Did anyone see Sarah Palin’s interview this evening on The CBS Evening News? It was actually frightening thinking that this is someone who could soon be — as the saying goes — a “heartbeat away” from the presidency.

Here are a few highlights:

COURIC:  Do you consider yourself a feminist?

PALIN:  I do.  A feminist who believes in equal rights.

As opposed to…what? Are there feminists who don’t believe in equal rights?  I sort of thought that the feminist movement’s very purpose was to address gender inequality.  It was one of the few times Palin actually answered the question, even if the answer was a bit laughable.

COURIC:  It will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers.  So isn’t the notion of “Drill, Baby, Drill” a bit misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?

PALIN:  Well we shoulda started ten years ago, tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in.  Alaska has billions of gallons of oil, hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore.  Shoulda started doing it ten years ago, but better late than never.  It’s got to be an “all of the above” approach to energy independence.

So if we had started ten years ago on a project that would take ten years’ time for consumers to start feeling the benefits, we’d be feeling the benefits.  I think that’s what she’s saying.  And I think we already could have figured that much out.

What many of us still can’t seem to figure out is what happens ten years after that, when we’re suddenly getting plenty of oil — assuming that works out — and we’re just as dependent as we ever were on a commodity that still has a limited supply.  Human nature would dictate that we’d just blindly go on enjoying the use of the newly-obtained oil, without regard for what happens next.  And that’s reckless.  Environmentally and economically.

Couric then asked about Palin’s swipe at Joe Biden, when, speaking at a political rally, she said, “I’ve been hearing about his senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade.”

COURIC:  When you have a 72-year-old running mate, is that a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden’s been around a while?

PALIN:  Oh, no, it wasn’t negative at all.

Stop the music.  That was a lie.  You can tell, from the way she said the remark, that it was not intended as a positive remark.  She continued:

PALIN:  He’s got a lot of experience, and just stating the fact there that we’ve been hearing his speeches for all these years.  He’s got a tremendous amount of experience, and you know, I’m the new energy, the new face, the new ideas.  And he’s got the experience.

Seriously.  She really said that.  This, coming from the woman whose running mate’s entire campaign is centered on the relative lack of experience of Barack Obama.  So if she’s now trying to portray experience as a bad thing, and the “fresh face/new idea” person as the good thing, what, exactly is she saying about that 72-year-old, experienced running mate of hers?

COURIC:  In establishing your world view, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?

PALIN:  I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation of the press, of the media —

COURIC:  Which ones specifically?  I’m curious.

PALIN:  Um, all of ‘em.  Any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC:  Can you name a few?

PALIN:  I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.  Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested, it seems like, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?”  Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

Wow.  Just wow.

Asked about whether she feels global warming is manmade, (and Katie had to ask more than once to get an answer), she eventually got around to saying this:

PALIN:  …There are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now with these impacts.  I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there.  But, um, kinda doesn’t matter at this point as we debate, “What caused it?”  The point is, it’s real, we need to do something about it.

It kinda doesn’t matter what caused it?  Can someone please explain to me how we can do something about it if we don’t get definitive answers about what caused it?  I agree that there are cyclical weather patterns that are in the mix; that, however, does not mean that we should not be working to identify the elements of global warming that are manmade and to deal with them immediately.

Then there was this, when asked about homosexuality:

PALIN:  I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions they make in their own personal relationships.  I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years who happens to be gay.  And I love her dearly.  She is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice that is a choice I haven’t made.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall the next time these two dear friends get together for coffee.  I’d love to know how her friend would react to the asinine notion that being gay is a choice.  Anyone who genuinely believes that homosexuality is merely a matter of choice must, by definition, believe that they themselves could just have easily “chosen” to be gay, too.  Could you have gone the “other way” — whichever that way is — on a whim?

The only “choice” when it comes to homosexuality is whether or not to act on the urges you feel.  But being gay or straight — being attracted to whomever you are attracted to — is not something that you just choose to do one morning like one chooses what color shirt to pull out of the closet.

Thursday night’s vice presidential debate ought to be a hoot.

This almost sounds like a joke straight from Jay Leno or David Letterman. Sadly, it isn’t.

Two of the latest lawmakers to co-sponsor one of those ridiculous “Defense of Marriage”-type laws that define marriage as a union between man and woman have themselves demonstrated a somewhat unconventional standard within their own commitment.

First, there’s Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the man arrested a little more than a year ago in a Minneapolis airport terminal on charges of lewd conduct. Craig entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct after allegedly attempting to signal a male in the next stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. He has since attempted to withdraw the plea, but has so far been unsuccessful. He never even told his wife about the arrest, according to reports, until the story was made public.

The second lawmaker with the odd background is Louisiana Sen. David Vitter. In July of last year, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the woman dubbed “The DC Madam.” In a statement, he apologized for what he called a “a very serious sin” in his past for which he had apologized to God and to his wife.

I realize that there are a lot of people out there who still believe that marriage needs to be “protected” via the male-female definition. Until a few recent court rulings making way for same-sex marriage in a few areas, this country’s long history of the male-female definition by practice still managed to rack up a divorce rate somewhere around 50% or higher (depending on whom you ask). You’d have to believe, if you think same-sex marriage would destroy the institution, that these men and women who are so committed to fighting for the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with will somehow forget every ounce of commitment they displayed once the ring is on their finger.

But for those of you who still are so convinced of such a preposterous notion, does it at least seem odd to you that the institution of marriage needs the help of people who have been accused of either being unfaithful or taking the first steps toward infidelity?

Sure, I know what they say about forgiveness and redemption, and it’s great that these two politicians have seen the error of their ways and are surely committing themselves, through acts like these, to be good boys for the rest of their lives.

But if you are really interested in protecting the institution of marriage from all its various threats, and if you really want everyone to believe that you aren’t just being homophobic or blindly toeing a party line just so you can ignore really important issues like the economy or Iraq, you might wonder why there’s no proposal to punish adulterers; it seems to me that marriage needs a shot in the arm to protect the institution from them first.

As if South Carolina ranking #1 in text messaging while driving, we’re also getting national attention because a high school principal has decided to resign after being asked to allow the formation of a club he says goes against his “professional beliefs and religious convictions.”

The club in question is a Gay/Straight Alliance. His resignation will take effect in June of 2009, at the end of the 2008-2009 school year. I can’t help but wonder, if he’s so offended, why he didn’t set his date of separation to be June of this year.

The organization that creates such clubs nationwide describes its vision of the future as “a world in which every child learns to accept and respect all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”

Doesn’t sound so terrible, does it?

The principal in question says his school focuses on abstinence-based curriculum, and feels that a Gay/Straight Alliance would imply “that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.”

¿Que?

First, let me get the abstinence issue out of the way. Abstinence-based curriculum stresses the importance of waiting for sex until after marriage. It’s what most Christian organizations like to push for in our schools, because it allows parents to sit back and feel that kids are getting the “right” message. But as everyone who has ever been a teenager knows, being told that you should wait for something almost certainly guarantees that you don’t want to wait for it. Add to that the typical peer pressure students face, and a curriculum that urges abstinence with less-than-realistic instruction on protection for those students who choose not to wait, and you have a scenario that is basically facilitating the real possibility of unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. It doesn’t take a college degree to see that.

The opposite of abstinence-based sex ed is comprehensive sex ed:

“There is good evidence, from studies of programs implemented in the US, UK and other European countries and countries in Africa and Asia, that comprehensive sex education can reduce behaviors that put young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy. Studies have repeatedly shown too that this kind of sex education does not lead to the earlier onset of sexual activity among young people and, in some cases, will even lead to it happening later.”

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s move on to the rest of the quote:

“…that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.”

I can guarantee that every student in this principal’s school will choose to engage in sexual activity with the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes at some point…whether there is a Gay/Straight Alliance or not. The only exceptions will be those who decide to be celibate for life, or those who prefer relations with something other than humans, and I’d as soon think no more of that. If he could just figure out what needs to get said to make the members engage in sexual activity one day with members of the opposite sex only, his little “problem” would be solved, wouldn’t it?

If the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance is enough to make people want to have sex, shouldn’t even abstinence-based sex education be banned as well? After all, if just the mere mention of the topic — which is apparently this principal’s concern — is enough to send students over the edge, isn’t sex education itself also a danger? Even if students are pressured not to have it until later, they’re still telling them something about having it, and that must be asking for trouble!

Maybe sex education in his school should be replaced by good old Home Ec. Baking chocolate chip cookies and sewing on buttons probably wouldn’t get anyone all that hot and bothered. (Unless they got too close to the hot oven.)

The executive director for Faith in America, a group that fights religious bigotry against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Americans, issued a statement that read in part:

“We truly believe it is unfortunate that this principal cannot see the immense harm that is caused when a social climate of rejection, condemnation and violence is justified with misguided religious belief. To make such a choice over simply allowing gay youth a forum to meet and talk, alludes to the apparent deep-seated prejudice that must exist in the religious mindset of this person.

“It is unfortunately very similar to the time in our history when segregation in schools was once allowed to flourish because of the deep-seated prejudice that existed in our institutions and the religious mindset of many people during that period.”

Or, to put it another way, discrimination is discrimination, no matter what makes the targets of it different from the “rest.”

The article from Columbia television station WIS-TV also quotes the parent of a student at the school:

“We are not putting them like, ‘ugh. You know you’re lepers.’ But we have to stand for what our foundation of our nation was about.”

Huh?

I might have to go dig up my history book, because I don’t recall reading that our country was founded to discriminate against gay high school students. I do, however, happen to vaguely remember something about the desire for religious freedom being a motive.

Religion does play a big role in this. There are plenty of Christians who refuse to call homosexuality anything other than an abomination. Many of them latch on to issues like this so that they can deflect their own sins that they don’t like to talk about. It’s human nature, after all. Rather than take the blame for something you’re doing that’s wrong, it’s so much easier to point a finger at someone else you feel is worse.

They also are convinced that homosexuality — and heterosexuality for that matter — should be the classifications of one’s sexual preference, not sexual orientation. As if anyone really wakes up one day and chooses which he’ll be.

Think about this for a second.

How old were you when you decided to which gender you were attracted? How many long days and nights did you labor over the decision? How long was your list of pros and cons for each gender?

Surely, if it was solely a function of choice, you must have spent a long, long time carefully considering which “team” you’d be “playing” for.

I can’t help but wonder why these religious zealots who are so against a club designed to open dialog wouldn’t welcome it. They should want straight students talking with gay students. They should want gay students — or in their minds, students who are choosing to be gay — to be exposed to straight students, those who are doing the “right” thing, so that they may see how happy and perfect the straight students’ lives are, and be positively influenced to rethink their “choice.”

That is to say, they should want those “good, sinless” straight students to rub off on those gay students. (No pun intended.)

Dialog, they should believe, could make all the difference in turning these gay students’ lives in the “proper” direction, right?

If they’re so convinced that it works for abstinence, then what’s the hang-up about homosexuality? They should be eager to quash two “problems” at once.

That is, if they’re giving it any real thought at all.

A political action group called NARAL-Pro-Choice America has angered many of their female members by endorsing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in this year’s presidential campaign.

The organization itself, originally founded in 1968, dropped the long name, “National Abortion Rights Action League” (and later, “National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League”) in 2003 and now goes informally with the initials. The group’s website descibes its mission as “committed to protecting the right to choose and electing candidates who will promote policies to prevent unintended pregnancy.”

Some of the angry female members are saying that the endorsement of Obama over Clinton is a slap in the face to women everywhere, as if a group advancing a woman’s right to prevent unintended pregnancy can only be protected by another woman. As if women can only vote for a woman, no matter what the issue is. As if it doesn’t matter that the Democratic nominee has already been decided — and it’s not going to be Hillary, unless she is able to make sure every citizen’s vote doesn’t count by persuading super delegates to vote against the people.

But here’s my problem with all of the criticism NARAL is getting for choosing Obama: if women and women’s advocacy groups should only be allowed to select women, how (and why) have women ever been allowed to vote in the past? If Hillary was the first real female contender for the oval office, this should have been the first year that women voters should have had the option to vote at all. If it’s so wrong for women to side with a man as long as a woman’s in the room, or even when the woman has been pushed out of the room, I wonder why some of NARAL’s angry female critics are saying they’ll vote for McCain instead of Obama: don’t they realize that he’s a he, not a she?

Or do they know something we don’t?

More importantly, have these reactionary people, in the midst of their gender discrimination-based temper tantrum, bothered to actually read about Obama and McCain?

At the NARAL site, the group quotes Obama’s own words about the issue of abortion and family planning:

“A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess.  It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.

“I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President.  I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.

“I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.  I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies.  That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods.  It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

“Finally, I support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients.”

Here, from John McCain’s own site, is his stand:

 “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

“However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, ‘At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.’”

How any woman genuinely interested in this country maintaining a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, who then gets mad about the endorsement of Barack Obama, the likely candidate for the Democratic nomination, who appears to be on their side, can possibly vote for the opposing candidate who is clearly against a woman’s right to choose, isn’t paying attention.

Unless they’re so naive as to believe that their sudden support for McCain will make him take a sudden U-turn on the subject.

And these same people probably get outraged when they hear someone say they’d vote against Hillary just because she’s a woman.  They should.

It’s either about protecting a woman’s right to choose, or it’s about getting a woman in the presidency.  If a Mrs. President is their top priority, then they shouldn’t hide behind the issue of abortion to get there.  These voters should pick one battle, then be honest about their motives.

I know, I know.  Honesty in politics?  Such an alien concept.

On Friday, Barack Obama said, “It has been a rough couple of weeks.” Truer words have rarely been spoken by a politician.

Religion and politics shouldn’t mix. You need look no further than the campaigns of John McCain or Barack Obama recently for classic examples of why. By now, surely everyone has heard about Barack Obama’s pastor, the very wrong Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the fiery soundbites from a 2003 sermon that have made their way across all media platforms and the blogosphere.

You have probably also heard of the controversy with John McCain caused by the also-wrong Rev. John Hagee, who made eyebrow-raising remarks about Hurricane Katrina’s real purpose in the grand scheme of things.

One of my closest friends, my “adopted mom,” Linda, whom I have mentioned and linked before, wrote an article over at Huffington Post about the double standard in the coverage of the Obama-Wright and McCain-Hagee stories.

Back in 2006, Hagee had this to say about Hurricane Katrina:

“I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

Here’s what Linda had to say about Hagee’s train (wreck) of thought:

“In the Gospel According to John Hagee, God got fed up and hurled Hurricane Katrina at New Orleans in a raging fit of divine retribution.

“Trouble is, thousands of folks along the entire Gulf Coast suffered and died. Whole towns, innocent communities, were wiped out; folks who had nothing to do with Sin City, had never been there and never intended to go. Thousands of them lost their homes, their schools, their jobs. Their families. Many of them are still suffering, still displaced.

“If Hagee’s right about God’s direct and purposeful involvement, we have another problem. God’s aim is not so good. He hit the Ninth Ward, home of the city’s poorest citizens. Hit ‘em hard. Nothing much was left of it but debris and dead bodies. God got middle class neighborhoods, too. But He missed the French Quarter; the black heart of Louisiana’s Sodom (or Gomorrah, take your pick) was left unscathed. And that makes no sense at all.

“Unless John Hagee’s a hate-mongering hot-head who uses the pulpit badly…and God had nothing to do with the disaster that struck the Gulf Coast. Sometimes you just can’t go along with every word you hear on Sunday morning. Pastors are human, they’re flawed like the rest of us–and sometimes they’re wrong.”

Linda goes on to criticize the media for giving McCain what she says amounts to a free pass on his association with Hagee. Hagee endorsed McCain, but McCain does not attend Hagee’s church. As Linda points out, McCain sought Hagee’s endorsement to impress the religious right, and even more importantly, to get their votes.

But since McCain himself says he doesn’t agree with everything Hagee says, it’s all supposed to be okay, right?

Wrong. Continue reading “Four Wrongs Don’t Make Anyone Right”

John Cook, an 88-year-old retired teacher and school counselor, served in the Army during World War II, and was part of the second wave of troops that stormed Omaha Beach on D-Day. That was on June 6, 1944.

It would be another 14 years before he would meet the love of his life. Now, this still-happy couple is preparing to celebrate their golden anniversary.

There’s just one minor detail that unfortunately turns what should be an inspiring story about the endurance of love into story that disgusts some. Continue reading “The Threat”

If you needed more sins to worry about beyond the famous Seven Deadly Sins introduced by Pope Gregory I in the sixth century, the Vatican has compiled a list of seven “social” sins to avoid.

The new sins:

1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

I highly disagree with the first two “sins” even being sinful.

Stem cell research can be done without damaging a fetus, which means no human life is lost while others can potentially be saved with medical breakthroughs realized through the science.

And with regard to birth control, I have never wholly bought the argument that you are preventing the birth of a life God wants born: if God wanted the person born badly enough, I suspect no method of birth control — even abortion — would be successful. Somehow, God can surely outsmart the medical profession when He wants to.

Beyond this, I think it is reprehensible to bring a child into the world when you are not prepared to care for it. Too many children suffer because of uncaring parents and too few of them are ever put up for adoption; there are far too many older kids who spend their entire childhood waiting to be adopted only to reach age 18 with no parents ever expressing any interest.

What do you think?  Are all seven of these valid sins?  Would you have put anything else on the list instead?

The first of two critical primaries in South Carolina is over. John McCain was the victor, with Mike Huckabee following closely behind. Rudy Giuliani actually receieved fewer votes here than Ron Paul, as if the state’s two top picks didn’t make for a frightening-enough thought.

The sad thing for me is that the candidate I tend to agree with most on the Republican side of things these days is Giuliani, perhaps because he’s the most “middle-of-the-road” of the red team.

I can’t really take McCain seriously since he made that now-infamous tour of Iraq to prove how safe it is. And despite his assurances that it is safe, he somehow feels that it would be fine to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. If it’s safe enough for him to be able to walk its streets without fear (and with a small armada that he wants you to forget), why, exactly, would we need to stay in Iraq for another century? If it’s suddenly that safe, why does Iraq need even its own military?

Then Huckabee said something just last week, referring to the need for amendments that would ban abortion and define marriage as being between a man and a woman, that sounded alarms in the back of my head. He would be fine with making the Constitution more of a document God himself can be proud of.

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”

Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I was raised Southern Baptist. But please don’t assume that I’m in even slight agreement with this notion. I’m not. It strikes me that everyone, especially the more religious among us, should be very afraid of such an idea.

In fact, if you’ll forgive the pun, it should scare the hell out of you.

I am reminded of a simple little bible verse every time I hear some politician trying to rewrite the Constitution for such a reason. You may already know which verse I have in mind, but in case you don’t, it’s found in 2 Corinthians 9:7:

“So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Why would God care, as long as he’s getting his due, whether the giver is cheerful or whether he resents his perceived obligation to give? It’s simple: if you do something because you feel it’s the right thing to do and because you want to, it means something. If you do something that you are forced or coerced to do, what does the action itself really mean? It has no value.

So let’s look at the proposal for constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage. Would banning them really make us a more God-like country? Would our Heavenly Father show his favor upon us more if we forbade anyone to have an abortion and refused to allow same-gender couples to wed?

If you think so, you and I aren’t on the same page at all. And that’s because of this pesky little thing called free will, something that God gave His people.

It would have been so much easier — since He’s God — to have given us the brains of sheep; we’d simply go where He wanted us to go, do what we were told, and not stray from the fold. (If we did, a good shepherd would come along, gently guide us back, and we’d go on with life, happy as ever we had been.) We’d have been prevented, through our very design from ever possessing the capability to doubt God or anything we think He stands for. We’d believe what God wanted us to believe at all times.

But God gave us free will. Why? Because He knew that it means more when you go to church or worship or pray because it’s something you have decided you want to do, not because someone is making you do it. And the really miraculous thing is that you get more out of it, too. Win-win.

And you can thank that dusty old Constitution for our right to worship as we please, up to and including not worshipping at all. We have the right never to set foot in or monetarily support any church. That, I’m sure you will recall from your middle school history classes, is one of the primary reasons our founding fathers decided to separate church and state to start with. It had nothing to do with stores saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” It had to do with being a cheerful follower rather than a hostage.

If you believe that abortion is such an unacceptable choice, you should be more concerned with educating people about alternatives than limiting their liberties. If you find the thought of two people who love each other and who happen to be of the same gender a threat to your own marriage, which is a ridiculous idea, you should at least be coming up with a way to give them the legal rights a traditional married couple enjoys while calling it something else: civil union or whatever you prefer. Otherwise, it’s not really about liberty or freedom: it’s about you trying to control someone else’s life.

I am concerned about the competence of any electorate that places things like abortion and gay marriage as being a more important problem than education, yet here in South Carolina, I saw a poll the other day that listed education as less of a priority than the other two.

How can we not care about education? If we pretend we care so much about children being allowed to be born and live in “moral” families as the bible defines them, how can we not give a damn about what they’re learning in their schools? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

I can’t bring myself to support a candidate for the highest office in our nation who has in his bonnet the rewriting the most basic rules of our country to be intentionally discriminatory. And whether you’re young or old, black or white, religious or non-religious, gay or straight, if you truly value those freedoms you act so prideful about every July 4th and that you thank our veterans for securing for us every Veterans or Memorial Day, you ought to feel the same way.

This week, some anti-choice — “pro-life” is a moronic title — advocates protested Hillary Clinton in Charleston.  I didn’t see it, although the descriptions found over at SunnieFaerie and Kittens on the Keyboard remind me a lot of a similar stunt I saw performed in Richmond back in 2004.

Displaying giant images of aborted fetuses, under the guise of trying to persuade people to be against abortion, is the epitome of sensationalizing a situation, one that for many women and couples, is an extraordinarily painful topic.

I have to wonder how many of these “anti-choicers” also happen to be the same kinds of Christian advocates who’d join up with groups protesting television shows they’ve never bothered to watch themselves but that they somehow think contains inappropriate content.  The images these protesters display for passersby of all ages to see are too graphic to appear on television at all.

I also wonder how many of them feel that children should be protected from images of violence and gore in movies as they wave their signs of blood and gore.

We have to tolerate such foolishness in a society that values freedom of speech.  But they could just as easily wave signs of young children who have accomplished great things in school or for their community…the kinds of young people that parents want their little ones to be more like to make the point about the value of one life.

Too bad they only want to do what they’re so quick to accuse their opponents of doing:  exploit.

A few weeks ago, a college student wrote a letter to his local newspaper questioning the way a block party had been covered.

Specifically, he complained that the media had unfairly portrayed college students as “irresponsible” and suggested that accusations of “rowdy” behavior was unjustified.

This same student, who happens to be the student government president at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania, has now been arrested for driving under the influence, driving at an unsafe speed and careless driving, after reportedly driving 50 miles per hour through a 15-mile-per-hour zone and having a .147 blood-alcohol level, nearly twice the .08 legal limit. Continue reading “After Casting Stones”

I haven’t commented, yet, on Sen. David Vitter’s name appearing in the records of a woman nicknamed a D.C. “madam.”

Unlike many Democrats — and Republicans who are fed up with certain aspects of their party — I am not particularly happy that Vitter was caught up in such a scandal. It does, after all, provide a painful bit of embarrassment for his family, especially his wife, who Vitter says forgave him years ago for whatever he might have done.

On the other hand, I do point to a page on Vitter’s own website, in which he comments about protecting the “sanctity of marriage:” Continue reading “Sanctity”

“A threat to your children.”

Where did that quote come from? To what does it refer?

Was it spoken by George W. Bush on the subject of terrorists? Or was it how Al Gore described global warming?

“It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong.”

How about that one? Was it said in reference to doing anything necessary to win the war on terror or to save the planet?

“I worry about it, because I don’t want to die.”

Those words were attributed to a nine-year-old who had heard one of the two messages: was she terrified of al Qaeda or sweeping climate changes? Continue reading “The Outrage”

A long time ago, my adventures in blogging began in AOL’s “J-land.” While I was there, there were controversies on other people’s blogs — they called them “journals” — about content and Terms of Service. The TOS police of AOL are vigilant, which is both a good thing and a bad thing.

It’s good because it means someone is watching to make sure that inappropriate content doesn’t get lots of exposure. Some people get bent out of shape over that, screaming “censorship.” That’s not really a valid concern, since the people who have blogs on AOL — and most other blogging services for that matter — must first agree to the Terms of Service in advance.

But it’s bad because the Terms of Service are invariably vague when it comes to describing what is and is not appropriate. Continue reading “Rating the Blog”

In the Charleston City Paper, columnist Barney Blakeney wrote an article about a black Charleston native, Dudley Gregorie, who is challenging longtime Mayor Joe Riley in the November, 2008 election.

Blakeney, who is also black, points out that Riley spent almost one million bucks on his last campaign, and that his challenger, Dudley Gergorie, admits that he doesn’t have pockets that deep. He points out that Gregorie is the third black candidate to run against Riley in the past dozen years and is expecting support from the local black community. He then says this:

“And after some 330 years, the city is certainly due a black mayor.”

Due?

It is statements like this that make me shake my head in frustration when it comes to racism. I have no problem voting for a black man for mayor. Or for Congress. Or for the White House.

But before I vote for anyone, I’m going to listen to the candidates and find out what they want to do. I will back wholeheartedly the person whose plans best mesh with that I’d like to see happen. What will be missing from the equation when I step into the voting booth will be concern over what color he or she happens to be.

It’s outrageous to take on the mindset that because we haven’t had a black mayor, we should vote for this person to correct that “wrong.” I think there’s something wrong with allowing race to be the determining factor. What happened to picking the best man or woman for the job? What happened to treating people equally regardless of their race?

Blakeney points out the lack of affordable housing in the Charleston peninsula, one of several problems that he says has ticked off voters during the Riley years, as a reason black voters should consider one of their own. He then looks back at the past two black candidates whose total votes indicate that not all black voters voted black. Are they supposed to?

I wouldn’t vote for Mayor Riley because he’s white. Am I supposed to?

The city is “due” a mayor who the voters feel presents the best platform for everyone in Charleston.

I think it’s going to be a long road to next November.

The most recent edition of the Patrick’s Place Poll asked about a proposed law here in South Carolina that seeks to require that women wanting an abortion be presented ultrasound images of the fetus before the procedure could be carried out.

There is a lot of confusion, depending on whom you ask, about the exact phrasing of what is being proposed. Some have said that the bill would require women seeking an abortion to view the ultrasound images. Others have insisted that the intent is to make the images available, but that a woman who specifically did not want to view them would not be forced to do so.

Last week, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster weighed in on the debate:

“In my opinion, it would be illegal and improper for the state to force a person seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound image against her will.”

McMaster, a Republican, said doctors could be required to show women seeking an abortion an ultrasound image of their fetus, but the proposal may be unconstitutional if it’s interpreted to force an unwilling patient to view the image.

For those of you who responded to the poll, the basic question was whether or not a woman should be forced to view ultrasound images of her fetus before having an abortion. While it was a yes or no question, there were actually three possible answers:

1. Yes, they should be forced.
2. No, but the ultrasound images should at least be made available.
3. No, the woman should be educated about what is involved, but ultrasound images need not be made available.

I’m happy to report that a total of 72% of respondants agreed that women should not be forced to look at ultrasound images. Forty-four percent said the images should be made available, but a woman should have a choice as to whether or not to see them. Twenty-eight percent said they’d be fine with no ultrasound image even being made available, as long as the woman was educated about the procedure and what it would involve.

The remaining 28% seem to have no problem forcing a woman to view the images. I expected that number to be a lot lower. I have a hard time imagining why someone would want to so control someone else’s life as to force her into a potential guilt trip over a procedure that is, as of this moment, a legal option to begin with.

It sounds un-American to me.