Where to start?

Some quick hits to get us out of the gate.

Pope Says Gays are bad for peace. I don't know about that, haven't really seen the studies. But I do feel the need to point out that a German Pope is saying,

that a traditional family led by a husband and wife instilled values that promote peace.

Now, I don't want to point out the obvious, but I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany had a high "family rate" and they were definitely hostile to the gays, but oddly, not a lot of peace. In fact, as I review my history, lots of wars started by lots of nations with lots of families. I'm just not sure that gays are the big threat facing the world today, maybe we should focus our attention elsewhere. On a roll, he says,

Those who are hostile, even unknowingly, to the institution of the family ... make peace fragile for the entire national and international community.

He's looking at you New Hampshire and you're gay love...love. Not only are you on the forefront of determining the next "Most Powerful Person in the World*" but you're also at the forefront for the next World War! Lots of pressure on the Granite State. My protest sign? Civil Unions=Civil Wars!

Speaking of War, McCain pulled an Unknown Blogger and returned strong for 2008! How'd that happen? Latest poll has them at a tie. Clearly the fine people of NH don't read the H-Blog. If they did, they would know that we declared McCain yesterday's news way back in July 2007. Come on people pay attention, I'm prognosticating here.

In other election news, Mike Huckabee has decided that wrapping himself in the flag is soooo tacky. The Cross is much, much better. Between ads with not so subtle "God's Behind Me!" themes, and "Take a knee for me" slogans, Ol' Mike is not so much asking for the Religious Conservative Vote as begging for it. Maybe that's why he's on his knees so much. No push back from me, I'm a big fan of free speech, and talking about religion is clearly speech so I say, Keep on Truckin'. But, as a voter, I'm a bit weary of Christ as the new Flag.

Did you say Fag? Looks like gay couples get "divorced" too. And when they do, not so fun. Welcome to the club boys (and girls). My advice? RUN! You can cheat nature, but you can't cheat the statistics.

Just ask Olympic Champion Justin Gatlin who tried to run and cheat nature, but he too got caught (who knew sprinting was so gay?). Busted for doping, the Gold Medalist is out for Beijing. Again, I renew the call for The Unknown Blogger's Simple Solution For Cheating (and cure for Ricketts). It's right there folks, yours for the taking. Maybe if I could get some media attention.

Me and Ron Paul. FOX News, "Fair and Balanced" unless you annoy us is not allowing Mr. Paul to play with the other kids at the big debate. Something about polling numbers, but wait, Mr. Paul is polling better than former Belle of the Ball Fred Thompson who made the cut (sort of like the number one draft pick who's clearly a bust but teams keep bringing him in because "Hey, he was the first pick in the draft! Maybe he'll turn it around for us.") There's also a rant about the power and danger of media control and the new FCC arguments for rules allowing for more consolidation. Oh well, given how we all love and trust the media, its all good right? For the record, I think FOX caves and Mr Paul makes the list.

In other news, the Unknown Blogger promises vows to create policy that will insure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Mike Huckabee vowed a defense build-up that would produce

"a military of sorts that no one on earth would want to take us on."

Really, does he feel like that's not the case now? Who's looking to take us on? I love it when a politician creates a controversy around something I already have, then promises to give it back to me the way it was before he created the controversy. Especially when it will cost billions. If you're keeping track at home, we already have an untouchable military. Unless he's saying that it's no longer untouchable, which then seems like a direct attack on the Bush Administration.

Really quick...Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Guiliani in a free fall. Romney, up down, all around, getting dogged, and spending loads, but still the front runner.

Whew, that's the US update. I think some things are going on elsewhere, but that doesn't really matter anyway...right?

*Can't even say "Most Powerful Man in the World" anymore thanks to that woman Hillary Clinton.

Noooo, see I'm not gay, I'm just a racist. That's cool right?

FL Assemblyman Robert "Bob" Allen (R-Merritt Island) was recently arrested for solicitation in a Titusville restroom. But, he wasn't there for any "man love," and certainly not there to pay for it, he was there because he was scared.

This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.

So there you have it folks, the first recored use of the "Let me free, I'm just a publicly elected racist" defense. You can read the officers description of the events and just what "say anything" means to Mr Allen in the same article. Just like Michael Vick, Mr Allen deserves his day in court, but just like my opinion on Mr Vick, I think Mr Allen is in trouble.

Just for kicks, you can also read Assemblyman Allen's recent legislation that would increase the penalty of such acts, make it easier to prosecute such acts, and increases the scope of such "lascivious" acts here. It died in Committee.

Hmmmm, maybe he was just doing "research."

This story is sooo gay its the bomb

I'm reluctantly posting this because I'm 90% sure its some kind of hoax, but I love the imagery, so here goes.

Apparently the Pentagon asked for $7.5 million to create a Gay Bomb, and I'm not talking about "To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar." Some guy named Edward Hammond with Berkeley's Sunshine Project used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio and found a project to create this gay bomb and the Pentagon confirmed it. My guess is that "Gaydar" was too costly so we're stuck with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Anyway, the idea behind the bomb was to come up with chemicals that would not only turn you gay, but sexed up gay. So much so, that you would immediately stop fighting for you life in a war zone and start making out with your fellow soldiers and jump into the nearest foxhole.

Can you imagine the pitch? "OK, I got this idea see. Let's create a bomb, but a non lethal one. All we have to do is turn the enemy gay. Right? You with me? But just gay isn't enough. Gay people want to live. We need gay's who want to love, and love right now. See? So we'll bomb 'em with some kind of chemical, A "gay" chemical, like...like lavender. Lavender makes you gay right? Then we need to get them all hot. Let's see, maybe we can deliver the load with leather pants? No, too hard to get the size right. Well hell, we'll just include another chemical that gets 'em all worked up. I know, let's use sweat. Gays like sweat right? Hey, I'm sweatin' right now, get some of this off my head, hurry. So now we have the perfect bomb, lavender and my sweat. We just some money for a lavender field and a treadmill. $7.5 million should do it. Who's with me? Come on boys, let's get 'em."

I'm entering this for a "Creepy Idea of the Year" even though it occurred in 1994.

FDGay

The FDA decided to keep its lifetime ban on Homosexual blood donors. Yes, blood groups think the ban is unnecessary, and yes, blood testing can detect HIV in less than a month after infection, and no, the FDA doesn't care.

The thing is, the nation needs blood (Google shows many "shortages" since 2000). The FDA says it would reverse its policy if it were shown that gay blood did not pose a “significant and preventable” risk to blood recipients. Thats one goal, but what about the "significant and preventable" risk posed to patients who need blood but may not be able to get it? Also, and just to point it out, its not like only gays get AIDS. If you want to really get a hold of this, ban blood from anyone who's ever had unprotected sex, or if you think like Dr. Sen. Bill Frist, been cried on by a gay guy.

Anyway, I think this article shows three things.

1. Yeah, there's a bias against homosexuals in government. Not really news.
2. The FDA has a reputation for favoring politics over science. This looks like another arrow in the quiver of that accusation.
3. Even if one and two are false, it does show that once the government reacts/over-reacts to something, it stays reacted/over-reacted to. Which is really the most important lesson here.
   

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

Clinton Takes a Stand

A very brave stand to not take a stand. Wow do I miss the Clintons.

While running for President, Hill answered the question, "Do you agree with General Pace that homosexuality is 'immoral,'" she answered, and I'm not making this up,

Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.

Now that's the kind of decisiveness I'm looking for in a President. Never mind that as a sitting US Senator, she's the one deciding these things with her direct vote. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is actually for her to decide.

Which is why this whole episode is a great example of why I can't vote for her. I get that this is a thorny question for any democrat (the GOP has this one all wrapped up, "Yes."), and yes, Obama handled with a dodge, but at least he didn't defer his personal morality code to "others." This is where her political instincts let her down. By not wanting to offend a group of voters (a group, by the way, that she has no chance with), she instead told all voters that her personal morality code is defined by others (insert "Wait, the Clinton's have a morality code?" joke here). What kind of leadership is that? So if others decide its immoral, she'll say it is. What if they change their mind? Actually, for that, see below.

Not everything needs to be politically perfect. Take a stand. HRC spends a lot of time with Gay and Lesbian groups, winning awards, giving speeches, etc. When the time came for her to take a risk and stand up for them, she didn't merely dodge the question, she sold them out. Much like Bill semi-famously did when he told Gore to sell them out during the 2000 election. What's even more peculiar is that HRC supports gay civil unions and homosexual adoption. How can she support these things if she's not even sure about the morality of homosexuality in the first place? HRC is playing the gays like the GOP is playing the social conservatives. Lots of voice when on comfortable ground, little action.

The thing with HRC that's becoming more apparent is that she has no core beliefs. She was pro-gay marriage amendment (in 2006) when it was a real hot issue with the voters, like she was for the war when it was a hot issue. As polling for both of those declined, guess what, so did her support.

Speaking of polling, HRC amended her "my moral code is in the hands of others" reply the next day (sorry this was a two day post). But even here, she lacked the courage to just say, "Homosexuality is not immoral."

“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive (because it was). My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy (see, I focused attention on it by not mentioning it directly, and instead saying that "others" should decide the morality issues). I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s (remember, he's a REPUBLICAN - Ahhhhh John Warner, my GOP security blanket) statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe (now that "others" have told me so).”

Even on gay rights issues the Democratic Presidential front runner can only act when she has cover from the GOP. How can I trust her to lead America? Why can't any credible Democrat take a stand...on anything?

It's just sooooo frustrating. One party takes lots of stands almost none of them I agree with (gays are evil, the President should be king, citizens have no rights to privacy, everyone should live as we want them to, etc), the other takes almost never takes a stand, which I don't agree with.

The NBGay?

Also tempted to go with, "The NBA, I love this gaym!"

Anyway, the most recent entry for the "Is This Really News" is a twofer.

One, Former NBA center John Amaechi is gay. What? Homosexuals play sports? Someone alert the media! Oh, someone already did.

Two, the newsworthy (?) reaction. Former NBA Point Guard Tim Hardaway said,

You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.

Wait, some people don't like gays? Quick someone alert the media! Oh, someone already did. Seriously, with the thousands of players who have played the game, one guy says something, something real and honest by the way, and it gets treated like it means anything. And of course Hardaway's real reaction comes complete with a fake apology.

"As an African-American, I know all too well the negative thoughts and feelings hatred and bigotry cause," Hardaway said Thursday in a statement issued by his agent. "I regret and apologize for the statements that I made that have certainly caused the same kinds of feelings and reactions. I especially apologize to my fans, friends and family in Miami and Chicago. I am committed to examining my feelings and will recognize, appreciate and respect the differences among people in our society. I regret any embarrassment I have caused the league on the eve of one of their greatest annual events."

I'm sure Mr Hardaway stayed up all night, reaching deep into his feelings, to craft that apology. However, I do have to say that when I first read his apology, I thought he was leaping out of the frying pan into the fire with his "As an African-American" intro, given how the AA community is chafing at comparing their struggle with gay rights. But so far so good. Also, no one seems to be wading into the fact that Mr Hardaway's comments are even less "shocking" given that he is African-American, a group that is statistically less tolerant of homosexuality than the rest of America (which, by the way, explains much of the gay baiting that the GOP's did during the last election cycle, it was an attempt, in part, to split the AA community away from the Dems - but I digress). Nor has their been any discussion about the fact that some people actually feel this way.

None of this is news. Seriously, you could see this whole thing coming, action/reactions style from a mile away. Granted, ESPN treated it like their own private Anna Nicole story, endless coverage, debate among talking heads, "breaking news," etc, but to me, that's even more proof that none of this is remotely "newsworthy."

I'll wrap all of this up by noting that clearly the best way to handle intolerance is to be intolerant. NBA Commissioner David Stern banned Mr Hardaway from all NBA related events during the All-Star break. Says Mr Stern,

"It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours."

I guess the league can't make former players attend "sensitivity classes." Side bet alert. Look for Mr Hardaway to do something like that to get back into the NBA's good graces, especially as his Hall of Fame votes start coming around.

Actually, I'm going to put on a follow up wrapper, a bonus pack if you will. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has the correct perspective. Coming out after you retire isn't a big deal. The real trailblazer will be the man who comes out while he's still playing.

See, that would be news.