It's been a little while

I've been away from posting for a little over a week as I was at home in Seattle for Christmas. Good trip. And let me just take this opportunity to tell you how pleased I am with United Airlines. I was supposed to leave Seattle at 6:00 a.m. (yes, ouch) and fly through Denver. Due to the storm there, however, I was able to call United and get rebooked, to leave at 11:10 a.m. through Chicago. Worked no problem. You don't expect things to work out like that with an airline, especially at the holidays.

Very interesting military poll from Zogby: Don't Ask Don't Tell don't work

Thanks to AMERICAblog for the link (and the title, though it was so easy I used it too). Zogby reports:

Nearly one in four U.S. troops (23%) say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, and of those 59% said they learned about the person's sexual orientation directly from the individual, a Zogby International poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan shows.

More than half (55%) of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, service members are not allowed to say that they are gay.

These findings come amidst significant changes in the military and political landscape. This week, Robert M. Gates took over as the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and next month, Democrats will take control of the Congress. Some observers expect the new climate to prompt intense examination of all aspects of military policy including potential reinstitution of the draft, which is advocated by some in the new majority's leadership.

According Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA), "These new data prove that thousands of gay and lesbian service members are already deployed overseas and are integrated, important members of their units. It is long past time to strike down 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and create a new policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly."

First, I'd like to say that while 23 percent is high, the true percentage of active duty military that know of somebody in their unit who is gay is likely even higher, due to response bias--i.e. people don't want to say they know a gay person out of fear or even embarrasment.

But regardless, clearly this policy is a failure even if it is a just one (which it is not). A quarter of the people saying they know somebody who is a mo or a lesbo? Sounds like lots of people are asking and/or telling; and when people are hearing they're not *telling* on their comrades to superiors.

Time to end this inane policy and join the rest of the industrialized Western democracies--let gays serve openly and with the pride that they deserve at a most fundamental, indivisible level. It sickens me to think about conservatives and "conservatives" who cast out a group of people who are gay who also happen to be fighting the very war that the conservatives are vowing to continue.

Uh oh... Joint Chiefs unanimously against the Iraq 'Surge' option

Uh oh because this is Bush, McCain, and others' silver bullet:

...The Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public. The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

Yeah, not much of a silver bullet, I'd say. Finally the Joint Chiefs are standing up against the idiocy, arrogance, and ignorance of the Bush administration.

NY Times on the market for life insurance hedging

The Times should get credit for outside the box thinking on some of their article topics. In today's paper, they published on the front page an article titled "Late in Life, Finding a Bonanza in Life Insurance." A quick excerpt:

Two years ago, Mr. Margolis bought a large life insurance policy. Now, he’s considering selling it to a group of investors, a deal that should give him as much as $2 million to enjoy in his final years. In return, the investors will get the policy’s $7 million payout when he dies — which they hope will be soon, so they can stop paying his premiums.

“This is a wonderful opportunity to use my body as an asset,” Mr. Margolis said. “I deserve to be able to benefit in some way from my age.”

Colin Powell speaks against sending more troops to Iraq

Well this is interesting. Posted in full from AMERICAblog (with emphasis mine):

It seems Colin Powell has found his conscience again. You might recall that Powell misplaced his integrity about 6 years ago when he decided to put his career aspirations ahead of his country and character.

Powell is now feeling brave enough to tell us what we already know. From the International Herald-Tribune:

The former secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday that badly overstretched U.S. forces in Iraq were losing the war there and that a temporary U.S. troop surge probably would not help.

Powell goes on to tell us that the one strategy that might work is the strategy that we've already been following, to no effect, for going on four years now:

Powell quickly added that the situation could be reversed. He recommended an intense coalition effort to train and support Iraqi security forces and strengthen the government in Baghdad.

Funny, but I don't think recommending what we've already tried quite makes up for being the man who sold this lie of a war to all of us in the first place.

Time names person of the year as "You"

Thinking outside the box, Time Magazine announced today:

...But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution....

And we didn't just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software.

The really make the argument for their pick, and it really is so broad. I have three online profile site accounts (myspace, friendster, and connexion) and my friend Dustin wouldn't make an online profile if you begged him. But he has built a new website based on open source, and indeed open source itself. Read the full article here.

Nice, Dems pick up one more seat in the last election of 2006

A run-off, to be exact:

It's a done deal. The San-Antonio Express-News reports there has been a GOP concession in Texas tonight:

U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla conceded defeat to former congressman Ciro Rodriguez in a stunning upset that completed the Democratic takeover of Congress.

The Republican incumbent lost Bexar County for the first time in his political career Tuesday night, and trailed Rodriguez, his Democratic challenger, in total votes across the sprawling Congressional District 23.

The Associated Press called the election for Rodriguez shortly before 9 p.m. Bonilla telephoned Rodriguez to concede around that time, according to his spokesman, Phil Ricks.

It bears repeating that Bonilla said this race was the first campaign of 2008 for the GOP according to AP:

"We look at this as the first election of the next cycle," Bonilla said. "To set the tone for what we can do the next time out in 2008."

You're right, Congressman Bonilla. It sets a very nice tone. Thank you very much.

Saudis slap around Cheney, America gets screwed

Yeah, great. From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

Full article (worth the read), here.

Amen. A real man in charge of Senate Judiciary Committee

Patrick Leahy to be exact. Victory is sweet, and Republicans are real douches. Now we have to make the best of it. AMERICAblog reports (posted in full):

Finally, some leadership on privacy. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the incoming chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is making the privacy rights of the American people a major concern according to Reuters:

"We have a duty to repair real damage done to our system of government over the last few years," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in outlining his panel's agenda for the 110th, Democratic-led Congress, which is set to convene on January 4.

"Americans' privacy is a price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the cavalier way it is spawning new databanks. But privacy rights belong to the people, not to the government," Leahy said.

The Associated Press reports that Leahy is also going to hold hearings on Iraq in his committee:

Justice Department officials can expect stepped-up oversight of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and _ perhaps _ some all-expense-paid tickets to Iraq to help train the corrupt police force there, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says.

Sen. Patrick Leahy's agenda includes a look at about a dozen recommendations by the Iraq Study Group to send law enforcement officials from the FBI and other offices in the Justice Department to the war-torn nation to boost a police force riddled with corruption. Leahy noted that over the weekend that Iraqi police allegedly helped Saddam Hussein's nephew, Ayman Sabawi, escape from a prison near Mosul.

The Bush team has a lot of explaining to do. Leahy's going to make them explain.

Senate hearings on Iraq and privacy. Imagine that. Having the majority is just so much better.

On Representative Kucinich, my duchetude, and 2008

Yesterday I posted a sarcastic remark about U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) declaring his candidacy to seek the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election. As an indicator of my 2004 feelings about his run then, I dismissed him with what I now say was real duchetude--I was wrong.

As I discussed with my friend and partner in thought crime Duncan, we established how FUBAR Iraq really is. It is a failure. The United States has failed, and we really f*cked shit up in the process. And our troops continue to die.

I'm done. We need the troops home. We need the U.S. aspect of this war to end once and for all.

Until another 2008 presidential contender presents as resolute a position--within reason given external circumstances--then I will support Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primary. I will note that I would also entertain the idea of flooding Iraq with an additional 200,000 soldiers (where to get them???) and really took back the country, and then occupied it with a very much iron fist with the unitary and express purpose to install one or more friendly dictators in Iraq. Yes, that might breed major problems down the line, in my opinion we should risk it. But unless you can come up with overwhelming force in the immediate future, then we - get - out.

Sadly, depressingly, you name it, the Bush administration has destroyed American idealism for the near future. We failed and bringing improvement to our country's biggest investment in at least 30 years.

I'd like to end with the letter I will send to Representative Kucinich tomorrow:

Dear Representative Kucinich,

Thank you for the declaration of your 2008 presidential candidacy, and the candidacy itself. Let me preface this with saying I am surprised to be writing this letter to you. I am an independent yet highly partisan Democrat who I want to admit resented your candidacy in 2004. But this is not 2004.

I am so disappointed with the timidity displayed by the new Democratic congressional leadership. The fact is, we must begin bringing our troops home--as soon as possible. We must also ensure, from the Congressional power we now have, to enforce a new direction in our nation's foreign policy. Our Constitution gave power of the purse to Congress--to be used with force when the situation requires it. We do. Please be aggressive pushing this war as issue #1. Please be demanding of our Congressional leaders (in the way I hope the grass- and netroots embrace) to act on bringing out troops home. And please ensure you have the media coverage which the message you deliver deserves today.

This is the most direct and emotional I have yet actually written on the War in Iraq. But the time has passed; and a monumental mistake that history will look at with disgust occurred on our watch.

We must change our course dramatically--and immediately.

With sincere appreciation,

Jonathan D. Hill
Age 25
Washington, D.C.
----------------------
Blog: http://thedupont.blogspot.com

Another Christianist pastor comes out in desparation

Wow. I read this on CNN this morning, but I'll link to AndrewSullivan. Powerful stuff:

Reality strikes again:

The founding pastor of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel has resigned after he said he had sexual relations with other men. Paul Barnes, who led the church for 28 years, told his congregation Sunday in a videotaped message that church leaders allowed The Denver Post to view. He and his wife have two adult daughters ...

"I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy," Barnes, 54, said in the videotaped message. "... I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away."

Pray for him - and that the church will eventually realize the insanity of its insistence that homosexuality is a "choice".

I got shivers reading, "...begging God to take this away", referring of course to his inherent sexuality. Just sad.

Just watched Obama in a NH press conference

And I am very, very impressed. I've seen him speak before of course, but never in the context of a possible presidential run. He sounds incredibly intelligent, eloquent, humble, confident, and sincere. Not something I normally say about a politician, and I do believe that Obama is far from perfect. But wow, I am definitely this much closer to just out right stating my support for the junior Senator from Illinois.

Looks like C-Span hasn't linked it up yet. But keep an eye out for it.

Andrew Sullivan asks a good question: What about amnesty for Iraqis after a dictator and/or islamist takes over?

Pressing question:

Should the U.S. grant asylum to those it has left behind? When will the religious right demand we intervene to protect Iraq's Christians from being decimated by death squads unleashed by Rumsfeld's anarchy policy? Or would that mean conceding defeat?

To be honest, I really doubt this administration cares. I wonder if congressional Democrats will act. We'll see.

Well, Kucinich is running again

Yup. Representative Dennis Kucinich, Mr. Never broked 5 percent in the polls last time he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. But, it is for admirable reasons. God is he going to be annoying to listen to though.

Queer as Folk actor Gale Harold interviewed on what it was like to play Brian

Just about a minute, this is insightful. He is a straight guy who was incredibly convincing as a quintessential gay narcissist. Watch it here:

Alleged Christianist Romney attacked Ted Kennedy for not being gay friendly *enough*

That was back in 1994, when the exiting Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney got caught red handed--being pro-gay! It made the New York Times yesterday, though the blogs were all over this a week ago:

Gov. Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican who has built a presidential campaign on a broad appeal for conservative support, is drawing sharply increased criticism from conservative activists for his advocacy of gay rights in a 1994 letter.

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.

I like that talk Governor! Except it ain't going to win you a Republican primary. Sorry man.

Religious Right goes after Mary Cheney, her partner, and their soon-to-be baby

I am no fan of Mary Cheney; I can't stand her actually. But this pisses me off. These people are the allies of the Bush-Cheney White House. Family values my ass. Just one example:

"By this selfish action, [Mary] Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child ... Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney's action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child," - Paul Cameron, of the Family research Institute, on the Christian Newswire.

Interestingly, the Washington Post wrote an article on the fact that in the great state of Virginia (where the couple lives together), Mary's wife Heather Poe will not get any legal recognition as a mother. Via ThinkProgress:

The result, according to Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, is that Poe will “have no legal relationship with her child.”

“In the state of Virginia, it’s very difficult for lesbian couples to have children together,” says Chrisler. “Heather Poe will have no legal relationship with her child. She can’t adopt as a second parent. She won’t have her name on the birth certificate.“

Asked what the couple could do to give Poe some legal rights as a parent, Chrisler advised: “Move to Maryland.”

Jack Cafferty: Bush and Iraq an "unmitigated disaster"

Hard to disagree:

In the midst of quite the psycho-social observation

I'm talking about myself, right now. Two of my four housemates are teachers; young teachers who go to work in some of the worst schools in the country--to be cussed at, threatened, and mistreated. Impressive and respect inducing individuals.

Well tonight they are throwing a young DC teacher's party at my house. And have been spending the last ninety minutes (along with three of their female colleagues) to deck out the house in christmas decoration. They do not stop until I barely recognize my own first floor. "Do you have a chair?" Me: "No, sorry." Her, exasperated, "A step stool?!" Me: "No, sorry." I think I ruined her night.

Anyway, there is a brief observation.

DailyKos shares his thought on a Gore candidacy in '08

Interesting:

It seems the more longshot the race, the earlier a candidate throws his or her hat into the ring. Vilsack started things off. Now that we're in the holiday season, most will wait until January. Obama will likely wait a few months more since really, what's the hurry? He's got the fawning press all over him already. He might as well wait until that sort of peters out, announce, then recapture the media spotlight....

Obama can afford to wait on Hillary. Their big decision will be whether to step on her announcement or let her breathe. In 2003, John Edwards announced on September 15 to much buzz. Then, on September 17, Wes Clark stole Edwards' thunder by making his own announcement. (Those late announcement dates are sort of funny and quaint. We'll be on a much more accelerated schedule this year.) So Obama will be in position to squelch the Clinton media rollout with his own. It would be the sort of Machiavellian move that would signal his willingness to play tough politics.

Which brings us to Gore.

There's few reasons for him to even hint at joining the fray this early. The biggest potential liability is the loss of the good consultants and strategists to other campaigns. But the talent would exist to shepherd him through the early contests. I mean, he's Al Freakin' Gore. He doesn't need a traditional campaign to sell him to voters. And in any case, we'd see defections from other campaigns to join the Gore bandwagon.

So when? No sooner than December 2007. Let the rest of the field beat the shit out of each other before Gore comes in, savior-like, to pull together a fractured and divided party. At that point, no amount of Obamamania could stop a Gore nomination.

Great NYT analysis on the split between Baker and Rice diplomacy

And this shows who knows what he's talking about, and who doesn't know what she is. The title demonstrates the situation in front of us:

Dueling Views Pit Baker Against Rice

Many of the blistering critiques of the Bush administration contained in the Iraq Study Group’s report boil down to this: the differing worldviews of Baker versus Rice.

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III was the architect of the “new diplomatic offensive” in the Middle East that the commission recommended Wednesday as one of its main prescriptions for extracting the country from the mess in Iraq. Ever since, he has been talking on television, to Congress and to Iraqis and foreign diplomats about how he would conduct American foreign policy differently. Very differently.

At a midday meeting with reporters on Thursday, Mr. Baker insisted that the study group had “rejected looking backward.” But he then proceeded to make a passionate argument for a course of action he believed Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of state, should be pursuing — while carefully never mentioning Ms. Rice by name....

Meanwhile, Ms. Rice remained publicly silent, sitting across town in the office that Mr. Baker gave up 14 years ago. She has yet to say anything about the public tutorial being conducted by the man who first knew her when she was a mid-level Soviet expert on the National Security Council. She has not responded to Mr. Baker’s argument, delivered in a tone that drips with isn’t-this-obvious, that America has to be willing to talk to its adversaries (a premise Ms. Rice has questioned if the conditions are not right), or his dismissal of the administration’s early argument that the way to peace in the Middle East was through quick, decisive victory in Baghdad.

There you go.

Anyone who ever played the original Super Mario--watch this

Very well done:

I've been out of commission

For those of you who have visited my blog lately, sorry for no new posts. I seemingly have become a temporary home for some bacteria that are now getting a taste of some anti-biotics, but I have pretty much been stuck in bed, with an occasional journey downstairs for dvd-watching of Season 2 of 24 (which of course I recommend). I will be back sooner or later, and as always there is a *lot* to blog about.

Send me wellness vibes. Thanks

Intelligent, moving testimony on medicinal marijuana

AndrewSullivan posts:

People talk about the immorality of the government not funding experimental embryonic stem cell research to cure or treat certain diseases. And yet we already have a drug that requires no elaborate production, has no bad side-effects, that actually cures serious illness and helps the sick - and the federal government doesn't just not fund this; it bans anyone from using it, and throws sick people in jail for it. This policy is despicable; it's immoral; and it's a scandal that marijuana is not available for any sick person it could help. Here's riveting, intelligent first-person testimony from a medical marijuana user for 35 years. It saved his life. He testified in Michigan yesterday. How dare the government ban this substance?

A long clip, but well worth it. Insightful, experienced, and rational. Not something you normally hear in the unfortunate debate over medicinal marijuana.