General: January 2008 Archives

Sens. Edward Kennedy and Barack Obama both included gays and lesbians in their speeches during the event yesterday where Kennedy endorsed Obama in his presidential bid.

“And it lives on in those Americans – young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American, gay and straight – who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was President of the United States of America,” said Obama.

The insertion of “gay and straight” was a departure from the script of Sen. Obama’s “prepared remarks” that were forwarded to news outlets ahead of the event by his campaign. (source)

I think it's cool that our community is at least on the radar screen. But I really think it's cool that mentioning our community was not originally planned in Obama's prepared remarks. To me, it shows an awareness that Obama is starting to think and connect to our community. Just my thoughts for what it's worth.

As far as the State of the Union speech last night is concerned, I had planned to watch the President give the speech, but it conflicted with the Sarah Connor Chronicles. And even though it was a re-run that I'd seen before, I felt that Sarah spoke more to the issues I have with our country than anything the President could offer up at this point. Sorry Prez.

Well.... before you throw mud on someone, you want to make sure that you don't have mud on yourself.

"...and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezco in a slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." That is what Hillary Clinton said to Barack Obama in the last debate. I was totally turned off. Is anyone else? Hey, if we want McCain to be our next President, this is a good start.

But I understand that this is just politics as usual. This is what we've come to. It's not as if our current President has set the bar very high. But, I'd like to think that the Democrats could at least be a bit better than this.

However, with a few quick keystrokes on the Internet, what do I turn up? You got it... a photo of Tony Rezco with Hillary and Bill Clinton. Hillary explains this away saying, "I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

An opinion piece put it this way, "Frankly, Clinton's line doesn't cut it. When you attack your opponent for his ties to a "slum landlord," it is always a good idea to make sure you didn't pose for grips-and-grins with, er, well, a "slum landlord. Obama's still got some explaining to do. But so does Clinton."

Perhaps Hillary should explain, but she won't. The damage to Obama has been done. She is off campaigning in New Jersey, and Obama is still dealing with defending his character, whether it's true or not. Hillary knew this. Bill knew this as well. So, when Hillary is not attacking Obama on stage in a debate, Bill Clinton is doing so in front of the camera. The result, Barack Obama is using his energy to defend himself against Bill Clintons accusations - true or not. He should ignore Bill Clinton and stay on target. The target is Hillary Clinton and what she is saying.

Sounds easy doesn't it? But it's not that simple. Bill Clinton is formidable because he's an ex-President, and, most importantly, when he talks, the cameras roll. But my question is this. This will probably work. Hillary will probably win the nomination because Baracks message will simply be lost. Now, I ask you, is this the kind of character that we want for President? Do you have to resort to any means necessary to obtain power, even if it means that you can't argue on the merits of what you can offer, so you have to resort to discrediting your opponent?

That sounds a lot like the kind of game that Dick Cheney runs. It doesn't make me want to vote for Barack. It doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary. It just makes me want to not even show up to vote! It disgusts me. If the best that Hillary can do is to throw crap like that at Barack Obama, I seriously have to wonder if she has any answers at all. I wish they would stop it and talk about ISSUES.

And as long as I'm talking about the "issues", the "issues" that I'm talking about are not the issues of the gay community. You will not hear any of our progressive candidates talk about gay marriage, marriage equality, hate crimes against our community... unless they are directly asked a question about it. And then, they try to skirt the issue with ambiguities that can later be explained by, "... well, that's not what I meant...". The only time a candidate has talked about us, was when Obama talked about how we had been excluded and hated by the religious community. He did not talk about equality for us.

So simply ask yourself when you pick one of these candidates, who will work for me when the become President? Who will really work to kill Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Who will really work for marriage equality in this country? Who will really work for hate crimes where are community is concerned?

I think the answer to all of those questions is, none of them. Don't expect it and you won't be disappointed. I'll try to vote for the one who will be best for our country (hey, any of them are better than what we've had the last eight years!), if I can bring myself to vote for one of them after the mud slinging settles down.

If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. - Barack Obama

I hear Barack Obama say things like this, and I want to believe that he's a different sort of politician. If I'm being totally selfish here (which I am), I'm trying to decide if he, Hillary, or Edwards would best serve the gay community. I think it's ok to be a bit selfish about this, even in war time. After all, I can't tell you how many of our troops I've tried to help by providing them with phone cards so they can call their families, care packages, and the like, while my country has repaid the gesture to my community by doing everything humanly possible to ensure that we are second class citizens. I think that gives me the right to be just a little selfish here. So, back to my selfishness.....

Barack claims that he's better for gays because, unlike Hillary, he will abolish the Defense of Marriage Act that President Clinton signed into law. That is the act that prevents gay couples joined in a marriage or civil union from obtaining any federal benefits associated with marriage. And this is no small deal. These are some of the benefits we are excluded from...

• Autopsy examination consent
• Burial rights of service member’s dependents
• Child custody in divorce proceedings
• Cohabitation on military and other controlled properties
• Community property control, division, acquisition, and disposition
• Exemption from conveyance tax
• Court notice of probate proceedings
• Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Joint adoption and foster care
• Joint tax filing
• Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
• Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
• Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
• Legal status with stepchildren
• Making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
• Making spousal medical decisions
• Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
• Payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
• Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation
• Right of survivorship of custodial trust
• Right to change surname upon marriage
• Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
• Right to inheritance of property
• Right to sue for tort and wrongful death
• Right to child support after divorce
• Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications
• Spousal immigration benefits
• Spouse of veteran medical care discount
• Status as next-of-kin
• Visitation privileges to imprisoned spouse
• Visitation privileges to spouse in hospital

You know, little things like that...

Hillary has vowed to only get rid of certain sections of it. Why? Could it be because her husband signed it into law, or does she really believe that we aren't equal? I don't know. I really don't know who will be best for my community. Both Hillary and Barack have said and done some bizarre things where our community is concerned. For Hillary, it's the half-hearted attempt of getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. Maybe I just never got over Bill Clinton. I remember when he went into office, he vowed to allow gay soldiers to serve in the military without being discharged. So after weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill, he finally caved in with letting gay soldiers serve, as long as they didn't tell. Thus spawned Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all know how well that's worked out. The point is, will history repeat itself with another Clinton in the White House? Is Hillary just giving us lip service like Bill did? Is she really sincere about ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and getting rid of DOMA?

Then on Barack's side, there's the gospel singer fiasco, along with other company that he keeps. It leaves one wondering.

I guess the question is, how much of their rhetoric should we believe, or can any of it be seen as sincere? They are both just politicians.

I was driving to work this morning, and listening to my XM Radio as usual. Sometimes I listen to the news, for what it's worth. I say that because anymore, the news isn't really news. For example, it doesn't really matter what is happening in the news if the breaking news is that Paris Hilton had a big party where she once again got drunk and made an ass of herself. Or, if someone once again accuses Tom Cruise of maybe kinda sorta... being gay.

I've driven home where when every news channel I selected consisted of stories just like that. I doubt that the families of soldiers who's son died that day would agree that Paris Hilton was more important than the 30 soldiers killed in Iraq that day. Yet, that's not covered. When this started happening, I knew that we had lost the news. Unfortunate, because without real news, the only real way for people to mass communicate are through blogs. Are they factual? Well, by today's standards, they are as factual as any of the news sources out there.

But once in awhile, they actually do cover something worthwhile. This morning, they were talking about the debates, and the two parties. A summary....

Last night on my drive home: all about how the Nevada Supreme Court was about to rule on whether MSNBC can exclude Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich from a candidate debate. It was later ruled that MSNBC can indeed exclude Kucinich from the debate and that "blocking the debate would be an unconstitutional restraint on the news network's First Amendment rights." Totally lame. He should be able to participate. Isn't that what free speech is all about?

This morning while I was driving to work, I decided to start my day off by listening to people who actually care for other people (Air America Radio) instead of those who only want to focus on our differences (aka Romney and Huckabee... hell, and all the rest of the Republican platform). The people on Air America were delighted that Romney won in Michigan because they wanted either Romney or Huckabee to get the Republican nomination because there was just no way in hell that America would elect either one of them to be the President of the United States. That's their opinion.

Remember George W. Bush? We elected that moron TWICE!

We should not underestimate Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.

Mitt Romney became the governor of the most liberal state in this nation. He did that basically by slick talk. He knows what to say and when to say it. And that is why he won in Michigan. There is only one thing that people dislike more than the idea of a Mormon being President, and that is the thought that the jobs in their state will be sent overseas, which Romney vows not to let happen. Let's forget for a minute all the jobs he has axed in the past in his business dealings.

Mike Huckabee likewise is a smooth talker. He scares the hell out of me because I know that if he becomes President, we aren't even talking about a blurring of the line that separates church and state. Under Bush, this line was severely blurred with his so-called "faith-based initiatives." Under Huckabee, I'm certain that church doctrine will become law in one fashion or another. And under him, just imagine the new Supreme Court nominees (he's already stated that Justice Scalia is a "hero" of his). In Huckabee's America, there's not much room for those of us who are different. It's scary. But what scares me more is the fact that when Mike Huckabee talks, he comes off as a very warm, congenial, concerned, caring person.

They should not be laughed at or underestimated. They both have a shot at being President. The battle is not over until the votes are counted (Florida excluded, of course).

We are once again going to Arizona in March to see the folks, and to see some new country. This year, we fly into Phoenix, then drive to the Grand Canyon. We were there in 2005, but I've been wanting to go back since I bought my Nikon D200, and because I think my technique has improved a great deal since then.

After a couple of days there, we head off to Kayenta, Arizona, where we will spend a couple of days touring Monument Valley. We've never been there before, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

Then we are off to Sedona, Arizona for a few days to visit with the folks. We were there also in 2005, but we only passed through, with just enough time to take a not-so-close look at the canyon in Sedona (Oak Creek Canyon), which is quite beautiful. It may be a bit different now though, because in 2006 the region was burned by wildfires. We'll see. Either way, it will be interesting to visit again.

It seems like we've gotten nothing done today, but in reality, we booked all the hotels, car rental, and plane flights for the trip. The only thing left is the confirmation back from our pet sitter saying she is available for those dates.

Snow expected tomorrow morning promising a sloppy commute to work. Can't wait!

This morning we talked about the possibility of Huckabee winning. I don't think he has a chance, but then again, I don't put much faith anymore in the wisdom of the American People. If you listen to Huckabee... getting rid of the IRS, all those good old religious family values (which really amounts to political gay bashing)... he will appeal to a great many people. And let's not forget that we haven't even heard from the southern states yet. He may pick up a lot of momentum there. Anyway, at breakfast this morning, we were talking about what it would be like to have Huckabee as President. And all we could think of was... moving to Canada. This is the guy who in 1992 wanted to quarantine people with AIDS. You can read more about it at Pam's House Blend, but it's pretty scary stuff.

I think this next presidential election is probably the most important one I've witnessed in my lifetime.

Army Sgt. Darren Manzella figured that stating he was gay on national television would surely get him booted from the military under the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

But Manzella has heard nothing in the three weeks since he told CBS' 60 Minutes that his fellow soldiers knew he was gay and the program aired a home video that showed him kissing a former boyfriend.

"I thought I would at least be asked about the segment or approached and told I shouldn't speak to the media again," says Manzella, 30, a medic who recently returned from Kuwait and plans to hold a news conference today in Washington to discuss the military's silence.

He says he is among a growing number of servicemembers who have told other troops and even commanders they are gay and have not been discharged. (source)

I remember seeing this episode before Christmas. Sgt. Manzella was very brave and honest about being out in the military. In fact, when he showed the tapes that he turned over to the military with him and his boyfriend kissing (I thought Leslie Stahl was going to... well, stall -- her only comment was "OH MY!!!"), I was sure that it would be the end of his military career. Or, I thought that some homophobic soldier would have an "accident" and accidentally shoot him. Guess what, nothing happened. It's astonishing. Or maybe, the military has become more evolved than we think. Or maybe (the cynical in me) the military has decided to leave the issue be while we are in desperate need of the gifts that soldiers like Sgt. Manzella brings to the military.

That's fine, but that's not good enough. It's not good enough because it does a disservice to soldiers like Manzella who are being asked to risk their lives for our country, and continue to have this cloud over their heads that could, at any minute, end their careers.

Wow! I don't know where to start.

The end of 2007 and the start of 2008 are a bit of a blur for me because so much has happened is such a short period of time. For me, this year has been a very personal one. A few of the highlights...

June, 2007
I had a wonderful vacation to Seattle, and Olympic National Park, in Washington State (view photo sets). It was a two week vacation. We had a wonderful time. But right after I got back to work, at 8:00 Monday morning, one of my employees resigned. I don't have to tell you that after three days of the stress that caused, all the unwinding that my vacation provided me was gone.

It was tough for me because he had worked for me for 12 years. We worked well together and I really hated to see him go. We had a close working relationship, and he is a good friend of mine. But the opportunity was a good one for him and I didn't want to hold him back. Three days later, my second employee resigned. He had been free lancing for another firm. I knew about it and it was ok with me. It was just the timing that sucked. The first employee of my department left, followed three days later by the resignation of my second employee (we are a three person department). He said it was just the timing and the way things worked out. Still, had my first employee stayed, I don't believe he would have left at that time. Do I think he bailed on me? Yeah, I guess I do. The timing was just too precise. And I feel betrayed a bit about it. But, one thing I've learned is that you don't hold on to issues you have no control over. You have a choice in life on how much you will let any one issue bother you. I no longer get that bothered by issues that are outside my personal family, and my circle of friends.

So, I hired a new staff, and went through a very rigorous training regimen for them. It has taken time, patience, and endurance on my part. But we are 99.9% there now. The hard stuff is behind us and the team is working well together now. The challenge for me has been to let go of what I once knew -- the two guys that used to work for me that I cared a great deal for, and to embrace my new team. Recently, I realize that I've done that.

December, 2007
I'm not what you would call a social butterfly. I hate parties and social events. The problem is, I'm extremely shy when it comes to talking with people in party situations. It's a bit strange. I'm fine when I invite people over to our home to dine and entertain them. I'm fine talking to people at work or in meetings about work related issues. But at parties, I'm shy. But I really had to go to the "holiday party" this year at our company. I was asked to be the "official photographer" at this function (a title that will probably be mine from now on since they seem to think my photos are the best), and, I received my "20 year service award". So, I really couldn't blow the event off.

I actually had a great time. But I have to tell you, being called up to accept my 20 year service award was a sobering experience for me. Twenty years at one place. In brings up all kinds of questions for me. Did I stay too long? Can I do nothing else? Am I a loser for not doing more? The fact is, I'm comfortable where I'm at and I have an incredible amount of flexibility in my job. I can work anywhere (at home or at work), although I usually do drive in to work.

My Birthday
My birthday is on December 31st. Each year, I'm reminded just how many loving friends I have. I am a very lucky man! My mailbox is filled with birthday greetings and phone calls. On the 29th of December, we traveled to New Hampshire. This was a new experience, and it was perfect. We came back home on the first of January.

To end all of this, we went to the Flood Tide Restaurant last night at the Inn at Mystic. I love that place. We got a nice table overlooking the harbor. And speaking of special friends who make life even more special, I want thank two really great friends from Idaho for the gift certificate from the Flood Tide. It was truly a very thoughtful and special gift. Thank you Mary and Ernie!

I have so many things to be thankful for. I'm not sure where we are heading as a country. And being part of a still unpopular minority that seems to be the target of some politicians running for President doesn't give me a great feeling. But my personal life -- my home, friends, family -- are very much in tact. For that, I'm a lucky man.

Looking Forward
I look forward to 2008! And hopefully, we will elect a President who will unite us as a people instead of using some groups in this country as political footballs. We have more in common than we have in differences. My wish for 2008 is that when the American People go to the voting booth to determine the course this country will take, they will keep that in mind and turn their backs on those who would use their position to demonize those who don't fit into their picture of what this country should be, and those who would continue to erode our personal freedoms guaranteed by The Constitution. It would also be refreshing to have a President who is just as concerned for our citizens as he is in fighting the battles of other people in the world. Things like the housing crisis, hunger, poverty, heating fuel and gasoline rates, the environment, health care, equality in the legal system for ALL citizens, and education.

I know the President is concerned about education. He himself posed the question, "Is our children learning?" That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Oh, and Happy New Year! And did I mention, I'm a lucky man?