Sanctity of Marriage

In Sunday's Kingman Daily Miner I read a rather long piece submitted by the pastor of a local Christian Church who discussed his views on the pros and cons of gay marriage.

We all are well aware that gay marriage will again be the big divisive in the November elections if the Republicans have their way - anything to avoid facing the other problems our nation has and the dismal failures in all venues during the Republican administration. And there will be much fanfare as more states amend their constitutions to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage'.

His piece was well written without scriptural quotes and he even seemed to take the middle road of his argument which still ended up with the expected result. Unfortunately the piece was too long for me to copytype and post here but basically it was about the unacceptability of homosexuality in the marriage contract. What he wrote bothered me and I worried about it.

At 4AM I was sleeping beautifully and for once, painlessly - it seems that I had taken the right dosage of pain killers earlier for my arthritis - then I awakened in the midst of composing in my mind a rebuttal to the pastor's arguments. I knew I'd forget it all like a dream by the time I normally get up so I padded from bed into the den and entered my words into the computer.

Then, of course, I went back to bed and slept until eleven AM. Unfortunately by then the pain killers had worn off...

What follows is what I wrote and after a bit of window dressing, e-mailed to the paper for publication:

Gay Marriage?

Pastor Walt Roberts, (Miner, July 9), presented a reasonably balanced account of gays and marriage as far as he went. However, like the iceberg which sank the Titanic, he described the highly visible tip floating in these murky political waters and neglected to tell us, as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story!"

With less than one person in twenty who may be considered gay in either sex, it is hard to believe that this group could, as even the good pastor doubts, "...mean the end of civilization as we know it."

Yet, the perception of homosexuality as a rather disgusting abnormality by the vast majority of voters, has allowed ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation to be passed easily by many states and with more to come. Although it is something like killing a fly with a sledgehammer!

I have yet to read an expose' of this conspiracy even from the so-called liberal press - but then, neither did the crew of the Titanic see their disaster in time.

So what am I talking about?

Every piece of legislation presented and passed so far says in effect that "Marriage" has to be between a man and a woman. This is advocated by Pastor Roberts, most of the religious community and many others. Which is fine! Certainly religion has a 1st Amendment right to believe as it wishes - and it does indeed entertain some interesting concepts!

There is no reason to deny marriage from the churches modeled as they see fit providing that the churches don't promote practices which are culturally out of bounds such as those of the FLDS. However, there still must be secular alternatives codified by law, such that marriage may exist outside the purview of religion.

The problem is that the ‘sanctity of marriage' legislation also very slyly includes prohibition against the secular alternative to marriage generally referred to as "domestic partnership." This prohibition steps on the toes of the secular community and many constitutions which guarantee equal rights to all citizens. With such prohibitions how can government handle the highly economic aspects of social relationships and families? Especially when in recent years and for many reasons, large segments of the mostly heterosexual community has soured on traditional marriage.

This is the most dangerous subsurface part of the iceberg. But lets back up a bit and consider a little bit about our society and some of its biology. For example, I read a few weeks back that about half of all men over forty have erectile dysfunction! That surprised me, but if true, I'd hazzard a guess that more than half of all women in that age group also suffer from erectile disinterest!

Perhaps it is perfectly natural that those below the age of forty are focused upon nest building, family creation and living life to its fullest and those of us well over forty are more interested in politics, genealogy and keeping things the way we think they should be - in other words, the way they were when we were building our nests.

It is not the homosexuals we are actually legislating against but rather those non-voting, under forty, heterosexual nest builders who prefer to cohabit - perhaps because they object to the legalities and servitude imposed by marriage.

It seems to be human nature for people to pair off and create families regardless of religion. After all, babies can't raise themselves. Thus we find a huge community of unsanctioned and therefore uncontrolled families which is growing at the expense of marriage. Couple this with the divorce rate of those who actually try to comply with marriage and the fact that the success of marriage appears to be inversely proportional to the size of the wedding.... obviously, it is the institution of marriage which is in trouble and it has nothing at all to do with homosexuality!

This is the fear of the conspirators mentioned above, both religious and secular alike, that society as we know it is getting out of control. This is the reason for the highly emotional, gay bashing legislation being proposed by many of our states and the federal government. We persist in thinking we can control people through legislation - the problem is that we will end up with revolution instead.

As our children and grandchildren age, they will become the ones in charge and who eventually learn to vote. It will be they who legislate the new society they have created - certainly not the broken one we are busy defending today.

Consider also that in the Massachusetts ruling, the state Supreme Judicial Court said same-sex marriage may be irreversible because it is now part of the "fabric of the equality and liberty" guaranteed by the state constitution. A constitutional lawyer for the state of Massachusetts recently presented his opinion that if the state specifically outlaws gay marriage and domestic partnerships that the state will eventually be required to not recognize any church or secular marriages in the state in order to satisfy the equal rights guaranteed her citizens!

Here in the western states such as Arizona which are influenced by Spanish law rather than English, the elimination of marriage for example, would among other things, force the elimination of community property laws. Remember that as couples age, they usually acquire valuable estates such as a home and savings. Community property rights are obviously very important to an aging widows' financial independence.

So my question is: Are we going to recognize the deeper problems our society faces involving marriage and family or sink into the muck - like the unsinkable Titanic? Are we going to continue blaming minorities for the misfortunes we bring upon ourselves? Are we going to trample the rights of others only to face the ultimate loss of our own?

The Pope Invades Spain

My comments are embedded in the following Reuter's article:

Pope stresses family values in Spain, PM booed
By Philip Pullella and Jane Barrett

VALENCIA, Spain (Reuters) - Pope Benedict urged Spain to defend the traditional family on Saturday as he began a lightning trip to the country which has clashed head-on with the Church over the legalization of gay marriage.

The Pope said there were certain things to which the Church must just say "No," [a Nancy Reaganism?] and that the family based on heterosexual marriage was "a unique institution in God's plan." "We want to make people understand that according to human nature, it is a man and a woman who are made for each other and made to give humanity a future," he added.

[How simplistic can you get? Actually, according to all mammalian, reptilian and even some floral natures, it is a male and female who ‘are made for each other and made to give [life] a future'. That is a "duh..." Does the man think he is preaching to morons?

What does that have to do with gay marriage and other laws involving society? The laws certainly don't outlaw procreation or sexuality - I don't see Christian churches addressing any of the more serious problems involving sexuality including health and over population. ...AG]

As well as the gay marriage law, which gives gays the same adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples, the Church has criticized new Spanish laws making divorce and fertility treatment easier and cutting religious education.

[‘religious education' is certainly a misnomer! It is religious indoctrination actually. True religious education would be courses in comparative religion and philosophy. ...AG]

The 79-year-old Pope received a tumultuous welcome in the coastal city of Valencia, where he will spend little more than 24 hours at a global gathering of Roman Catholic families.

But Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose government legalized gay marriage last year, was whistled as he arrived at the archbishop's residence for an audience with the Pope, which lasted just 15 minutes. The crowd booed Zapatero while he was inside and when he left. [Reminds me of the fable of Daniel in the lion's den"]

FAMILY RALLY
In an address, the Pope paid tribute to historical Spain, once ruled by the Catholic kings, and urged bishops to hold firm "at a time of rapid secularization."

[Is he actually advocating the return of the Inquisition?...]

"Acting as if (God) did not exist or relegating faith to the purely private sphere, undermines the truth about man and compromises the future of culture and society," he said.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims have swarmed into Valencia for the family rally and lined the streets cheering and waving yellow and white Vatican flags as the Pope made his way from the airport to the town center. On his way, the Pope stopped at the site of an underground train crash that killed 42 people on Monday. Bowing his head in silence toward the pavement outside Jesus station, Benedict made the sign of the cross, laid a wreath of flowers and asked the Madonna to console the bereaved.

Later on Saturday, the Pope was due to preside at a huge rally with families at a futuristic arts and science complex near the sea which will also be the venue of a mass dedicated to families on Sunday morning before he returns to Rome.

A senior Vatican source on the plane said there was a "certain irritation" within the Pope's entourage over Zapatero's decision not to attend the Sunday mass. The source noted that in the past, Cuba's Communist leader Fidel Castro, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and former Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski attended masses presided over by the late Pope John Paul II when he visited their countries. [How else do you make a point?]

Obama and religion

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama's politics and think he'll go a long way. However, I think there are plenty of Democrats who are also reasonable Christians - such as the Sojourners.

I think it would be dangerous to cater to the fundamentalist ‘Bible Thumpers,' the Falwells, etc. who are attempting to tear down the first amendment wall between religion and government. I think that would be very dangerous to the future mental health of our nation.

We shouldn't pander the Devil for votes. The old guard Republicans did and look at what happened to them! Now, they don't even have voice in their own party!

At this time we should continue to pose fiscal responsibility and economic progress to the many moderate Republicans who have been disenfranchised by their party. We should show them that they do have a choice. After all, if most of the seven Republican justices in the Supreme Court have a "liberal" bias according to the ‘Thumpers' - that should tell you something!

Remember that Bill Clinton was far from being a "liberal" - he actually was surprisingly conservative regarding the economy! So, at least we ‘Clinton' Democrats are not far in ideology from moderate old-line Republicans. Naturally, the extremes of both parties will never get together - they never have - and probably never will.....AG

Democrat Obama urges response to religious right
By Thomas Ferraro Wed Jun 28

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats must shed their reluctance to talk about faith and reach out to evangelical Christians and other churchgoing Americans, a leading new voice in the party said on Wednesday.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said Democrats need to respond to the religious right, which has increased its clout in recent years and twice helped elect President George W. Bush.

"If we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway," Obama said, naming two outspoken right-wing Christian figures.

Conservative religious leaders have put Democrats on the defensive by pushing such divisive issues as opposition to abortion and gay rights.

In a speech to conference on poverty hosted by Sojourners, a progressive faith-based group, Obama said Democrats should be willing to explain themselves in moral terms while respecting the separation of church and state.

"I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people. "After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan," Obama said. "They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness -- in the imperfections of man."

A freshman U.S. lawmaker and the only black senator, Obama is seen as a rising political star -- one willing to give his party advice and warnings.

"Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith -- the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir," Obama said, drawing applause and laughter. There needs to be a "sense of proportion" in policing the boundaries between church and state. "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," he said.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God;' I certainly didn't."

Speak for yourself, Barack. 'Under God' was added to the Pledge back in 1954 by the Catholic Knights of Columbus and then by Congress. As a kid in school I also had to say the Lord's prayer out loud (but usually didn't) - it made me feel like an hypocrite - (children can be sensitive - at least I was - much more than I am now).

Assisted Suicide

There is no question in my mind that a person who is terminally ill or otherwise debilitated to the extent his/her 'quality of life' is severely and permanently impaired, should have the right to commit suicide with the assistance of his/her doctor.

This is yet another area where religious belief inflicts itself upon people who don't share those beliefs - a violation of the 1st Amendment. There are other cultures, Japanese, for example, which consider suicide for reason is honorable.

My present bout with rheumatoid arthritis which, without pain medications would be intolerable, makes me realize that there most certainly are situations in which suicide is the only humane treatment. In fact, veterinarians perform euthanasia routinely on pets and other animals - they "put them out of their misery." But then, animals are not governed by god(s).

However, I do agree with Governor Schwarzennegger that such laws should come from the people, not government representatives if such governments have an initiative process.

The Federal government, of course, is relatively primitive in structure and only provides lip-service to representing the people. All laws must originate in Congress or default to the Supreme Court which is charged with upholding the Constitution. ..AG

Calif. lawmakers reject assisted-suicide bill
Wed Jun 28

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California lawmakers narrowly rejected a bill on Tuesday that would have allowed the terminally ill to enlist doctors to help them commit suicide.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 to block the measure. Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Dunn, a Democrat from Santa Ana, California, cast the deciding vote, siding with two Republicans.

Dunn said he could not trust that future lawmakers would refrain from expanding the bill to allow persons not suffering from terminal illnesses to hasten their deaths.

The bill mirrored an Oregon law allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal prescription to terminally ill patients.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested earlier this year he would not sign such a bill because the issue of physician-assisted suicide is of such importance it should be left to voters.

The 1st Amendment...

Sorry Attorney General Gonzales, but the 1st Amendment is the law of the land whether you like it or not. It is just at times like these where the freedom of the press is most vital. Times when it is quite possible that an administration or ideology might decide to take over the country - and without a free press, it would be pretty easy wouldn't it?

It is just too bad if the press makes it uncomfortable for your bosses - or even if some "top secret" information leaks to the press - seems that everyone does it nowdays. You guys can't have it both ways!

No one is going to catch bin Laden through financial records anyway. Some stalwart Republicans are so obtuse, it seems - how in hell did they ever get elected?

Lawmaker wants feds to probe N.Y. Times
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher." "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. "On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. King said he thought investigators should examine those publications, but that the greater focus should be on The New York Times because the paper in December also disclosed a secret domestic wiretapping program. He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a LEFT-WING ELITIST AGENDA* than it is about the security of the American people." *Sounds awfully political to me...

When the paper chose to publish the story, it quoted the executive editor, Bill Keller, as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

In a letter posted on its Internet site Sunday that the Times said was sent to people who wrote to Keller, the editor said the administration argued "in a half-hearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

But Keller wrote that the Treasury Department has "trumpeted ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the paper acted responsibly, both in last week's report and in reporting last year about the wiretapping program.

"It's pretty clear to me that in this story and in the story last December that the New York Times did not act recklessly. They try to do whatever they can to take into account whatever security concerns the government has and they try to behave responsibly," Dalglish said. "I think in years to come that this is a story American citizens are going to be glad they had, however this plays out."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights. The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.

The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.

Gonzales said last month that he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. He also said the government would not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly. [no, just all the time]

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name.

He said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.

All I can say is that this is the beginning of "1984" 22 years too late - we've been warned!

Was it treason?.....

Did anybody watch PBS "Frontline" last night? It rehashed the behavior of Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld after 9/11 and their efforts to twist facts to promote an attack on Iraq. The interview-based documentary was very explicit and detailed.
http://tinyurl.com/5oebg

Treason:
# a crime that undermines the offender's government
# disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
# treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

Investing your money

Since the virtual demise of corporate pension plans and the requirement for workers to actively invest in their own retirement, it is really important for people to become self-educated in the mechanics of investing. The following article shows what a serious problem it is - and it will only become more serious in the future.

The article is critical of ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) which I consider to be wonderful vehicles for personal investing in that they provide liquidity and diversification. However, misuse of them, although not as dangerous as ‘futures' can result in severe losses.

The idea that one can invest money in anything other than a bank or money market and simply leave it there untended and expect it to grow and grow spells financial disaster (even bond funds are volatile). If an investor doesn't want to tend his financial garden daily, or at least weekly, he should hire a financial gardener who will do it for him.

The worst thing any investor can do is ‘buy and hold'. That used to be the way of investing when good companies shared their profits through dividends with shareholders. Most profitable companies don't do that anymore and most dividend returns, if any, are pathetic! Instead they plow their profits back into the company to make it larger and more valuable. Thus for an investor to realize profits, he has to sell his investment at the right time. To do that, he has to pay attention!

If one graphs the price history of a company, one will note that the stock prices may rise over a period of time to the point the company becomes over-valued from investor exuberance. Savvy traders realize this and quickly sell at a profit causing the stock price to plummet leaving the guy who is not paying attention with a loss. So the novice eventually sells at a loss, the price bottoms out, and another group of investors see opportunities in the undervalued company and buy in. The whole cycle starts over again - like ocean waves!

Investors ignore warnings in volatile markets
By Svea Herbst-Bayliss Sat Jun 17

BOSTON (Reuters) - When a 76-year-old pensioner recently told Jill Schlesinger he wanted to put 10 percent of his $100,000 portfolio into gold, the financial adviser knew the latest investment craze would likely end badly, and soon.

"With each passing quarter, people became more greedy and more complacent," said Schlesinger, chief investment officer at money-management firm StrategicPoint Investment Advisors in Providence, Rhode Island. "And people lose sight of what a diversified portfolio is and what risk is."

Suddenly, investors who had never traveled beyond the East Coast of the United States were plowing money into India and Brazil and metals mined in faraway places.

Many are now suffering double-digit losses, but they won't get much sympathy from regulators because they were warned and because losses aren't yet heavy enough, according to financial advisers.

"There have not been enough people who have been damaged to get the regulators to notice this one," said Richard Smith, president of Capital Advisory Group in Richmond, Virginia.

Less than six years after the worst bear market in many investors' memories, people were eagerly dabbling in some of the world's riskiest markets in a craze fueled by hopes of recouping money lost when the technology bubble burst.

Money-management firms' steady offering of new products also fed the frenzy.

Exchange traded funds like StreetTracks Gold Trust, iShares Comex Gold Trust and iShares Silver Trust let investors get into precious metals markets. Crude futures were available, and Deutsche Bank had a ETF to track its diversified commodities index. And more specialized ETFs were on the way.

But many of those bets ended badly. Investors who purchased the recently launched Barclays Global Investors unit's silver ETF lost roughly 26 percent if they got in at the beginning. If they bought later, they lost even more.

ETFs, which have been available for less than 20 years, are similar to mutual funds but are traded in exchanges and allow investors to participate directly in markets.

"With new products like ETFs it is easy to speculate, but investors have no one to blame but themselves for any losses on a run-up they thought looked like a sure thing," said Capital Advisory Group's Smith. "The fund firms are only producing the vehicles, they are not showing anyone how to use them."

But there were plenty of warning signs along the way, making potential lawsuits over the losses highly unlikely, according to financial advisers and analysts.

Barclays said clearly that its silver ETF wasn't for the faint-hearted, according to financial advisers. And mutual funds that offered other ways to get into recently successful markets also cautioned investors in other ways.

Vanguard told its clients that the energy market was overheated, and Oppenheimer Funds recently raised the investment minimum for its Developing Markets fund to $50,000 to keep out investors who can't afford a potentially heavy loss.

"This was clearly a message to investors that the emerging markets were overheated and that there was a lot of hot money in the asset class," said Dan Lefkovitz, analyst at research firm Morningstar Inc. in Chicago.

Still, despite the warnings, investors made a critical mistake with commodities in the last months.

"Wall Street decided that commodities could be bought and held forever," and that prompted investors to plow in some $200 billion over the last three to six months, said Leonard Kaplan, president of commodities brokerage firm Prospector Asset Management in Evanston, Illinois.

"That was incredibly ignorant and it will happen over and over again because the public is infinitely stupid about these things," Kaplan said.

"What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Kansas has been Republican since it was first made a state. I have just read the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank which makes what is happening much more sensible historically. It seems that the conventional old line Republican Kansas has been taken over by Christian fundamentalists. Remember it was not long ago that the Kansas school board dictated that Creationism be taught in their schools. At any rate, they now control Kansas politics. So now, those traditional Republicans are having to change party in order to put forth their conservative viewpoints. In fact, author Frank was born and raised a Republican but decided to switch from the degenerative form of Republicanism found today in Kansas. It has become economically disastrous for the people of the state which is now on par with Mississippi..AG

Ex-Kansas GOP chair switches affiliation
By JOHN MILBURN, Associated Press Writer Tue May 30

TOPEKA, Kan. - The former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party jumped ship in a big way Tuesday, switching his affiliation to Democrat amid speculation that he would become Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' running mate.

Johnson County Elections Commissioner Brian Newby confirmed that Mark Parkinson, the state GOP chairman from 1999 to 2003, came to the office and switched his party affiliation shortly before noon.

Parkinson's name has been widely circulated as Sebelius' choice for a running mate as the Democratic governor seeks a second term. Current Lt. Gov. John Moore — another former Republican — is retiring when his term expires in early 2007.

Sebelius spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, would not comment about Parkinson, but said an announcement of the governor's choice of running mates was scheduled Wednesday not far from Parkinson's home in Olathe, a Kansas City suburb.

"Traditionally, you do see that the first stop would be in or around that person's home base. It would be safe to assume that she would be choosing someone from the Johnson County area," Corcoran said.

Parkinson didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.

Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison also switched parties from Republican to Democrat to challenge Attorney General Phill Kline, a Republican, in the November election.

Republican House Speaker Doug Mays said he was disgusted by Parkinson's lack of loyalty to the party that made him chairman, but he isn't surprised by the rift.

The Republican Party, which has dominated Kansas politics since statehood, has shifted to the right in recent years and it inevitably will shift back to the left, he said. Instead of defecting to challenge one another, though, Republicans need to find common ground, he said.

Democrats could fumble.....

"And Democrats could fumble the opportunity" – I worry, and I hope all Democrats worry that we could screw it up - again! The mid-term elections uniquely are free of party personalities running for the presidency - so the elections are a matter of pure policy and government.

The mid-terms are of the issues and everyone knows that the Republicans catering to God, greed and the red-white-‘n blue can capture huge followings. Hatred is a great garner of votes such as hatred of non-Christians, Mexicans and gays. The ‘sanctity of life' coupled to stem-cell research certainly has a stalwart following where subservient women even vote against their own interests.

None of these people, who generally are incapable of understanding the real problems our nation faces for its survival -- can be convinced to vote for anyone other than their local Medicine men who tell them to trust in God, vote Republican and all will be well...

So yes, as bad as it looks for the Republicans - I fear that they'll win yet again in 2006 and in that case, it is time for all of us to hunker down with the few assets we have and wait for Armageddon - because there will be no salvation here on Earth. ...AG

Analysis: Democrats wary of November vote
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer Mon May 29

WASHINGTON - Republicans are three steps from a November shellacking — each a grim possibility if habitually divided Democrats get their acts together.

First step: Voters must focus on the national landscape on Nov. 7 rather than local issues and personalities that usually dominate midterm elections. That would sting Republicans, who trail badly in national polls.

Second step: Voters must be so angry at Washington and politics in general that an anti-incumbent, throw-the-bums-out mentality sweeps the nation. That would wound Republicans, the majority party.

Third step: Americans must view the elections as a referendum on President Bush and the GOP-led Congress, siding with Democrats in a symbolic vote against the Iraq war, rising gas prices, economic insecurity and the nagging sense that the nation is on the wrong track. That would destroy Republicans, sweeping them from power in one or both chambers and making Bush a lame duck.

Less than six months out, most Democratic and Republican strategists say the first two elements are in place for now — a national, anti-incumbent mind-set — and all signs point to the third.

Still, many Democrats worry that their party has not closed the deal. "The fear I have as a Democrat is that if we are making this solely a referendum on the Republicans, we are not giving people a reason to turn out," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of California. "Having said that, I think all these other elements are so bad for the Republicans that 'Had enough?' should be enough."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the party's congressional leaders have clashed over money and the DNC's push for a unified message that draws a stark contrast with the GOP.

Inside the DNC, some officials point to internal polls that show voters holding both the Democratic and Republican parties in equally low esteem. The fact that most voters, when forced to choose, tell pollsters they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress is not a sign of strength, these officials say. Rather, it's evidence that voters are simply giving Democrats a chance to win them over — a chance that can be blown unless Democrats stand for something other than attacking Bush, these officials said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, agreed that Democrats have not sealed the deal. "I think if the election were held today, there is a 50-50 chance of taking the House and the Senate and a very high percentage of gaining a significant number of seats," Schumer said. "But things change."

Democrats outside Congress will be disappointed with anything less than major triumphs. "Shame on us if we don't have a good election cycle," said Jill Alper, a Democratic strategist from Michigan.

Back to those three steps.
NATIONAL ELECTION: Among the two dozen Republican and Democratic strategists interviewed in the last two weeks, there was unanimity that the fall campaigns will be national in scope. Voters will give local issues less attention than normal, a bad sign for the GOP.

"If we keep it local we win; if they nationalize issues, they win," said Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, head of the GOP Senate committee, seemed resigned to a national campaign. "Obviously, we're going to do everything we can here at the Senate committee to minimize any aspect of that," she said.

THROW THE BUMS OUT: More than 70 percent of Americans tell pollsters that the nation is on the wrong track. Larger percentages think corruption is a major problem in Washington. Incumbents have been roughed up already this year in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and in both cases Republicans suffered the worst.

If this shapes up to be an anti-incumbent midterm, "we'll lose some members" in Congress, said Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf, "but they have more incumbents."

ANTI-REPUBLICAN TIDE: Whether 2006 turns out to be an anti-incumbent or anti-GOP election "is the 15-seat question," said Democratic strategist Dane Strother, referring to the number of seats the Democrats need to win to seize control of the House.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says GOP majorities are "clearly in jeopardy" because the political landscape is both anti-incumbent and anti-Republican. "They know that Republicans are in charge," the grim-faced presidential hopeful said of voters. "But I just want to emphasize that we have six months, and we can turn this around."

And Democrats could fumble the opportunity.

Constitution: Separation of Powers

Just so we're all on the same page, I found this on Wikipedia:

Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power.

The doctrine traces back to ancient Greece and was further developed by English and French philosophers. In the United States Constitution, the phrase separation of powers never appears, but is clearly implied by the structure of the Constitution. Therein, "all legislative Powers" are "vested in a Congress of the United States", "the executive Power" is "vested in the President of the United States, and "the judicial Power" is "vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". Each branch has powers that restrain the other branches in a system of checks and balances that are designed to prevent the concentration and abuse of power.

Doesn't the separation of powers also apply to the People? Don't they also have certain powers which, although passive, prevent them from being screwed by their government?

In my opinion, you catch a crook wherever you find him. A Congressman's job may be ‘above the law' but certainly the Congressman himself should not be - nor should the President for that matter.

Granted, this administration has been allowed by the Congress to break many laws. But now, it is pushed out of shape because all of a sudden it affects them! Well, in my opinion, their laments and wailing are music to my ears! If they can't police themselves, then someone should! ...AG]
-------------------------------------------
Attorney General prepared to quit over Jefferson probe: NYT
Sat May 27

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert S. Mueller III said this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a disputed search of a House member's office, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing government officials, the Times reported that Gonzalez was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul McNulty, who told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would not be willing to follow a White House order to return the material to Congress. McNulty, the newspaper said, was instrumental in the resignation threats.

Bush on Thursday ordered the evidence sealed for 45 days to give Congress and Justice a chance to work out a deal, averting a showdown.

The FBI seized evidence last Saturday from the office of Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat. House leaders objected, saying they had violated the Constitution, and demanded that Justice return the evidence.

Former associates have said Jefferson accepted more than $400,000 in bribes to help them sell telecommunications technology to Nigeria and other West African countries.

Two of those associates have pleaded guilty to bribery charges, and the FBI disclosed on Sunday it has videotaped Jefferson accepting bribe money and has found $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

The Price of Gas is too low....

Last night Larry King (CNN) had a small forum concerning energy costs and availability. It was very good for one-hour TV including commercials. His guests were two congress people (a Republican and a Democrat), the CEO of Chevron, a guy from an energy research organization, and Sir (?) - the CEO of Virgin airlines. It was very civil with no shouting and in fact, considering the different points of view, they were in surprising agreement that we need an energy policy in this country which includes a massive investment in alternative fuels and energy sources.

However, where I live with my home backing on a major secondary road leading up to the Hualapai mountains, I have to conclude that the price of gasoline is far too low!

Every day (not just weekends) I sit on my southern porch and watch muscle cars and pick-up trucks racing each other at sixty and seventy miles per hour up the two-lane 4%, 40 mph grade. There has been no reduction in that behavior - in fact, it may have intensified in the two plus years we've lived here.

It seems that the big hobby here are ATV's. The young couple with two small children have four of ‘em in their garage along with her sleek black SUV. Even with a three car garage, his two pickups have to stay outside.

The Transwestern pipeline passes about 100 yards east of us, crosses under the road and its dirt service road can be seen going off to the horizon. It is a favorite ATV destination with whole herds of them racing across the desert raising huge clouds of dust with no destination - just a place to drive ‘em.

In the parking lots here, my old Ford Explorer is dwarfed by Excursions, Toyotas, and even the Cadilac SUV's. If big is good, then bigger is better and gigantic is best! ... and I won't even talk about all of the Humvee's around town.... No, gas prices aren't even close to what they should be. Americans may bitch about them, but it seems they're still able to waste the stuff.

Hmmmm.... wonder where all of those ecological hybrids are?

Gay-Marriage Ban

[Hmmm.... why don't they just bring it up, vote it down and forget about it? Specter and Leahy are right, it is a waste of time because they'll never get a 2/3rds vote in the Senate nor support from 2/3rds of the states to pass the nonsense. The societal fuss over Gayness is just a trivial bug-a-boo designed to avoid the real problems in this country. It is a political distraction aimed at our intellectually challenged citizens.

If marriage is threatened, which I don't believe, it will be because many, if not most young people no longer see the point in it. It also seems to me that the bigger the wedding, the quicker the divorce! As to children, the worst influence on their social and intellectual development is our parentless system which requires both parents to work to survive economically. Baby sitters don't usually nurture - they just sit! Nor are teachers and schools in the business of ‘socializing' children - their function is to throw facts and skills at them whether they learn them or not, then turn them loose on society. Love, family and direction can only come from parents... AG]

Senate panel OKs gay-marriage ban
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday as the committee chairman shouted "good riddance" to a Democrat who walked out of the tense session.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter told Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who refused to participate because, he said, the meeting was not sufficiently open to the public.

"I've enjoyed your lecture too. See you later, Mr. Chairman," Feingold told the Pennsylvania Republican before storming out. The testy exchange highlighted tensions over the proposal, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.

The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote in a brief session held in a small, private chamber just off the Senate floor. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not support it.

The gay-marriage ban is one of several hot-button social issues Republicans are raising to rally conservative voters ahead of November's congressional elections.

Because the measure would change the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by at least 38 states.

The measure failed in the Senate in 2004 and is not expected to pass this year either. Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback said he expects it to be brought up for a vote in the full Senate in early June.

Gay marriage has been a hot topic since a Massachusetts court ruled in 2003 the state legislature could not ban it, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

At least 13 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage while two -- Vermont and Connecticut -- have legalized civil unions. California, New Jersey, Maine, the District of Columbia and Hawaii each offer gay couples some legal rights as partners.

Legal challenges seeking permission for gays and lesbians to marry are pending in 10 states.

"This issue's either going to be resolved by the courts or by this body," Brownback said.

Just over half of all Americans oppose same-sex marriage, according to a March poll by the Pew Research center, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, said the gay marriage ban was a waste of time for a committee that needs to tackle a wide range of other pressing issues, from judicial nominations to oversight of the National Security Administration's domestic-spying program.

"I didn't realize marriages were so threatened. Nor did my wife of 44 years," Leahy said.

Leahy said Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who supports the gay-marriage ban, has expressed support for polygamists in his home state of Utah.

"I never said that," Hatch responded. "I know some (polygamists) that are very sincere. ... Don't accuse me of wanting to have polygamy." [Yeah, and so are some Catholic priests very sincere! Those Catholics hunger for tender young boys while the Mormons go for tender young girls! In either case, they're pedophiles!.... AG]

Cheney, leaks and books I'm reading....

Cheney the Focus of CIA Leak Court Filing -- Of course, this is old stuff and we all know what happened and why. However, proof in a court of law is much different than our "common (sense) knowledge" so evidence has to be trudging and belabored. Of course by the time the proof is actually established, either Cheney will have died of a heart attack and our flags will be at half-mast for about a week, or the Bush Presidency will be over and either Hillery or Jeb will be our new royalty, or the nation will be in receivership - so who cares - and all of this will be a mere footnote in some obscure history book.

But then, every cloud has a silver lining - I like to read history books! I don't read a lot (without going to sleep) so it does take time for me to get through books. It is even worse now because I'm reading three books at once.

I'm still reading Friedman's "The world is Flat" which is a very depressing book about the future of America and its inability to compete economically with the rest of the world.

But then to cheer me up I'm reading the very small "Jefferson Bible" by of course, Thomas Jefferson which he entitled, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".

What a brilliant man Jefferson was, as you all know, he wrote the ‘Declaration of Independence' and was vice President to the second President, John Adams, and then became the 3rd President of our nation and sponsored the Lewis and Clark expedition so the nation would have some idea of how large and varied it is. [And I still shiver at the fact that Jefferson died on July 4th exactly fifty years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence and that his good friend, President John Adams died that same day only four hours later. Makes one almost want to believe in providence!]

In this very small book it explains the editing (literally cutting out with scissors the magical, evangelical crap [my word] from the New Testament) and that he used not only the King James Bible, but also Greek, Latin and French versions (six Bibles in all) - since he was proficient in those languages.

His reason was that he appreciated, admired Jesus and wished the world to understand the actual teachings and life of Jesus which he thought were greatly obscured by ignorant and false attributions by those who actually wrote the New Testament.

The extensive and interesting historical introduction to the book was written by Forrest Church, son of Senator, Frank Church (1924-1984). Forrest is presently the senior minister of All Souls Church in NYC.

Perhaps the most involving book I'm reading is Jon Meacham's just published, "American Gospel" which involves "God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation."

I would certainly suggest that any Christian Fundamentalists read this book about the religious history of our nation before they put forth their faux wishes to return to the nation of our forefathers. It has been a long struggle out of depravity and evil - all in the name of God (or Jesus).

Although American citizens are predominantly Christians, we are not and never were a "Christian Nation". As I mentioned above concerning the "Jefferson Bible", Thomas Jefferson was an admirer of Jesus' intellect, morals and ability to present a proverb to explain a social truth, but he, along with Washington, Adams, Franklin and others were deists, not Christians and though they actually believed in an often ‘providential' God (as did Lincoln), they were not orthodox Christians and they were well aware of the tyrannies of organized religion - especially if that religion became part of government and law.

What they really wanted in their nation was individual freedom, especially of thought and self-determination. However, they lived in a tumultuous civilization and could only attempt to form ‘a more perfect union'. All in all, I think they did a good job.

But, back to the future....

Cheney the Focus of CIA Leak Court Filing
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the CIA leak case revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer Valerie Plame — albeit not by name — before her identity was publicly exposed.

The new court filing is the second in little more than a month by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald mentioning Cheney as being closely focused with his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who is married to Plame.

With the two court filings, Fitzgerald has pointed to an important role for the vice president in the weeks leading up to the leaking of Plame's identity.

In the latest court filing late Friday, Fitzgerald said he intends to introduce at Libby's trial in January a copy of Wilson's op-ed article in The New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by the vice president." The article was published on July 6, 2003, eight days before Plame's identity was exposed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

The notations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in the article and on responding to those assertions."

The article containing Cheney's notes "reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article," the prosecutor said. "This is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,' the filing states.

The reference is to the fact that the CIA sent Wilson on a trip to Africa in 2002 to check out a report that Iraq had made attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful an agreement to purchase uranium had been made.

The Bush administration used the intelligence on supposed efforts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa to bolster its case for going to war.

After the invasion, with the Bush White House under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, Wilson wrote the op ed piece for The Times. In it, he accused the Bush administration of exaggerating prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Defending the administration against Wilson's accusations, Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove promoted the idea that Wilson's wife, Plame, had sent him on the trip to Africa. Administration critics have said such a move was an attempt to undercut Wilson's credibility.

The prosecution's court papers also stated that Cheney told Libby around June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, a month before her identity was outed.

Hmmmm....

'Transgenders' and homosexuality have been around for thousands if not millions of years, I'm certain - and we're not the only animals which display those tendencies. (Perhaps God intended it to be thus... since He is reputedly perfect!)

It seems to me that as a society, we should recognize these "aberations" as normal and learn to live with them.

As to promoting gayness as an alternative life style - just as 'alternative medicines', I think, is questionable. But since gayness* is not "catchy" it probably doesn't do much harm.

However, I think contributions to our society by famous gays such as J. Edgar Hoover who ran our FBI for many decades should be recognized. ....AG]

California okays lessons on gays in textbooks

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's state Senate passed a bill on Thursday that would require textbooks in public schools to instruct students on contributions by gays and lesbians in the state's development.

The Democrat-led state Senate passed the bill on a 22-15 vote and forwarded it to the state Assembly.

The bill by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the legislature's first openly gay member, would also mandate public school textbooks to include lessons on contributions by transgender people.
Kuehl told Reuters she believes her bill is the first of its kind at the state level and predicted it would win support in the Assembly, where Democrats also have a majority.

"I think it has a very good chance in the Assembly because its members voted for marriage equality," Kuehl said, referring to the chamber's endorsement of same-sex marriage. "I think this is a lot easier vote." "It would help to shape attitudes of what gay people are really like," Kuehl said, noting their absence in state history textbooks.

Karen England of the conservative Capitol Resource Institute said in a statement the bill "seeks to indoctrinate innocent children caught in the tug-of-war between traditional families and the outrageous homosexual agenda."

A spokesman said Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on Kuehl's bill.

*I understand that there is a "gayness gene" which has been found in a large number of fundamentalist Christians who are in denial. They all know who they are, Jerry!

Bush ratings....

Haven't discussed politics much lately. The following piece is reasonably predictable but I am somewhat confused. It seems that the reporter, Whitesides, makes a distinction between what he calls "conservatives" and "Republicans" while I always thought of them as peas in a pod.

The difference "52 percent of conservatives and 68 percent of Republicans" approval rating makes me wonder what group constitutes what he calls conservative. I would guess that if you're registered Republican, then you'd be in that group. Does he mean by conservative, the Christian fundamentalists or does he include Independents - or both?

Whitesides does explain that the problem appears to be performance rather than ideology. From my point of view, Bush performance (including the House of Representatives) has been too effective.

What Bush lacks is judgement. He has very consistently made the wrong choices (conservative) and truly led us down the wrong garden path. If we continue down that path we will have economic melt-down and massive, probably world-wide depression - not just recession. It will then be necessary for the EU and China to lift the world out of the mess leaving the US as a secondary participant in world affairs - which might be good for us, except that we ‘have the bomb' and Bush seems willing to use it!

The problem with that is that when a political leader gets in trouble with his domestic policies and people, the best way out is to start a war! That is the primary reason we are rattling our swords at Iran and elsewhere.

A war would, of course, be disastrous and probably finish us off as a nation. Of course, that would end our immigration problems! Guess you can always find a silver lining if you look hard enough! ...AG

Polls show Bush losing conservative support
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Even conservatives are losing faith in President George W. Bush now, putting Republican control of Congress at risk in November's midterm elections.

Six months before voters decide the balance of power in Congress, an increasingly gloomy and anxious electorate has become disenchanted with Bush and grown more pessimistic about the
Iraq war, gas prices and the country's future, according to a flurry of recent polls.

More than two-thirds of the American public thinks the country is on the wrong track and voters prefer Democrats to Republicans by double-digits margins. Bush's job approval rating has reached a low for his presidency of 31 percent.

Throughout Bush's five-year presidency, conservatives have remained remarkably faithful. But the latest polls suggest that is no longer true.

A Gallup poll this week found just 52 percent of conservatives and 68 percent of Republicans approved of Bush's performance, record lows for both.

Polls also show Democratic voters are more motivated and enthusiastic about November's election, a reversal of the political mood in 1994 when Republicans swept to victory and took control of both houses of Congress

"Unless they can find a way to inspire some enthusiasm among voters, Republicans are toast. This is a very serious erosion of support," said Karlyn Bowman, a poll analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"If things keep going as they are, the Republicans are in enormous trouble in November," she said.

DOUBTS ABOUT COMPETENCE
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said conservative unhappiness at Bush's handling of the now-dead Dubai ports deal and the growth of federal spending has grown to encompass doubts about his leadership and competence.

"Many conservatives think Bush hasn't stuck to his core principles, but that is just part of it," Kohut said. "This is not strictly about ideology, this is about performance."

Republicans have appeared in disarray as they squabbled over spending, immigration, what to do about record-high gas prices and the port deal.

"The dynamic over the last 12 or 15 years has been Democrats split, Republicans united," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senate campaign committee.

This year, he said, "on issue after issue, immigration the most, it's Republicans split, Democrats united."

Democrats must gain six seats in the Senate and 15 in the House of Representatives to reclaim control, a task strategists in both parties say is tough but possible.

"If we do hold our majority in the House, it will be a testament to gerrymandering," said Republican consultant Dan Schnur, referring to the politically motivated redrawing of district boundaries after the 2000 Census that helped protect many incumbents in both parties.

In the Senate, Democrats must beat at least five incumbent Republicans to regain control, a difficult challenge even in a favorable Democratic political climate.

Republicans hope to rally conservative support with a $70 billion tax cut package approved by the House, a series of votes on hot-button social issues like gay marriage and warnings about the consequences of Democratic control.

Brian Nick, spokesman for the Republican Senate campaign committee, said there was time to recover. "It is a tough environment for Republicans and we've had the wind in our face for months now, but we have six months to get our message out and show the Democrats are not a good alternative," he said.

Immigration and Demonstrations....

Well, I predicted that the talking heads would be out in force muddying the issue on the overwhelming showing of immigrants in every major city in the country - I was right! Larry King had a host of divergent views including Frist of the Senate and the Grinch, Rohrbacher of the evil House and all the other "players" including CNN's Lou Dobbs in this game with their posturing.

I was a bit surprised that there was only marginal mention of "homeland security" which is, of course an expensive joke. I suspect that even though every participant claimed that ‘the American people' are behind them, I suspect that the realization is starting to sink in that the American people are not all that worried about big bad bombers sneaking across the border to terrorize the nation, or -- if they are, that big brother is capable of stopping them! After all, remember that ALL of the terrorist participants of 9/11 were LEGAL!

The reason I say that is because we as a nation are, have been, and always will be, totally incapable of preventing the flow of drugs or anything else, so how do we stop illegal immigration aside from legalizing it? - and then, miraculously, it just goes away!

Think about it! If we legalize immigration of Canadians and Mexicans, then they could flow across our borders simply by registering and a simple background check. I'm sure then that all of those who want jobs would do that. Criminals, drug runners and terrorists would then find themselves under closer scrutiny when they attempt to sneak across - rather than simply ‘running with the bulls' across the border.

Lou Dobbs, who I usually agree with - but not this time, thinks that they lower the incomes of the vaunted middle class, but that simply is not true! The middle class in this country is jeopardized by the gradual demise of the unions which were the only entity which created the middle class in the first place - we didn't have one to start with - read your history, cousins! When they are gone, the middle class will disappear and there will only be the very wealthy and the very poor - as it is in so many other 3rd world nations. The problem with Lou Dobbs is that his expertise is in economic theory and not in American history!

I do agree with Lou that the exporting of American jobs overseas to Asian countries also helps destroy the middle class, but certainly that has nothing to do with immigration.

I guess, word got out that the display of Mexican flags was counterproductive because most flags carried about in the demonstrations were American.

I do have one question which probably can't be answered, but I seriously doubt that the hundreds of thousands of people in the demonstrations shown across the country were all illegal immigrants. In fact, I suspect that a large majority were not only legal, but weren't even Mexican!
If my guess is true - we'll soon find out next November!

Of course, everyone seems to be up in arms over the British translation of the Star Spangled Banner into Spanish. I have but two comments on that. First: No one without voice training should attempt to sing the Star Spangled Banner - no, not again, Rosanne! Second: If the words to the song are better understood in Spanish in its reverence to the American flag – what is wrong with that?

We just bought a new washing machine and the instructions came in English, French, Spanish, and probably Swahili. The idea is to present the idea - language is not relevant!

Bush Promotes Fuel Cells.....

Bush Promotes Fuel Cells on Earth Day
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Sat Apr 22, 11:10 AM ET

[But first ---
This is the way to go and I'll have to praise Bush for getting on the horse from the Left side rather than from the Right (those of you who know horses will understand).

The cost of gasoline is not Bush's fault, it is world demand - especially China and India. On top of that, of course, will be the seasonal fluctuations so this summer it should go sky high - maybe to four or five bucks a gallon. It certainly should help bicycle sales!

I don't think we should rely on coal either until we are able to ‘gasify' it to burn in ‘clean' furnaces. Most of it, especially the bulk which is high sulfur, is simply much too dirty to use.

As far as I'm concerned, the additive of ethanol to gasoline is merely a quick fix - something like ‘hamburger helper' during meat shortages or high prices. True, countries like Brazil which have more modest fuel needs and a high production of sugar can benefit by converting entirely to ethanol which will be price competitive with gasoline and environmentally cleaner except for CO2. (Not certain about the relative production of CO between the two - but I'd guess that etOH would produce less of the poison, CO.

I think - partly because a plethora of organizations thirty or forty years ago, called loosely, Mothers Against Nuclear Energy, etc. - the nuclear energy industry here in the US has lost a lot of time in its development of efficiency, safety and disposal problems. Fortunately, the rest of the world has developed the technology so perhaps we could buy reactors from France or perhaps in the near future, Iran.

I think that Iran has seen the writing on the wall that, indeed, its oil reserves will be depleted in the near future and it doesn't want to revert to being a dusty, impoverished desert characterized by camel caravans and oases which is what it was when I was a small kid. I think that is the reason it is striving to install nuclear generators while it can still afford to build them.

I'm a bit disappointed in the Democratic response mentioned below that they didn't also push fuel cells, but rather the quick fix measures of coal and ethanol. There are certainly times to be divisive but there are also times to climb on board or even jump to the forefront!

Since Iceland will be completely ‘hydrogenated' by 2030 you might be interested in reading about their development and also see diagrams of how fuel cells work:
(copy/paste) http://tinyurl.com/b5au2
The device is very much like batteries, simple. It is the necessary infrastructure which is the problem. Of course, it will always be the problem unless we start building it! ....AG]


ST. HELENA, Calif. - Unable to drive down high oil prices, President Bush is spending Earth Day promoting futuristic hydrogen fuel technology as a way to wean Americans from gas-guzzling vehicles.

After a bike ride near his Napa Valley resort Saturday morning, Bush planned to visit the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento for a tour and speech on his energy plan.

The plan does not include any measures that would reduce gas prices in the short term, the White House acknowledges. But with Republicans worried that the increasing cost to drive could hurt them in the voting booth this year, Bush said he understands Americans are hurting.

"I know the folks here are suffering at the gas pump," Bush told an audience Friday in San Jose. "Rising gasoline prices is like taking a — is like a tax, particularly on the working people and the small business people."

But to address the immediate problem, Bush offered only a pledge that "if we find any price gouging it will be dealt with firmly."

The White House hopes the high gas prices will pressure Congress to act on the energy proposals the president outlined in his State of the Union address, such as increased federal research into alternative fuels and batteries for hybrid and electric cars.

Democrats, meanwhile, contend that the Bush administration places too much emphasis on drilling reserves and not enough on alternative fuels.

The promise of hydrogen fuel cell technology in vehicles is a favorite of automakers, environmentalists and politicians because it accomplishes two important goals — automobiles that run on fuel cells would not require gasoline and emit only water.

The problem with the technology is that it's many years away from widespread use. And it would require a new system of distributing hydrogen fuel to replace today's network of gasoline pumping stations.

Bush used his weekly radio address Saturday to promote the idea. "These fuel cells have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our cars by giving us vehicles that will emit no pollution and will be more efficient than gas-powered cars," he said.

In the Democratic response to Bush's radio address, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said that the Bush administration must stop being influenced by the powerful oil industry and start promoting production of synthetic fuel from coal and the use of alternative sources such as ethanol.

"We cannot drill our way out of this problem," Nelson said. [Since I don't listen to the radio, I didn't hear either address. I hope that Nelson was supportive and did mention fuel cells in a positive light and not just critical. ....AG]

Prices at the gas pump have been rising, with the average price of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline at $2.855. That's 3 cents higher than a day earlier and more than 60 cents higher than a year ago, according to AAA's daily fuel gauge report.

Crude oil prices broke through $75 a barrel Friday amid concerns about the standoff over
Iran's nuclear ambitions, rebel disruptions of oil production in Nigeria, and tight U.S. gasoline supplies. Analysts say they are likely to climb even higher.

Bush's bike ride Saturday was no Earth Day stunt. The president rides on most weekend mornings, but made the special detour to overnight in St. Helena just to get in a picturesque ride through wine country. He had no official events there.

"I can't wait," Bush told his San Jose audience. "I'll be plugged into an iPod." [Can you listen to ‘Afternoon of a Fawn' on an iPod? (anyone catch the play?)...AG]

Democratic Primaries

[I find the following article very interesting and an important decision for the Democratic party.

When you think about it, Iowa and New Hampshire are two very "American" states but are certainly not at all representative of the majority of Americans. Thus for them to be the ones to select who is to run for the presidency for any party is actually rather silly!

Mention has been made of South Carolina which to my mind is a state which if attainable by a Democrat would be earth shaking - so indeed, it would be a great hurdle for a primary - or so it would seem. However, on second thought, wouldn't the Democrats of South Carolina be those who are so polarized against the ruling class of bigots and wannabe plantation owners that they would not be a good measure of how the average American feels about just about anything?

Mention has also been made about involvement of the west which has always been left out of the equation - even California. None of the ‘left hand side of the country has had a choice about who to vote for - that has always been decided by the "Eastern establishment" like Iowa and New Hampshire.

In the case of California, only the coast of the state is progressive. The central valley and the Sierra mountains have always been very conservative. In fact, as we genealogists know, the migration of people to California, except for the gold rush in 1849, were from Virginia, down through Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and into the promised land!

Californis has had it share of Democratic and Republican governors and office holders - it is not by far as Democratic as New York, for example. Its present governor is often not claimed by either party! It might be a good candidate.

I lived with those people in the Sierra after I retired for almost ten years. When I was driven out by old age and snow to northern Arizona I really didn't experience the culture shock I certainly would have gotten had I retired directly from the San Francisco Bay Area - aside from the fact that no one in the Sierra walks around with a six gun strapped on his hip - but...

But Arizona is interesting and could, perhaps should be a testing site for the Democratic primaries. The state is rabidly Republican if you consider its state government and its junior senator (Kyle). On the other hand, its other Republican senator, McCain, is much more centrist, although a bit unpredictable - many Democrats like him but some of us don't like his bed-fellows.

But, despite the overwhelming Republican vote, we have a Democrat Governess and a Democrat Attorney General (everyone else in the government is Republican)! The government in Phoenix is in a constant state of war, but Governor Janet vetoes half of the mean-spirited crap the Republicans pass on ‘party-line' votes and appears to be loved by the people for doing so! She is running for re-election in November and I would be in a state of shock if she is not rel-elected - she's one smart babe, usually right - and they know it!

She just vetoed two more bills passed by them today! (I've suspected that they really don't want their bills passed and rely on her to veto them - that way they look good to their miserable constituents and she looks good to the country.) She is regarded as one of the best governors in the nation.

At any rate, I think that there should be other more representative proving grounds for candidates than two rather backward and unrepresentative states.

Personally, I'd opt for national voting via the Internet after watching the candidate's best shot in a series of nationally televised debates - and forget the primaries altogether! Yeah, I know, not in my lifetime!... AG]

US states look to move up in 2008 White House race
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Thu Apr 20

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Ten states asked the Democratic National Committee on Thursday to let them hold early presidential nominating contests in 2008, promising to bring more racial and geographic diversity to the process of choosing a candidate.

They made their case to a DNC panel that will choose at least two states to join the traditional presidential kingmakers, Iowa and New Hampshire, in holding early nominating contests in the next White House race.

The panel, responding to complaints that the white, rural residents of Iowa and New Hampshire were not representative of the country's diversity, approved a plan last month to add new state contests early in the calendar.

All of the states stressed their racial, ethnic and economic diversity and said they would offer Democratic presidential candidates an opportunity to craft and test-drive a message that would help them appeal to the entire country.

They all said they would be well suited for the face-to-face, grass-roots politics that distinguish campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"South Carolina is a perfect laboratory for Democratic politics," Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina told the panel. "If you prove your mettle in South Carolina, you will be successful in the United States of America."

Under the plan, Democrats would add one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and one or two primaries right after New Hampshire but before the nominating calendar is thrown open to all states.

The proposal, which has drawn opposition in Iowa and New Hampshire, was designed to let those two states retain much of their prominence in the nominating process while giving a bigger voice to states in the South and West -- areas where Democrats have suffered in recent presidential races.

SOUTH, WEST WANT IN
"We cannot win the White House without winning electoral votes in the deep South," said Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham.

He said any presidential candidate who can win in Alabama will be "battle-hardened and ready to go to the heartland of America and ask for those electoral votes in November."

Also making presentations to the panel were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, West Virginia and Hawaii, along with the District of Columbia.

"Arizona really represents in many ways the future of the Democratic Party," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who spoke to the panel by telephone and highlighted the state's growing Hispanic population. "The West is someplace where the national Democratic Party can make serious inroads," she said.

The panel plans at least one more meeting this summer before announcing its decision on specific states and timing later this year.

The presentations came on the opening day of the DNC's spring meeting, which was being held in New Orleans in part to highlight the Bush administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. DNC members have a busy schedule of community work, including house building and clean-up, while in New Orleans.

Iowa and New Hampshire have long enjoyed enormous influence in the race for presidential nominations. Iowa has held the first caucuses of the campaign since 1972, and New Hampshire traditionally holds the first primary shortly afterward.

Critics say their influence in presidential politics is distorted given their small populations, while supporters argue they serve the process well by forcing candidates to engage in one-on-one campaigning.

New Hampshire has promised to fight any change, and state officials say they will move up the state's primary if necessary to make it comply with a state law requiring it be held a week before any other primaries. [I can see that ultimately the decision for president will be held on New Year's Day!... AG]

Gingrich not stupid

Gingrich is not, nor ever was a stupid man - and I think he is right in his assessment of American politics today.

Personally, I hope the Republicans don't wake up to reality because merely re-electing the same mentality which might profess change would perpetuate the same problems we now face. People can change, but I don't think they can change fast nor well enough.

We need change in government and the present government is pathetically incapable of making that change. We need new people ...AG

Gingrich warns Republicans Americans want change
Sun Apr 16

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican Party is in serious danger of losing political ground in November elections if it does not enact reforms that eliminate waste and hold the federal bureaucracy to higher standards, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday.

I think they're in very serious danger of having a very bad election this fall," Gingrich said on Fox News Sunday. "You have to respect the right of the American people to say they want change," he said, criticizing the federal government's bungled efforts to cope with Hurricane Katrina and the Republican-led Congress' failure to enact immigration reforms. "Are they going to learn some lessons and get their act together?" Gingrich asked.

Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 231-201 in the House and have a 55-44 advantage in the Senate.

The former representative from Georgia said the "debacle" over measures to strengthen U.S. borders and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "was one more piece of the puzzle" for many voters who have lost faith in Republican leadership.

"The country absolutely wants control of the borders," Gingrich said. "The country absolutely wants us to insist that becoming an American citizen requires that you passed a test in English." A well-designed guest worker program would have the support of 75 percent to 80 percent of the American people, he said.

With the federal budget deficit at record levels, Gingrich said Americans are losing patience with "pork," the discretionary spending earmarked to benefit local political constituencies. "We were sent here to reform Washington, not to be co-opted by Washington," he said.

Lincoln's assassination....

My comments below are in response to an article I read which attempts to equate Abraham Lincoln to Jesus - something whch was stated often just after his assassination. After all, both were killed for their beliefs.

Appropriate, I guess, to commemorate Lincoln on the anniversary of his assassination. And I think he was a great president and appropriate for the occasion.

The small comparison made with Washington, I certainly agree with. True, Washington was our first president and managed somehow to win the war against the British, but he certainly was not a brilliant man nor was he a true sacrificing patriot - but he was a normal American, somewhat charismatic, with some military experience -- and awfully damned lucky - perhaps through stubbornness and even some greed. He wouldn't be remembered if he hadn't somehow won! But what he achieved was admirable.

Lincoln was, I think very intelligent, thoughtful and introspective. He took his job very seriously despite the world about him - one can personally identify with Lincoln. I'm sure, he didn't invite assassination nor martyrdom, as Jesus did. So I would say that Lincoln was not anymore Jesus-like than I am! I admire the actual teachings of Jesus - and I also admire the mind of Lincoln. However, I disagree with Lincoln's goal to hold the Union together - just a slight difference of opinion and mine has the advantage of hindsight - I might have felt differently during his time!

Yes, he referred to God often in his orations, but so did everyone else - it was expected!. That is not to signify whether he actually believed in God or even his definition of a god - it is always politic to refer to God because as a politician you gain the support of those who actually believe in His existence. ...and that is not bad if what you want to do is what the people's God would want you to do whether you believe or not! Today, we have those who refer to God and Jesus constantly and do not ‘do God's will'.

I think that the emphasis on Jesus is a very recent invention - actually within my lifetime - have I lived too long already? When I grew up I went to several different churches quite regularly over the years and as I remember it, God was the boss and who everyone revered. Jesus was merely the son of God - sort of a messenger - and, of course, part of the Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost! "Jesus Saves" was merely graffiti scrawled in paint on rocks along the roadway - not true gospel! Now it seems, that "Jesus Saves" is the total of modern Christianity sans teachings, sans song!

My occasional interactions with the Catholic church suggested to me that the Roman Church was very much invested with the Holy Mother, Mary. "Mary, mother of God...". and that Jesus was merely what may be described [my words] a semi-mortal who presented the word of God to the world at the time. It seems to me that Mary is actually viewed as the portal by which God introduced Himself to the world through her ‘only begotten son,' Jesus.

Of course, Jesus has long gone along with Washington and Lincoln to the actual ultimate state of nothingness we all face. But we living may reinvent them to our heart's desire and they, quite frankly, won't care! But for us, maybe we could continue to make them positively constructive toward our future survival on this planet in our memories of their achievements and philosophies.