companies have proven, we stand just as much chance of LOOSING money on this deal as making it.

These companies are now holding a gun to "the head" of our economy and we find ourselves forced to bail them out. Again (see S&L Crises of the 80's). The only way we should fork over this nearly TRILLION dollars to cover their bad investments is if some of those involved are sacrificed. Jailed. Shot. Something.
We need there to be REAL, negative consequences for willingly putting the country in such dire straights. This is the only way we can avoid having this happen again.

BTW ... if one were to accept the idea that the U.S. Government should loan money we don't have based on possible profits to the taxpayers ... there are probably much more profitable and much less troubled industries for "the Taxpayers" to get into. Like the oil industry for example.

Look, ... but don't ask any questions!

So, what do you do if your candidate can't answer even the most basic of questions related to the office they have been nominated for? You hide them away.

Palin has given only two "one on one" interviews since becoming the Republican choice for V.P.
One in which she was shown to have only vague notions about the job and one (with Faux News) which featured such hard hitting questions as "So do you think the rich AND the middle class would be better off if they didn't have to pay taxes?"
Oh, please. Why not just ask her if people feel better when you don't hit them in the head with a hammer.

So now the Republican campaign has lined up a series of "visits" with foreign dignitaries hoping that Palin, getting her picture taken ONCE with these folks, will suddenly qualify in the voter's minds as having "Foreign Affairs Experience". Never mind the fact that the first time in her life she even traveled outside the U.S. was just last year.

Just one hitch, her handlers are forbidding any reporters (only photographers) to be present when this takes place. Having those who could tell us about these photo ops would apparently run the risk of proving just how "out of her element" she will be.

Simply incredible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders

NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew.

The meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaign's effort to give Palin the apperance of experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year.

The full article is found HERE -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders;_ylt=AnPbBNDUL_3MnrWuDq_xZTes0NUE

The Circular Talk Express

This is from Sunday's news. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_el_pr/financial_meltdown_candidates_1)
The audacious double-talk and flip flopping simply HAD to be called out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has long supported fewer regulations for businesses. But as the financial crisis on Wall Street worsens, McCain is calling for more government.

McCain was asked if he regretted supporting a 1999 law that removed barriers between investment banks and commercial banks that were erected in 1933, in response to the 1929 stock market crash.

(so he is all for deregulation until it has sent the country into economic crises ... THEN he wants to try and regulate it. Swell.)

"No," McCain said. "I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."

(if by "growth" he means "destruction" then he is spot on)

In the same interview, McCain defended the Bush administration's proposed bailout of financial firms as necessary, though he acknowledged it could get expensive.

(deregulate to make the CEO's rich ... then have the government bail their companies out at taxpayer expense. THAT is a TAX INCREASE.)

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's economic advisers, was a chief sponsor of the 1999 bill that removed restrictions on investment and commercial banks.

(Why would we want to continue to let the people who have run our economy into the rocks ... steer the ship of state?
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is one definition of insanity.)