There is no smell quite as wonderful as the smell of a hardware store. It is a scent you will only find in a hardware store, and no Lowe's or Home Depot do not have this smell, as they arent really hardware stores As soon as you step foot inside, it hits you and for me, it brings me back.
There were really only two places I always wanted to go to with my Dad. The hardware store and the Millbrook Bread factory store. Both of these were for completely selfish reasons. At the Millbrook store, I could get a Peanuts coloring book, one of the most cherished prizes for a child in single digits. At the hardware store, it was my other most prized possession - a Tootsie Roll Pop of which the owner always kept a bag to give me and the other kids who tagged along with their fathers when they came to the store.
Everything about these trips was exciting for me. Riding in the car with my Dad in the old blue VW bus to the store in Lakeland, seeing the Winnebago parked in the driveway of the residence located behind the store, anticipating the sweet lollipop that would be mine at the end of the trip. While my dad would talk with the store owner, I would wander the aisles looking at Toro lawn mowers and Snapper trimmers, nails, drill bits, and power tools. During the 1979 World Series I even won an entire bag of Tootsie Pops from him betting on the Pirates to win it all. He was as happy handing over that bag as I was receiving it.
I had forgotten much of this from my childhood until the first time walking into the Shelby Hardware store several years ago. I had done most of my shopping for hardware and home repair items at Lowe's or the other big box stores for years, but on this one occasion I decided to go to the local hardware store to pick up an item and there it was - the smell. It took me back immediately to those cramped, dark aisles of the store in Lakeland and those trips with my Dad.
Since then, I have made it a habit to go to the local hardware store as often as I can. First it would be Shelby Hardware and now at my current house McSwain's True Value in Boiling Springs. The prices are a little bit more and you can't always find everything you need, but the service is superior and there is something you can't put a price on - the sense of community and the memories that you build when shopping at a local merchant.
Recently, a friend of mine organized a cash mob at a local merchant's store. The idea was to pick a deserving local merchant and have as many people show up at the same time and spend ten or twenty bucks to help boost their bottom line. The turnout was good and the impact was positive.
A colleague of mine couldn't attend the event, but donated $40 to it by dropping it off at my office. The mail in my office being what it is, I didn't receive it until after the event was over. I tried to return it, but my colleague told me to use it for the next one.
As things go, there hasn't been another one. The forty bucks was burning a hole in my desk drawer. So I decided to conduct an experiment with it. I would do my own cash mob by using the money only on locally owned businesses until the money was gone. I thought it wouldn't last long. I was wrong.
The money lasted almost a month. And during that month, I enjoyed fresh meats and vegetables from farmers markets, great meals at local restaurants, delicious coffee from local coffee houses, and other items from local businesses in and around my community. Not only did I enjoy wonderful things, but I met all sorts of new people, began relationships that will hopefully grow and last for years, and shared a little bit in their lives and they in mine.
I learned after planning this very article that this week is Shop Small Business week. I encourage everyone to start a new habit - spending whatever you can at a locally owned small business. Ten or twenty dollars a week may not seem like a lot, but if it is money you can reinvest in your local community rather than giving it to Starbucks or Wal Mart or Lowes, it is an investment that will go a long way toward saving jobs, families, and the very existence of your town.
Oh, and bring your kid along. You may just be planting memories that will bring a sudden smile decades from now.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Stop Giving Obama a Pass Already
In the aftermath of 9/11 when every politician on either side of the political aisle was drunkenly falling over themselves to see who could out macho the other and pass legislation even more outlandish and freedom restricting than the last, I had a conversation with a particularly conservative friend if mine. She stated, between sips of her extra fiery Bloody Mary, that she felt uncomfortable with some of the powers that were being given to the executive branch under the newly christened Patriot Act and wondered what my thoughts were. I agreed with her and told her that the best way for her to look at any grant of Presidential authority was to ask herself if she would be comfortable giving that power to Bill Clinton, and if she wasn't then it probably wasn't a good idea to give it to Bush, either.
That conversation seems particularly poignant to me now since I see those on the left repeatedly giving the Obama administration a pass as they grab more and more power for themselves at the expense of our freedom and the rule of law.
Just this week we saw the latest in an ongoing saga of stupid decisions on which the left continues to give Obama a pass. When the President invoked Executive Privilege in an attempt to avoid turning over subpoenaed Department of Justice documents my head hit my desk for about the hundredth time. But sure enough there was Democrat after Democrat lining up on this, that, and the other network news show to defend the President's misguided decision. And apparently none of them saw the irony.
Add this to the continued and expanded powers of indefinite detention which now apply to US citizens on US soil, the expanded drone program, the redefining of enemy combatant to include any male of fighting age who happens to be in the area of a drone strike in order to reduce reports of civilian casualties, a program of assassination of not only foreign enemies but US citizens the President himself deems worthy of being killed, and on, and on, and on, you start getting the idea that those on the left are simply willing to let the President do anything as long as he or she is someone for whom they voted.
Take the invoking of Executive Privilege for instance. I would have hoped for at least one elected person in the Democratic Party to have stood up and criticized the President for choosing very tenuous exercise of an extraordinary legal privilege in order to stymie a Congressional investigation into a legitimate subject of Congressional inquiry. The same elected officials who came to this President's defense were decrying GWB's use of this privilege in blocking the investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, even though Bush's decision, while still improper, was a more legitimate exercise of Executive Privilege than Obama's.
The more we allow this President to expand on the power grabs given to the previous administration without criticism, the more we are ceding our rights to an ever more powerful executive at the cost of our own freedom, and the more we lose any credibility we have to criticize any expansion of governmental power by this or any future administration.
I have no problem with anyone who likes Obama or wants to vote for him because of the many good policies he has implemented. But just because you like his stand on health care, or gay rights, or immigration, doesn't mean you have to sit idly by while he sets fire to Constitution on everything else.
This is why I have such great admiration for people like reporter and author Chris Hedges or Icelandic Parliamentarian Brigitta Jonsdöttir who are two of the Plaintiffs in the groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the Obama administration on the indefinite detention powers granted under NDAA. By refusing to stay silent on a matter of such incredible importance to our basic liberties as Americans, they were able to expose the utter baselessness of the government's justifications for such expanded powers. They won a preliminary injunction against the government using indefinite detention under the NDAA.
The list of actions that I set forth above would have liberals taking to the streets in droves had the Bush administration even thought of implementing them. So, I ask to my liberal brethren the same thing I asked to my conservative friend ten years ago, would you feel comfortable granting these powers to Bush? If the answer is no, as I am sure if you are honest it is, then stand up and offer the same criticism to Obama.
If you won't, then you have already lost.
That conversation seems particularly poignant to me now since I see those on the left repeatedly giving the Obama administration a pass as they grab more and more power for themselves at the expense of our freedom and the rule of law.
Just this week we saw the latest in an ongoing saga of stupid decisions on which the left continues to give Obama a pass. When the President invoked Executive Privilege in an attempt to avoid turning over subpoenaed Department of Justice documents my head hit my desk for about the hundredth time. But sure enough there was Democrat after Democrat lining up on this, that, and the other network news show to defend the President's misguided decision. And apparently none of them saw the irony.
Add this to the continued and expanded powers of indefinite detention which now apply to US citizens on US soil, the expanded drone program, the redefining of enemy combatant to include any male of fighting age who happens to be in the area of a drone strike in order to reduce reports of civilian casualties, a program of assassination of not only foreign enemies but US citizens the President himself deems worthy of being killed, and on, and on, and on, you start getting the idea that those on the left are simply willing to let the President do anything as long as he or she is someone for whom they voted.
Take the invoking of Executive Privilege for instance. I would have hoped for at least one elected person in the Democratic Party to have stood up and criticized the President for choosing very tenuous exercise of an extraordinary legal privilege in order to stymie a Congressional investigation into a legitimate subject of Congressional inquiry. The same elected officials who came to this President's defense were decrying GWB's use of this privilege in blocking the investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, even though Bush's decision, while still improper, was a more legitimate exercise of Executive Privilege than Obama's.
The more we allow this President to expand on the power grabs given to the previous administration without criticism, the more we are ceding our rights to an ever more powerful executive at the cost of our own freedom, and the more we lose any credibility we have to criticize any expansion of governmental power by this or any future administration.
I have no problem with anyone who likes Obama or wants to vote for him because of the many good policies he has implemented. But just because you like his stand on health care, or gay rights, or immigration, doesn't mean you have to sit idly by while he sets fire to Constitution on everything else.
This is why I have such great admiration for people like reporter and author Chris Hedges or Icelandic Parliamentarian Brigitta Jonsdöttir who are two of the Plaintiffs in the groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the Obama administration on the indefinite detention powers granted under NDAA. By refusing to stay silent on a matter of such incredible importance to our basic liberties as Americans, they were able to expose the utter baselessness of the government's justifications for such expanded powers. They won a preliminary injunction against the government using indefinite detention under the NDAA.
The list of actions that I set forth above would have liberals taking to the streets in droves had the Bush administration even thought of implementing them. So, I ask to my liberal brethren the same thing I asked to my conservative friend ten years ago, would you feel comfortable granting these powers to Bush? If the answer is no, as I am sure if you are honest it is, then stand up and offer the same criticism to Obama.
If you won't, then you have already lost.
Friday, June 15, 2012
The Vagina Demogogues
If you haven't been following the news, Michigan is in the midst of a right wing legislative man-gasm. They have passed a series of laws, many of which immediately became law illegally (thanks Rachel Maddow for being the only person to realize this), which have taken power away from voters as well as infringing on citizens rights, especially if those citizens happened to be women.
The most recent in these series of laws would outlaw all abortions past 20 weeks without any exception. You were raped? Sorry. Your baby has a severe birth defect which renders it incapable of surviving outside the womb? Tough. You may die if your pregnancy continues to term? Well, that's just a chance you're going to half to take, because the men of the Michigan legislature say so.
Needless to say there were a few members of the fairer (and saner) sex that also happened to be members of the legislature who were more than a little upset about this legislation. One of these, Barbara Byrum proposed an amendment which would apply a requirement that men prove to a doctor that the procedure was necessary to save the man's life in order to have a vasectomy performed. A vote was taken denying the amendment without any debate. When Rep. Byrum attempted to address the amendment and speak, she was ruled out of order. I guess turn about is fair play everywhere but the Michigan legislature.
Later, Rep. Lisa Brown gave an impassioned speech about the law on the chamber floor. In part of the speech, in response to those members who had argued that this was a matter of religious liberty for them as devout Christians, that she was Jewish and that her faith dictates that when there was a conflict between the health of the fetus and the health of mother, the health of the mother wins, and that the abortion would not be recommended, but would be required. She further stated that since she was not forcing her religious beliefs on the Christian members, why were they forcing their beliefs on her. She ended her speech by saying "I'm flattered you're all so interested in my vagina. But no means no."
The next day both Brown and Byrum were informed that they would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the legislature because they "failed to maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives." Huh?
Apparently the dispositions of the male members of the Michigan House of Representatives are so sensitive that they simply can't be subjected to words like vagina or attempts by women to actually speak on their amendments to a bill that actually affects their health and lives.
It was pointed out by Brown that her male counterparts had actually engaged in fisticuffs on the House floor recently and had suffered no such similar action.
Has "vagina" somehow become verboten? Should Representative Brown said hoo-ha? Or coochie? Or blossoming flower? Or are the bastions of male dominated Michigan law dudes so sensitive that they would prefer "private part" or "area" or better yet "down there?"
Perhaps they are threatened by powerful women who aren't afraid to use medically correct anatomical terminology when talking about their feminine parts. I did notice that each of the women was loudly gaveled down by the presiding male of the chamber and that gavel he was hammering was awfully big. Maybe there are some shortcomings amongst the male members of the male members of the House.
What else would explain such action for saying "vagina?" I guess not only are the men of the Michigan House of Representatives operating on a third-grade level of intelligence, but also a third-grade level of maturity. I guess next we are going to ban women from serving in the legislature altogether because, as we all know, girls have cooties.
What it all really comes down to is that the men running the Michigan legislature simply can't handle women who speak loudly, proudly, and angrily in defense of their rights, especially when those rights are under constant assault by those same men. The Michigan men would prefer that their women be demure and compliant, laying back and accepting the daily volleys lobbed against them.
However, I have one last thing to say to those that are trying to silence Michigan women figuratively through their laws and literally through their punishments against female members of the House. If you can't talk about vaginas on the House floor, should you really be passing laws that affect them so much?
The most recent in these series of laws would outlaw all abortions past 20 weeks without any exception. You were raped? Sorry. Your baby has a severe birth defect which renders it incapable of surviving outside the womb? Tough. You may die if your pregnancy continues to term? Well, that's just a chance you're going to half to take, because the men of the Michigan legislature say so.
Needless to say there were a few members of the fairer (and saner) sex that also happened to be members of the legislature who were more than a little upset about this legislation. One of these, Barbara Byrum proposed an amendment which would apply a requirement that men prove to a doctor that the procedure was necessary to save the man's life in order to have a vasectomy performed. A vote was taken denying the amendment without any debate. When Rep. Byrum attempted to address the amendment and speak, she was ruled out of order. I guess turn about is fair play everywhere but the Michigan legislature.
Later, Rep. Lisa Brown gave an impassioned speech about the law on the chamber floor. In part of the speech, in response to those members who had argued that this was a matter of religious liberty for them as devout Christians, that she was Jewish and that her faith dictates that when there was a conflict between the health of the fetus and the health of mother, the health of the mother wins, and that the abortion would not be recommended, but would be required. She further stated that since she was not forcing her religious beliefs on the Christian members, why were they forcing their beliefs on her. She ended her speech by saying "I'm flattered you're all so interested in my vagina. But no means no."
The next day both Brown and Byrum were informed that they would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the legislature because they "failed to maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives." Huh?
Apparently the dispositions of the male members of the Michigan House of Representatives are so sensitive that they simply can't be subjected to words like vagina or attempts by women to actually speak on their amendments to a bill that actually affects their health and lives.
It was pointed out by Brown that her male counterparts had actually engaged in fisticuffs on the House floor recently and had suffered no such similar action.
Has "vagina" somehow become verboten? Should Representative Brown said hoo-ha? Or coochie? Or blossoming flower? Or are the bastions of male dominated Michigan law dudes so sensitive that they would prefer "private part" or "area" or better yet "down there?"
Perhaps they are threatened by powerful women who aren't afraid to use medically correct anatomical terminology when talking about their feminine parts. I did notice that each of the women was loudly gaveled down by the presiding male of the chamber and that gavel he was hammering was awfully big. Maybe there are some shortcomings amongst the male members of the male members of the House.
What else would explain such action for saying "vagina?" I guess not only are the men of the Michigan House of Representatives operating on a third-grade level of intelligence, but also a third-grade level of maturity. I guess next we are going to ban women from serving in the legislature altogether because, as we all know, girls have cooties.
What it all really comes down to is that the men running the Michigan legislature simply can't handle women who speak loudly, proudly, and angrily in defense of their rights, especially when those rights are under constant assault by those same men. The Michigan men would prefer that their women be demure and compliant, laying back and accepting the daily volleys lobbed against them.
However, I have one last thing to say to those that are trying to silence Michigan women figuratively through their laws and literally through their punishments against female members of the House. If you can't talk about vaginas on the House floor, should you really be passing laws that affect them so much?
Monday, June 4, 2012
Why the Democrats Will Lose in 2012
We heard it from three different voices. All of them acting as surrogates of the Obama campaign. They're message was as clear as it was disturbing. "Lay off Wall Street."
No sooner was Cory Booker walking back his now infamous "nauseating" comment about Bain Capital that two other Democratic titans were letting loose with the same criticisms of Obama 2012's milquetoast critique of their opponent's record of destroying American companies for profit. Deval Patrick, the current occupier of the only political office Mitt Romney ever held and none other than former president and current Wall Street stooge Bill Clinton joined in with their own version of the "Lay off private equity" argument.
Of course none of this should surprise us. The same wizards of finance who shipped off American jobs overseas, bankrupted our economy with complex and destructive derivatives, and are living off of the teat of the Federal Reserve's promise of free money in exchange for nothing are also currently footing the bill for the up and comers in the Democratic Party.
Without contributions from private equity, Booker would never have been able to break the machine of corrupt Newark politics which dispatched him with ease in his first election. Patrick would not be able to maintain his governorship in a state which has become more and more of a toss up. And of course Clinton would have nobody to pay his six figure speaking fees to appear at Wall Street conferences where he gets to rub elbows with financial high rollers (and in some cases, recently, porn stars).
And these Democrats know on which side their bread is buttered. In return for their handsome campaign treasuries paid for by private equity, not only do these donors get incredibly favorable treatment across the board in the form of beneficial laws and tax codes, they also buy themselves the luxury of being free from any criticism at all.
Obama is learning this the hard way. In 2008, the Obama campaign raised more money from Wall Street than any campaign in history. Their money paid off handsomely for the financial sector of our economy as the new administration bypassed any criminal penalties for the 2008 crash, passed what amounted to very weak reforms that were essentially useless in changing any of the behavior that led to the collapse, installed all of the architects of the financial bail out as his Treasury Department, re-appointed Ben Bernanke to keep the free money flowing, and even stated that the underhanded practices and scheming that led to our financial meltdown were legal. Not bad for a few hundred million dollars.
But all of that wasn't enough. Because Obama occasionally would break out his populist rhetoric from the campaign, referring to Wall Street as a casino or the CEO's reaping twenty million dollar bonuses financed by tax payer cash "fat cats" Wall Street has chosen not to fill Obama's coffers quite as much as they did four years ago. The message was clear: if you hurt out feelings, we will hurt your bottom line.
So, when the campaign rolled out long form documentary style ads on the Internet criticizing Mitt Romney's time at private equity firm Bain Capital, the surrogates had to be called out. And of course in cunning fashion, Wall Street's surrogates happened to be Obama's surrogates as well.
Let's take a minute to look at what Bain Capital, and their cohorts in private equity do, shall we? Private equity firms, also called derisively "vulture capitalists" target struggling companies, buy them out, load them with debt, more often than not then strip them of their value, selling off the remaining assets, thereby profiting off of the remaining carcass. The result is a boon to the private equity company and usually a modest profit from the company's shareholders. The other result, inevitably, is the loss of jobs for the company's workers.
This is the modern version of the corporate raiders like Ivan Boesky and Michael Millkin in the 1980's. The only difference is that Boesky and Millkin ended up serving long prison sentences after being prosecuted by the justice departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Now, the raiders get to potentially run their own justice department.
After seeing the fall out from 2008, the resulting recession/depression, the enormous crises in home foreclosures and unemployment and the still stagnant economy, attacking Romney's record in private equity should be a no brainier. But the Democrats are apparently still unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it.
Look, a growing number of people both across the country and across the globe are waking up to the fact that the financial sector and its growing influence on our politics, is the enemy of free and democratic process. This has been the spark that has led to uprisings across the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and in the US in the Occupy movement as well as the breathtaking protests in Madison against the anti-worker Scott Walker administration. People realizing that their livelihoods and futures are being sacrificed for some kind of corporate kleptocracy are refusing to lie down and accept it.
But the Democrats stubbornly refuse to believe in this movement, or for that matter refuse to show any real beliefs at all. By refusing to attack Mitt Romney on what is likely his most vulnerable issue, the Democrats will once again avoid what should be a reasonably easy win against a remarkably unlikable opponent. The same goes for the unwillingness if the DNC to aggressively campaign against Walker in his recall election in Wisconsin and the lukewarm support they are showing anti-Wall Street crusader Elizabeth Warren in her bid to unseat Scott Brown in the US Senate race in Massachusetts.
Of course by not fully representing their own true constituents, the Democrats deserve to lose, and by continuing to support front men for Wall Street running for office as Democrats, we all will end up with the government we deserve.
No sooner was Cory Booker walking back his now infamous "nauseating" comment about Bain Capital that two other Democratic titans were letting loose with the same criticisms of Obama 2012's milquetoast critique of their opponent's record of destroying American companies for profit. Deval Patrick, the current occupier of the only political office Mitt Romney ever held and none other than former president and current Wall Street stooge Bill Clinton joined in with their own version of the "Lay off private equity" argument.
Of course none of this should surprise us. The same wizards of finance who shipped off American jobs overseas, bankrupted our economy with complex and destructive derivatives, and are living off of the teat of the Federal Reserve's promise of free money in exchange for nothing are also currently footing the bill for the up and comers in the Democratic Party.
Without contributions from private equity, Booker would never have been able to break the machine of corrupt Newark politics which dispatched him with ease in his first election. Patrick would not be able to maintain his governorship in a state which has become more and more of a toss up. And of course Clinton would have nobody to pay his six figure speaking fees to appear at Wall Street conferences where he gets to rub elbows with financial high rollers (and in some cases, recently, porn stars).
And these Democrats know on which side their bread is buttered. In return for their handsome campaign treasuries paid for by private equity, not only do these donors get incredibly favorable treatment across the board in the form of beneficial laws and tax codes, they also buy themselves the luxury of being free from any criticism at all.
Obama is learning this the hard way. In 2008, the Obama campaign raised more money from Wall Street than any campaign in history. Their money paid off handsomely for the financial sector of our economy as the new administration bypassed any criminal penalties for the 2008 crash, passed what amounted to very weak reforms that were essentially useless in changing any of the behavior that led to the collapse, installed all of the architects of the financial bail out as his Treasury Department, re-appointed Ben Bernanke to keep the free money flowing, and even stated that the underhanded practices and scheming that led to our financial meltdown were legal. Not bad for a few hundred million dollars.
But all of that wasn't enough. Because Obama occasionally would break out his populist rhetoric from the campaign, referring to Wall Street as a casino or the CEO's reaping twenty million dollar bonuses financed by tax payer cash "fat cats" Wall Street has chosen not to fill Obama's coffers quite as much as they did four years ago. The message was clear: if you hurt out feelings, we will hurt your bottom line.
So, when the campaign rolled out long form documentary style ads on the Internet criticizing Mitt Romney's time at private equity firm Bain Capital, the surrogates had to be called out. And of course in cunning fashion, Wall Street's surrogates happened to be Obama's surrogates as well.
Let's take a minute to look at what Bain Capital, and their cohorts in private equity do, shall we? Private equity firms, also called derisively "vulture capitalists" target struggling companies, buy them out, load them with debt, more often than not then strip them of their value, selling off the remaining assets, thereby profiting off of the remaining carcass. The result is a boon to the private equity company and usually a modest profit from the company's shareholders. The other result, inevitably, is the loss of jobs for the company's workers.
This is the modern version of the corporate raiders like Ivan Boesky and Michael Millkin in the 1980's. The only difference is that Boesky and Millkin ended up serving long prison sentences after being prosecuted by the justice departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Now, the raiders get to potentially run their own justice department.
After seeing the fall out from 2008, the resulting recession/depression, the enormous crises in home foreclosures and unemployment and the still stagnant economy, attacking Romney's record in private equity should be a no brainier. But the Democrats are apparently still unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it.
Look, a growing number of people both across the country and across the globe are waking up to the fact that the financial sector and its growing influence on our politics, is the enemy of free and democratic process. This has been the spark that has led to uprisings across the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and in the US in the Occupy movement as well as the breathtaking protests in Madison against the anti-worker Scott Walker administration. People realizing that their livelihoods and futures are being sacrificed for some kind of corporate kleptocracy are refusing to lie down and accept it.
But the Democrats stubbornly refuse to believe in this movement, or for that matter refuse to show any real beliefs at all. By refusing to attack Mitt Romney on what is likely his most vulnerable issue, the Democrats will once again avoid what should be a reasonably easy win against a remarkably unlikable opponent. The same goes for the unwillingness if the DNC to aggressively campaign against Walker in his recall election in Wisconsin and the lukewarm support they are showing anti-Wall Street crusader Elizabeth Warren in her bid to unseat Scott Brown in the US Senate race in Massachusetts.
Of course by not fully representing their own true constituents, the Democrats deserve to lose, and by continuing to support front men for Wall Street running for office as Democrats, we all will end up with the government we deserve.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Five More Random Thoughts
I haven't done a random thoughts in a while and since there's quite a bit going on, I thought I'd give it a go.
1. Must be election time again
Remember the color codes? Yellow for be on edge. Orange for start to panic. Red for duck and cover, etc. We have fortunately left this little exercise in maintaining power by scaring the shit out of the populace behind. Or have we?
As the election nears, suddenly terror attacks are all the rage. It seems every week we hear reports of one attack or another broken up by law enforcement just in the nick of time. In the past few months we have heard about terrorists with guns and bombs in Washington, blowing up bridges in Cincinnati, and the latest version of the underwear bomb (this one fits into briefs instead of boxers). Add to this the stories about would-be terrorists hiding bombs inside their body and in pets on airplanes and you would think that we were under high alert all the time.
Of course what all these "attacks" have in common is they all involve either informants or undercover agents for the FBI or CIA. I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for these agencies, Al Qaeda may not be active at all.
This isn't anything new, of course. Once again, the Obama administration is taking a page from GWB when it comes to foreign policy. In 2004, I fully expected a "red" warning in the weeks running up to election. Of course they didn't need to because Bin Laden did the work for them by releasing an ominous video just before the election which served the administration's purposes just fine.
Ever since 9/11, we have looked for real leadership in this nation. Instead of leaders we keep having charlatans selling us security in exchange for our rights. In 2008, we thought we were getting an FDR. But instead of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," we got another dose of "The only thing we have is fear."
2. Stop!
There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. If you don't feel you have enough, wait minute and he'll say something to add to your cache.
But there is one thing that I am hearing more and more commentators on the left using and that is attacking his faith. STOP! We're better than this, people. There is absolutely no reason to make Mittens's Mormonism an issue in this race and the more it is done, the more it is going to give rise to a backlash against the left.
Let the right turn themselves into pretzels over their own discomfort with Romney's religion. We simply do not need to engage in this type of outrageous bigotry.
3. A Winning Strategy
Amid all of the bluster and non-issues that are being portrayed in the media's coverage of the presidential election, there is one issue out there that almost no one is talking about. It also just happens to be an issue that is ripe for the picking for the President's reelection team.
One thing has been constant in every election across the world so far this year and that has been the people's rejection of austerity in favor of economic policies focusing on growth and jobs. This election should be about the same thing.
It is clear that the Romney camp is a fan of austerity measures. This will become abundantly clear if he picks someone like Paul Ryan, the biggest proponent of such measures, as his VP pick. They are promoting economic measures which focus on slashing government spending and programs, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and cutting taxes for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to matter that these policies have never worked anywhere and are currently throwing the UK and most of Europe back into recession.
In his first term, Obama has been all too eager to give into neo-Liberal economic policies and focus ostensibly on deficit reduction rather than job creation. So it is quite possible that he won't be willing to go all in against these austerity measures like he should.
We know from his first campaign that Obama is a master at populist rhetoric even if he isn't willing to follow through with populist policies once elected. He could pull this off and if he and the Democratic party ride the wave of anti-austerity opinion, they could end up taking back the house as well.
Of course whether he and the rest of the democrats would follow through on this once elected remains to be seen and past performance does not leave me feeling optimistic.
4. Silver Lining of the Week
I'm trying to be more of an optimist. So, rather than ranting and raving about what an absolute idiot Jamie Dimon is, or how evil he is, or how his head should be chopped off, I will look on the bright side of his bank's $2 Billion loss on a wild bet from a division which was supposed to be helping the bank avoid losses.
On the bright side, at least this guarantees that he won't be Obama's treasury secretary in a second term. See, there's hope for the economy yet.
5. My Cheap Unfunny Pundit Schtick
I've noticed that in order to be accepted in the pantheon of punditry that you have to have a rhetorical gimmick that you and your fans think is hilarious but in reality is pretty unfunny. You also have to use it ad nauseum just so your base can yuck it up as much as possible while getting maximum eye roll from everyone else. An example would be Sarah Palin's "lame stream media". There's another right wing asshole whose name I can't remember who always says "New York Slimes.". Funny stuff, right? I mean it must have taken you all of 10 seconds and the comedy sensibility of a 12 year-old to come up with those.
So, taking a cue from these pillars of political commentary, I've decided to join the fray. I've done it in the past a little by referring to Fox News as Fox Comedy (ok, I wasn't trying to be funny, I just didn't really think that they were really serious. I mean, c'mon, right?).
So, because I want to be accepted by this esteemed fraternity, I will from now on refer to Republicans as Banana Republicans and Democrats as Plutocrats. See, aren't I funny? I can hear your knees slapping already, right? I know!!!!
On second thought, perhaps I'll just stick to not trying to insult the intelligence of my audience, as small as you may be.
'Til next time...
1. Must be election time again
Remember the color codes? Yellow for be on edge. Orange for start to panic. Red for duck and cover, etc. We have fortunately left this little exercise in maintaining power by scaring the shit out of the populace behind. Or have we?
As the election nears, suddenly terror attacks are all the rage. It seems every week we hear reports of one attack or another broken up by law enforcement just in the nick of time. In the past few months we have heard about terrorists with guns and bombs in Washington, blowing up bridges in Cincinnati, and the latest version of the underwear bomb (this one fits into briefs instead of boxers). Add to this the stories about would-be terrorists hiding bombs inside their body and in pets on airplanes and you would think that we were under high alert all the time.
Of course what all these "attacks" have in common is they all involve either informants or undercover agents for the FBI or CIA. I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for these agencies, Al Qaeda may not be active at all.
This isn't anything new, of course. Once again, the Obama administration is taking a page from GWB when it comes to foreign policy. In 2004, I fully expected a "red" warning in the weeks running up to election. Of course they didn't need to because Bin Laden did the work for them by releasing an ominous video just before the election which served the administration's purposes just fine.
Ever since 9/11, we have looked for real leadership in this nation. Instead of leaders we keep having charlatans selling us security in exchange for our rights. In 2008, we thought we were getting an FDR. But instead of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," we got another dose of "The only thing we have is fear."
2. Stop!
There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. If you don't feel you have enough, wait minute and he'll say something to add to your cache.
But there is one thing that I am hearing more and more commentators on the left using and that is attacking his faith. STOP! We're better than this, people. There is absolutely no reason to make Mittens's Mormonism an issue in this race and the more it is done, the more it is going to give rise to a backlash against the left.
Let the right turn themselves into pretzels over their own discomfort with Romney's religion. We simply do not need to engage in this type of outrageous bigotry.
3. A Winning Strategy
Amid all of the bluster and non-issues that are being portrayed in the media's coverage of the presidential election, there is one issue out there that almost no one is talking about. It also just happens to be an issue that is ripe for the picking for the President's reelection team.
One thing has been constant in every election across the world so far this year and that has been the people's rejection of austerity in favor of economic policies focusing on growth and jobs. This election should be about the same thing.
It is clear that the Romney camp is a fan of austerity measures. This will become abundantly clear if he picks someone like Paul Ryan, the biggest proponent of such measures, as his VP pick. They are promoting economic measures which focus on slashing government spending and programs, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and cutting taxes for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to matter that these policies have never worked anywhere and are currently throwing the UK and most of Europe back into recession.
In his first term, Obama has been all too eager to give into neo-Liberal economic policies and focus ostensibly on deficit reduction rather than job creation. So it is quite possible that he won't be willing to go all in against these austerity measures like he should.
We know from his first campaign that Obama is a master at populist rhetoric even if he isn't willing to follow through with populist policies once elected. He could pull this off and if he and the Democratic party ride the wave of anti-austerity opinion, they could end up taking back the house as well.
Of course whether he and the rest of the democrats would follow through on this once elected remains to be seen and past performance does not leave me feeling optimistic.
4. Silver Lining of the Week
I'm trying to be more of an optimist. So, rather than ranting and raving about what an absolute idiot Jamie Dimon is, or how evil he is, or how his head should be chopped off, I will look on the bright side of his bank's $2 Billion loss on a wild bet from a division which was supposed to be helping the bank avoid losses.
On the bright side, at least this guarantees that he won't be Obama's treasury secretary in a second term. See, there's hope for the economy yet.
5. My Cheap Unfunny Pundit Schtick
I've noticed that in order to be accepted in the pantheon of punditry that you have to have a rhetorical gimmick that you and your fans think is hilarious but in reality is pretty unfunny. You also have to use it ad nauseum just so your base can yuck it up as much as possible while getting maximum eye roll from everyone else. An example would be Sarah Palin's "lame stream media". There's another right wing asshole whose name I can't remember who always says "New York Slimes.". Funny stuff, right? I mean it must have taken you all of 10 seconds and the comedy sensibility of a 12 year-old to come up with those.
So, taking a cue from these pillars of political commentary, I've decided to join the fray. I've done it in the past a little by referring to Fox News as Fox Comedy (ok, I wasn't trying to be funny, I just didn't really think that they were really serious. I mean, c'mon, right?).
So, because I want to be accepted by this esteemed fraternity, I will from now on refer to Republicans as Banana Republicans and Democrats as Plutocrats. See, aren't I funny? I can hear your knees slapping already, right? I know!!!!
On second thought, perhaps I'll just stick to not trying to insult the intelligence of my audience, as small as you may be.
'Til next time...
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Cease and Desist
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOEL SCHWARTZ
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Do North Carolina's Marriage Laws Violate Religious Freedom?
Jennifer and Renee met in college. They have maintained a monogamous relationship for many years, settled in the same city, have lived together and made a life together. They recently found a church in the city in North Carolina where they live which welcomed them as full members of their church and they have become active in their church's life. Recently, they decided that they wanted to solemnize their relationship and have their minister perform a wedding ceremony in their new church. They knew it was not legal for them to get married in North Carolina, but they wanted to have the ceremony nonetheless. They spoke with their minister and he had some hesitation. "You know, I can't perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage license and you can't get one of those in North Carolina," said the minister.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)