Friday, May 30, 2008

Gays Bringing Love to the Beehive State!

Post Subtitle: (Gay) Love In The Time State of Cholera Utah

I read about an online poll being posted on a Utah TV station's website asking, in light of the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of equal marriage rights, if gays & lesbians in Utah (I know, it may be hard to believe that there are homosexuals brave enough to live in the Land of Orrin Hatch, but like--Warning: Nightmare Before Christmas reference approaching--the seemingly unbelievable world of Christmastown, they do exist) should enjoy the same rights. The results of the poll as of about 7:00 am today (5/30) are shown below, and, as you can see, it's NO CONTEST! WE WIN IN UTAH! In your face, Hatch! ;-)

Actually, in the interest of full disclosure, equal marriage rights for homos may still yet be a few millennia off in the heart of the LDS belt, but Dan Savage, one of my most favorite gay columnists, in one of his blogs asked his OBVIOUSLY many fans to go to the TV station's website & vote YES in the poll, which may be why the results may seem a little skewed for the conservative Beehive State (obviously named for the official state hairdo). Still, the results gave me a smile...I just love being subversive...especially when all you have to do is make a little clicky!!

By the way, in a serious vein, I wanted to include a copy of the article from the station's website about how the California ruling is affecting conservative bastions like Utah. You can find that article below the poll results.



Gay Mormons Don't Want To Be 'Demonized' By LDS Church

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=15178d54-85bc-45bc-b2f5-588b96682ff6

SALT LAKE CITY - A support group for gay Mormons urged church leaders Wednesday to stay on the sidelines after the California Supreme Court said same-sex marriage there is legal.

The church, which teaches that gay sex is a sin, has expressed disappointment in the recent ruling. Some critics and conservative groups want to overturn it through a constitutional amendment.

In a statement Wednesday, the executive director of Affirmation said he hopes church leaders would not ``use their energies and their funds'' to overturn a ruling that affirms the worth of families or meddle in politics that demonizes gays.

"Rather work with us to counsel and assist individuals and families who have been devastated by the church's teachings that have caused family members to reject their children who are gay,'' Olin Thomas wrote.

"We encourage LDS leaders to find a new focus by preaching and living a Gospel of love and respect toward all peoples and all families,'' he said of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thomas said the California ruling doesn't affect Mormon church doctrine or the sacred ceremonies conducted in Latter-day Saint temples, which bind couples for eternity.

"This is about civil marriage as an institution of the state _ a legal institution based on core societal values, such as the worth and dignity of the family unit,'' Thomas said. "Religions are not being asked to marry anyone they don't want to marry.''

A telephone message seeking comment from the Salt Lake City-based church was not immediately returned.

The church was part of a coalition, including Roman Catholics, evangelicals and Orthodox Jews, which filed court papers in the California case asking the high court to uphold a ban on gay marriage.

Mormons believe God only sanctions marriage between a man and a woman and tout the traditional family as the basic unit of society. Gays are welcomed as church members and can hold church roles, but only if they remain celibate.

Some who have acted on what the church calls ``same-gender attraction'' have been excommunicated.

Formed by students at church-owned Brigham Young University in the late 1970s, Affirmation has more than 2,000 gay, lesbian and transgender members. It is not sanctioned by the church and until recently was not even acknowledged by leaders.

In its May 15 statement, the church said it recognizes "that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue'' and called the court's ruling "unfortunate.''

It's unclear whether the church will play a role in trying to place a constitutional amendment on California's fall ballot. But Mormons have a history of fighting gay marriage initiatives nationwide.

In 2000, the church actively supported Proposition 22, a ballot measure that prohibited California from legally recognizing gay marriages performed outside the state.

In a letter read from the pulpit, the 740,000 members in California were urged to give time and money to get the measure passed. It was approved but struck down by the recent court ruling.

In February, Affirmation leaders invited new church President Thomas S. Monson to open a discussion about issues important to gay Mormons and their families.

A meeting with LDS Family Services Commissioner Fred C. Riley is scheduled for Aug. 11, said Dave Melson, Affirmation's assistant executive director.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The Empire State says, "OK!"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. David Patterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.

The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.

The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.

The directive follows a February ruling from a New York state appeals court. That decision says that legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.

"This was in direct response to a court ruling," Duggan told CNN. "Just to make sure all the state agencies are on the same page."

Duggan says that the court's decision was consistent with the findings of several lower courts in New York State.

The governor's legal counsel sent the memo one day before the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage in that state. Court officials in California counties may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17, state officials said Wednesday.

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.

Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts, unless the parties say they plan to relocate there after the marriage.

New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give same-sex couples some legal rights, as do some other countries.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Beauty is lung-deep

So I went crazy this morning & decided to take a 25-mile bike ride (what a way to celebrate Memorial Day!) & at the half-way point, I stopped at a Walgreen's to get a drink & sit & rest my weary bones a few minutes. As I was sitting there on the bench sipping my Celsius, I saw this rather handsome young man glide by on his skateboard. He was about 6 ft tall, broad shoulders with dark hair & sunglasses & was wearing surfer-type shorts & appeared to be in his mid- to late 20's. Unfortunately (for me), he decided to wear a shirt instead of shoes! He was on his cell phone & circled the parking lot a couple of times while he was carrying on his conversation. Sitting on the bench, watching the show, I thought, "What a wonderful view on this wonderful Memorial Day!" As if to prove that all good things must come to an end, he eventually stopped in the corner of the parking lot in the shade and reached in his shorts pocket & pulled out a pack of cigarettes & lighter. Of course, he lit up & started puffing & all of a sudden, he became not-so-hot-after-all. What a dirty rotten shame & such a waste! I guess he doesn't know or care that the average male smoker dies 13.2 years earlier than their nonsmoking counterparts (and females smokers die 14.5 years earlier than female nonsmokers). I wonder how many miles you'd have to skateboard to make up for those years?!?!

Well, if he's planning on living off his looks, I hope he's taking full advantage of it now. Sadly, he probably doesn't have much longer...

Happy Memorial Day!


It just seemed appropriate to me that, on Memorial Day--the day on which we remember all those American soldiers who have given their "last full measure of devotion" on behalf of the country they loved--we remember the words of one of our greatest US presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who helped to keep a young nation from tearing itself apart. President Lincoln's words were originally spoken on November 19, 1863, but they still remain just as true today as they ever were:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Monday, May 19, 2008

Beaver Fever for Obama!

It seems that the largest audience for a Barack Obama rally during this year's presidential campaign numbered 35,000 in Philadelphia just before the Pennsylvania primary.

The New York Times now reports that the crowd yesterday in Portland, Oregon (the Beaver State, of course) more than DOUBLED the old number: an estimated 75,000 packed themselves onto the shores of the Willamette River to see & hear the the person I hope & pray is the next President of these United States!

The two pics they posted on the Times website just really impressed me, and I wanted to share them here:

Link =
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/obama-draws-record-crowd-in-oregon/index.html?ref=politics


Sunday, May 18, 2008

Non-Scientific Poll from The Orlando Sentinel

From the Orlando Sentinel poll I just found today online.

I know it's unofficial, but it's till so surprising to me! Just as an FYI, even though we are going to have a referendum in November regarding marriage equality rights, in our state, 60% of those voting have to approve any amendments to the Florida constitution. I know it will be a tough fight, but it sure made me smile to see these preliminary results from the beating "RED" heart of Florida....
  • Should gay marriage be banned in Florida?

    Yes (4471 responses)

    48.5%

    No (4550 responses)

    49.4%

    I don't know (195 responses)

    2.1%

Gas Saving Myths

From CNN...
Link =
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/12/autos/ways_to_not_save_gas/index.htm?postversion=2008051515

6 gas-saving myths

Sure you want to save gas, but there's a lot of bad advice on how to do it. Some of it makes no difference, and some of it can wind up costing you.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Last Updated: May 15, 2008: 3:59 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With gasoline prices hitting record levels, it seems everyone has a tip on how to save fuel. Much of the advice is well-intentioned, but in the end, much of it won't lower your gas bill.

Here's a look at a few misconceptions:

#1. Fill your tank in the morning

You may have heard that it's best to fill your gas tank in the early morning while the fuel is cold. The theory goes that fluids are more dense at lower temperatures, so a gallon of cold gas actually has more gas molecules than a gallon of warmer gas.

But the temperature of the gasoline as it comes out of the nozzle varies little during the course of the day, according to Consumer Reports, so there's little, if any, benefit, to getting up early to pump gas.

#2. Change your air filter

Maintaining your car is important, but a clean air filter isn't going to save you any gas. Modern engines have computer sensors that automatically adjust the fuel-air mixture as an increasingly clogged air filter chokes off the engine's air supply.

While engine power will decrease slightly as the air filter becomes clogged, a lack of performance or an increase in fuel consumption will be negligible, Consumer Reports says.

#3. Use premium fuel

With prices already over $4.00 a gallon, premium gasoline is a hard sell these days. But a lot of drivers think because their owners' manual recommends premium, they'll get better fuel economy with it. Really, they may be paying more money for nothing.

Newer cars for which premium is "recommended" - but not "required" - won't suffer with regular fuel. Modern engine technology comes to the rescue again. When sensors detect regular instead of premium fuel, the system automatically adjusts spark plug timing. The result is a slight reduction in peak horsepower - really, you'll never notice - but little or no reduction in fuel economy.

Always check your owner's manual before putting anything into your car. And if your car runs badly on regular, by all means, go back to the pricey stuff. (See editor's note at bottom)

#4. Pump up your tires

Proper tire inflation is important for a number of reasons. Under-inflated tires are bad for handling and can even cause a crash. Improper tire inflation also causes tires to wear out faster and to heat up more, which could trigger a dangerous high-speed blow-out.

According to on-the-road driving tests by both Consumer Reports and auto information site Edmunds.com, underinflated tires reduce fuel economy, so proper inflation is key.

But you should never over-inflate your tires. They'll get you slightly better fuel economy because there will be less tread touching the road, reducing friction. But that means less grip for braking and turning. The added risk of a crash isn't worth the extra mile a gallon you might gain.

#5. To A/C or not A/C

There's no question air-conditioning makes extra work for the engine, increasing fuel use. But car air conditioners are much more efficient today than they used to be. In around-town driving, using the A/C will drop fuel economy by about a mile a gallon.

Meanwhile, driving at higher speeds with the windows down greatly increases aerodynamic drag. As speed increases, drag becomes more of an issue, making A/C use the more efficient choice at high speeds.

At most speeds and in most vehicles, A/C use drains slightly more fuel than driving with the windows down, contends David Champion, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports. "My final take on is that it's very close," says Phil Reed, consumer advice editor for Edmunds.com. "It's hard to measure the difference and every vehicle is different."

The best choice - if temperature and humidity allow - is to keep the windows rolled up and to turn the A/C compressor off. You can keep the fans running to blow in air from the outside, but your car will be as aerodynamic as possible while still letting you breathe. You will save gas, but the fuel economy improvement will be slight.

#6. Bolt-ons and pour-ins

Before you buy a device that's supposed to make your car more fuel-efficient or pour in an allegedly gas-saving additive, ask yourself this: Don't you think oil and car companies aren't doing everything they can to beat their competitors?

If BP (BP) could add something to its gasoline that made cars go farther on a gallon, cars would be lining up at the company's pumps. Sure, people would burn their fuel-saving BP gas more slowly, but then they'd drive right past rivals' gas stations to come back to BP for more. BP stations could even charge more for their gas and still sell tons of the stuff.

So if there really was an additive that made gas burn up more slowly, it wouldn't be sold over the Internet one bottle at a time.

Likewise, car companies are already spending big bucks to increase fuel mileage. If General Motors could make its cars go significantly farther on a gallon simply by putting a device into the fuel line, don't think for a second it wouldn't be doing that. GM's car sales would go through the roof.

"There are a number of these gas-saving devices that are generally useless," says Champion.

But drivers who try them will swear they work. In reality, it's probably an automotive placebo effect, says Reed. Buy one of these devices or additives, and you're like to pay extreme attention to your fuel economy and how you drive.

Of course it can't hurt to keep a close eye on your driving habits -- and what kind of car you drive. In the end, that can make the most difference in saving gas.

Gas prices have climbed to record levels. Are you feeling the pinch? Tell us how gas prices are affecting you and what you're doing to cope. Send us your photos and videos, or email us to share your story.

-Editors note: This story was revised from an earlier version to clarify that the advice to use regular gas instead of premium may not apply to all cars.

CNN also had a list of the 8 most fuel-efficient vehicles, which includes...YOU GUESSED IT...my car, the Toyota Yaris. Yes, it came in at #8, but at least it's ON the list...is yours?!?! ;-)

Here's your winners*:
Link = http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0803/gallery.most_fuel_efficient/index.html
* Source: Fuel economy and cost estimates, EPA

1. Honda Civic GX
Overall mpg: 28 miles per gallon-equivalent of compressed natural gas
Est. annual fuel cost: $884
Lowest base price: $24,590

2. Toyota Prius
Overall mpg: 46
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,019
Lowest base price: $21,100

3. Honda Civic Hybrid
Overall mpg: 42
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,117
Lowest base price: $24,350

4. Toyota Camry Hybrid
Overall mpg: 34
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,380
Lowest base price: $25,350

5. Nissan Altima Hybrid
Overall mpg: 34
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,380
Lowest base price: $25,170

6. Smart For Two
Overall mpg: 36 (premium fuel)
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,397
Lowest base price: $11,590

7. Ford Escape Hybrid (front wheel drive)
Overall mpg: 32
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,470
Lowest base price: $26,265

8. Toyota Yaris
Overall mpg: 32
Est. annual fuel cost: $1,470
Lowest base price: $11,350




The REAL John McCain

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Deeper Inside "Inside Edition"

I know I should be so above putting this kind of video on my blog, but my desire to remind people of the REAL face of Bill Orally together with making him look more like a cartoon character than he already is forces me to post it as a public service.

This is from a website called College Humor, about which I know NOTHING & for which I cannot vouch--but this video, in my humble opinion, is simply delightful.

Enjoy!


See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

Friday, May 16, 2008

Now THAT'S what I call HARDBALL!!

You may not believe it, but I am really not a confrontational kind of person & yelling & screaming is not usually my modus operandi, but I inadvertently saw this on Hardball last night (I was just wasting time waiting for my hero, Keith Olbermann, to light up my TV & my life) &, even though, in my humble opinion, Chris Matthews is a little too enamored of John McSame & has proven himself to be a bit of a Clinton-hater, and is altogether just not my cup of tea, politically- or televisionally-speaking, I was just mesmerized by his interaction with a hapless, screaming right-wing Bush lover named Kevin James (not he of King of Queens fame, by the by) trying to take down our Mr. Obama & trying to equate talking with your enemies with surrendering to your enemies (a la Neville Chamberlain).

To Chris's credit, he just couldn't let that bit of stupidity ride & repeatedly challenged Kevvy to specifically state what it was that Chamberlain did pre-WWII that the world now sees as appeasement of Adolf Hitler. It seems that (obviously NOT) College Boy couldn't answer the question. Seems the Kevster was more interested in trying to take down a few notches the guy he knows not-so-deep inside is probably gonna be the next President of these United States with some mindless spoon-fed right-wing pablum.

I can't believe I find myself saying it, but Chris was right*: we can't just talk to our friends in this world; if we want to make progress on some issues & make the world even a tiny bit safe & potentially more stable, sometimes--JUST SOMETIMES--we're gonna have to talk to our enemies. It's not like they're gonna go away if we pretend they're not there (no matter what President DICK Cheney & his sidekick Dubya & their fanboy Kevin seem to have concocted in their nefarious noggins)! TALKING TO YOUR ENEMIES IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CAPITULATING TO THEM...DUH!

You gotta give it to ol' KJ, though, even given his obvious anger issues, what he lacks in historical knowledge, he sure makes up in hysterical volume! I actually even felt oddly uncomfortable for the guy. Heck, I even almost didn't laugh out loud at his getting caught at his obviously flawed imitation of a Repugnant Party parrot!

Give it a watch! Mark Green, by the way (the actually obviously sane guy Chris was interviewing too, does a great job. Made me glad he's on my side!)

*in this ONE instance

Thursday, May 15, 2008

"...an individual's capacity to establish a loving & long-term committed relationship with another person...does not depend upon...sexual orientation"

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation..."
California Supreme Court Ruling S147999

Even the Governator of California says, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling...and, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."

Apparently the same infamous US Supreme Court that installed Dubya as President of these United States 7 long, long years ago may still yet be able to undo the right thing done today by California's Supreme Court with an appeal of today's ruling, but for today, at least, the Golden State has never been more golden!

WARNING: Expect to hear the "liberal media" talk about how badly this will damage Obama's chances in November. This old line has just been done to death! Call me overly-optimistic, but, ever since John McSame's home state of Arizona narrowly rejected the "Gay Marriage Ban" in 2006, I have begun to suspect that the fear-mongers of the RRR (Radical Religious Right) have begun to run out of juice, as they say, on the subject of marriage equality. They just can't scare most people now with talk of the great threat people like me pose to the "sanctity of marriage". Most folks nowadays have too many threats that are more real & more tangible to them than the monster called GAY MARRIAGE: like the cost to fill their gas tanks & the war-without-end in Iraq & a government that has become the enemy of the governed & is slowly squeezing the life out of the same rights it says it’s fighting to protect & what happens if they or a family member gets sick or hurt & doesn't have health insurance or if the health insurance they have won't even cover their particular situation & wondering how to they can afford their prescriptions and their groceries & how they can pay for college for their kids, etc., etc., etc., etc.

MSN story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

Califormia Supreme Court ruling here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080515_CA_SC_Marriage_Ruling.pdf

I [Heart] Stephen Colbert (but, Bill O'Reilly, not so much--OBVIOUSLY)!

Unable to embed the video for some reason, but you really should copy & paste the link into your browser. It's pure Colbert gold!

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=168451

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms & Moms-To-Be out there! Unfortunately, I won't get to see my mom today, but, like millions of other Americans on every 2nd Sunday in May, I will be calling her today to wish her a happy day today & to let her know how blessed I am that she's my mom!!

Below you will find a short history on Mother's Day from the good folks at Wikipedia, including the fact that it was originally intended by the woman who first thought up the idea in the U.S. shortly after the U.S. Civil War as a day for mothers (& others) to protest the idea of war. You can find a more detailed history of Mother's Day around the world & more info on how the original founder of Mother's Day in the US eventually came to renounce the day due to what she saw as it's over-commercialization at Mother's Day Central at http://www.mothersdaycentral.com/about-mothersday/history/.

The United States celebrates Mother's Day on the second Sunday in May. In the United States, Mother's Day was loosely inspired by the British day and was imported by social activist Julia Ward Howe after the American Civil War. However, it was intended as a call to unite women against war. In 1870, she wrote the Mother's Day Proclamation as a call for peace and disarmament. Howe failed in her attempt to get formal recognition of a Mother's Day for Peace. Her idea was influenced by Ann Jarvis, a young Appalachian homemaker who, starting in 1858, had attempted to improve sanitation through what she called Mothers' Work Days. She organized women throughout the Civil War to work for better sanitary conditions for both sides, and in 1868 she began work to reconcile Union and Confederate neighbors.

When Jarvis died in 1907, her daughter, named Anna Jarvis, started the crusade to found a memorial day for women. The first such Mother's Day was celebrated in Grafton, West Virginia, on 10 May 1908, in the church where the elder Ann Jarvis had taught Sunday School. Originally the Andrews Methodist Episcopal Church, this building is now the International Mother's Day Shrine (a National Historic Landmark). From there, the custom caught on — spreading eventually to 45 states. The holiday was declared officially by some states beginning in 1912. In 1914 President Woodrow Wilson declared the first national Mother's Day, as a day for American citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war.

Nine years after the first official Mother's Day, commercialization of the U.S. holiday became so rampant that Anna Jarvis herself became a major opponent of what the holiday had become. Mother's Day continues to this day to be one of the most commercially successful U.S. occasions. According to the National Restaurant Association, Mother's Day is now the most popular day of the year to dine out at a restaurant in the United States.

Monday, May 5, 2008

"...we ain't what we should be, we ain't what we're gonna be, but at least we ain't what we were..."

I just finished watching one of my most favorite episodes of Designing Women where Charlene was giving birth to her daughter, Olivia. The title of the episode is "The First Day of the Last Decade of the Entire Twentieth Century" and was aired on CBS on January 1, 1990 (pretty appropriate, I guess).

One of the last scenes in the episode show the main cast huddled around the bed of one of the hospital's oldest patients, Miss Minnie Bell Ward. Being a century old, she was apparently in the hospital a lot, so the hospital staff knew her well, and they invited the Sugarbakers & their friends to come talk to her while they were waiting for Charlene to have her baby.

Miss Minnie apparently had a lot to say regarding her life: watching her children be born & then, one by one, leave her behind. She was obviously so tired & so ready to be done with a life without those people her heart had grown to love over the many many years.

Her last few lines, as she lies in her bed on the verge of her last breath, have always really touched me, and I am sharing them here with you in hopes they touch you too!

"...I thought as I got older, the bold outline of truth would be revealed to me, but it hasn't happened. When I was young, I was in such a hurry. And now, I've been here a hundred years. It seems like only yesterday I held my babies in my arms. I'm glad to be going home. It's been a long time since I've seen my family. And I wish for all of you, all the love and happiness I had in my life -- and I hope the world keeps going toward freedom. And I hope that people everywhere can learn to live together in peace. As my pappa used to say......we ain't what we should be, we ain't what we're gonna be, but at least we ain't what we were....."

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Happy (????) Anniversary...

5 years ago today, on Thursday, May 1, 2003, after making 2 fly-bys from the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking jet fighter, President George W. Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln off the shore of California &, under the infamous Mission Accomplished banner proclaimed, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Five years & 4,064 US military deaths (and multiple thousands of Iraqi deaths) later, per ICasualties.org, we are still mired in Dubya's War Without End, and we're all left to wonder just what the Shrub's idea of "major combat operations" is. Considering his obvious aversion to reality that doesn't suit his political goals, in his "mind," I'm sure he sees no contradiction. I guess, in comparison, John McSame McCain's willigness to keep us there for only 100 years is a blessing! :-/

I hope that, today at least, each of keeps in our minds & in our hearts the brave soldiers who have, as President Lincoln once said of fallen heroes from an earlier time, given "the last full measure of devotion". I pray, too, that the families of these heroes are able to find a measure of peace in the loss of their loved ones, knowing how much the rest of us--regardless of our stance on this war--appreciate & honor their most noble sacrifice.

Speaking for myself, it is the war I hate, not the warriors.