12 posts tagged “government”

Yesterday a six member Senate Ethics Committee, including three Democrats and three Republicans, concluded that Senator Craig was guilty as charged and acted improperly during his arrest in an airport sex-sting operation. The panel also admonished him for using $213,000 in campaign funds to pay for his legal bills.

In a letter, the panel told Senator Craig that they believe he, "committed the offense to which you pled guilty" and that "you entered your plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently." They also said that the Senator only tried to withdraw his guilty plea to avoid public disclosure.

This Senate Ethics Panel conclusion only solidifies Senator Craig's status as the first inductee into my Halls of Hypocrisy. Not that one needs to be reminded, but this is the married Senator who has fought tirelessly for decades against gay-rights legislation. In all of his arrogance, he continues to serve the state of Idaho and has the continued support of his poor gullible wife.

This video on American-Iranian relations was posted yesterday at Huffington Post. It's a brief history of our two countries and shows how America actually derailed Democracy in Iran many decades ago.

America has a chance, at this point in history, to choose a President that can use diplomacy toward making peace, not just with Iran but with all American enemies. The candidate best likely to achieve peace through diplomacy is Senator Obama. Let's become the peacekeepers, not the aggressors. Elect Senator Obama.

President Bush announced his 2009 budget today. The total package? 3.1 trillion dollars. He set a new record for spending, up 6% from this year. He projected a federal deficit of $407 billion dollars. Who says the Republicans are fiscal conservatives? I think President Bush has taken away the credibility of that argument.

Now compare that to what only seems like yesterday when President Clinton had balanced the federal budget, the first President in American history to do that. When he left office, President Clinton left us with a surplus.

I often say President Bush has run our country into the ground, on so many levels. This only solidifies that opinion. Anyone care to disagree?

I read an interesting article this morning about how some gay activists are unhappy with the way the Presidential candidates are treating gay issues. Many expect the candidates to be more vocal and take the lead on gay rights. Ultimately I agree but in theory it doesn't make much sense at this time in American politics.

A New England gay newspaper out of Boston, Bay Windows, had been approached by some of the Democratic campaigns seeking the paper's endorsement. The editor chose instead to write a scathing column about how none of the candidates deserve gay dollars; the editor stated that none of them had shown enough courage on gay rights issues but instead had adopted a safe consensus to show progress had been made but hadn't gone too far, in order to still appeal to middle America.

Unfortunately, Presidential candidates have to appeal to middle America to be viable. The gay community's national governmental voice is the Democratic Party, like it or not. Should things be different? Yes, we should have better representation in our government. We should have a stronger voice. We should have equality protected by law. I fight for all of these things. But expecting our national candidates to be outspoken activists for the gay community is not practical; they would never be elected.

Civil rights happens in small steps. It feels entirely too slow for me, but that's the way it works, and middle America has to come along at its own pace. It's generational, and it will take time to get the buy-in from the younger generation.

By not playing the political game, candidates become the Kuciniches, and Gravels of politics; they disappear, and along with them goes our voice. The Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons of the world do support the gay community and probably will help us take a step or two closer to our goals. Without them, what is the alternative? I hope you realize the answer to that.

The Bay Windows' editor had a wonderful suggestion which I support. She suggested giving our political donations to state and local candidates who support gay marriage, as opposed to giving at the national level. This is where the progress will be made at a quicker pace.

One more thing which I thought was brilliant strategy. The National Stonewall Democrats, a grass-roots organization, is working to increase the number of gay delegates. Therefore, in the future, Democratic candidates will have to appeal to them to get their votes. Whether this proves to backfire on us or not will only be a matter of time; but, if nothing else we will have a stronger voice. Let's hope middle America can tolerate it.

Until the end of the Bush administration!

I know many people, in general, are hesitant to use the word bigot; I however, am not. I believe in speaking the truth.

According to the Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, the term bigot is defined as: Noun. A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who feel differently.

Did you see this Mike Huckabee interview yesterday on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer? (Once the video buffers, fast forward passed the beginning) To me, his arrogant conviction against same-sex marriage was frightening.

In this same interview, he enlightened us on the notion that the separation of church and state is a myth. And, that it was meant to protect religion from having to accept government's state sanctioned church, not to keep religion out of government.

He was arrogant in the expression of his beliefs; as he explained how marriage was meant for only one man and one woman, he reminded me of a former communist dictator from Germany's past. Hitler too had a similar view of superiority.

Huckabee was also interviewed by Beliefnet on Thursday and spoke on the same subject. He was quoted as saying, "Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?"

When asked if he'd want to change the constitution to conform to the Bible, he likened the idea of same-sex marriage to bestiality. "Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic."

What makes his opinion/belief superior to mine? And, what gives him the right to dictate that we, as gay Americans, should have no legal protection in our relationships, because of his religious belief?

The way I see it, he fits the definition of a bigot fairly well. How do you see it? I'm open to hearing from those with a differing opinion.

The world is leaving the United States far behind, and the smaller, conservative countries are leading the way. According to reports from many credible sources, the Latin American country of Colombia passed a law in June of 2007, giving gay couples the rights associated with gay unions. Colombia's lower house of Congress approved the measure with support from its President; however, shortly after that decision, the legislation had been derailed by a small conservative group in an underhanded move.

But once again, I've been reading reports, as current as October 2007, that Colombia does offer some protections to same-sex couples such as social security benefits, partner health care plan coverage and inheritance rights.

Although, I've searched for more current information on where these rights stand, I haven't been able to get clear confirmation. If anyone has a solid update (October 2007 or beyond), by a credible source, on Colombia's gay rights, please forward the information on to me. I'd certainly like to clear this up and update the information here at Quest.

You can leave your information by submitting it in the comments section below or you can email me at purposequest@hotmail.com. Thank you.

Last night on the CBS Evening News I saw part one of a two part series on Social Security disability benefits. According to CBS News, many disabled people who've spent years paying into the system, are being denied their rightfully owed disability benefits.

Last night's segment, claims that 2 out of every 3 people that have applied for federal disability have been denied; that is 66% of the claims filed. Many cities in the United States have a backlog of cases to be reviewed. Some have to wait three years for a hearing. Nationally, people have to wait an average of 520 days for a hearing on their claims. The total backlog of cases in the nation is 750,000; this is an increase of 150% since 2000.

Another statistic sited by the CBS Evening News claims that in 2006 and 2007, 16,000 people died while waiting for a decision.

A denial of benefits not only means that these disabled individuals are being denied a monthly income, but they are also being denied the Medicare health insurance that goes along with it. Can you imagine being unable to work with no income and no health insurance? Just like these productive citizens, who once paid into the system, it can also happen to you.

Part two concludes the series tonight on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric at 6:30 PM eastern time.

The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear an important case regarding experimental drugs for terminally ill patients yesterday. The case found its way to America's highest court after an advocacy group sued the FDA in 2003. The original case asked the court to allow terminally ill patients, who've run out of options, to have access to drugs that have undergone safety testing but have not yet been approved.

Last year a federal appeals court ruled in favor with the FDA, denying patients access to unapproved experimental drugs. The lower court had rejected the notion that patients had a constitutional right to take these unapproved medicines.

Now that the United States Supreme Court will not hear the case, it would be up to Congress to change the law. There is no word on whether that will be taken up by the Legislature.

I am disappointed by the lower court's decision, not to allow access to these investigational drugs; but, I am equally disappointed by the United States Supreme Court to have not taken the case.

If I were terminally ill, still had the will to live, and had run out of options, I know that I would want to take anything to improve my chances of survival even if those chances were slim. What would a terminally ill patient have to lose? The answer is nothing. There would only be the hope of something possible to gain.

I often question the priorities in our country and the authorities in power. It seems that if one were an unborn fetus, one might have more rights and protections than if one were a living, breathing adult in the United States.

With hypocrisy running rampant, I might need to start a new blog and call it The Halls of Hypocrisy. If you've been following the news at all you might have heard that President Bush was just visiting Israel and also met with the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. President Bush was in the region to promote peace between the two peoples.

President Bush spoke of his "vision" and mentioned the word about a dozen times. Mr. Bush reportedly said it was possible for the two sides to reach a peace agreement before the end of his term, at the close of 2008; although, he also disclosed that it was not in his power to solve the Middle East problem himself.

My question: Does anyone in the world take President Bush seriously? He was in that area to promote peace. The last time I checked, Mr. Bush has promoted anything but peace in that area. Hello? Remember Iraq? How about his push against Iran?