I will try to not have a heart attack this week

With the good comes the bad.

Last week was the Democratic National Convention. So now this week will be the Republican National Convention.

And I may not watch it.

While I firmly believe in looking at two sides of an issue, even if my mind is made up, my heart just won't be able to take it.

I tried really hard yesterday to watch Fox News as their pundits pontificated about the effect of Hurricane Gustav on the convention. I was doing well until one of them, Fred Barnes, remarked that the relief effort of Hurricane Gustav wipes away the ill feelings of the inaction during Hurricane Katrina.

After ten minutes of mental profanities and two minutes of feeling slightly guilty for wishing that I could jump through the television and bury my foot in Barnes's ass, I came to the conclusion that maybe just this once, I don't have to look at both sides of an issue.

I'm an Obamaniac and I'm proud of it. And I am not voting for him solely because of his color. I am voting for him because he is a Democrat. The fact that he is an African-American is simply icing on the cake.

But you know what? What if I was going to vote for him solely because of his ethnicity? In this political climate, just what is wrong with that?

After all, John McCain choose Sarah Palin as vice president simply because she is a woman and evangelicals are excited about her because she claims she is also one.

But who is going to point the finger at that?

And speaking of choices and heart attacks, I see the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed McCain.

While I understand the need for them to be autonomous, I also have to say that they aren't that smart.

The Log Cabin Republicans cited several reasons why they support McCain, but I want to talk about one:

An endorsement will give Log Cabin better access to a McCain administration.

Yeah right. How much access do you think they will get when James Dobson starts threatening to pull supporters away from McCain unless he stops "legitimizing the homosexual agenda?"

How much access do you think they will get once Donald Wildmon gets his followers to send letters to the White House demanding that McCain not meet with them.

Unfortunately the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of McCain glosses over an ugly but true fact regarding Republican politics. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate sooner or later have had to pander to the religious right and the anti-gay industry.

And McCain is no different (hence the pick of Palin). When and if the time comes that McCain has to choose between Log Cabin Republicans and the religious right, just what can they do?

They don't have any real power in the Republican party. If they do, would someone please write me and tell me just what it is.

Beware the potential Zogby spin - it may not be accurate

My prayers go out to those who are affected by Hurricane Gustav. And I think that McCain made a good decision to make changes to the Republican National Convention.

But I echo Obama's sentiments - hopefully those in charge will do better than they did during Hurricane Katrina.

I read something today that is interesting and I want to bring it to everyone's attention before the "spin doctors" try to manipulate it:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%.

That's the Zogby poll. But the National Gallup poll has Obama ahead by eight points. It also says that Sarah Palin is an unknown quantity.

But how much do you want to bet that the Zogby poll will be repeated ad naseum by McCain's people, Fox News, One News Now, Town Hall, and every conservative blog and talking head who wishes to score quick points for the Republicans.

Already there is an effort underway to spin the Zogby poll. This is what the conservative writers from Newsmax said:

It is incredible, but the designation of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate seems to have totally obliterated Barack Obama's bounce from his convention and after his magnificent speech. Zogby actually has McCain two ahead and Rasmussen's Friday only data shows Obama only three up!

First of all, the use of the Rasmussen poll by Newsmax is a clever distortion.

According to the Rasmussen poll, before the convention, Obama and McCain have been pretty much even with Obama leading slightly.

During and after the convention, the poll shows Obama moving up by three to four points at the most. The Rasmussen poll never showed a "bounce."

So for Newsmax to use the Ramussen poll to claim that Obama enjoyed a big bounce from the convention and that McCain destroyed said bounce by his pick of Palin is highly farfetched.

Which brings me back to the Zogby poll. Anyone who tries to use the Zogby poll to make the case that Palin destroyed Obama's convention bounce is clearly not reading the entire article. Please bear in mind the words in the first sentence of the article's lead:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

What the Zogby poll is actually saying is that McCain's choice of a vice president has added more interest to the race by energizing his base. Before his pick of Palin, many were so-so about his candidacy. Now that he has picked his running mate, interest in him from his base has picked up.

In other words, as the second paragraph of the article clearly says, both candidates have solidified support in their own bases.

This election is not predictable. No one could have ever predicted that Obama would defeat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and no one could have predicted that McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

And I am sure that before it's all over, more unpredictable things will happen.

But hopefully the most unpredictable occurrence will be the pundits and journalists doing their jobs and not giving us half the story . . . for a change.

I await in anticipation to be surprised.

Good choice? Bad choice?

Awesome speech by Obama. That's all I can say.

And I noticed that McCain is trying to blunt the effect of the speech by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin.

Palin, Governor of Alaska, is not known to many people. Naturally the internet is abuzz with google searches, yahoo searches, and every other search.

She is pro-life and not necessarily pro-gay. Of course members of the anti-gay industry are lining up to praise McCain's choice.

Palin has also been called blunt, not necessarily a positive characteristic for someone who is allegedly not necessarily gay-friendly. This means she has the potential to say something ridiculous about the lgbt community while at the same time claiming that she is not homophobic.

So did McCain pick a younger, cuter version of Sally Kern?

Who knows. Maybe I am making too much of the situation.

But from what I do know, McCain picked a first term governor with no national experience and who is currently under an ethics violation (allegedly for using her office in a vendetta against her former brother-in-law) to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Well there goes that argument against Obama regarding lack of experience. At any other time, this would be considered a crappy choice. Hell, if Obama had made a choice like that he would be rode out of town on a rail.

You do have to give McCain points for effort though. By going for the odd choice, he has attracted some attention.

But attention, as does mystery, fades in time.

The question is what will the voters see when that happens.

Radom thoughts and significant ramblings

The Democratic Convention is almost over. Meanwhile John McCain will soon name his vice presidential candidate and the Republicans are going to start their convention.

I feel as if I am watching the coming attractions in a movie theatre.

Folks, its about to get ugly.

Last night, I googled the latest lie about Obama (the one about William Ayers and the Weathermen) and it got me thinking.

Why is it so hard for some Republicans to campaign on the issues? Why can't they just say "we feel so and so won't do a better job than our candidate."

But no. In a huge show of self involvement that would land many of us on a psychiatrist's couch, Republicans and their cohorts (especially the anti-gay industry) make every election a pitched battle between good and evil with them wearing the wings and the halo:

We can elect Michael Dukakis because he is a card carrying member of the ACLU who opposes children saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

We can't elect Bill Clinton because he is a draft dodger who protested against his country on foreign soil.

We can't elect Al Gore because he is a congenital liar who says he created the Internet.

We can't elect John Kerry because he didn't deserve the medals he got in Vietnam.

It's a broken record that no one seems to have the sense to throw away. And that's because its somewhat effective.

Dirty political tactics are like pornography. Americans claim to be disgusted by it, but at the same time, it draws their interest.

And this time, there is a serious overload of rumors, conjecture and intentional whispering campaigns. Forget how nasty it was with Bill Clinton. Republicans, conservatives, and the rest of the so-called moral folks have gone into hyperdrive about Obama, accusing him of every of bad behavior except for shooting J.R. Ewing and "squeezing the Charmin."

By themselves, the claims are bizarre. But if you grouped them together, they take the semblance of one of those ridiculous Left Behind books combined with an episode of Twin Peaks:

Obama has deep ties with Jerome Wright, a "nutty" preacher.

Obama is a rock star.

Obama’s birth certificate is fake .

Obama has deep ties with “terrorist” William Ayers.

Obama had sex and did drugs in a limo with a white guy.

Obama is the anti-Christ.

Obama is secretly Muslim.

Obama’s mother was Communist.

Obama received “training” in a Muslim school while a youngster.

Obama did drugs while in the Senate.

Obama is for infantcide.

Obama is uppity.

Obama is like Paris Hilton.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel or tie.

Obama was sworn into office on the Koran.

Years from now, people will look back at this election and scratch their heads. They are going to ask the question that I have been asking for a number of months:

What's wrong with these people.

Gay adoption, Hilary and other Wednesday musings

I got a message from a member of Arkansas Family First, the group working against the ballot measure I talked about yesterday:

This is Laura from Arkansas Families First.

Please visit our website, http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/, to join us in the fight to defeat this amendment!

I echo that sentiment for a number of reasons. Not only is the proposed law a piece of symbolic claptrap that will actually hurt children, but if it passes, we can count on seeing similar ballot initiatives in other states.

On other issues, give it up to Hilary. She turned it out last night.

Last night, I flipped between PBS and Fox News while the pundits and reporters on both channels were analyzing the speech.

What was funny about the entire thing was the pundits on Fox News attempting to find things wrong with Hilary's speech.

She only did it her herself. She didn't help Obama. I could hear her saying asshole under her breath everytime she said Obama's name. That wasn't Hilary on the podium because the Democrats kidnapped her. It was a Stepford Wife like that movie.

Then this morning, I happened to catch Joe Scarborough and his panel (with only one black man onboard) try and deconstruct Hilary's speech.

The ironic thing about that was Pat Buchanan's participation on the panel. Buchanan has said some ugly things regarding Obama and black people in general; something to the tune of black people were lucky to come to America as slaves because they were exposed to Christianity, blah, blah, blah.

And it made me realize that Pat Buchanan is a living, breathing symbol of the hypocrisy of racism on America's underbelly.

I mean if he was a black man and had said half the things about white people than he (as a white man) has said about black people, he wouldn't be considered as a venerable newsperson.

He would be a part of those code words Fox News uses when they want to scare white people about the motives of black people.

You know the code words - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan.

Finally, some of you may have noticed that the countdown clock that usually sits on the right of this blog is gone. I removed it yesterday.

The countdown clock was showing how many days had passed since anti-gay doyenne Peter LaBarbera had seen my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) and not responded to the charges lodged in it.

It was not (as a certain individual put it) a plea by me to get LaBarbera to review my book. It was put there to demonstrate LaBarbera's hypocrisy.

He can go from one subcultural event to another and demonize the lgbt community from the depravity he sees there but will not address the fact that he and folks on his side have engaged in unfair and unscrupulous tatics to lie on the lgbt community.

Well as seen in my blog two Saturdays ago, Peter finally addressed those charges.

Granted, it took me pulling it out of him via a series of emails, but he did address my charges.

We're not perfect, he said.

Well duuuuh.

Arkansas makes a possible boo boo

Wasn't Michelle Obama awesome last night? Personally I think she nailed her speech. And her two little girls were just adorable.

How can anyone vote against that family?

But seriously, in all of the hoopla about a presidential election, we sometimes forget state votes that could have a negative impact on our lives.

It happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. During that same time, Colorado passed a mindbogglingly bad law that prevented the state from passing any laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.

It was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1996. If this law had not been overturned, the effects on our fight for rights and self-determination would have been disastrous. Laws like it would have popped up virtually all over the country.

And I don't think I have to rehash the anti-gay marriage laws that passed in 2004. To this day, some people still say that they were the key to the re-election of Bush.

So now in 2008 comes the following, courtesy of Arkansas:

A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.

The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry or recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.

"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."

This proposed law is pernicious on so many levels. It illustrates how the anti-gay industry is willing to distort while at the same time trumpet how they stand for morals.

The part about unmarried couples is a dodge because the Arkansas court recently said that a ban on gay adoption is unlawful. So the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee can't come out and say to keep lgbts from adopting is the purpose of the law, but everyone knows that is the case.

Apparently ducking and dodging is now a Christian value.

Of course lgbt couples can get around this law if it is passed by using surrogates or sperm donations.

And it is here where we see just who the law will hurt.

For all of the bluster about it, this proposed law does not guarantee that foster children will end up in two-parent heterosexual households. It neither encourages nor mandates that two-parent heterosexual households take foster children in.

Jerry Cox and those like him all over the country are constantly saying that "children have a right to a mother and father." Well this is all well and good but this law does not guarantee them that right.

In fact, it does just the opposite.

It eliminate choices based on outdated concepts of family. It is also based on an inaccurate assumption that unmarried couples (be they heterosexual or lgbt) are stealing foster children away from two-parent heterosexual households.

Based on the number of children in foster care nationwide, that's not happening.

This law is about symbolism, not actualities.

And it's a shame because a child can't get love from a symbol.

But the real shame is that in their attempts to get at the lgbt community, the anti-gay industry in Arkansas aimed wrong and kicked foster children squarely in the mouth.

All eyes on Denver

This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.

You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.

And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.

Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.

Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.

One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.

How the pedulum turns.

Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.

This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.

No rest for the wicked.