Censoring Gender Pronouns: No Disrespect Intended

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the level of stupidity some people engage in. Take for instance a recent measure Berkeley City Councilmember Rigel Robinson and City Manager, Dee Williams-Riley, introduced on July 16th of this year. The Councilmember proposed eliminating all gender related terms and descriptions. That means no more "he", "she", "him" or "her" pronouns, but wait...there's more.

Also included with the proposal was a list of terms that he wants removed from all government documentation and usage. For instance, terms like "manhole", "policeman", "chairman", and "manpower" are now to become "maintenance cover", "police officer", "chairperson", and "human effort" or "human power". By the way, In some locales, there are proposals to fine you if you don't comply with these changes.

In addition, words like "salesman", "craftsman" and "journeyman" are to be replaced with "salesperson", "craftsperson", and "journeyperson". "Maiden" (as in maiden name) is now going to be "family name", which isn't too bad I suppose. However, "fraternity" and "sorority" are now going to "social group", but if it pertains to college clubs, then it will be "Collegiate Greek system residence". "Heirs" are going to become "beneficiaries" while "watchmen" become "guards", but there's more silliness to come!

"Men and women" are to be removed and replaced with "people". "Master" is now "Skipper", "Captain", or "central". The term "sportsmen" is out. In its place is "hunter" (in California, I'm sure the term "brute" or "animal abuser" can be substituted). Both "sister" and "brother" will become "sibling". Out too will be the use of phrases such as "sir" and "ma'am" which won't play here in the South.

You will be expected to ask beforehand how someone wants to be addresses such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or perhaps "Moon Visitor 12" since undoubtedly someone is not going to want to be limited to the mere two gender roles nature has bestowed on us (I believe we're up to 74 "genders" now). People will be identified by their non-gender specific roles in documents rather than "he" or "she".

I should point out that while this ordinance was introduced in a city council meeting, the notion of using non-gender related terms is spreading to businesses. Signs are being posted asking patrons not to refer to someone as "Sir" or "Miss" or using a gender specific pronoun in calling someone (I suppose adjectives such as "fat son of a bitch" which uses two gender defined terms while "damn bitch", or "lazy bastard", which use one each, are still perfectly acceptable).

Given how tied we are to the commercial world and all the products we buy, some items are going to have to change. For instance, Gordon's Seafood is going to have to lose the beaded fisherman while StarKist Tuna will have to change the name of its mascot, "Charlie" to something gender neutral. I suppose the same will hold for "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima". "Mr. Clean" will have to become "Gender Free Clean". Gone will be "Mr. Coffee" as well, along with a long list of other gender specific products.

Then there's the matter of entertainment. With today's recycled ideas, particularly comic book heroes, it looks like there needs to be a lot of changes starting with "He-Man", "She-Ra", "Batman", Batgirl", "Wonder Woman", "Superman" and "Supergirl", and "Hellboy". We need to do away with "Ant-man", "Aquaman", the "Scarlet Witch", the "Watchmen", "Ironman", and especially the "X-Men" which is quite gender specific.

However, to their credit, the folks over at Marvel must have seen this coming. They recently took the progressive step of taking one the most uber-macho Norse gods, Thor, who was also a super popular superhero, and turned him into a female. That's right. Odin's son was given a "gender reassignment" by the good folks at Marvel. How well this is going to play remains to be seen, but it's not expected to go over too well. No word yet on Dr. Jane Foster. Meanwhile, we await the introduction of gender neutral and transgendered super heroes.

Of course, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm joking, at least about some of this. However, what the Councilmember Robinson and others have done are very real, and it is spreading. We've seen where male athletes have entered women's sports as "transgendered" athletes and completely dominated their competition. There have been naturally born female athletes in MMA and wrestling who've not only be decisively beaten, but severely injured by their much more powerful "Y" chromosome carrying "female" opponents.

The situation has become so bad, that female athletes have started refusing to compete against these "transgendered" individuals, and rightly so. They have appealed to the various sanctioning bodies and demanded that "something" be done; perhaps create a separate league for these individuals or to require them to compete at heavier weight classes to even the odds a little. Meanwhile, female athletes are increasingly refusing to compete against transgendered competitors; not because they are transgendered mind you, but because they still have their masculine strength and speed, and that creates an unfair and often unsafe advantage.

In terms of businesses, the line between male and females has started to blur. In some places (such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco) it's not uncommon to see guys wear makeup or instead of cologne, using perfume. Guys getting manicure and pedicures aren't uncommon, nor are seeing guys at spas getting facials. It's not over unusual to see guys wearing styles traditionally identified with women (including certain fabrics and colors).

Certain television shows such as "Rue Paul's Drag Race", "Project Runway", "Under the Gunn", "Project Accessory" and many many others have essentially "normalized" homosexuality (one of the biggest icebreakers was "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" which was about how to teach straight males to dress well). I guess you could even say "gay is in". Today, it's seen as no big deal. In fact, in some cities being straight can actually hold you back professionally. Who would have thought?

We've read or heard about dozens of gay actors and actress from the "Golden Era of Hollywood" who would never in a million years come out; it would have instantly destroyed their careers. Same goes with musicians, writers, producers, directors and so on. Nowadays, some of the most popular and powerful individuals in Hollywood (and Broadway) are gay; individuals such as Jodie Foster, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, Robin Roberts, Jim Parsons, Elton John, Wanda Sykes, and countless more.

Personally, I have no particular issue with individuals who are gay. Unlike some, I don't think people "choose" to be gay, at least not per se. I think you are born with that tendency already there. Why that is I have no idea. Science has reported that testosterone levels throughout the world have been on the decline. Plus, we have to remember that with a increasingly old population, testosterone levels decrease at a rate of about 1% per year after age 30 (testosterone peaks at about 20 years of age). But testosterone levels may have nothing to do with it since it's only one part of the gender equation.

I think one of the main reasons is simply acceptance. It was kept in the "closet" for so long, and now it's out, and with it, a certain power in numbers. According to Gallup, around 4.5% of the US population is gay, that is, LGBTQ, which is less than what many American's think, especially if your opinion is based on the corporate media's projection of gay influence in America. Naturally, that figure doesn't include those who've "experimented" or with those who support gays in some way.

Nevertheless, we've become a much more open society, and with that, there has been a trend toward a more socially liberal society (this trend basically got started in the late 1950's and has continued since despite periodic---and brief---shifts to the Right socially). Given the Millennials are strongly trending Left socially while their younger siblings may be headed even further Left, we can expect this to continue for some time to come.

Socially conservative (including those who identify as religiously conservative) will remain a vocal opponent, however, their numbers are on the decline and expected to continue in that direction for the foreseeable future. Of course, there will be pockets around the country where conservatives will dominate the political and cultural landscape and all things gay will remain more or less suppressed.

As for me, while one's sexual orientation makes little difference to me, I will continue to address males and females accordingly (as an aside, I believe there are two genders--male and female. What you do with yours is your business, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with you). At the same time, don't attempt to force me to conform to something I disagree with. If you have a problem with that, then you have my apologies but not my sympathies. If you chose, for whatever reason, to openly live as someone of the opposite gender, I commend your courage.

However, I was brought up to say "please" and "thank you" as well as "no sir" and "yes ma'am". If I interact with someone who is obviously a female, I will treat them accordingly, which means opening doors, pulling out the chair, and all of the other things you'd expect from a Southern gentlemen. Obviously that means referring to you with the appropriate feminine pronouns. By the same token, if you are by all indications a male, then I will treat you accordingly, and includes using all the gender appropriate grammar. Where I come from, that's the proper thing to do. No disrespect intended.


Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Berkeley City Council Votes to Ban Gender Specific Words

Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Gay Hollywood: 41 Out and Proud LGBT Stars

Why modern men are losing their testosterone

Americans Still Greatly Overestimate US Gay Population

Is America Still the Land of the Free?

I recently came across a story where some high schools students were send home for wearing t-shirts with a picture of President Trump on them. The claim by the school was that they had received complaints from other students that they didn't feel "safe". The students were told they either had to turn their shirts inside out and leave the school grounds. They chose to leave. That wasn't the only instance.

There's been numerous examples where people have been harassed or even assaulted for wearing "MAGA" (Make America Great Again") ball caps. These attacks have come in restaurants, shopping malls, or even on the street. The attackers, as a rule, don't know their victims. In fact, they know nothing about them other than the fact they're wearing a "MAGA" hat or t-shirt which either shows their support for President Trump or for being conservative. What's most interesting is that the attackers, when caught (and most are), were questioned about what they did it, all claimed that they felt threatened! That's right, they were the ones who felt threatened! So, when they attacked some guy or gal waiting at the bus stop or while someone was ordering food or trying to enjoy their meal, it was the victim who was at fault, not the attacker.Of course, none of this includes that name calling, threats, or harassment these "threatened" individuals like to inflict or the blocking of streets and expressways, nor the random destruction of property.

But, of course, this hasn't been just about "MAGA" hats or t-shirts with Trumps picture on it, people (including school kids) have been attacked for wearing shirts or hats with American flags on them or pro-2nd Amendment slogans, or actually, anything patriotic. Can you imagine being told in a school to either turn you t-shirt inside out or face being expelled for the day all just because it had an American flag or something patriotic on it? Heck, you can even opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school! We have professional athletes making millions yet disrespecting American servicemen and women as well as first responders by taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem. They claim injustice and inequality, yet where are they during off season? Certainly not protesting! They are in fact enjoying their very lucrative salaries.

In the past, kids were sent home for wearing t-shirts, jackets, or hats which featured a Confederate flag or something else dealing with the Confederacy (it was deemed "offensive" or "racist"), yet kids wearing a black power or black pride t-shirt, Afro-centric jewelry weren't. Children who show up wearing a "Che" or "Malcolm X" t-shirt are fawned over, and of course, nothing ever is said to anyone wearing a Hillary or Obama piece of paraphernalia. Why is that? What's going on? We have seen historic statues removed in the dead of night; some destroy and many vandalized because someone claimed to "offended". Does that "being offended" work just one way or can anyone be "offended" and get what they want?

Just recently we had the incident where high school kids on a field trip from a Catholic school here in Kentucky (Park Hill to be exact) were tried and convicted not just by a politically biased media, but even by their own school without full disclosure of the events. I believe that we're all currently awaiting some public apologies which I doubt will be coming. Apparently a group of "Black Hebrew Israelites", which is a group which claims that they are the actual descendants of the ancient Hebrews and thus chosen by God, were taunting the mostly white school group with racial slurs when, in response, the kids starting chanting their school cheer rather than get into some pissing contest with this apparent racist group. I guess school pride trumped racial hatred!

Then in came a small group of Native Americans led by an activist and self-described Elder named Nathan Phillips claimed they were trying to "separate" the two groups (which were already well separated) except the Native American group got in the face of the school kids and starting chanting and banging on drums. The schools kids refused to be goaded into doing anything, and yet they were portrayed by the biased media as the aggressors.

Why this group of Native Americans didn't do the same thing to the "Black Hebrew Israelites" is another interesting question which remains unanswered. It took a few days before additional clips became available, but it certainly appears that the Catholic schools kids were being taunted and harassed by two racially motivated groups. Well, in my opinion, kudos to the kids for taking the higher roads and know race baiting when faced with it. It further damaged a corporate media and members of Congress who have already lost the trust of the American People. Meanwhile, I think some serious heartfelt apologies are due to these kids both as a group and individually starting with their school.

It's getting harder and harder to be patriotic American in this country. That is seriously something which I find to be hard to say. We were once seen as "melting pot"; a nation where you could come and start over in life, leaving behind the political, religious, ethnic, and class restraints of wherever it was that you came from behind. Here, everyone had a chance to improve their lot in life, to get an education and believe what you wanted to believe so long as you left other people alone. Not so any more.

People used to do whatever they could to find a way to come to America. They even tried to learn English before they came or on the trip here. They wanted to speak the language. They wanted to be Americans, not some hyphenated "half-American". Yes, the majority had a sense of pride of the culture, but that took a backseat to being an American first. Ultimately, much of their cultures and traditions became added to pool of other cultures and traditions to create something new; something genuinely unique. Something genuinely American.

In my own family history, my immigrant ancestors learned and spoke English. At home, in private, or in church, they may have spoken German, but out in public it was solely English. Their children were taught English and to think and behave as Americans, not "German-Americans". Even my Irish and Scottish ancestors did their best to learn the laws, traditions, and values of their new homeland. Mine family was far from unique. Many immigrant families did the same thing. Some even refused to teach their children the native language of their former homeland so strong was their desire to become Americans.

Nowadays, it's the opposite. Many immigrants, both legal and illegal, demand that we must adapt to their way of doing things. They not only refuse to learn to speak English, but insist that we find ways to enable them to continue speaking in their native language. Heck, in some places, even the street signs are in a foreign language, and government forms---paid for with US tax dollars---are printed to accommodate them.

I'm not saying being an immigrant is easy. It's not by a long shot. New laws, language, values, not to mention sights, sounds, and even smells. Practically every group which has immigrated has face discrimination in one fashion or another--the Italians, Jews, Germans, Slavs, Irish (and Scots), Chinese, and so forth. It's natural to seek out or form a community with those with whom you familiar. America has had various enclaves in nearly every city and town, and to a certain extent, still do. But still, the objective has always been to become an American.

Nowadays, we see people actually encouraged not assimilate; to stay separate. Whereas before, the goal of every immigrant was to become a citizen, it's now to find a job and send money home. There's no real desire to become an American. Ultimately, that creates a sense of separate identity. When you don't "buy in", you have no loyalty to the host nation. You want what's best for your particular group without regard to the nation as a whole. Eventually, that leads to division and the desire to create a independent community or state much like what happened in Yugoslavia.

Of course, this goes way beyond that just immigration. It's pretty common for people to complain about what you say if it's differs from their worldview. Somehow having a different opinion is deemed "offensive" or even "racist", especially if that comment comes from someone who is white. Why is that? Shouldn't everyone be able to say what they feel, so long as no one is physically abused? After all, the Founding Father's expressly provided us with the right to free speech. But there are groups---mostly those under 30 (the so-called "Millennials"), especially on campuses where free thought and rational discussion was once the norm---demand that those who differ in opinion from them actually be denied their 1st Amendment right to speak, even when they've been invited to!

There have been numerous instances where invited speakers have been shouted down, stormed on stage, physically assaulted, or simply "disinvited" by the school administration at the last minute. During the 1960's and early 1970's when campus unrest rampant, there was still open and free discussion of ideas. In fact, one of the key premises to higher education has been to the exchange of ideas, even with those with whom you disagree. No so anymore. Nowadays, that's actually discouraged. Students demand "safe spaces" so they don't have to hear opposing views. This has even gone as far to certain racial or religious groups demanding segregated "safe spaces", which to me borders on the absurd.

We are also facing new forms of discrimination, whereby religious groups, again, demand, that other religions be denied the right to display their religious symbolism or pray...even on their own college campuses. Whatever happened to our tolerance of religions? America never faced the religious hatred or violence which plagued Europe and the Middle East. People have been allowed to practice their faiths (or even lack thereof) in relative peace. That too seems to be changing as we are increasingly being told what is and isn't acceptable. Even the wearing of religious themed jewelry is becoming taboo.

Religious freedom has always been one of the beautiful things about this country. Naturally, there are those who try to claim that America was founded as "Christian Nation", the truth of the matter was that America was founded to be free from a state imposed religion like other countries in Europe. The Founding Fathers intended that America was to be a place where every religion was welcome and no one had to secure permission from government to practice their religious beliefs...or to have no beliefs at all! We are now starting to see where some are trying to impose their beliefs on others, including the creation of "no go" zones, no pets, restriction on certain consumable items, mandatory clothing, etc which violates several of our core rights as a country. If you that's what you want, have it, but don't try to impose it on others.

America has always been a nation which focused on roughed individualism, yet we've always been willing to lend a helping hand to those in need of it. Today, we have a government which is increasingly sticking its nose in our personal business. It is mandating what we can and can't do in our own lives. We find ourselves losing our personal freedoms almost daily. Some of it actually taken from us by the government through mandates by unelected bureaucrats which leave us no recourse. Some is through laws by those elected to office but who are unaffected by the very laws they pass. And some of it through corporations who, in partnership with government, seem to use us as economic resources to be exploited and discarded.

I can't help wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought of our America if they could see it now. I wonder if they'd be proud of how we've progressed or would they hang their heads in sorrow? I think that in some respects they'd be pleased with what we've accomplished. Certainly with our technology, which would have stunned them into silence, as well as growth as a country from the original 13 colonies which stood toe to toe with the mightiest empire in the world at the time. I have no doubt they'd be most pleased that slavery ended long ago, but sadden by its cost on the nation just as they would have by all the wars we've faced as a nation. After all, they warned us about entanglements in the affairs of others.

Women's suffrage would have perhaps amused them, but I think they would have approved, however, the notion that we willingly accept that there is more than two genders would have appalled them to no end (I can't imagine what they'd say about the body piercings and tattoos). The notion that unsavory elements within government were trying to deprive the citizens of their expressly given right to bear arms would both alarm them but wouldn't surprise them. After all, to disarm the citizenry is the first act of any individual or group intent on tyranny.

What would surprise and disappoint them would be how few are willing to stand up and fight back (or just how many are willing to go along with it). They understood firsthand the cost in lives in creating a nation and what it took to maintain it. They would understand that we will again either have to bear an even greater cost or face eventual enslavement, even if it's a benign one. They would be pleased with all those who chose to come to this nation, but deeply disappointed about how many of those have chosen not to be become Americans or even show enough respect to learn the language.

While the majority of our Founding Fathers were capitalist of the libertarian variety, the power of Corporate America over its citizens and especially the government would terrify them. The "Deep State" along with corporate and government control over our lives would rouse their ire as did British taxes or the commandeering of homes to house British troops. State mandated control over our children or healthcare would freeze their very souls. They would demand of us an explanation as to why we had allowed government such power. Had some madness ceased the country that we allowed a corporate-government state---a ruling elite---to emerge which could dictate how we lived our lives, or pass laws without our approval---especially taxes---or which this new ruling elite was exempt? Why do we allow corruption and treason by these elites to go unchecked?

Ultimately, I think our Founding Fathers would be stunned into disbelief and silence. They would find themselves sitting, head in hands, wondering what had become of the America they founded. It would appear to them that the "Great Experiment" had failed. We had gone down the path which had destroyed all other democracies and republics. We proved too willing to sacrifice truth for illusion; freedom for the promise of security; honesty for silence. I think that collectively, they would reach into their pockets and pull out whatever money remained and hand it to us, saying "Here, give this to the Crown to pay its damnable taxes and restore things as they were". I hope we can avoid their disappointment.


Black Hebrew Israelites



The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story


How the Covington Catholic firestorm reinforced America's divisions

My Christmas (Political) Wish List

Well, it's just about Christmas time again. Besides shopping for Christmas trees, lights, and inflatable Santa, snowmen, reindeer, the ever popular Grinch, and maxing out credit cards, it's also the time when children (and some adults) start compiling their "wish list" of things they'd like to find under the tree or in their stockings. So, in keeping with the spirit of the season, I thought I would post my own little "Christmas Wish List" (political version of course).

Let's start with term limits. I would like to see term limits across the board. Politicians who spend an entire lifetime, 20 or 30 (or longer) years is far too long. Sure, seniority brings certain perks, but our Founding Fathers never intended on creating a political class similar to those they opposed in England. For the most part, political offices were to be temporary; a term or two and then back home. That way, we have a continuous flow of fresh ideas and a closer connection to the people. It would also cut down on the level of corruption. Instead, we've created a nearly separate political class which has little or even no relationship with the people they're supposed to represent.

Today's politics is largely the domain of the wealthy (which is why Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club"). Ordinary citizens can't afford to run for higher office, at least not without connections to the wealthy corporations or their lobbyists. As a result, America has morphed from a Constitutional or democratic Republic into an Oligarchy ruled by plutocrats and/or their corporations. We now have two sets of laws, one for the wealthy and well connected and the other for the rest of us. We see it all the time. Individuals who commit serious crimes (like lying to Congress, gun smuggling, bribery, or committing treason) who should be set off to prison for the rest of their lives, either get a pass or slap on the wrist. If it was us, we'd never be heard from again!

I think twelve years is fair enough. That's three terms for the House of Representatives, two terms for the Senate, and three terms for the President. Appointed judges too need to serve no more than twelve years, even the Supreme Court. The reason is that judges, like everyone else, lose their connection with the people and the mood of the country. They come to think of themselves as omnipotent mini-kings in their courtrooms. "Citizens United" is a great example of the justices not understanding the nuances of politics and how money plays such a key role. Citizens United essentially created "Frankensteins" by declaring that corporations had not just the same rights as flesh and blood people, but actually greater rights when it came to donating money to candidates and political funds while limiting us (money was equated with "free speech" except that corporations have a greater amount of "free speech" than we do. The result was basically muting our collective voice and freezing us out.

Another item on my Christmas Wish List is an end to gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when politicians (or their political party) divvy up districts to ensure that their candidate or party remains in power. That's why you see strange looking districts. It's design, like Citizens United, is to keep out competition and pesky reformers. Instead, districts should be allowed to follow natural or traditional boundaries regardless of the political makeup. This would also force any elected representative to equally represent their constituents instead of just those who are members of their party. Redistricting should be handed over to a non-partisan institution or university. Citizen input should be encouraged, but politicians and special interests groups need to stand back.

Next, is restricting the influence of lobbyists and corporations. It's not uncommon today to see lobbyists help write legislation, and then use their financial influence to "recommend" passage to other legislators. We even see bad pieces of legislation tucked into other bills as they try to sneak them through without the public knowing. They also ensure that certain elected officials or selected candidates are well financed, either through direct contributions or through so-called "Leadership funds" which are essentially slush funds. As everyone knows nowadays, America is an Oligarchy. The wealthy elites call the shots. The major disagreements that we hear about are over the crumbs, which can be touted back home as "victories". Even parliamentary procedures have been corrupted to hide who truly voted for what or when.

What is actually needed is real campaign finance reform whereby corporations can't donate anything; where they returned to the legalistic world of artificial entities. Lobbyists should be limited to simply providing information, which must then be publicly disclosed as to its intent and who it benefits. Of course, that means legalistic mistakes like "Citizens United" need to be overturned. It means that transparency must be the rule, not the exception in Washington and elsewhere.

While I'm on the topic, I would like to see legislatures do away with special interest caucuses, such as the Democratic Party and Republican caucuses along with their "party whips" who ensure that party members toe the line and vote according to the way their leadership wants them too. I believe that regardless of your political party, once you're elected, you should resign from your party and with your oath of office include a provision to represent all of the people in your district or state. Political partisanship belongs to bygone days, like political "endorsements" by newspapers. Your sole interest is to represent everyone irrespective of party. Elected representatives should be free to vote the way their constitutes would want, not what partisan leadership dictates. Ad hoc coalitions should be the rule instead of partisan based committee assignments.

Along the same lines, politicians, especially in Washington, should not be allowed to keep their six figure salaries for life, while going on to other political jobs to earn even more (the majority end up as lobbyists or high priced law firms). Once your term is up, so is your taxpayer based paycheck. Elected officials also should be required to have the same insurance as the rest of us. Gone should be their private gyms, saunas, first class plane seats, and so forth. Security, after their tenure in office, should be provided for up to four years, after which it's on them to foot the bill. Pay raises should be on the ballot. It's our money, so we should decide. At the state and local level, I think this should apply to taxes, fees, as well as salaries (even rate increases for water, sewer, and electricity by public owned utilities should be voted on by the public, along with library, property, and school taxes). Lastly, the same laws which apply to us should equally apply to them.

Moving on with my Wish List, we need to put an end to illegal immigration once and for all. This continual in pouring of individuals into this country negatively affect our national security, strains our social safety net, and hurts our economy by affecting more supply than demand at the lower end of economic spectrum. This drives down wages and reduces (or eliminates) benefits. Churches and religious groups seem to act like our immigration laws don't apply to them, while hiding behind their tax exempt status. Businesses, particularly agricultural (including horse racing, restaurants, and construction) blatantly ignore immigration laws when they have access to Real ID to verify their status. If you want them here, fine. Sponsor them and help them get a Green Card. Meanwhile, those who sponsor, aid, or hire illegal immigrants should be stiff fines and jail time including suspension of their business licenses or tax exempt status beginning with their first offense. Anyone who does business with the government should have those contracts suspended the first time and cancelled for repeat violations. Board members, presidents including HR and/or anyone else involved with hiring as well as any priests, pastors or other involved with non-profits agencies, should face a fine with jail time for repeat offenses. No exceptions. No excuses.

While we're at it, enough with these so-called "sanctuary" cities or states. They are openly disobeying federal laws. Therefore, they should immediately lose all federal dollars. Let them support these individuals on their own taxpayer's backs. We also need to take steps to prohibit illegals from obtaining driver's licenses or voting, including holding the election clerk personally responsible, which should include a fine and jail time. Sounds serious? Well, this is a serious crime and it needs to be dealt with seriously. Lastly, we need to make English the official language of the United States. Language is the fabric which binds a nation together. When you have multiple languages and cultures, a nation can lose some of its unity. When you're a country like the US, which is home to practically every religion, race, and ethnic group in the world, we need that kind of adhesion that a single official language would bring.

Because I am an Independent, I'm somewhat put out by the fact that Indies and third parties aren't afforded the same ballot access as are the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and Republicans (Indies are the largest political bloc in the US with over 44%. Democrats and Republicans are in the low to mid 20% ranges). Indies and third parties are often required to have ten times the number of signatures needed to get on a ballot than do their Republican or Democratic opponent. That's wrong. That's denying equal ballot access. So, I'd like to see equal registration requirements for everyone wanting to run for office. If a Democrat or Republican needs only two or three signatures to file for office, then so should an Indie or third party candidate!

Along the same lines, Indies and third party candidates should be given the same opportunity to appear in debates or receive media coverage as their corporate owned opponents. Nowadays, Indies and third party candidates are treated as sideshow attractions, or ignored altogether. The Presidential debates, which used to be sponsored by the National Organization of Women (NOW) were replaced in 1987 by a joint Democrat/Republican "Commission on Presidential Debates" in order to keep out challengers following Ross Perot's showing back in the 1980's (which embarrassed both parties). Americans deserve to hear equally from everyone seeking office and to be able to make up our own minds. Instead, we're told that we have "free elections" while our choices are limited to pre-approved partisan candidates, leaving us with nothing but the illusion of choice. Speaking of election reforms, citizen initiated referendums should be not be prohibited. There are a few backward states that try to keep citizen initiatives off the ballot either altogether or require that they be run through the legislature, essentially getting their approval. Instead, they need to be reviewed for their legality and then, assuming there are enough signatures on the petition, placed on ballot for the voters to decide.

We also need to end the debate on additional gun control, especially restricting or eliminating gun ownership. Our Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment, not because they liked to hunt or target shoot, but to ensure that the citizens of this country didn't have to face a tyrannical government like what existed in Europe; where the population was basically disarmed and denied the means of fighting back. The 2nd Amendment was intended to be our "insurance policy" in the event that America devolved into some sort of dictatorship...or Oligarchy.

Many will argue that even the registration of our guns is violation of the 2nd Amendments intent, certainly attempts to restrict a gun based solely on its design or magazine capacity is stepping too far. By taking guns away from ordinary citizens, the majority of whom own them for self-protection, is inviting criminals in. Besides, do you really think that criminals are going to suddenly turn in their guns? Criminals are basically cowards and opportunists. They will act when they believe their chances of getting hurt (or killed) or getting caught are the least. That may mean attacking those who appear the weakest or most vulnerable, or by robbing a business or home when there is either no one there or where they are least likely to be armed.

Personally, I can see the justification in not owning armor piercing shells, heavy (50 cal) machine guns or bazookas, but that's my choice. I don't know what someone would want with any of these, but that's not my business either. I can see where someone should have to pass a gun class and demonstrate they understand the basic rules of handling a gun, have adequate shooting skills, and can keep a weapon in proper working order. That benefits everyone concerned. Along those same lines, I can see requiring background checks to keep guns out of the hands of individuals with criminal records or mental problems. Granted it won't stop it. If you want a weapon bad enough, you'll get one, especially if you're up to no good.

Also on my Christmas List is this. I'm tired of everything being so "offensive". It needs to stop. Not everything is "homophobic", "Islamophobic", "racial", or whatever else. If you are constantly getting "offended" by what someone says or does, then perhaps it's not them, it's you. In fact, I think these terms are so overused they no longer have any real meaning anymore, which is a shame since it devalues the claims of those who are actually be discriminated against. As an aside, let's make it clear, there are only two genders. You're a male or female. You either possess a "Y" chromosome or an "X" chromosome. Whatever you want to pretend to be is on you, and that in no way requires that I or anyone else play along. That's just part of accepting the realities of the real world.

Personally, I couldn't begin to care less about anyone's gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or whatever else. You treat me with respect, and I'll do the same. However, do not try to impose those beliefs or attitudes on me or deny me the same opportunity to speak. Free Speech is vital for any free society, just as is the obligation to conduct a civil discourse. I really don't care if you're black, Asian, Muslim, or gay. If that makes you happy, so be it, it's your life but you need to accept how others live their life too. Secondly, nobody owes you anything, not even respect---that's earned by giving it. You want help, you've got to be willing to give help. You want a favor, you better be willing to do a favor. From my perspective, if you treat people the way you want to be treated, you'll do ok in this world.

Lastly, the issue of medical Marijuana. It needs to be legalized without any further foot dragging, period. The only reason it's not legal already is because some wealthy folks and businesses stand to lose some money. Once they figure out how to make a profit on it, it will magically be legalized, which is plain wrong. People can and do benefit from Marijuana and they shouldn't be penalized over profit. Pot was first made illegal following Prohibition, when many people turned to the plant in lieu of alcohol. After the ban on liquor was lifted, distilleries were afraid that people wouldn't go back to drinking, so through some unscrupulous backroom "wheeling and dealing" along with misleading or outright lies through print and film, the federal government made the growing and cultivation of Marijuana illegal. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry got in on the ban and continues to make billions of dollars in profits off of opioids and other drugs which cause serious side affects; side affects which Marijuana doesn't have. It's long past time that we end the prohibition on Marijuana.

So, there you have my Christmas Wish List. There were other issues I could have touched on, like the "War on Terrorism", inflated government contracts, ending the worn out "the Russians did it" narrative, reduction of US military bases, education or prison reform, rebuilding our infrastructure, or converting the tax code to a flat or a consumption tax, but that would be too long. Nevertheless, let me know what you think. Are there any issues you disagree with or would add to your own political wish list? Drop me a line here at A/O and let me know!

New Laws Set To Take Effect in 2018: From The Serious To The Absurd

The last addition of Another Opinion was one of our usual retrospectives; A look back at some of the issues that we covered over the past year, which I hope you all enjoyed. Now, I would like to take a look at some of the laws which were passed in 2017 and go into effect this year (some already have taken effect as of January 1, 2018). Some of these new laws are practical and actually make sense while several are just downright bizarre. Overall, the trend seems to be more authoritarian; more power to the state and less from you and me, which I find deeply disturbing.

Then again, I guess that's to be expected since we are no longer the democratic or constitutional republic that our forefathers intended us to be. While we were busy with our "smart phones", video games, and so-called "reality" television shows, and worried about how to pay for the rising utility bills, making sense of the fake news, the artificial divisions manufactured for us by our corporate overlords, or keeping our jobs, we became a de facto Oligarchy; a plutocracy with a ever expanding police/surveillance state. Nevertheless, let's take a look at some of the new laws which legislatures around the country claim are designed to make our lives better.

In the Sunshine State of Florida, minimum wage will go up by 15 cents (it will increase in 17 other states too). Which is good in the short term since, as most people know, employers will offset the increase by raising prices which ultimately will put minimum wage earners back in the same boats. Also, some employers may be forced to lay off employees, which will then shift their work onto the remaining employees. So, like most things, it's a double edge sword. Under Florida House Bill 437, the Office of Financial Regulation is prohibited from releasing personal information of customers and shareholders (which is almost always a good thing in my opinion). However, this applies only to new entities known as "international trusts" or "qualified limited service affiliates" (something about this sounds like it's for people with deep pockets and not ordinary individuals).

In the Bluegrass State of Kentucky, the legislature has been quite busy. House Bill 195, which is a modification of the requirements for a GED, allows for the creation of college and/or career "readiness" tracks. While I think that great, the emphasis here should be on trade schools. The reason is multifold. Not everyone is "college material". While a two year associate degree will typically get you an entry level job, those seeking a four year bachelor degree can expect coming out with a substantial debt that may take decades to pay off, and still may not do better than a slightly better entry level job. However, most of the trades are facing shortages (in some cases, critical shortages) so there's nearly a guaranteed job waiting at the end of the line. The pay (and usually the benefits) are much better, the "school-to-job" turnaround is much shorter with a lot less debt (in some cases, little or none), plus it's a skill that applies anywhere.

Kentucky Senate Bill 129 allows for the designation of "lay caretakers" for the purpose of any post-hospital care for any designated individual 18 or older. However, this applies to only to any non-medical care and not to specific medical care such as certain injections, changing IV bags, or other treatment which may require a trained professional. On a related matter, House Bill 74 permits ordinary vehicles to have only "white" headlights (other than certain halogen lights which produces a slight bluish light). The reason is to help people distinguish between emergency vehicles and regular cars and trucks. I didn't know this was problem! You would expect people would know the difference between a truck or car and a ambulance, fire truck, or police car. Perhaps those people shouldn't be driving. What do you think?

Kentucky HB 277 allows individuals to serve on local school boards if they have a close relative such as aunt, uncle, a brother or sister-in-law, etc working for the same local school system. I guess that's a good bill. Apparently there has been a shortage in finding people to run for the school board (certainly qualified and competent individuals have been in short supply). On the other hand, Kentucky has a very powerful teacher's union which these same relatives likely belong. So, do you think there would be any chance of familial collusion or pressure on certain issues? Nah...this is Kentucky after all!

Speaking of schools and teaching, SB 117 will now allow all veterans with a four year or better degree to teach our every polite and respectful students in elementary and secondary school provided that their academic major is in the area they are applying to teach in. Personally, I think this is a great idea. I taught at the undergraduate and graduate level for several years and thoroughly enjoyed it (of course, I had some really inquisitive students). It was hard work, the hours long, and while the pay sucked, it was intellectually and emotionally rewarding.

However, I just don't have the patience or temperament to deal with undisciplined or smart mouthed kids or the little ones in grade school. But I can see where military trained and disciplined men and women can have a huge impact. There is also a severe shortage of teachers (especially good teachers). While the benefits are great, the pay has always been pretty bad---too much going to the infrastructure--and the hoops teachers have to jump through border on the insane. Nevertheless, hiring former military personnel is good thing for all concerned in the long run (personally, I think former Marines should get a preference in hiring. Semper Fi and Hooyah!).

Nevada joined several other states in creating a anti-opioid abuse program. Under the law, painkillers can't be prescribed for than 14 days even for acute and/or long term pain. Patients will have to return to either their doctor or hospital for additional medication. The bill also monitors who issues the pain medication and how often it's filled (this is similar to Kentucky HB 333 which also goes into effect in 2018). I understand the need to monitor and control the use and abuse of pain medication, however, legislators need to understand that not everyone who takes painkillers are wild eyed junkies. Most are people who suffer from chronic pain for one reason or another. This is not by their choice. By the time these individuals reach this point, they've gone through all the other alternative. This isn't the option of first or even second or third choice.

What bills like this do is make it more difficult for people who have a legitimate need for the medication to control or at least manage the pain which can, for some, be almost unbearable. What these legislators will ultimately succeed in doing is driving people to drink and/or do hard drugs. The fault, and the consequences, will be theirs and theirs alone. If they insist on punishing the good with the bad, then they have a civic and moral obligation to provide a realistic alternative such as legalizing marijuana, which has been shown to alleviate pain (even chronic pain). Anything less is simply morally criminal.

Another new law in Nevada is one that gives all non-violent offenders an opportunity to apply for local and state government jobs (of course, they need to be careful of corrupting influences. I also presume the new law also exempts these individuals from associating with known criminals). Another new law requires insurance companies to provide women with access to contraceptives without having a co-pay. Insurance company now must cover up to one year's worth of birth control. The new laws requires insurance companies to cover mammograms and HPV vaccinations. Employers will be required to provided workers up to 160 hours leave to any employee or immediate family member who has been the victim of domestic abuse.

Lastly, under the category of "WTH?", a new Nevada laws prohibits forced "conversions" of individuals who are gay or lesbian by mental health officials. According to the law, these so-called "professionals" could attempt to change the sexual orientation of anyone who identifies as other than heterosexual-- I'm not sure I want to know how. I do wonder though, if these same individuals claim to be bi-sexual, did these mental health professionals charge half price?

In Pennsylvania, residents will now be allowed to purchase "consumer" grade fireworks. No more C4 or dynamite for them! Apparently "consumer" grade fireworks includes handheld sparklers, caps, and display type fireworks, which I presume include Roman candles, Starbursts, etc. residents will also have to pay a hefty 12% sales tax too. Now that should cause a fireworks all its own! The law also says that the fireworks can only be used on private property with permission of the owner. It goes on to prohibit fireworks being shot in or from a vehicle, shot at a car or individual (seriously? They shouldn't even be allowed to play with matches or lighters).

In California, individuals now only be allowed to purchase ammunition from a licensed vendor. No more purchases of 9mm, .45, .38, .22 caliber or 12 gauge ammo from your friendly neighborhood drug dealer on the corner. So much for entrepreneurism! On the plus, school officials will now to get to decide whether or not school staff may be armed while on school grounds. No word about the students. Those convicted of "hate crimes" (which includes calling someone by the wrong gender pronoun), includes loss of 2nd Amendment rights for up to ten years (Assembly Bill 725). Another new law set to take effect will make legal to sell pot, up to one ounce, to anyone 21 years old and older. No more doctor's prescription! Also, residents will no longer have make a gender decision on any ID type documentation, which I'm sure comes as big relief for some.

A new law in Colorado requires "authorities" to report any teen texting of students exchanging sexually explicit photos, even if they're doing so consensually (presumably this includes photos sent to or from teachers as well). There's a pretty big fine for doing so, which I imagine that only the students could afford to pay. In Washington DC and Rhode Island, employers will be require to provide paid sick leave to employees. New Yorkers will now be eligible for paid family leave; eventually receiving up to 12 weeks of paid family leave.

Iowa and West Virginia join a growing number of states in requiring a photo ID in order to vote ( after all, you have to show a photo ID for just about everything else right? But don't worry, microchipping is on its way and so soon you and your pet can have matching chips). After having a similar law tossed out in 2014, Texas has modified their law to require anyone wanting to vote without an ID to swear under oath that they were unable to obtain a photo ID in time (and we know that no one ever lies under oath right?). In South Carolina it's now illegal to own a exotic pet (unless you are a zoo; working in one doesn't count), so kiss that boa constrictor for your mother-in-law goodbye. Those who already own an exotic pet with be grandfathered in...with additional restrictions.

That brings us to Illinois, which has made Barack Obama's birthday, August 4th, a state holiday. Officials weren't able to determine if the gunfire following the announcement was in celebration or another gang fight. As an aside, the holiday is "commemorative" only, so unlike Obama, no one is getting off. Finally, the Volunteer State, Tennessee, has now made it legal for barbers (and presumably other stylists) to make house calls. I honestly did not realize this was a serious issue in Tennessee. I have to wonder if Dolly Parton or those Elvis impersonators in Memphis lobbied for this?



New Florida Laws To Take Effect in 2018


New Laws Go Into Effect Thursday in Kentucky


New laws take effect in Nevada in 2018


New Laws set to take effect in 2018? Here's A Brief Tour of State Laws Now In Effect


What's New In 2018

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980

Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legal?

Did hear the comedian Wanda Sykes was gay? Well, it’s been all over the entertainment news sites recently, but frankly I don’t care. Don’t get me wrong. I like Wanda Sykes. She’s a hilarious comedian, but I really don’t think I need to know who she or anyone else for that matter likes to sleep with. And as for folks like Rosie O’Donnell (remember when she was considered sooo sweat and nice? She even had her own doll. Now we have “mean” Rosie), Ellen Degeneres (a friend of mine calls her “Ellen Degenerate”), Clay Aiken, and all the rest. Who cares? Get over it.

Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?

Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).

Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?

Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?

From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?

Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.

However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.

While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.

Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?



Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009

Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.

If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.

As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.

At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.

Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.

Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.

How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?

The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.

Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.

What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.

Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.

As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.

In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.


Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.

Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div


Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.

In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.

Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.

Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.

Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.

Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.

By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.

Our Campaigns Make History:

• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.

• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.

Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX

Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX

Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org

Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org