Check out my recently published content on AC:

Review of U2's No Line on the Horizon

Check out my recently published content on AC:

Europe Appears to Be Heading in the "Right" Direction

Check out my recently published content on AC:

Those Who Forget Will Be Destined to Remember

Check out my recently published content on AC:

Better LGBT Representation for Ventura County

Check out my recently published content on AC:

Health Care Reform a Casualty of Ideology

Gays and Christians-Together at Last

This week I had the privilege of watching Fox's new show "Glee", and found it funny, clever, and original. But I found one aspect of it business-as-usual in Hollywood; it's portrayal of Christians and gays. The "Celibacy Club", as it is called on the show, is a program for teenagers at high-school who want to wait until marriage before having sex. Fair enough. But the girls running the club are straight up hoochies and so far are the main villains of the show. The girls make statements meant to make the idea of celibacy seem ludicrous, while the show's main character makes a dramatic plea to the students in the club urging them that celibacy is "unrealistic" and that they should instead simply be prepared for sex. The male lead is then convinced that indeed, celibacy is ludicrous. I'm not a prude, and would be the last to preach abstinence until marriage (considering I'm a gay Californian, I'm not even afforded that right). Celibacy education (abstinence I would argue would be a better term for the show) has its problems, and undoubtedly some teens will choose to have sex, but those that make this commitment shouldn't be made fun of, or ridiculed for their beliefs. Obviously, it's a lot safer and smarter to avoid sex if you can when you're a teen, so if you are committed enough to go that route, Hollywood has no business making these teens out to be less than human. Just because myself and Hollywood wouldn’t go that route, doesn’t mean we have the only correct position on this issue.

At the same time, the gay character on “Glee” is stereotypically effeminate, fashionable, and serves as the comic relief for the other characters on the show. He is always being thrown into a dumpster and picked on by the other kids. In all fairness, getting picked on in one way or another, is a reality for most of the kids taking part in the glee club. It's just unfortunate that once again, rather than giving us a strong, popular, gay character that breaks the stereotypes that Hollywood provides of the typical gay man, they instead give us the tired, one-dimensional stereotype. Luckily for "Glee" the show has enough other attributes that it is more than worth putting up with this one played-out aspect of the show.

It is ironic though, that as much friction as there often is between the gay community and the Christian community, they are bound together by Hollywood's relentless pursuit of persecution. While some right-wing activists believe that Hollywood serves to make gay culture more mainstream at the expense of traditional family values, and cite movies such as "BrokebackMountain" and "Transamerica" as examples of this "agenda.", the vast majority of gay roles portray gays as feminine, weak, dramatic, and androgynous. It was this portrayal that was one of the reasons my own coming out was so difficult. Not knowing any openly gay men myself, all I knew of what it was to be gay, was from the characters shown on T.V. For years, I held back on accepting who I was in part because portrayals of gay men as wearing women's outfits, talking with a lisp, and having a limp wrist was not something I identified with, nor were they attributes I exhibited. While positive gay characters exist on a few shows and movies now days, they still pale in comparison to the stereotypical "comedy relief" roles, where their flailing wrists, and dramatic personalities lighten the serious mood in any movie or T.V. show. Even if there are no gay characters, language, particularly in movies, is also skewed against gay community. Gay jokes litter most comedies made within the last 20 years, and gratuitous use of the term "faggot" is the norm, and usually attached to a punch line that is supposed to induce a laugh.

As for Christians, what can say? They are usually portrayed as judgemental, ignorant whack-jobs who provide the comic relief, or villainy. They are almost equally disrespected as gay characters, and their views are portrayed as being outside the mainstream.

Apparently, Hollywood, for all its liberal well-meaning tolerance, believes America still finds these caracatures apt and funny. If you’re like me, and believe they’re stereotypes whose time has passed, make your voice heard.

The New Math-Biden Style

So today, Vice-President, and full-time gaff-meister Joe Biden proclaimed that the stimulus package is "doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than most expected." This in spite of the fact that while the White House promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% and create more than 750,000 new jobs in the first 200 days of his presidency, more than 200 days in the unemployment rate is at 9.7% and nearly 300,000 jobs were lost in August 2009 alone, with nearly 3 million lost so far in 2009. In the face of this abysmal news, Biden took his "positive stimulus news" one step further in claiming that the economy has likely already created the 750,000 jobs he promised in the first 200 days. The caveat is that they were in the form of "saved" jobs, which conveniently isn't something that's tracked. This is about as credible as Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house" foreign policy experience. Is anyone believing this tripe? Even if you're the Obama Administration, second only in authority to the Holy Trinity, you can't claim jobs that simply might or might not have been lost, into your "jobs created" numbers. If so, God only knows how many "real" jobs Reagan, Clinton, and Bush created. If this is the new math in calculating job creation, we need to go back and recalculate all the "saved" jobs of our nations past administrations to get a fair and proper perspective. Using this new calculation, its possible that President Hoover actually "created" more new jobs than FDR. Perhaps Carter wasn't the disaster we all thought he was. Perhaps he "saved" more jobs than any other president in history. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say "Jimmy Carter 'saved' and thus created more jobs than any other president in history." I mean, anything's possible right? It's true until it's proven untrue. Welcome folks, to the new math, where a loss equals a gain and what's unprovable is fact. Say it aint so, Joe.

Health Care, the final word (hopefully)-Part Deux

During this whole health care debate, well-meaning liberals have insisted that a public option be part of any health care reform bill that gets voted on by congress. Yet it is the public option part of the bill that will likely be hardest to pass and is the most unpopular aspect of the bill among the American public. Some Democrats seem willing to risk losing the debate, and indeed passage of any health care reform bill in order to make sure a public option is part of the final deal. I find this very odd. After all, isn't the main objective of this bill to simply cover those who don't have insurance? Why should they care if private insurance companies cover them, or the federal government, especially if pushing the federal government-run public option might cost them passage of the bill? Why is the public option non-negotiable?

As I pointed out in Part I, the government has a pretty lousy track record of running public services, and furthermore, there is no need for the federal government to have their own plan in order to keep costs down, and to regulate what the insurance companies are providing for their clients. If there was, the government would be building our cars, and houses, and growing the food we eat. So again, why the insistence on the government-run public option?

This warped logic is reminiscent of another non-negotiable issue for many Liberals-school choice. Liberals have fought for years against giving lower-income parents the ability to send their kids to private schools. They argue that this would somehow harm the public school system, either by possible funding cuts to the public system, or unfair competition. This absolutely makes no sense to me. If you say you are for “the little guy”, if you say you are for helping those less fortunate, shouldn’t you want them to have access to the best schools and the best health care? If public schools are the best, then you shouldn’t worry that people will leave them in droves to go to a private school if they have that option. Public education’s success or failure should speak for itself. Obviously, no one can seriously argue that public schools do a better job of educating our nation’s children than private schools, just as no one can seriously believe that a government-run public option will do a better job running our health care than private insurance companies. It’s also important to point out that private schools do a better job of educating our nation’s children at a lower per capita cost than public schools. And yet, Liberals are fairly united in their belief that there should continue to be a class system when it comes to our schools and health care; a class system where the poor and middle-class are subjected to public schools, and public health care, while the very rich, like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand, congress, and President Obama, will continue to use private schools and private health insurance. For example, if President Obama truly believed that public schools are as good or better than private, don’t you think he would send his two daughters to one? Instead, he sends his daughters to the private Sidwell Friends School in D.C. that costs $29,000 a year. Shouldn’t he want all Americans to have access to such an exclusive education? Wouldn’t that do more to help level the playing field for inner-city kids, and disadvantaged minority children than any other government social program? The answer is “yes”, but that “yes” is apparently trumped by the desire to maintain a vital voting bloc of the Democratic Party, the poor. The party leadership is obviously smart enough to know it would be impossible to guarantee that that this bloc will remain poor and loyal Democrats if they are given the tools to simply become prosperous Americans.

Smart President doesn’t necessarily = Smart Party Leadership

This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi carefully weighed in on the town hall meetings happening all over the country by comparing the town hall meeting participants to Nazi’s. She also penned a piece in USA Today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in which she deems town hall participants “un-American.” Suddenly, in Pelosi’s America, expressing one’s constitutional right to speech is tantamount to hating the president because he’s black and hating the U.S. altogether. This is particularly ironic since only a few years ago, Speaker Pelosi regarded people speaking out against Bush and his policies as "patriots". Apparently, the line between "patriot" and "betray-us" is razor thin. These are just the latest in a whole series of arrogant verbal missteps that the president might say should have been “calibrated differently”. If there were still any doubts that Pelosi is the epitomy of everything moderate Americans dislike and fear about far-left liberals, this latest doozy is sure to leave no doubt. She is to the Democrats, what George Bush was to the Republicans-a visual and visceral reminder of everything Americans dislike about politicians. Her "steller" performance as speaker has even earned her the dubious honor of obtaining a lower approval rating than the unpopular former president. That's quite an accomplishment indeed!
Getting rid of Pelosi would be a step in the right direction for Democrats, but her actions stem from a larger psychological problem within the leadership. Something always seems to happen to the Democratic leadership when they become the majority. It's almost as if they collectively develop a severe case of “Not-it-all-ism”, which coincides with a skyward curvature of their noses. It seems that once they have the power, a sense of self-righteous elitism come over them. They start to believe that they know better than anyone else what’s best for this country. Government, run by them, seems to be their solution to every problem in existence and anyone who disagrees with them are backwards hicks. Now some are backwards hicks, but the vast majority is independents who put the Democrats back in power only to now have them govern with contempt towards the values and beliefs of said independents. Even beyond the halls of congress, liberal talking heads are on T.V. claiming that these people are dumb, racist, right-wing hate-mongers who are doing the bidding of the Republican Party. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, and Fox News contributor Bob Beckel claimed this week that these town hall meetings are being “organized” by the Republican Party, and big health care. Bill Maher claims in piece titled “Smart President Doesn’t Equal Smart Country” that the recent debates at town hall meetings proves his assertion that this is fundamentally a “stupid country” and that congress members listening to their constituents is an “urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything.” Jeez, Bill. Where’s the love?
Democratically controlled congresses have reeked of elitism in the past, but would often benefit from having a president from the South, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. Democratic congressional elitism was somewhat neutralized, at least on the surface when they had a Democratic President from the South, such as LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. It was hard to claim the Democratic Party was a bunch of elitists when their chief spokesperson is a peanut farmer from Georgia, or former governor of a state like Arkansas. I’m guessing the “ah, shucks” and “I reckons” probably helped create a "common-man" touch as well. The intermingling of the two provided a good balance for the Democrat’s image; they can be your drinking buddy, but also do you taxes as well. Ironically, having a Republican President from the South, like George W. Bush, likely helped elitism look like a good alternative to a guy you want to have a beer with, but would never trust with your lawnmower, much less the entire country.
But not since Kennedy, has there been a non-Southern accented Democrat in the White House, at the same time as a Democratic majority in the congress. Without a balance this could spell trouble for Obama and his agenda. Trusting congress to write to write a health care reform proposal that would be viewed favorably by the American people was Obama’s first mistake in this process. Allowing Pelosi and others to characterize dissent as phony, racist, and un-American, will likely spell the end of health care reform, and possibly doom any major subsequent policy initiatives by this president. Obama, or any politician for that matter simply doesn't have the political capital to compensate for an unpopular, unproductive, and out-of-touch congress. It's almost as if congress is trying to take him down with them, and so far, Obama has appeared more than willing to be a passenger on that ride.
So the moral of the story is, and with all due respect to Maher, just because your party has a smart president, doesn’t mean your party is necessarily smart. Heck, just because you’re a smart president, doesn't always mean your policies are always smart either. I reckon Obama might wanna get comfortable with saying "Ah, shucks."

Bill and Kim's Excellent Adventure

Former President William Jefferson Clinton, once viewed as a "loose-cannon" among some in the Obama camp, is emerging as a potentially powerful diplomatic tool in the President Obama's arsenal. "Bubba Diplomacy" has yielded the successful release of two journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were captured and tried by the brutal North Korean regime. The question that remains is what their release means for the U.S.-North Korean situation?
First off, I have no doubts that Ling and Lee intentionally crossed into North Korea. I've seen the special that Laura's sister Lisa did for National Geographic Explorer called "Inside North Korea", and there was some serious cross-border action happening there. Luckily, no one got caught that time. Despite the precarious diplomatic situation Ling and Lee's arrest put the U.S. in, I say kudos to them for at least attempting to expose the atrocities being committed every day by Kim Jong Il. In fact, even their arrest, trial, and sentence, highlights to the world Pyongyang's corrupt legal system. It also demonstrates the failure of the U.N. and indeed the U.S., through 2 administrations, to formulate the right policy and/or strategy towards North Korea. What do I mean by this? A policy is narrow, specific, and what we publicly tell the world we're doing. Strategy is more complex, more broad, and not so public. It may involve indirect factors to influence a desired outcome. For example, the policy rationale for the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980's was to defend against an ICBM attack from Soviet Russia. The strategic rationale was to spend the Soviets into oblivion on a project we knew would they couldn't afford, in the hopes it would lead to the defeat of Soviet Communism. In that scenario, strategy turned out to be more important than policy. The policy of trying to buy NK off through a strategy of appeasement as we did in the 1990's under Bill Clinton didn't work. Six-party talks with a strategy of isolation like we did in the 2000's under George W. Bush didn't work. So far, Obama's policy appears to be a combination of the two administrations-give them money if they behave, more sanctions and isolation if they don't. However, his strategy does give me hope.
Which leads us to Bill Clinton's meeting with Kim. According to Ling and Lee's families, North Korean officials told them that they would be willing to release the two journalists, if a high level official from the U.S. were to visit Pyongyang, and meet with Kim. President Clinton's name was specifically cited. So it appears that Clinton had very little to do with the release, other than being willing to go, which he does deserve ample praise for. Understandably, this does raise some serious questions. Did Kim really release Ling and Lee in exchange for a photo op with Bill Clinton, or did he get something else from the Obama administration in return? Does this change negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program? Did the Obama administration ask Clinton to go? Does a photo op with a former U.S. President legitimize and strengthen Kim? The latter question is likely the only one that can be answered at this time. Some, such as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, argue that this is tantamount to negotiating with terrorists, and that this action breathes new life into a dying regime. Those in the administration argue that Clinton acted alone and not as an agent of the President, or the U.S. Government, and therefore doesn't change anything with the U.S.-North Korean situation. As with most things, neither side has it quite right. Does this action reward bad behavior? On a limited scale, yes. Does this increase the likelihood of a similar scenario and demand by Kim, or even A-Jad in Iran? Potentially. These two are just crazy and power hungry enough to try it. On the other hand, I don't believe Clinton or Obama's patience is unlimited, and think the gesture by Clinton is probably a one-time deal. More importantly, Obama's strategy of smart restraint could potentially give us greater credibility in clamping down on NK. Just as our efforts to reach out to Iran, and our relative silence in the aftermath of their rigged presidential election, buys us credibility with our allies, not with the regime. As we've already seen, Obama's friendly gestures towards dictators such as Castro, Chavez, Il, and A-Jad, have had little impact on changing the actions and attitudes of these dictators. What has changed, is the world's view of the United States in credibly dealing with these regimes. When we extend and olive branch and are met with resistance, people at least see that the U.S. made an attempt; that we tried to put the past aside. This has empowered other governments to no longer feel wary about siding with the U.S. in these confrontations, and has indeed even empowered the people living under these regimes to take action, as we've already seen in the recent Iran and Lebanese elections. It's hard for the people who have been indoctrinated by these brutal governments to believe the anti-U.S. propaganda when we are actually being the nice guys, when we show restraint in the face of arrogance and evil. The people begin to realize that the reality doesn't jive with the propaganda. Questions start to be asked and dictators start to fall.
Policy is one thing, but Obama's strategy may prove to be a much more powerful and effective tool at ending tyranny in our time.

Palin's next stop...The View?

So what's next for the former vice-presidential hopeful, and 2/3 term Governor from Alaska? Some would hope nothing, while the rest believe she was and is capable of being President of the United States. What do I hope? She becomes the next talking head on The View. Why you ask? She is way too entertaining to simply fade away into the Alaskan abyss of moose-hunting and fly-fishing, and yet not qualified to serve any office higher than the one she just quit. The View would give her an entertaining opportunity to hone her debate skills, and to learn how to articulate her beliefs in a way that no longer makes Katie Couric blink her eyes with confusion. The View, with possibly a season or two under her belt, would give her the chops to take on any politician or world leader that's visible from her house. Because, let's face it, The View IS survival of the fittest on estrogen. Each day, these ladies go on TV and tear each other apart in such a way that would make even a masticating lion feel squeamish. And few would argue that anyone gets more abuse from this gaggle of gals than a conservative...that is unless it's a conservative woman. Bottom line is, it's sink or swim on this show, and if Sarah can at least doggy-paddle until she learns a proper breast-stroke, I think she will come out of the experience much stronger, more confident, and ready to take the next step in her political career. It won't put in her in the White House, but it will start her in the right direction, which is something she desperately needs right now. She also might also earn some respect from some of the centrist moms and other fair-minded women out there who watch this entertaining spectacle. So come on, Sarah. The opportunity here is too good for you, for them, and for us to let you pass it by. Take over for Elizabeth while she's out on what honestly seems like her fourth maternity leave since first joining The View, and win us over once again...one "you're darn tootin'" and "bless your heart" at a time.

Beer Diplomacy

By now, everyone has heard about the July 16th arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge police officer Sgt. James Crowley. It's been talked about so much that it probably contributed to the failure of President Obama to get America focused on his health care proposal. The interesting thing is that while this case has been framed by the media as another example of racial profiling, it turns out...it wasn't. In fact, both the media and the President prejudged this case before all the facts were known, and unfortunately for them, they were wrong. The 911 tapes released today show that the caller reporting the possible break in at Gates home, never specified the men's race. When asked by the 911 dispatcher what race the men were, she only stated "one might have been Hispanic. I don't know what the other one looked like." The caller was calm, and acknowledged that these men potentially lived or worked there, but felt the police should check to make sure.
It also turns out that there were black police officers on the scene at Gate's house when Sgt. Crowley made his arrest. They all contend race had nothing to do with this call, or arrest. The also vouch for Sgt. Crowley that they've never seen one instance of him exhibiting racism. The tapes from the scene appear to confirm no wrong-doing on the part of the cops, other than their arrest of Gates for disorderly conduct, might have been a bit legally flimsy. In the end, it appears the only ones that wanted to make this about race were Gates himself, the media, and to a lesser extent, the President.
Thankfully, the President has since retracted some of his comments and is working to try heal the wounds this arrest has caused throughout the country. "Beer Diplomacy", if effective at resolving things with Gates and Crowley, should perhaps be expanded to other conflicts around the globe. Perhaps that's all the Castro brothers need to finally let go of the Bay of Pigs debacle? But I digress...
The Gates case is another reminder that one should not respond until he or she has all the facts. It's also a reminder that for all the times law enforcement get things right, that in spite of countless people's lives they save on a daily basis, it is only their perceived failings that will ever make national news.

Prescription for failure

While there are so many notable events going on in the world today that are worthy of discussing in my opening blog posting (new protests in Iran, Bin Laden's son killed in Pakistan...Hillary being called "a primary schoolgirl", "not intelligent" and "sometimes a pensioner going shopping" by North Korea's Foreign Ministry) I feel obligated to say a few words about a topic that frankly, bores me to tears; health care. It appears that after rushing through a massive stimulus package, and a cap & trade bill (through the House) without anyone, including congress reading it, Obama has finally hit a wall with the unsexiest of domestic topics. It's not that it isn't an important issue. Everyone needs health insurance, but no one enjoys talking about it for hours on end (sorry for adding to the problem). What's more is that most people in this country have it, and think it serves them pretty well. They are right to be afraid of losing something good for something unknown. New polling shows that a majority of the country does not want the health care bill that is being proposed by both the President, and the Democratic leadership. A majority also thinks the President is trying to move to fast with getting it passed. The American public is willing to look past the passage of two game changing proposals by this President without knowing what was in them, but draw the line at their health. With good reason, I might add. The government, sans the military, does a pretty crummy job at every industry it attempts to oversee or run. If you would like a list, let me know. Otherwise, I think the record is fairly established on this one, and a full listing of failed government ventures might turn into a novela equally as boring as health care.
Let's see...the unsexy, the unknown, and big government; that's an unholy trinity, that virtually prevents congressional passage unless it's at least limited to two. Not much you can do about unsexy, and God knows it's been talked about enough already but the unknown still exists. So the only option is losing the big government part. So far, it seems the President would rather try his luck at a Fall 2009 vote, than go this route. I fear this is a prescription for failure.
I'm not quite sure why some Democrats and the President, want to reinvent the wheel, while some Republicans refuse to admit the wheel is a bit lopsided and simply needs to be fixed. How about we fix what doesn't work, and leave what does? How about we get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse and frivolous lawsuits from the current system first? The government should help the 47 million Americans that don't have insurance to get it. That makes sense. But how about letting them choose to get their care from an already established health insurance company? If the government creates it's own system that is a lower cost alternative, it will put the other companies out of business. At best, the quality of care will be drastically reduced. It's common sense. Employers will choose the cheapest plan for their employees. Citizens forced to pay for a portion of their own insurance will also choose the cheapest plan. The only ones left that will be able to afford the current system, will likely be the top 5%, and the current system and most insurance companies wouldn't survive at that rate. This would take us one huge step further towards the class system being created in this county, created, by the way, in the name of helping the poor and middle class. It isn't just Republicans sounding the alarm on this. This is a lot of moderate Democrats and Independents who are holding this bill up.
In summary, Obama is right to want to provide coverage for those who need it, but can't afford it. The Republicans are right to be wary of health care brought to you by the same geniuses that can't seem to ever deliver my mail to the right house. The two parties need to work together to preserve a fairly healthy system that is overdue for a good diet and much more exercise.