GLEN BECK: Why did he rally thousands?

What do we make of the huge GLEN BECK rally at our nation’s capital this weekend?

It was billed as a RESTORE HONOR RALLY; we must restore America and restore her honor. What does this mean exactly? Bush sacrificed our honor on the world stage when he attacked Iraq under false pretences. How does Beck imagine we are going to get our honor back?

Before we can try to figure out what was on Beck’s mind when he called this rally, you have to examine the man and his life so far. On the one hand, it is quite remarkable that Beck made himself into a rich and popular man given his early life.

He was raised a Roman Catholic attending Jesuit schools. His parents divorced because of his mother’s alcoholism. She later drowned (suicide) and he went to live with his father. He was diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity and became an alcoholic and drug addict. He was married and divorced and admitted to being suicidal at some points in his life. He later re-married and became a Mormon.

He is a radio / TV personality and an author of some renown. He has a huge following and he readily admits that sometimes he says really stupid things. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show delights in catching him at his worst moments.

Back to the rally. Beck injected a lot of religion into this rally. He said that the country was wandering in the darkness for too long. He said faith is in short supply and we must restore ourselves before we can restore the country. He told the crowd that we must turn back to God – what do this all mean?

We are the most religious country in the West. Fundamentalists are forever trying to defy the Constitution and cram their religious views down our government’s throat so we would become a Christian theocracy using the Iranian model or even that model used by the Taliban so why does he imagine we are somehow Godless?

Here is where I start wondering about Beck’s mental stability and given his huge following, I wonder about the mental stability of many Americans.

Some are saying that this was a huge Tea Party but many attendees said it was their faith that brought them and not politics so it appears that this was a religious revival meeting but why, what is the purpose, what is the goal?

I am sorry but I have to remain very suspicious of anything Beck does and FOX NEWS supports.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck 'Restoring Honor' Rally Delivers Religious, Not Political Message (huffingtonpost.com)
• OK, So Three Hours of Beck Can Get a Little Slow (reason.com)
• "God Sandbags Beck" and related posts (yikes101.blogspot.com)
• Jon Stewart On Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally: 'I Have A Scheme' (mediaite.com)
• Glenn Beck's Hypocritical Revival (thedailybeast.com)

IRAQ WAR: See the Movie THE GREEN ZONE!

I just finished watching the movie THE GREEN ZONE with Matt Damon. It is about the Iraq War, it is fiction but based on a non-fiction book and I think it portrays on screen what I have been saying for years; Bush lied his ass off about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and then tried to cover those lies up.

I suppose I should not blame Bush alone but include the band of neo-cons (Chaney, Rumsfeld, et.al.) that were involved in the plot (yes PLOT) to get us into a war with Iraq and to establish the first democracy in the Middle East.

I hope those involved in the plot will eventually be punished but I doubt that it will ever happen…

Anyway, the movie hit the nail on the head for me about the WMD but also brought up other errors we made like disbanding the Iraq army structure which would have prevented all the sectarian violence that followed.

Yes, the Iraq War was a royal fuck-up from day one and now that we are leaving after sacrificing so many lives, all hell will break loose as if we were never there in the first place – how nice is that?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 25 reviews of Lack of Indisputable Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (rateitall.com)
• IRAQ WAR: Ending? What Have We Accomplished? (jmszyszko.blogspot.com)
• The CIA and WMDs: The Damning Evidence (nybooks.com)
• Iraq inquiry: Government 'intentionally and substantially' exaggerated WMD threat (telegraph.co.uk)
• Blu-ray Review: Green Zone (blogcritics.org)

ILLEGAL DRUGS: Make them legal!

I have been blogging about legalizing drugs for a very long time. It only makes sense to decriminalize drug use and therefore to put the whole illegal drug industry out of business.

Just recently, Vincente Fox, the past president of Mexico, spoke out against the horrific killings in Mexico due to wars between drug gangs; many innocent people have died and continue to die every day. The corruption is so bad that police work for drug lords and do some of the killing. Bringing in the Federales (army) has not curbed the slaughter.

The United States is to blame for most of the violence because it is Americans that buy the drugs from Mexico; without our demand for more and more drugs, the Mexican cartels would be out of business – no customers. Decriminalizing drugs on both sides of the border would bring an end to this mayhem. I do not vacation in Mexico any more because of the killings there.

President Fox pointed to the success Portugal has had when it decriminalized drugs. HIV is down 90% and drug addiction is down 50% where in the past, Portugal had the most addicts and the most HIV infected people in Europe.

How did they do it? First, you need balls to do what is right and what makes sense.

In this country, we started to make available marihuana for those in need to help control their pain because of a medical condition. A first step but even this small step is finding road blocks by local police who have nothing else to do but to patrol marihuana growers to make sure they haven’t crossed their allowed legal quota – bullshit. The cops need to get their priorities straight and make sure we are not murdered, raped, robbed, etc. – I don’t give a shit if someone is smoking dope; I’d rather feel physically safe in my own home and on the street.

Some are saying that the drug war is an industry keeping many agents employed. What would happen to those agents if the war ended? Would they go on unemployment?

Portugal offered drug treatment to those who requested it and they left those that didn’t alone. To their surprise many drug addicts asked for treatment even though using drugs was legal – see what can happen when you have the balls to try something different!

Legal drugs can be taxed so now you have a revenue source that you can use for helping addicts. Legal drugs can be regulated by the FDA to assure quality and purity. Since many crimes are committed because of drug addiction; legalizing drugs and making them relatively inexpensive and accessible would absolutely lower the crime rate as it has in Portugal.

Why are we as a society so determined to keep drugs illegal? We cannot win the war on drugs which by now should be quite apparent unless you can’t think or reason. Is it a religious issue – thou shalt not do drugs?

Why is alcohol legal? Look what damage alcohol does to our society but we keep it legal and we tax it and we regulate it and many people are employed in the alcohol industry but the same could be said of drugs. Is it because Jesus drank wine but did not do weed?

We, as a society just have to get smarter to move forward. I always thought that when the baby boomers got into power, things would change; well they did not change and now we are grandparents with white hair. Hopefully we still have some fight left in us.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (time.com)
• Common sense demands reformation of UK drug laws (leftfootforward.org)
• Johann Hari: The Only Thing Drug Gangs and Cartels Fear Is Legalisation (huffingtonpost.com)
• #10: Legalize All Drugs (bigthink.com)
• Mexico Ex-President Fox Calls for Drug Legalization (businessweek.com)

GENERAL MOTORS: GM's Strange IPO.

I may not know a lot about IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) where companies offer their stock for sale to the general public but something just doesn’t seem quite kosher with the way GM is handling their IPO.

Whitaker, who is regarded as the savior of GM (really Obama is) was going to step down after the IPO until he was told that he could be sued by shareholders for stepping down after the IPO? Well, the logic here is that the shareholders bought the shares knowing that Whitaker would continue to lead the company in the grand fashion he has been leading it so far. If he knew that he would be stepping down after the IPO then he “mislead” the share buyers and that would be a crime or at least a legal no-no.

SO, GM quickly names a new CEO who will not step down right away and Whitaker will not be sued after he steps down after the IPO – got it?

The problem is, why would share buyers buy GM shares when they know the man in charge is leaving and the man to be in charge is a hastily promoted nobody?

The IPO is very important to GM as it is to any company wishing to move forward so why is GM screwing it up so badly?

Whitaker is the same guy that made a commercial saying GM has paid the government back the money they borrowed but left out the fact that the money used to pay back the government was actually government money and not money earned from selling cars.

Maybe Whitaker is not so smart after all or maybe he is a trickster. Lets see how Wall Street reacts to all the strange goings-on at GM.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GM IPO filing expected today? (walletpop.com)
• For IPO Investors, A Peek Under the Hood of the New GM (dailyfinance.com)
• IPO asks investors to put their faith in GM (kansas.com)
• GM finally files for IPO (content.usatoday.com)

DETROIT: Gravy Train Riders don't want to get off!

Robert Bobb, the emergency manager of Detroit Public Schools has really had his hands full trying to quash decades of blatant corruption and mismanagement but it is hard to get rid of the gravy train some Detroiters have been used to all these years and to hell with students and their needs!

Recently Bobb got pissed off at the DPS security guards and fired them. He fired them for excessive absenteeism or in plain language; they just did not show up for work but still wanted to be paid.

He hired a security firm that will not only guarantee guards will be on the job every day but will save the DPS system 5.5 million dollars; you can’t go wrong with a deal like that BUT wait…

The union that represented the absentee guards went to court and had Bobb’s decree nullified; he was instructed to re-instate those sorry ass guards, after all the union did not want to get off the gravy train either.

Bobb will appeal the decision but why does he have to? This has nothing to do with law and everything to do with a smart business decision that will greatly benefit the community and especially the students!

The governor of the state needs to stick her nose into this and block these stalling tactics by gravy train riders and if she can’t, let the legislature pass some laws giving Bobb all the power he needs to quash these obstructionists for good!

NY MOSQUE: I smell a rat!

Image via Wikipedia

Well I am learning a lot more facts about the Mosque that was to be built near ground zero. Basically what I am learning is that politicians saw an issue where no issue existed and they all jumped on it and to me, they not only made assholes of themselves but did this country and its citizens a disservice and I am talking about both Democrats and Republicans.

I have learned that the American Imam and his wife that proposed the building of an Islamic community center have not collected a dime to put towards the project; it is only a dream right now.

I have also learned that there is a chapel at the Pentagon that is being used a lot by Muslims to conduct prayer services. It was originally built after 9/11 as a place of prayer for all religions at the site of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon where many people lost their lives. This chapel has existed for a long time now and no one has complained about the frequent use of the chapel by Muslims.

The New York Times had a lengthy article about the Muslim cleric and his family that is involved in the proposed building of the Muslim Community Center. It appears that the cleric has been involved in teaching the Muslim communities around the world that Islam and America are compatible and can co-exist in a Democratic society such as in the United States. He believes that American Islam can teach other Islamic societies how to co-exist with other religions on a worldwide basis. This does not sound like some hot headed radical hell bent on destroying the U.S. as some hot headed politicians, trying to score points with other hot heads in this country, are trying to suggest.

In fact, it appears that our own State Department has used this cleric to lecture other Muslims on American Islam and how it is growing in this country without any problems and why would a country that has a thriving Muslim community want to wage war on Islam?

The New York Times is also suggesting that FOX NEWS and its owner may have a role in creating this uproar as a means of discrediting President Obama and scaring the nation into voting a certain way in the upcoming elections. This is a dirty business as we all know but after Bush and his cohorts lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just to have an excuse to start a war with Iraq, then I believe anything is possible including the manipulation of facts that FOX has been known to do, to justify the end product desired which is putting Republicans back in charge so they can continue the same shit they were doing under Bush.

FOX News has also been shown on past videos to actually support the Muslim cleric and his wife in what they are trying to do which is to teach people about a peaceful Islam in America; what changed?

FOX has now accused the Imam of getting money from dangerous foreign sources BUT Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has revealed that the dangerous source is none other than a very rich Arab that owns a big chunk of the FOX network along with Murdoch. He is also the Muslim that wanted to give New York 10 million dollars after 9/11 but his money was refused; see how dumb we can be?

The point is that we cannot condemn an entire religion and all adherents to that religion for the dastardly deeds of a few radicals; that is plain stupid and we know better.

At first I sympathized with people that felt a mosque close to ground zero would be insensitive BUT the more I am finding out about what is really going on, the more I smell a rat, a big rat and the more I want to know who is behind this manipulation and creation of false facts/news that we Americans are so eager to believe; we are just so gullible, it isn’t funny.

I am happy to see that people are starting to protest FOR the mosque; even people who have lost loved ones in 9/11, a few that were also Muslim, saying that they did not want the lives of their loved ones to stand for religious oppression in a country with freedom of religion as its main tenet.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CBS Uses Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque to Lecture About 'America Becoming Islamophobic' (newsbusters.org)
• At Pentagon, Muslims pray without protests (alternet.org)
• The Right seems determined to hand Al Qaeda a propaganda victory with its mosque fetish (crooksandliars.com)

MUSLIM MOSQUE: At Ground Zero?

Image via Wikipedia

Well, the issue of the Manhattan Mosque has really blown up, hasn’t it? Too bad it has become a political weapon for both parties, believe it or not, instead of a civil discussion. Politicians feel the popular outrage and rush to make sure they take the correct position so they can get re-elected again (such as Harry Reid-D of Nevada).

The twits at FOX News have been having a field day and Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has also been having a field day showing how goddamn hypocritical the folks at FOX are by running past videos where they contradict themselves.

In my last blog on the subject, I empathized with people that felt building a mosque in the general area of ground zero was insensitive but now, the issue has taken on a life of its own.

No, it is not right next to ground zero but a few blocks away. If it’s hallowed ground why are there so many strip clubs around there, peep shows and the like? Yes, the New York body approving the mosque had only one nay vote. Mayor Bloomberg was happy someone was finally doing something with a decrepit building.

I have especially gotten a kick out of the many “serious” pundits that tried to articulate the outrage people feel even though we don’t know who they are and how many feel this outrage; it maybe a FOX trick to garner ratings?

Newt Gingrich said it was like the Nazis putting something up next to the Holocaust Center. Well no, those Nazis do not exist anymore; they are history, they weren’t into religion and the whole nation of Germany attacked us not a few Nazis.

Krauthammer said it was like the Japanese building a community center at Pearl Harbor. Here we are talking again about WWII and the involvement of a whole nation in an attack on us not just a couple of crazy Japs.

Also the Carmelite Nun convent near Auschwitz was brought up as an example. Pope John Paul eventually asked the nuns to move after Jews were annoyed at their presence near their hallowed ground or more specifically of having a giant cross positioned there. These were Polish nuns not German nuns and there were many Christians that were also exterminated at the camp for which the nuns ostensibly prayed for but everyone should recognize that Jews were the primary victims there.

The Pope acted because the standoff was not ending and could escalate during the 50^th anniversary of the liberation of the camp. The fact that an option of a Jewish-Christian Center at the site was agreed to by both parties some time ago made this impasse the work of just a few stubborn nuns.

During 9/11 people of all faiths died in the attack. The terrorists did not discriminate; they did what they did to punish the U.S. as a country, as a nation, as the most powerful national entity on earth. They wanted to show that we could be attacked; that we were vulnerable.

Some pundits are saying that the longer this argument continues the worst for everyone connected. We are a nation of laws (Constitution) and all Americans know we have freedom of religion here. To start backtracking on our most famous amendment (1^st), makes us look hypocritical and makes arguments against us by Muslim extremists (al-Qaeda) more believable.

For those who say that countries like Saudi Arabia do not allow any other religious (Christian) structures (churches) or communities (convents, etc.) inside their borders gives us the right to block Muslim structures and communities…no it does not. We are a constitutional republic founded with freedom for all and we can never go back on our founding principles; it wouldn’t be American.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Newt Gingrich Compares Ground Zero Islamic Center To 'Nazi Sign Next To Holocaust Museum' (mediaite.com)
• GOP seizes on mosque as election issue (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Muddles His Mosque Message (realclearpolitics.com)
• Ajay Singh Chaudhary: The "Mosque Affair," or, Far and Away the Country's Most Ridiculous Controversy (huffingtonpost.com)

AFGHANISTAN: The options are bleak...

Image via Wikipedia

I questioned before about the need to continue the Afghanistan War when a victory, even a partial victory (whatever that could mean) would probably be impossible.

The U.S. military says that if they can help create an Afghan army that could keep the Taliban and al-Qaeda at bay, they would have achieved a major objective of the war.

Yesterday, ABC News reported that among the Afghan army trainees we are training to become competent and reliable soldiers, 95% are illiterate and cannot read in their own language and 98% cannot drive or operate vehicles. I guess the Taliban must have taken all the smart ones since they are winning the war.

Here is the kicker, only a few of the trainees want to learn how to read so what are you going to do about that?

Someone once said that to bring the Afghan people out of their darkness and into the light of modernity was to educate all the women which is strictly forbidden under the Taliban. The rationale is that once you educate all the women, they will in turn, educate their whole family; an idea that may have some merit although I don’t know how realistic a plan like that is.

Well anyway, it appears that if we want an Afghan army to succeed, we must teach them the very basics we all assume every one has learned by the time they reach adulthood. I suppose this a good thing for their society and can only benefit the people in Afghanistan in the long run but what the hell do we do in the short run; how fast can we teach Afghans to read Afghan?

Another plea to not leave Afghanistan the way it is came from the women of Afghanistan as well as the world. TIME Magazine had a horrific picture of an Afghan girl (18) on the cover with her nose and ears cut off by a husband and his family that were not getting the service they needed out of her and for the fact that she ran away (due to abuse).

The Time story delved into the status of girls and women under the Taliban and what would happen if the U.S. abandons Afghanistan or leaves it with a weak, corrupt government. I think everyone feels for these females but what can we really do given the history of the country and its people?

I don’t know now but may have ideas later…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Afghan girl whose nose was cut off meets with local doctors, prepares for treatment (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Afghan National Army debacle (teabreak.pk)
• Editorial: The State of the War in Afghanistan (nytimes.com)

GAY MARRIAGE: A few more notes on previous blogs...

Image via Wikipedia

I have to add an explanatory note to my blog on Gay Marriage where I used Ann Rice, the famous author of vampire novels, to show how some Christians are moving away from organized religion because they feel the organized church (Vatican in her case) no longer represents the teachings of Jesus and has become a hater or anti force against certain humans (homosexuals) as well as institutions (science, democracy…).

What I did not know was that her son is gay. I can just imagine the problem a mother of a gay son would have with a religion or church that she belongs to, that condemns her son for who he is. The same problem was faced by Dick Chaney, the staunch conservative with a gay daughter and John McCain with the same.

Obviously you want your children to be happy in their lives, what parent wouldn't, so to think of one's kids as some kind of evil, sinner or deviate is probably really hard so you form a coping thought system in your mind to allow you to remain a loving parent and a good Catholic? Obviously this did not work for Ann.

I point this out about Ann Rice because it obviously had a strong influence on her change of heart about her Catholicism and her Church leaders even though she mentions many more objections she has about Church policies besides the strict anti-gay stance.

I feel it is important for high profile individuals to reveal their personal struggles with what they feel is accepted Church or social dogma, indicating to others that they are not alone in their feelings and desires for a more open and just society.

Related articles by Zemanta

• GAY MARRIAGE: View from religion... (jmszyszko.blogspot.com)
• Anne Rice On Her Decision To Quit Christianity (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• UCC is going after Anne Rice (geneveith.com)
• Anne Rice and organized religion (beliefnet.com)
• Anne Rice Explains Why She Left The Church [Christ The Lord] (jezebel.com)
• Anne Rice, Secular Hero [Converts] (gawker.com)

AMERICAN ISLAM: Ban Mosque Building? Not a good idea!

Image via Wikipedia

A topic that seems to have entered blog discussions as well as reporting in the regular media has to do with our (American) attitudes to Mosque building.

I think it started with a group trying to build a mosque close to where the 9/11 tragedy happened. I can understand the reaction to the potential symbolism of a mosque being built where Islamic terrorists destroyed thousands of lives and huge amounts of property; it is as if they (the terrorists) were saying, see we hurt you, we invaded you and now we will conquer you.

Obviously, Muslims and mosques have been in this country for many, many years. I remember when we used to drive through Toledo, Ohio to get to Dayton or Cincinnati; we passed a most beautiful mosque amidst farms and farmland and that was many years ago.

Today, mosque building is being challenged all over the country (and the world) due to a different perception of Islam. Today Americans see mosques as breeding grounds for terrorists, places where young Muslims are “radicalized” into becoming terrorists just like in England.

On one level you can see the concern of many Americans as valid and the fact that prominent Muslims do not condemn Muslim radicalism and terrorism in loud enough voices, adds to the concern.

People take phrases out of the Quran / Koran and use them to prove that Islam is a violent and aggressive religion that aims to conquer the world; the same can be done with the Christian Bible. Mosques in my area hold open-house sessions for the general public to try to educate them about Islam and the Quran but that is not done on a wide enough basis and so the religion and its adherents seem suspicious and plotting.

So far, local government leaders like the mayor of New York defend the building of mosques as a natural right of religious groups; a right guaranteed by our Constitution to practice their religion freely and without hindrance of any kind and that is the law of the land, plain and simple.

I thing an important American perception of Islam is that it is not just a religion but a religion tied to governments as in theocracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. so the natural inclination is to see Islam in America as plotting to eventually take over our government and make it into a theocracy something fundamental Christians have been trying to do for many years and in fact have accelerated their efforts under Bush and will again under the next Republican president.

Obviously, the thought of an American theocracy, Muslim at that, is preposterous. In fact, American Islam is a branch of the religion that will be and already is different from Islamic branches around the world and hopefully will show the world that Islam can survive and prosper in a country with many religions.

In fact, the earliest history of the Islamic empire showed great toleration for other religions. It has only been in modern history that some Muslim countries have become theocracies with strict rules against allowing other religions into their territory.

Please also remember that Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries have secular governments and fiercely protect their secularism like Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. Yes, they have to battle constantly the forces that would destroy their secular state and impose a theocratic government; but that is the reality in the Muslim world today.

We are a land of immigrants; a melting pot. So let’s welcome the Muslims into the pot and allow them to enjoy our culture as we assimilate theirs but let’s not be naive but continue to keep vigilant watch over mosques and Muslims that could potentially be harmful to us; and that is the reality of the world we live in and future generations will live in.

My only potential problem with American Islam is the need for minarets to constantly call people to prayer (5x/day); too loud and annoying. I have heard that the new American way to perform this task will be to send out “prayer calls” by cell phone.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Ground Zero Mosque Hurts Islam (thedailybeast.com)
• Battle Over Temecula Mosque Joins National Effort, Press Falls For Trojan Horse (politicalpistachio.blogspot.com)
• Anti-Muslim Sentiment In America: It's Not Just About A Mosque Near "Ground Zero" (outsidethebeltway.com)

GAY MARRIAGE: The legal argument...

Image via Wikipedia

Now for the legal points made about the legality of Gay Marriage under the U.S. Constitution or why Proposition 8 (California) barring gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling is based on the 14th Amendment to our Constitution an amendment adopted in 1868 after the Civil War and called the Reconstruction Amendments which simply ensured that blacks get equal treatment and equal protection under the law even though they apply to all Americans.

There are a number of parts to this amendment but only two (2) are applicable to our case.

The first is the DUE PROCESS clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty or property without certain legal steps (due process) being taken. It dates to the Magna Carta drawn up between the King of England and his nobles that forbade the king to do anything he wishes, he must obey the law of the land so in essence due process protects the individual from the state.

The due process clause protects an individual’s fundamental rights which are deeply rooted in American history and traditions and here you may argue that the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman is part of our history and tradition but here is where the judge makes his point…

The judge states that individuals have a fundamental right to marry and states cannot deny this right to individuals without due process (trial). The right to marry has not changed but the evolution of marriage as per our understanding of gender and gender roles in our society has changed. I have touched on this in my first blog on the subject of how the definition of marriage has changed in our society.

I know this is a hard concept to grasp since even the Supreme Court has had trouble with it in the past; remember Roe vs. Wade and the fundamental right to privacy?

The next clause is the EQUAL PROTECTION clause which bars discrimination (in its simplest interpretation). This clause has had a rough history, remember “separate but equal” but now has settled down to mean what it states that no state shall deny to any specific group the protection all other groups receive.

This may be easier to understand since a state discriminating against a group must prove a legitimate state interest in restricting marriage to only heterosexuals and quite frankly there is no compelling reason to block gays from marrying; a ban on gay marriage has no rational basis.
Please remember that your personal moral view of gay marriage does not apply here just like gay sex used to be against the law because people thought it was abnormal and sinful BUT that is not a reason to make it illegal.

The state cannot prove that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples; no proof exists.

You may here arguments saying that the majority of Californians passed this legislation banning gay marriage but the duty of a judge is to rule whether that law (no matter how popular) is constitutional and remember, we are a REPUBLIC (not a democracy) which means we follow THE RULE OF LAW which is our Constitution.

Let the arguments begin…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Marjorie Cohn: Landmark Ruling Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional (huffingtonpost.com)
• Gay Marriage Should Be Upheld, Ex-Solicitor General Olson Says (businessweek.com)

GAY MARRIAGE: View from religion...

Image via Wikipedia

I think that people’s opinions about gay marriage and homosexuality in general are mostly influenced by their religious beliefs.

It is important to remember that homosexuality is not condemned by all religions and even the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexual individuals but only their life styles.

In Christian denominations there is a wide variety of attitudes towards homosexuality with those against or saying that the Bible says homosexuality is an “abomination”. Yes you can get deep into a discussion of what the Bible says or does not say about homosexuality but suffice it enough to say that most references are to the Old Testament and in particular to the Book of Leviticus which declares a man lying with another man an abomination. I will be quick to point out that eating shrimp is also an abomination and putting you children to death for misbehaving is a recommended practice.

Those that believe every word in the Bible as coming from God are hypocrites since they accept the words they want to follow and skip over those that are preposterous in our day and age and based on just that observation, I discount the Bibles’ authority on homosexuality as dubious to non-existent since homosexuality as a way of life was not know in the years when the Bible was first written.

The Christians that accept homosexuals view them as creations of God and therefore brothers and sisters in the human race of man.

There is actually a movement that asks “What would Jesus do?” or better yet, tries to walk in Jesus’ shoes when approaching issues such as homosexuality (see my little video from FunnyorDie.com).

One recent example involves Anne Rice, the author of the famous vampire novels. She returned to Catholicism after being an atheist for a long time. She wrote a number of books explaining her journey back to faith but after 10 years she has announced that she is no longer part of Christianity and not a Christian. She is committed to Jesus but not to the Christian religion; she has not lost her faith but she has had it with organized religion.

Anne Rice announced that in the name of Christ, she refuses to be anti-gay, antifeminist, against artificial birth control, anti-Democratic, anti-secular humanist, anti-science and anti-life.

Of course some people will never change and will stick to what was impregnated into their brains by religious authorities that claim to know what God wants and therefore what is right or wrong. There is not hope for brainwashed people but there is hope for people who have still retained the power to think and reason as individuals and it is on those people that our civilization depends to progress out of the superstitious hell hole we find ourselves in.

Lets hope those people have lots of kids.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Phoenix Bishop Relies Upon Bible To Attack Prop 8 Ruling Forgetting About The First Amendment (lezgetreal.com)
• Fundamentalism, literalism and selectivity (sendaianonymous.wordpress.com)
• Anne Rice ditches Christianity (freethinker.co.uk)

GAY MARRIAGE: California Proposition 8 ruled Unconstitutional!

Image via Wikipedia

District Judge Vaughn Walker declared California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, unconstitutional on August 4, 2010. This is big on many different levels and I may need a number of blogs to work my way through this issue.

First let me reiterate my basic beliefs about homosexuality. I believe homosexuals are born homosexual therefore I do not believe homosexuality is a conscious choice; I think it is in the DNA of the person. I have blogged on the subject many times and have laid out my rationale for my beliefs which also includes common sense; why in the hell would a healthy heterosexual EVER want to become a homosexual; that just does not make any sense at all!

Secondly I have blogged about allowing gay marriage on a number of occasions and I have talked about Europe where EVERYONE has to get married in a court which grants civil union status to any couple applying for a civil union certificate. You can choose to follow up the state ceremony with a religious ceremony BUT the state ceremony is the ONLY one that confirms the union as LEGAL.

In our country, you too can get married in a court by a judge BUT here a priest or minister ALSO has the LEGAL right to marry couples.
The issue of gay marriage can be looked at from a variety of positions which include social, cultural, legal and most of all, religious.
Let me tackle the social institution we call marriage and how it has evolved through history.

Cultural anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowsky is the man to go to for background information. We all know that originally marriage was a union formed for procreation and child rearing; plain and simple and it worked very well for a very long time and still does for those who want to do just that.

Today marriage is less of an institution and more of a contract between two people. Today only 40% of Americans consider children as important to a marriage. Nearly 38% of children are born out of wedlock today. Many children are raised in one-parent households where a marriage was never a possibility.

Today there are many ways to reproduce and bear children so a strictly male / female union is not required.

So if marriage today has been demoted to a simple contract between two people why do gays want the word “marriage” in their “contract”?

I found out that gays, just like hetero couples, want to be “married” instead of just “joined” for all the social and cultural reasons that marriage represents. They want a wedding conducted by a “spiritual” person, they want rings, receptions and they want all the trappings of a married life. Some call marriage a part of the foundation of civilization and they want to be a part of that civilization.

More later…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Reprint: John Scalzi on Same Sex Marriage [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• Defining the ideal marriage: It's not that easy (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

MICHIGAN PRIMARY: Local contest!

Image by Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton via Flickr

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

To: The Canton Observer
Re: “‘Exhilarated’ ” Levi turns her focus to November”, August 5, 2010.

I was struck by your article “‘Exhilarated’ Levi turns her focus to November”, August 5th, where Lori Levi is quoted as describing herself as “unapologetically pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun and pro-freedom”.

So called pro-lifers are actually people that are anti-choice and as such are determined to deny Americans the freedom to choose and therefore are actually anti-freedom. Since the right to an abortion is the law of the land, pro-lifers are also against established law; not something you want to see in a state representative sworn to uphold the law.

When a politician proclaims to be pro-God in a country that mandates separation of Church and State, one has to wonder if that politician, once elected, will support and maintain our guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

I guess I am just wondering what Ms. Levi means when she says she is pro-freedom since it appears that for Ms. Levi, freedom is just another word…


Janusz M Szyszko

MICHIGAN PRIMARY: Some notes...

NOTES ON THE MICHIGAN PRIMARY OF 2010



1. The Bernero victory appears to have been orchestrated by none other than Bob King of the UAW. He knew Dillon was not a union man and therefore he could not afford for him to win and he knew that Bernero was down in the polls. The UAW took over the Bernero campaign coming up with the attack on Dillon’s anti-choice and anti stem cell stance and the rest is history. Dillon is probably kicking himself in the butt for not, at least, explaining his stance on abortion /stem cell.

2. It will be much harder for the UAW to engineer a victory against Snyder. Bernero is a career politician (ran for office 5x in 10 years) that shouts instead of speaks and is pretty rough around the edges. He also projects a non-educated persona; even my Democratic wife says she cannot, in good faith, vote for Bernero since he appears (to her) not to be what Michigan needs and Snyder, on the other hand, fits the bill for her.

3. Snyder says he is against abortion but will support it in cases of rape and incest and will not make it an issue. He is for stem cell research and will stand by his position on that. Right-to-Life will not endorse him and may not participate in this election at all. Snyder received a lot of votes from cross-over Democrats who like him more than their own candidate Bernero.

4. Right-to-life (anti-choice) took a beating when they supported COX which means that the Republicans were ignoring that issue or it was a non-issue to them at this point. I have read where many conservative Republicans do not consider stem-cell research as the same type of problem as abortion; after all, voters of the state did approve stem cell research in Michigan so I don’t think Snyder will have a problem on that issue.

5. In the news media today was a pretend show of Democratic unity but neither Dillon nor Bing of Detroit is willing to give Bernero their support - WOW - what the hell does that mean - will they support the Republican? Is the world coming to an end? I told you folks that this will be one hell of a governor's race!


More later…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rick Snyder wins GOP primary for Mich. governor (sfgate.com)
• Lansing mayor wins Dem. primary for Mich. governor (sfgate.com)
• Michigan voters search for economic savior (msnbc.msn.com)

MICHIGAN'S RACE FOR GOVERNOR: A good start...

Well, overall I am satisfied with the results of the Michigan Primary elections.

Virg Bernero beat Dillon as was expected but it was interesting to say the least. When Bernero attacked Dillon on grounds of being anti-choice and anti stem cell research, I was angered since those issues were not important to the present campaign; JOBS were, but I was wrong.

Listening to various Democrats including my wife, I heard that Dillon, even running as a Democrat, was not a true Democrat and did not represent a Democrat’s social value system which includes being pro-choice and pro stem cell research and that apparently is very important, no matter what the pressing issues, to die-hard Democrats.

Dillon was also pro-business which is also a Republican thing so Dillon was in essence, a Republican running on the Democratic ticket? I liked Dillon’s independent position straddling between Democrats and Republicans, being able to work with both parties and willing to follow common sense solutions not steeped in the hard ideology of either party; that appealed to me and I guess to others because he was leading Bernero up until the final weeks of the campaign.

Bernero’s handlers knew what they were doing when they started painting Dillon as anti-choice and anti stem cell research which eclipsed all other issues and opened Democrat’s eyes as to what type of person they were willing to allow to represent their party in the elections and as the governor of Michigan; it did the trick obviously.

Thinking “what if” Dillon would have won and faced Rick Snyder for the governor position, you would have had a Democrat that was anti-choice and anti stem cell research but pro-business, anti-union, against a Republican that was all pro-business but probably pro-choice and pro stem cell research because the research would mean high level jobs for Michigan – do you find that a little odd?

Anyway, I am actually glad Bernero defeated Dillon because that gave us a very clear choice for governor: RICK SNYDER.

Bernero is all union and all about the working man. What he does not understand is that for any man to work he first needs a job and jobs are created by businesses so if you are anti-business, you are not going to create any jobs for your dear workers and it is as simple as that!

Snyder wants Michigan to be a magnet for businesses; to be business friendly and he has a number of plans to make that happen. With an increase in business activity in the state, jobs are sure to follow. Bernero on the other hand, is all about helping the unions and their workers do well in the state and that is a sure fire way to keep businesses away since businesses are not created for the worker’s benefit (Communist), they are created to make the business thrive and prosper and in the meantime, workers thrive and prosper along with the business.

I think the concept is simple and clear but Michiganians may have a problem understanding that after so many years of union control. To be really attractive to business, the state should become a right-to-work state and some of the candidates for governor actually had the balls to suggest that. Snyder will have to be careful how he handles the subject and that is what will make the race for governor so interesting. GO RICK SNYDER.

NOTE: I am so glad COX did not get in; his ads made me physically sick and all that pandering using his military service.

More on the election later…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michigan Election Results: Rick Snyder, Virg Bernero Face-Off In Heated Fight For Governor (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michigan Primary Election Results: Rick Snyder vs Virg Bernero (nowpublic.com)
• Michigan voters search for economic savior (msnbc.msn.com)

UAW: Is there a future?

I am not pro-union, never have been. I consider the union movement, specifically the UAW, to have outlived its usefulness and now is just a hindrance to business and our economy. Unions got very cocky, very arrogant and very greedy and in some cases, very lazy. Our descent into an economic depression with the potential of GM and Chrysler actually failing, made the UAW take notice that things have to change or else…

When Bob King was running for president of the UAW, I blogged that some of the union rhetoric he spouted was probably to get elected and I hoped that he would, once elected, take a realistic stance as to what the unions can and should do and not listen to the rank and file screaming they want their concessions back now that the auto companies are making money.

This morning’s NEWS carried a front page column carrying the headline: “UAW CHIEF CHARTS NEW COURSE FOR AUTO UNION” with the subhead: “King concedes past strategies failed, vows new approaches going forward. Well, reading that nearly knocked me out of my chair!

It took some balls to admit that the UAW was wrong. Wrong in demanding “jobs banks”, wrong in attacking global trade, wrong in demanding job descriptions so narrow that they hindered worker flexibility, wrong in fighting clean air efforts and wrong in taking an adversarial position against management. Wow, that’s a confession!

King said he cannot wait for Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act which is everything but free choice. I blogged in the past about this dirty act allowing union goons to threaten workers into signing their cards over and thus allowing the union to automatically unionize a company. Even the Democrats saw the hypocrisy of this legislation.

Now King wants to go after the foreign auto companies in the U.S. and unionize them (this has repeatedly failed in the past) by signing a contract with the companies that would require both union and company to play fair (no dirty tricks) during unionization efforts.

Well, I appreciate King coming clean and admitting union wrongs in the past BUT he has to show to the public a NEW union. A union that wants to help auto companies make products with the best quality, safety and durability.


BUT he also has to show non-union auto workers that there is some benefit to joining a union and this will be very hard in this economic climate. Foreign auto companies already treat their workers well and pay them well. Those workers do not want to jeopardize their jobs by striking a company into bankruptcy and striking is the only weapon unions have.


So even with all of King’s mea culpas about past union wrongs the fundamental problem with unions still remains; what good are they? Is he just fighting for survival – probably since UAW membership has dropped from 1.5 million (1979) to 355,000 at the end of 2009.

Related articles by Zemanta

• LABOR: Unions at it again? (jmszyszko.blogspot.com)
• UPDATE 2-UAW to ask nonunion companies to allow labor votes (reuters.com)
• UAW to ask nonunion companies to allow labor votes (reuters.com)

IRAQ WAR: Ending? What Have We Accomplished?

President Obama made a speech today reminding the American people that true to his word, he is basically ending the war in Iraq. The speech is a political speech trying to show voters going to the polls this week that he and the Democrats are actually accomplishing some things.

The Iraq War, of which I have blogged countless times through the years, was a fundamental blunder by President Bush and his neoconservative cohorts, a blunder that cost many lives and billions of American dollars and accomplished basically nothing and I want to use this fact to beat and continue to beat President Bush and his cohorts over the head forever and the twits that supported the war as well and you know who you are!

Iraq does not have a government even though elections were held five (5) months ago. Sectarian violence continues with July registering the most killings in the last two (2) years.

Obama said that he will maintain 50,000 troops in Iraq to help train an Iraqi army and keep the peace so to speak. ALL troops are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Well good luck with that since the Iraqis are just waiting for us to leave to start their civil war in which IRAN will play a big role – just wait and see.

Note: While your at it, bring home ALL our troops throughout the world (South Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Germany, etc.); it would save us a boat load of money which is being wasted on bases that don’t protect anything – let the countries protect themselves and pay for their own protection.



Now on to Afghanistan…