The Department of Homeland Security…

appears to care little about domestic wellbeing. At least in light of the response to Hurricane Katrina. FEMA, under the Department of Homeland Security, has seen its effectiveness reduced to the shameful, inadequate agency which displayed little preparedness or response.

In the press briefing released by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, referred to “Louisiana as a city largely underwater.” Therein lies a peek into the importance this region plays to the current administration and our legislators. While Chertoff and others have created the behemoth of a bureacracy devoted to terrorism, focus on agencies such as FEMA have become neglected. Instead of listening incessantly for chatter on the airwaves of faceless threats perhaps they should have listened to the chatter of Americas Army Corps of Engineers that warned of the consequences of inadequate preparation and funding for the New Orelans’ levees. Shouldn’t that kind of chatter incite as much interest? Perhaps the Corps should have conveyed to them that it was rising from an orange condition to a red condition, since that would appear is the only language these folks seem to speak.

On Sunday’s meet the Press Tim Russert pressed Secretary Chertoff on the issue of lack of preparedness. The Secretary insisted the reason that there were no beds, or water or anything at the Convention Center was because it was not to be set up as an evacuation center. City officials and FEMA were encouraging folks to go to the Superdome instead. He explained that folks just showed up at the Convention Center, and that’s why they were ill prepared. Thank goodness Tim Russert had the chutzpah to indicate to the Secretary that there wasn’t any water at the Superdome either!

In the weeks and months, and perhaps years that will follow this devastating event it is guaranteed that the spin-masters will be out to limit the damage of the inadequacies displayed in these days so not to tarnish their images and legacies. But, I call on President Bush to FINALLY do ‘something’ to hold his administration accountable. Secretary Chertoff or FEMA Director Michael Brown (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12572391.htm) should be fired. Some of them don’t even know the difference between the STATE of LOUISIANA and the CITY of NEW ORLEANS. These are the people we entrust with the lives of millions of people?

We already learned however in the wake of the largest intellegence failure of history in our continuing search for WMDs, no one paid for that incompetence either. The CIA the Justice Department the State Department all continue with no one ever being called on the carpet for their perfomance – or lack thereof. Perhaps – the President is avoiding presidence. If he doesn’t show that folks should lose their jobs for being inadequate to the task, people will not start to wonder if he falls into that same category as well?

Regardless. Rebuild the Gulf Coast. Dismantle Homeland Security or at least limit this wing of government to the FBI and CIA and let agencies whose mission is humanitarian (FEMA etc.) operate seperately. Their missions are too incompatible to operate as one. Particularly when folks at the helm seem to care little about what they do or how they operate.

Alrighty then…

Just when you thought you’d committed all of those ‘commandments’ to memory, along comes the head of your religious organization to say that there’s really 9. Or, is it that there’s 10, but one with an astrisk? Or is that there’s 9 ‘Commandments’ and 1 If-It’s-Convenients?

I get this all confused. And you can see why… I’ve been under some serious mis-impressions of Christianity and what it’s teachings are. I mis interpreted the teachings of Christ and the notion of love, tolerance, patience and understanding of others. Silly me.

If President Bush, wants to wage a war on “Extremists”, he seek no further than the boundaries of Maine, North Dakota, Florida or Hawaii. They are right here in our midst. Or perhaps he meant in recent statements that “Extremism” as euphemism for “Non-Christian”. Because certainly you can’t call the Reverend Robertsons latest rallys non-extreme.

But, then again.. I did have that problem of the afforementioned mis-intepretation. Duh.

Does it get…

more beautiful than this? My friend Kevin settled on a Buick over a Pontiac. While I still have the softest spots in my heart for 60’s Bonnevilles and LeMans’ – I agree with him, this one epitomizes the genre of 60’s convertibles. Can’t you just see the prom queen waving on the back? And, no! That wouldn’t be Rick, Kevin’s partner. It’s a lovely car and we had the best time in Reno but he found this, and made it home before we even rendezvous’d. So, can’t wait to see it in person and maybe even.. spin it around the block!

On the look out… for a 1960s convertible is both fun and challenging. We’ll be searching high and low in Reno this weekend at Hot August Nights.

If you haven’t been, then just know we’re talking about the largest or second largest car gathering in the nation. (Woodward Dream Cruise in Detroit Michigan being the other).

So the adventure begins. Kicking tires, prodding under hoods, peaking under the carpet in the trunk for signs of the dreaded.. rust. And all of it, worth it. After all – they aren’t going to make any more 1966 Bonneville convertibles right? Unfortunately, the price range is a big one. Anywhere from a few thousand dollars for a car in need of admission into the ICU and up. The biggest I’ve seen so far is $45k for showroom condition. We’re hoping to find something in between. Maybe in the $30k range that’s already restored and maybe only needs the most minor of tweaks. Such as the one pictured here, that has incorrect wheels. So wish us luck in our quest for the perfect 60s Pontiac convertible. I’ll let you know how it goes. My commission if I find it is I get a drive in a dream car.

What…

do you think of when you hear that word? Lifestyles?

Does it conjur up images of that homage-to-80’s-overindulgence with Robin Leach screaming at you from the tele from the veranda of some celebrity in an exotic location?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lifestyle

The Dictionary defines the word as: A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group.

Somewhat vague, this definition can be applied to a number of ways of life. People who boat have a lifestyle. Joggers are a lifestyle. Homelessness is a lifestyle. Spousal Abusers are a lifestyle. The list goes on, but you get the idea.

When did “Gay” become a “Lifestyle”? At precisely the moment that some refused to confer any semblance of humanity on people they do not agree with nor condone.

The lack of clarity of meaning when using this word to describe others is yet another tactic in an ongoing effort of some to prevent the recognition of what is a very human trait.

Don’t think so? Let’s examine the criteria for the term. What constitutes the “Gay Lifestyle”? If people go to Gay bars or where Gay people congregate does that constitute it? By that virtue then can it be surmised that a person who frequents establishments where African Americans are present be determined to be living the “Black Lifestyle”? Or, if a person of Jewish faith sleeps or engages in relations of someone of the Catholic Religion, are they said to be living the “Catholic Lifestyle”?

This notion of “Lifestyle” perpetuates the idea that being Gay or more to the point, acting Gay is a choice someone makes as casually as “I think I’ll work out today at the gym”. It reduces the significance of a class of people and lumps them with other Lifestylers. The vernacular and verbage we use when addressing others is very telling in the way we hold our views. Until such time it becomes so commonly accepted that we don’t even think about why we use a particular phrase or terminology. The next time someone refers to someone as a “Lifestyle” it might be good to challenge them to define it for you. I asked someone the other day and they were at a loss to explain why they ascribe that term on others. They may continue to do so – they may not. But maybe they’ll think next time they use vague, blanket, dehumanizing terms to describe others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8234503/

Silly…

headline isn’t it? Yet groups like Focus on the Family and other radical institutions continue to march forward in their efforts to de-homo America. Does anyone else think it ironic that one of the professed fears we hear from groups like this that an alleged homosexual agenda includes aims of converting straight America – yet here they are, outright in their attempt to convert folks to their way of thinking and worshipping?

To understand how they can even think of such things.. like homosexual agenda, and fairy tales of conversion (pardon the pun) one only need to look at how they preach to their own followers and targets for aleration. The language and methodologies that groups like this use is the very source of the paranoia which drives them to such notions.

The right for religious freedom is a precious one. Yet personal freedom from persecution, even in the name of religion must supercede the right of one to mandate, legislate, or otherwise codify a particular religious/moral conviction on others. Now. I’ve utilized the slash between religious and moral intentionally. Not because they are one in the same. Contrarily, many times they are not. But, rather because many of the religionists themselves cannot extracate themselves from the notion that this higher moral calling serves as a holy justification for all sorts of jihad.

Jihad? Interesting word choice, but would you feel more comfortable if I used terminology like Christian Crusade?

Declaring war or struggle on persons different from you is a an old fasioned Christian pasttime since the beginning of Christianity itself. To be fair, this is not how all Christians feel, nor is it particularly clear in any of the Christian writings that this is somehow a consecrated duty. Love thy Neighbor – unless he is not similar to you.

For all the talk of some religionist that terms like ‘diversity’ and such are dirty words, I think a far more obscene connotation should be applied to words like ‘conversion’. I’d rather put my energies into accepting that maybe, just maybe – God has a plan far bigger and broader than my comprehension – and maybe just maybe he’s created each and every one of us with individual contributions to be made utilizing unique and different talents.

In the meantime, I just hope reparative-therapy groups don’t hurt anyone with potentially misguided notions of emotionally bludgeoning people into thinking that God has made them imperfect.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2470736p-10802232c.html

No…

matter how incensed one becomes at whichever point of view the otherside is portraying, one should remain composed. No where is this more important than the very halls where the largest decisions are debated and ultimately resolved.

Now, I’ll be the first admit my hot-headedness. I’ve even been accused of turning on my heel and showing my hiney as I make my exit. But, then again, I’ve never been in a position of being elected and paid to be a representative. Representation by it’s very nature requires presence in order to be effective.

I’m thinking the people of Wisconsin deserve representation that is present. Present, is good. Come on folks – I know that the ‘other’ side always seems wrong. Always seems pushy. Always seems uncivilized. This is true for whichever side you’re on and which ever side you point to as being the ‘other’ side – but as a flight attendent might say “We ask that you please remain seated”. After all, how can you tackle a problem, if you’re not even there?