Break out the tar and feathers!

There is a lot of national attention on an issue that only California residents will address in the voting booths this November. Funding, support, opposition, and opinions have been coming in from all over the nation...even all over the world. The issue, of course, is Prop 8 (no, not Prop H8te, as many people are referring to it), which deals with the issue of gay marriage in the state of California.

In 2000, voters across the state passed (by a majority of over 61%) Prop 22, which said that marriage was between a man and a woman. That just wasn't good enough for some judges, though, was it? No. These activist judges came together to castigate the California public for being so closed-minded and to go over the heads of the voters because, after all, these 7 people clearly know what is best for the state. This ABSURD decision by the court has resulted in gay marriage becoming legalized (if only temporarily) rather publicly, with celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres marrying her partner in a ceremony she shared with magazines and her viewers.

Allowing Prop 8 to be defeated doesn't just give same sex couples the right to wed, however. It gives the state government the authority to sue churches and arrest ministers who decry gay marriage or refuse to allow the ceremonies to take place in their churches. It allows the state to tell children all about marriage and same-sex marriage, regardless of the parent's wishes in the matter. It allows the state to arrest wedding photographers, caterers, deejays, and other professionals who refuse to serve at same-sex ceremonies because of their own personal religious beliefs for committing "hate crimes."

And although only voters in California get to decide the issue, this is not an isolated law. If gay marriage is recognized in California, couples from out of state who marry in California have to be recognized as married everywhere in the United States, so that, theoretically, these same problems can arise nationwide.

Before you all label me as a bigot or a homophobe, let me say right now that I know many, many gay people, have a lot of gay friends, and am of the general feeling that, hey, if you fall in love with someone who happens to be of the same gender, who am I to diminish that love? I wish that more companies would give gay workers insurance benefits for their same-sex partners, and feel that hospitals and other institutions should recognize the role that one half of a same-sex couple plays in the life of their partner. I am all for not only allowing but actively promoting civil unions as a method of obtaining these civil rights for gay couples.

But gay MARRIAGE...?

Marriage is sanctified in the Bible as being between a man and a woman. As one of my friends so often says, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." It is the opinion of many that the main purpose of a marriage is to produce children (Gen 9:7) and provide stable homes for them. Same-sex partnerships do not naturally produce children, and while (relatively) new science and modern technology has made it possible to become pregnant in a non-traditional method (without having heterosexual intercourse), it is proven that children reared in non-traditional homes with same-sex partners for parents often have more problems with emotional stability and adjusting to "normal" relationships and family structures.

Prop 8 is NOT a measure that is designed to attack gay couples, or take away the rights that they are already given under California state law. In fact, California already grants same-sex couples all of the rights that it can grant to a married couple, it simply hasn't given it the name "marriage."

While I think that it is for each person to decide his or her own life and lifestyle, and for each person to love someone else without interference from the government, I don't believe that it is the place of the court or the place of the state government to tell me how to practice my religious beliefs or how to raise my children. And that is exactly what Prop 8 would be doing -- giving those rights to the state and not to the people.

I'll Back Mac!

Nearly every day at work someone tells me that they wish we had a Ronald Reagan conservative running in this year’s election. Well, Ronald Reagan he is not, but John McCain is, in my opinion, clearly the better choice for Americans. While Obama’s flashy campaigning and articulate speeches have inspired many, the truth is that voting for Barack Obama in this day in age will take us straight back to the Carter administration levels of inflation, taxation, and general “malaise” of the people.

With government spending out of control and an uncertain economy, we don’t need a president who is going to ignore the problem and worsen it by creating new bureaucracies and instituting entitlement programs that, however nice they might be, we simply cannot afford. As Ronald Reagan once said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” If elected, Barack Obama will institute policies and create governmental bureaus that the United States will never be able to recover from. The issues that we are facing right now with Social Security are ten times less problematic than universal health care would be in fifty years!

As a citizen of the state of California, immigration is another issue that is important to me. I support increasing border security and providing easier legal avenues of entry to this country, as John McCain does. I do not believe that it is right to grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, as Barack Obama does. I think that granting this privilege to illegal workers completely rewards illegal behavior. My mother came to this country legally, and only recently became a citizen, something I am very proud of and celebrated with her. I think that by allowing these illegal immigrants it undermines the accomplishments of my mother and millions of others who have come to this country legally and taken the necessary steps toward citizenship.

While I personally didn’t vote for John McCain in the primaries (I have a crush on Mitt Romney like Scarlett Johansson has a crush on Barack), I am nevertheless ready to wholeheartedly support the candidate I disagree with 10% of the time as opposed to the candidate that I disagree with 95% of the time, and I have demonstrated that support working on the McCain-Palin campaign. I’ve worked both here in California as well as in Nevada making sure that people know the issues and are able to see past the rhetoric to the truth. And the truth is that no matter the hope inspired or the change invoked, America simply cannot afford to elect Barack Obama into the White House.

NOOSE! Come on, people, get riled up!

Last year at Denison University, there was a lot of commotion regarding university race relations after a poster depicting a noose was placed around campus with the caption "Come Hang with the Hilltoppers," the Hilltoppers being our men's acappella group. Admittedly, the student responsible for the posters was a foreign exchange student that didn't understand the historical significance of the noose symbol, but it was a growing experience for most on campus after several forums allowed students to understand the feelings and hesitations of students of color at a predominantly white institution.

Now, when a noose on a flyer is distributed to 2200 students high on a hill in rural Central Ohio it evokes images of racially motivated hate crimes and causes the campus to shut down for several hours over two days for race forums. But, when a mannequin is placed in the outfit of a prominent political figure and STRUNG UP from a home in West Hollywood it's "art" and not a big deal, simply because the figure is a white woman, not a black man? I'm sorry, but that is not okay.

I'm not trying to say that the noose means as much or carries as much historic significance for white Americans as it does for black Americans. I understand that the noose is a very racially charged symbol that has instilled fear, created panic, and ended in awful atrocities for many people. I understand that.

What I am trying to say is that, if this homeowner had been  member of the GOP rather than a Democrat, and had he decided to hang Barack Obama in effigy from his roof rather than Sarah Palin, you KNOW that it would be the top headline on every major news media in the country. Can't you just see the headlines? 'Bigot strikes fear into residents' hearts,' or 'Racism rears its ugly head in West Hollywood.' There would be interviews and video footage and protests all over the place. The NAACP and the ACLU would have, I'm sure, issued condemning statements, the Rev. Al Sharpton would be giving interviews every ten minutes, and this would be very, VERY bad for Republicans.

But is any of that happening? No.

Because it's Sarah Palin, because it's a white woman who is on the unpopular side of the trend that has become politics, there are no FBI agents swarming to determine whether there is an assassination plot in the works. There are no bright lights, no hounding reporters, no death threats on the homeowner's life. Hell, there hasn't even been a citation issued to the homeowner because of his First Amendment rights. It's considered "spooky" and described as "political satire" and "Halloween art." 

If that had been Barack Obama it would have been described as "a lynching" or "racist" or any number of terms that would have ensured prompt chastisement for the homeowner.

GET RILED UP PEOPLE! There is no reason for this to be simply a display for laughs in a liberal area of a liberal state. This should be seen for what it is: a display of hate that should evoke very powerful sentiments from people who pass by.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT okay.

Let's discuss taxes over a drink, shall we?

This is an email I received a few weeks ago that I think is a very persuasive argument against Barack Obama's tax plans to "redistribute the wealth" (hello, socialism):

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and that the bill for all ten comes to $100. If these men paid their bill the way that Americans pay their taxes, the breakdown would be something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. "Since you all are such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, so he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. 

And so the fifth man, like the first four, is now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men begin to compare their savings. 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed at the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute!" yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between ll of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

That seems pretty DARN fair to me!

I'm pro-McCain, but that doesn't mean I'm biased, right?

The talk of the water cooler today is the looming debate between the two vice presidential candidates that is happening TONIGHT (at 6pm PST for all of you sadly not in the know). Everyone is on the edge of their seats -- er, well, maybe not, but people are definitely excited about it.

The reason for the buzz of interest is not because these two people are particularly known for their eloquence and articulate nature. Oh, no. Both of the candidates have a slight history (well, Biden's is more than slight) of rambling, sticking their foot in their mouth, and generally being confusing when asked to answer questions to inform the American public. And people are looking at this debate like Dane Cook looks at someone in the path of a moving car-- it's tense, and it could be terrible, but you are NOT missing this kind of action.

Sarah Palin has had to debate before, when running for governor of Alaska, and although a lot of people hadn't even heard of Palin before she landed the job as #1 Bulldog, there are a lot of nasty edited and chopped up transcripts going around, preparing everyone for the complete annihilation of the hockey mom. And although a lot of people are giving Palin crap for not directly answering a question when it's asked to her (hellllooooooo, that's what you're supposed to do when you debate - you answer the question you wish you were asked and tie it in to the question you were actually asked), Andrew Halcro, a Republican from Alaska who ran against Palin in 2006, points out that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and that it probably helped her win those two dozen times she debated him. Two dozen times! And you said she had no experience. If you'd like to see the Palinator in action click here and here.

And yet we have long-winded, foot-in-his-mouth Biden, who just last month asked a man in a wheel chair to stand up and let the crowd see him, as her opponent. Yes, he's spent more time in Washington. Yes, he has more experience in elections than she does (let's not forget, he's run for President twice and never even gotten close). But all the experience and all that time in the Senate has just earned him a reputation for giving long, boring, CONFUSING answers to questions that are fairly straightforward and simple, and an inability to relate to his audience (something Sarah Palin is quite good at). Not only that, but when he gets caught up in the (slow) momentum of his (unmotivated) speeches, he makes silly mistakes.

I think people are going to be watching this debate even more closely than they were watching the presidential debate (which scares me, but it's true). And at this point, quite honestly, it's good for the GOP that people are interested, because there's a potentially tragic oversight that has occurred in the preparation for this debate that will need to be watched carefully to ensure fairness. I'm talking about the selection of moderator, of course.

Gwen Ifill has been chosen to moderate the upcoming debate, and on the surface that's fine. A journalist and political pundit, Ifill actually moderated the 2004 debates, so she has experience (something we seem to be placing quite a bit of importance on in the election season). But, let's take a closer look, shall we?

1) Ifill, a Democrat (although host of a News Show on the relatively polite PBS), when moderating the 2004 debate between Cheney and Edwards got snippy when Cheney said he needed more than 30 seconds to address the points Edwards made in a one minutes long response. Gwen said, "Well, that's all you've got."

2) She was seen visibly frowning and making faces while Palin was giving her acceptance speech at the RNC this fall -- several PBS viewers called and wrote in to complain.

3) She's writing a book entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which actually has a chapter in it praising Obama, his work, his campaign, and his policies. It's to be released on January 20, 2009...the date of the inauguration of the next President.

Now, when I say an oversight has occurred, I don't mean that the McCain campaign was slacking and didn't look at her biography. Ifill actually "neglected" to disclose the subject of her book when asked to apply for the spot as moderator! That's not just neglect, that's shady. And, to make matters worse, this debate format actually gives Ifill MORE power and control than the 2004 format did!

Gwen Ifill has demonstrated a clear preference for Barack Obama and the liberal agenda, and I think that it's completely unfair to allow her to continue on as moderator of this debate. Think of how unfathomable it would be to have a moderator who had written a glowing biography of McCain! Liberals would be UP IN ARMS. And so, we should ensure that a fair debate occurs, if not by getting Ifill out of the spot then at least by being the guard dogs against bias, and raising hell if the bias is there.