Americans Are Content to Stay in Afghanistan Forever

A woman whom I work with has a son who just returned from a one-year tour of duty in Afghanistan, working as a combat medic attached to a Marine unit which has taken lots of casualties during the last year. One week after he returned home, his Wife (who is also a medic) shipped out for her one-year tour in Afghanistan, leaving behind her husband and their 10-year old son. I saw the photograph of that mother and her son during their final embrace before Mom deployed. Mom is dressed in her uniform and their arms are locked, and they are staring into each others eyes filled with uncertainty, concern, and sadness.

With that image fresh in my mind, I decided to spend 3 hours on January 15, 2011, to participate in an anti-war protest in Tampa with approximately 20 people. A group called Veterans For Peace meets monthly to hold signs and to raise awareness of the horrors of War on the corner of the busy intersection of Dale Mabry Highway and Gandy Blvd, not too far from MacDill Air Force Base. This Veterans group and other non-veterans who regularly join them in support of this effort have been meeting monthly for 4 years in this location to urge an end to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm holding a sign that says "Honk To Bring The Troops Home." I'm standing next to an 83-year old Veteran of World War II named Buddy Holle, who tells me that he can't believe that this is the fifth year that he has been coming to this corner monthly to hold signs urging an end to America's participation in two Wars. "I thought we'd have brought them home before now."

Buddy had a son who died in Vietnam. His Veterans For Peace T-shirt has words printed across the back stating how this group of Veterans hates war because they have been there and have seen the brutality and inhumanity of war up close and personally. Buddy wears the anguish and sorrow on his face, while at the same time approaching his protesting with a sense of both duty and honor. He comments that today's group is one of the larger groups that has been out in a few months and he's glad to see some new faces. He doesn't recall that I met him a few months earlier, but then again, I haven't been back month after month like Buddy has.

Buddy tells me about another group that he's involved with that meets every Sunday at the foot of the bridge of the Manatee River in Palmetto. "It's a much larger group, and we meet every week. You should join us. It's a really good group of people." Once a month isn't enough; he needs to do this weekly, despite his age. Buddy's still on a mission.

Because of the sign that I'm holding, I'm getting some enthusiastic honking from cars passing by, punctuated by an occasional blast from a semi truck driver. I'm also getting some smiles, waives, and thumbs-ups, and peace signs from many people in the cars passing by on this particular Saturday afternoon.

I'm also getting the middle-finger salute from some people who find our signs asking to bring the "Troops Home Now" offensive or misguided. One lady muttered words to the effect that we're lucky that "they" haven't come to the US to kill us over here--making it known that she thinks we are weak and foolish.

Others in our group are holding signs pointing out the huge financial costs of endless wars-- "$4,000 Per Second", "War Is Over, We're Broke!", "How's That War Economy Working For You?", "Ike Was Right", "Plenty of Money For War, But None To Feed the Poor", etc. Given the state of our economy, many people passing by in cars react favorably to these particular signs.

One lady brought her two children out to the protest. Daniel, age 10, is chanting "Bring Them Home." His 13 year old sister has friends at school whose fathers are overseas, and knows how hard it is on her friends. I look at them and think that they were newborns and toddlers when the War started in Afghanistan, and wonder if the War will end before they are old enough to enlist.

The organizer of these monthly events, Jay Alexander, walks by and slaps a sticker on my chest with the latest death count as of today's date (per www.icasualties.org.)

As of January 15, 2011, the number of U.S. dead soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom is 4,437, and in Afghanistan's Operation Enduring Freedom, the number of U.S. dead soldiers is now 1,457. There have been One Million Civilians killed in these 2 Wars.

In addition to painting dozens of protest signs, including the one that I am holding, Jay Alexander has cut out and painted more that 50 tombstone signs with the names of all 50 States and U.S. Territories on them that he has arranged in a single-file line in a grass median on Dale Mabry Hwy, with large American flags posted at each end of the long row of these simulated tombstones. They are a moving symbol to drive past, and a reminder of those across the country who have died in these Wars.

Surprisingly, I just got a very animated "thumbs down" and some angry unintelligible words from a young boy stopped at the intersection. He appears to be around 12 years old. I am surprised by that visceral reaction from such a young child. Sadly, I comment to the woman standing next to me that he will probably have his chance to go to Afghanistan too, because we will likely still be fully engaged there for long enough for him to come of age so that he can go and fight.

But, it is not the positive signals, nor the negative gestures that I observed that were disconcerting to me. What disturbed me the most about what I observed today is the rampant, widespread APATHY which I observed in the three hours that I spent on that street corner.

There are far too many people who had absolutely no reaction, whatsoever to our presence or to the messages on our signs. I saw hundreds of blank stares and hundreds of people totally absorbed in cell phone conversations, completely unaffected by anything outside of their personal bubble. Welcome to the Apathetic States of America.

By far, I prefer the angry thumbs down from the defiant 12-year old, or the rant from the woman who thought we were weak and foolish, or even the guy who flips a "bird" out the window. Please give some reaction. Please have an opinion. Please don't give me the endless stream of catatonic stares from hundreds of disaffected Americans who passed by seemingly lost and distracted in their own little selfish worlds.

I've often wondered what it will take to get Americans' attention about these Wars. I'm still wondering....

Only, now, I realize that there is probably nothing that will slap us out of this national trance. Nothing that will make us say, Enough Is Enough!

This week, the nation turned its attention on a large scale to the deaths of 6 people in Tuscon and the shooting of a Congresswoman. I was hoping that this attention to senseless death and injury might lead to a renewed discussion about our War policy. Why are we sending our best brave young men and women into harms way without any coherent plan or mission? But, War was not discussed.

Because you see, War has become the norm. Wars no longer last 1, 2 or 4 years. They are endless. Wars are hardly mentioned on television or in newspapers. There is no draft, so only a small segment of our population have to serve. Few of us are directly affected. Stop Loss programs are instituted to require active duty personnel and members of the Reserves to serve multiple tours of combat duty. War will continue, because War is Big Business. Mission accomplished?

No one driving on one of South Tampa's busiest streets wants to think about the War or put down their cell phone to notice, let alone speak out against it.

So, don't expect any change any time soon on the faces of mothers looking into the eyes of their sons whom they won't see again or hug again, for at least another year.

And don't expect any lessons to be learned by the Public from truth-tellers like Veterans For Peace who try to educate civilians about the horrors of War. The vast majority of Americans just can't be bothered to pay attention to this.

Well, at least, not quite yet.

What will you do to change the apathy?

The Paralyzing Fear of "Uncertainty"

As Congress struggles with what to do with "tax cuts," the rhetoric is flying faster than those super discount sale items are flying off the shelves at Best Buy on Black Friday.



So, if you are a rich guy, you go back to your playbook and dig out your old favorite, the fear card. You tell a scary fairy tale and paint the picture that what is really wrong with our economy is the fear and "uncertainty" about what will happen next year insofar as taxes are concerned.



The fairy tale myth is that small business owners and large corporations are holding back a tidal wave of capital, ready to light our economy on fire--but only if tax rates stay exactly where they are now. They are ready to make tons of money in their businesses, but only if Congress gives them the tax cuts they want. Otherwise, they will just have to build bigger dams to hold back the reservoir.



Jack is keeping the beans in his pocket and doesn't want to grow that giant beanstalk. He doesn't want to get the gold at the top of the beanstalk because he might have to pay an additional 3% to the government....Really?



The fairy tale is that these titans of industry are completely beside themselves and are worried sick to death (and out of their minds) about the "uncertainty" of what the future holds for their personal bottom lines. We can't hire anyone until this uncertainty goes away.....




You see, there isn't really any uncertainty at all about what happens if nothing is done by Congress before December 31, 2010. Quite simply, the maximum personal income tax rates go up from 36% to 39%. Three percent. That's all. And we have known that for the last 10 years. It hasn't been uncertain at all.




Does this sound like Armageddon? Or, another global financial disaster?



Hardly.



Does this sound like something that couldn't be budgeted for if a business was really ready to unleash the hounds?


By the way, what we are talking about here is the same tax rates that we had when Clinton was President. You remember how bad that was. The economy grew at a record pace and hummed right along just fine (oh, yea, and we stopped running such huge deficits and balanced the budget for a couple of years).



But to hear the never-ending stream of GOP fear-mongers spewing forth on all cable and radio channels, you'd think that the economy is about to fall off a cliff because of this grave "uncertainty."



It's all made up, folks. It's a fairy tale. There is no uncertainty. We know exactly what next year's tax rates will be, unless the President and Congress cave into these fear mongers and want to make them wealthier while we increase the deficit to pay for these additional tax cuts for the top 2%.



Here's another myth. Raising taxes by 3% won't kill the economy or stop businesses from acting in their best interest.



Businesses act in their own self-interest, based upon needs and opportunities. Raising the income taxes of the CEO's of businesses by 3% is not holding back their decisions of whether or not to hire more workers. The businesses who are flush with cash (and who are supposedly holding that avalanche of cash back from the economy until the curtain of uncertainty is lifted) have been profitable in this recession by cutting their workforce and cutting salaries. How do you think they emassed the huge tidal wave of capital that is supposedly going to be unleashed?




Only when demand for services or products exceeds that which they can produce with their current workforce will businesses begin to hire again. It has nothing to do with the 3% myth.



Here is a real truth we cannot ignore.



We cannot afford the additional deficits that will be created by continuing the tax cuts for those whose incomes exceed $250,000. President Obama needs to propose tax cuts for everyone up to the first $250,000 and then we need to start paying down our debt (and certainly not exacerbate it) by raising tax rates by a modest 3% for incomes greater than $250,000. Our debt is killing our country.



The media never reports about the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts were passed under the process known as "reconciliation" with only 51 votes in the Senate. This "reconciliation" process was demonized during the health care debate, but gets absolutely no publicity now when talking about the Bush tax cuts and how they came to pass. The Bush Tax Cuts were required by law to "sunset" (i.e., end) after 10 years because it was known to the Congressional Budget Office that the deficits would be too great to last any longer than 10 years, and therefore it was written into the 10-year law that tax rates would be required to revert to prior rates at the end of that 10 years.



If it was blowing up our economy when this law passed in 2000, and it was known that it had to end after 10 years, then we need to make it stop now, not extend it.



But, hey, if you want to talk about "uncertainty," ask anyone who favors extending the tax cuts for the top 2% how many jobs will be created by extending the tax cuts for the top 2%. You'll find uncertainty raise its ugly head in a heart beat. Remember that these were the same tax rates that have been in place for the last 10 years and we have created less jobs in the last 10 years than in the prior decade before that.



So, please explain to me how anything is going to change, job creation-wise, if the current tax cuts are extended.

When it comes to extending the tax cuts above $250,000, we just have to say "Goodnight Moon...."

Recognize a fairy tale when you see one.

When Marco Rubio Says "Exceptional" Does He Really Mean "Except Me"?

Marco Rubio gives the same stump speech over and over.


Paraphrased, it goes something like this. America is Exceptional. America is better than any other country in the world. We need elected leaders who believe in that Exceptionalism and will adopt policies to promote American Exceptionalism.


In Marco's world, this means Smaller Government (so long as he is in it) and Free Markets, unbridled by government regulations. No taxes, no oversight, no environmental protection, no social safety nets.


Marco certainly talks the talk. The only problem is that Marco doesn't really walk the walk.


During his tenure as Speaker of the House in Florida, Marco sheparded through and promoted (as the Number 1 "Hero" in the Legislature who made it possible) the now infamous $48 Million Dollar lavish "Taj Mahal Courthouse" for the First District Court of Appeal.


Of course, when he is asked about it, Marco denies any involvement. His finger prints are all over the appropriation of the $48 Million Dollar expenditure, but Marco says, blame everyone else in the process EXCEPT MARCO.


When the GOP released its so-called "audit" of the AmEx Card spending spree, there was (for political purposes of not embarrassing Marco and others) no looking back to the spending records during the years that Marco was the Speaker, or any looking back to the years prior to that when he was really spending the party's money to solidify his power. You see, audits are for everyone else EXCEPT MARCO.



When reports surfaced last week about Marco charging $4,000 or more on his GOP issued credit card for new kitchen floors in his Miami home, and Repubicans started rightfully asking why their donations ended up improving Marco's kitchen instead of promoting Republican party candidates, Marco calls those questions "just the same old types of personal political attacks" that are keeping our Country from being Exceptional. I guess the accounting rules only apply to the rest of us, EXCEPT MARCO.



When questions arose as to how it was that Marco's income shot up exponentially after he became elected to the Florida House and was designated as Speaker, and reports ensued about how he garnered side Community College teaching jobs and hospital consulting jobs from recipients of large legislative appropriations, Marco miraculously always gives the "credit" for those appropriations to other Legislators (just as he's now doing with the Taj Mahal Courthouse). Or, even more amazingly, Marco tries to blame those excessive spending bills on Charlie Crist for signing and not vetoing all those stupid, wasteful spending bills that Marco championed and approved as Speaker of the House. You see, if there is criticism of wasteful spending, the blame always belongs to everyone else, EXCEPT MARCO.


I think I understand this EXCEPTIONALISM concept a lot clearer now. When it comes to Marco, it's not really about EXCEPTIONALISM, it's about applying standards to everyone else differently, EXCEPT MARCO.


Marco is a "champion" for "smaller government" (except when Marco is in it and benefitting from it). He's against government-supplied health care (except when he and his family are the recipients). Do you get the picture of how this list of Exceptions grows and grows so long as it benefits Marco in the end?



But, this guy is slick, really slick. And, unfortunately, people are falling for it. Of course, I can understand why--we all want to think that we are Number One. I'm surprised Marco hasn't used the big "We're Number 1 foam finger" in Red White and Blue as his campaign's symbol.


But, simply thinking that we are Exceptional when report after report comparing our country's standing to others around the globe in quality of life issues--health care, mortality, education, jobs, technological advances, and others --all show us slipping, is deceptive. Thinking that we are Exceptional when we are slipping, asks us to ignore the real problems facing our country.


Saying we are "Exceptional" in this context is like saying that Brownie was "doing a heck of a job...." We know it's not true. We have real problems to solve and we need to get our heads out of the clouds (and our noses out of the air), and roll up our sleeves like the Greatest Generation did.


While Marco's TV commercials are Exceptional, and his carefully-crafted messaging is Exceptional, his job performance as Speaker of the House and his personal and public spending track records show that Marco Rubio is anything but Exceptional, unless you count Exceptionally Bad.


For those who believe that Marco Rubio's policies and performance will make YOU (as a member of the middle class) or our Country Exceptional, I've got just one word for you.


DELUSIONAL.


Don't vote for snake oil salesmen who tell you what you want to hear. That goes doubly for you, too, Charlie Crist.

Start questioning what Marco Rubio has done (both in his private life and his public life) and ask him why that is 180 degrees from what his slick fiscal conservative messaging says today. Leopards don't change their spots overnight.

Don't vote to Take Our Country Back(wards). Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist's ideas (and their past "leadership") are more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess.

When Marco (and Charlie) say otherwise, I take Exception to that.

Why I Can't Vote For Charlie Crist

Many life-long Democrats who despise the idea of Marco Rubio becoming a U.S. Senator, and who are reluctant to back Kendrick Meek (solely because they believe Meek cannot beat Rubio) are flirting with the idea of voting for Charlie Crist (solely because they think Crist can beat Rubio).

Republicans are hoping that Democrats fall for that Charlie Crist trap.

Fear of Marco Rubio winning has clouded the thinking of some usually clear-thinking Democratic friends of mine. Heck, it's easy to fall prey to a smooth-talker like Charlie Crist. He's so "charming" when he's in full campaign mode. He always sounds so nice and well-spoken in his professional television ads. Charlie is like smooth jazz. Charlie Crist is "Mr. Smooth Jazz."

I admit to having felt this same fear earlier this summer. I can't stand the thought of our State being represented by Marco Rubio for the next 6 years (or the next 30 years). And so I, too, was ambivalent, for awhile, about whether I might vote for Charlie Crist because I wanted "anybody but Marco" to win, and I was having my thinking clouded by fear. No more. The smoke of the jazz lounge has cleared.

I have been watching Charlie Crist for a long time, and after listening to his smooth, jazzy delivery, and his latest "new releases" I've come to several realizations.


First, Charlie Crist cannot beat Marco Rubio. Charlie's popularity has peaked and is on the downward slide.

Charlie will not receive enough Democratic votes to win, and he does not have enough support from moderate Republicans and independents, either. If he's lucky, Charlie will end up garnering somewhere around 25% of the vote--and that's only if he keeps the support of the Democrats who have been thinking about voting for him. If those Democrats come to the realization that Charlie cannot win, they will abandon him, and if so, Charlie may only receive 15% of the vote.

While Charlie now likes to tout being "an Independent" (since April when he fell so far behind in the GOP race that he had no other personal option), he also recognizes that he has no Get Out The Vote (GOTV) organization behind him. He has no core constituency.

Winning elections requires mobilizing voters to get out and vote. Charlie will never win because he has NO GOTV organization. He not only has no GOTV organization of his own, he has the GOP's Get Out the Vote organization working as much against Crist as they are working against Kendrick Meek. That is a death knell for Charlie. Game over, Charlie.

Charlie is radioactive among most loyal Republicans, and they are energized to vote for Rubio and are exerting a strong amount of peer pressure among fellow Republicans to vote against Crist. He will garner very little GOP vote.

With Crist's star burning out, Democrats are realizing that in order to defeat Rubio, they must vote for Kendrick Meek. He is the only candidate that all Democrats can get behind. And, Democrats are realizing that if they ALL vote for Meek, he can win. Democrats know the importance of this race and are examining Meek's stances on the issues. Kendrick Meek is the only real Democrat in the race. Meek has the core support of the Democratic party and its Get Out The Vote effort. Those core Democrats are never going to vote for Charlie Crist, which is another major reason why Crist's ad-hoc candidacy is doomed.

Nearly a year ago, I wrote an article about Charlie Crist that I just "re-published." I wrote about how Charlie loves to run for office--how he's always running for something--how he loves to raise money to run for office--and how he's always looking ahead to the next office. I complained that it was too bad that Charlie didn't like to run the state of Florida, and I listed numerous examples of things that he had not done as Governor. I noted that he had really been a poor Governor up to that point, and I mentioned how disappointing it was that he had basically quit being Governor 2 years into his term to devote the majority of his time to running for U.S. Senate. I said a year ago that Charlie Crist's performance as Governor had not warranted a promotion to Senator.

That's why I cannot vote for Charlie Crist. He isn't worthy of my vote. I don't know who he is or what he stands for from one moment to the next.

I don't believe that Charlie will "become a Democrat" after the election as I have heard some Democrats say.

Charlie will not say which party he will caucus with in the Senate.

I know which party Kendrick Meek will caucus with in the Senate. I don't have to guess.

If you are a Democrat thinking of voting for Crist and he somehow miraculously wins and then chooses to caucus with the Republicans, how will you feel, then? (It would be like having Ben Nelson or Joe Liberman as your Senator--neither is a Democrat and neither has helped with any progressive issues. In fact, both have been obstructionists.) Kendrick Meek will not be an obstructionist on Democratic issues.

Charlie says he's going to caucus "with the People." Sorry, Charlie, the U.S. Senate doesn't work that way. Hand me a barf bag.

Many Democrats who are considering voting for Charlie have been seduced by his recent vetoes or his recent policy announcements. They think they know Charlie because of his vetoes in the last legislative session. I submit they are being played by Mr. Smooth Jazz.

If Charlie had been leading Rubio in the polls in May and June, he would have never vetoed Senate Bill 6 or the ultra sound bill (for fear of having the GOP leadership turn on him when he needed their support). Come on teachers, you are smarter than that!

Remember when Charlie ran for Governor just 4 short years ago and bragged about being "a Jeb Bush Republican?"

I will never hear those words--"I'm a Jeb Bush Republican" out of Kendrick Meek's mouth. Kendrick Meek led protests and sit-in's at the Capital over some of Jeb Bush's policies.

Remember in 2008 when Charlie endorsed John McCain (and was a finalist to be his running mate)? Remember when he was Chain Gang Charlie? He was as GOP as possible then. I don't think he's changed. I think he's acting. I think he's playing smooth jazz, because he thinks its what Democrats want to hear.

I prefer classic rock. I don't like re-mixes or bad cover songs.

And let's not forget Charlie's deplorable (and many say hypocritical) anti-civil rights record on Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) issues. Do you remember how Charlie was extremely vocal in the 2008 campaign asking Floridians to Vote "Yes" on Amendment 2 to ban gay marriage in Florida? And, throughout his term as Governor--until last week-- he has whole-heartedly supported the ban on gay adoptions, keeping Florida the only state in the nation that bans gay adoptions. Only recently has Charlie announced "new policy positions" on GLBT issues--solely for the purpose of trying to convert core Democrats to believe that he has "changed" now that he is an independent.

Was he for those New Positions when he was a Jeb Bush Republican? Will he be for them if he chooses to caucus with the Republicans? Will he be for them on November 3rd?

Charlie was once firmly aligned with and wanted very badly to be John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee of the Party who chanted "Drill Baby Drill" at their national convention. Now he says he isn't in favor of offshore drilling.

I could go on and on with things that are either inconsistent, hypocritical positions that Charlie has espoused, or I could cite other examples of bills that he hasn't vetoed that were equally as bad as the ones he chose to veto this year only when it was politically expedient for him to veto them.

The bottom line is that I cannot vote for Charlie Crist and I will not be part of the reason why Kendrick Meek can't win.

In fact, if all Democrats vote for Kendrick Meek, he will win. There are more registered Democrats in the state of Florida.

Don't fall into that trap.

The Lying Has Got To Stop

Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was a mistake. It is a failed policy. It must be changed. Now.

Let's take a look under the hood and see why this junker needs to be hauled away to the scrap yard.

Let's start with the lies.

Military service is supposed to be about honor and duty. What part of honor and duty excludes integrity? DADT promotes lying.

If you are one of the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian members of our military (active duty and reserves), you must live a lie every day, and must check your integrity at the door of the recruitment office, and then continue your lies throughout your service.

What national security purpose does this serve or promote? Of course, there are no national security purposes served by DADT, and in fact, there are reported incidents where a soldier's sexual orientation was used as blackmail to compromise national security.

Those who disagree with my premise that DADT must be repealed often cite the "troop morale" excuse or the mythical "advances in the foxhole" fears as crutches for their homophobia.

Let's look at the real threats posed by keeping this policy in effect.

Denial. No, it's not a river in Egypt, it's the cornerstone of those who want to keep DADT in effect.

To say that this policy must be retained denies existence of the following facts:

1. Our coalition partners fighting with the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military. Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Spain are just some of the 25 Countries that allow gays to openly serve. So, as a country, our troops are willing to fight along side gay soldiers as coalition forces, but won't do so with those who have sworn their allegiance to defend the United States? How does that make sense?

2. We have already spent nearly $500 Million Dollars to discharge gay and lesbian soldiers and to train their replacements. We simply wasted this money. The military spends between $22,000 and $43,000 per person to replace those soldiers discharged under DADT. How does that make sense (or should I say "cents")?

3. Government Contractors whom we are paying at much higher cost to perform support services for the military, are hiring DADT discharged soldiers and employing them to perform the same services that they were performing while serving in the military--now, only at a much higher cost to the taxpayers. So, let me see if I understand--- the taxpayers paid to train them, then paid to discharge them, then paid to train their replacements and then paid a contractor to put the discharged soldier back in the theatre at a much higher cost.) This only makes sense to the Contractors.

4. We are not meeting our military recruitment goals annually, and yet we are eliminating qualified candidates from applying for service. Lifting the ban would allow many of the more than 12,000 trained soldiers who have already been discharged to re-enlist. It has been estimated that more than 36,000 applicants are ready to apply for enlistment as soon as the policy is repealed. So, rather than take more qualified applicants, the enlistment standards have been lowered, and we are taking felons now. Does this make sense?

5. We are less safe as a result of the discharge of mission-critical intelligence specialists and Arab linguists who have been discharged under DADT, especially during a time of war. Does this make sense?

6. The unnecessary discharge of trained capable soldiers under DADT has contributed to the necessity of implementing Stop Loss (which prevents soldiers and Marines from exiting the military at the end of their term of service) and has increased the number of multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan where some are on their 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th deployments. Does this make sense?

7. No one being fired upon in combat is thinking about sex, notwithstanding the frequent use of the "F" Word in a hailstorm of bullets. Gay and lesbian soldiers would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Feared unwanted sexual advances would be punishable under current military law, just the same as the hundreds of heterosexual harassment and assault cases are currently handled in military tribunals.

8. Gays and lesbians aren't trying to recruit straight people to be their partners. Period.

We don't need any more delays. We don't need any slanted survey questions to be analyzed by the Pentagon to know that this is a failed policy which needs to be changed.

Come on Congress, get your spines out of the closet, so to speak, and repeal DADT. NOW.

We can't afford any more of this foolishness.

Put It On The Ballot NOW!

So it looks like we are finally going to have a Special Session of the Florida Legislature more than 90 days after the Gusher in the Gulf punched us in the gut.

And what do we hear from the President of the Senate (Mike Haridopolos) and the Speaker of the House (Dean Cannon)? "We don't need this. The law in Florida already bans drilling in State waters..."

Oh yea? Do you think we don't remember 2009 when the Florida House brought up and passed a bill to allow drilling right off the coast, in state waters, WITHOUT ANY DEBATE OR COMMITTEE HEARINGS?

Only common sense in the Florida Senate in 2009 saved us from this folly. And common sense in the Florida Senate is a fleeting thing (and often a rarity).

Before the BP Disaster struck, the incoming aforementioned leaders of the 2011 Legislature announced that 2011 would be the year that near shore drilling would be pushed through. The House was teed up and ready to go--they already sold us out once--and the incoming Senate President was a Drill Baby Drill proponent. They made no bones about their desire to move this to the top of their agenda and get it passed in 2011.

Only after the Gusher started lapping up on our beaches did Rep. Cannon and Sen. Haridopolos slightly moderate their views.

Now they are opposing the Special Session and are hiding behind the legal fiction that they can't change that law that now protects us. Their sound bite logic is that Floridians don't need a constitutional amendment because the law already prohibits what the Amendment would prohibit.

Of course, that is until the Legislature changes it!

That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment that can't be changed by the Legislature.

They also say that the Special Session will be too expensive. Actually, it's just the opposite--we can't afford to wait for the regular Legislative Session to address all the issues affecting the State because of this environmental disaster. Just ask the Panhandle Counties who are trying to deal with it now.

The voters of Florida need to weigh in and pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban near shore drilling, forever. We now know how devastating this is to jobs and the incomes of Floridians.

Yet, the reluctance of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to even respond to Charlie Crist's call for a Special Session tells you all you need to know.

This subject is NOT off their agenda.

Remember when the Legislature was beholden to the commercial fishing lobby and a grassroots effort was undertaken to ban gill netting in Florida waters? The results have been tremendous for our juvenile fish stocks which were needlessly killed in gill nets. Commercial fishermen adapted.

We've always lived without drilling near shore. Heck, we won't even have to adapt to any change--just try to ensure some protection for our environment to the extent that we as citizens can.

All of the reasons relied upon by the Florida House in passing their drilling bill in 2009 have been exposed as lies. It's now abundantly clear to everyone that the oil industry doesn't have new, safe technology. They have no contingency plans for clean ups. They are more interested in manipulating the facts to cover up their misdeeds than they are in paying claims and cleaning up the toxic mess.

So, why would we ever want to expand that right off our mangroves and beaches?

So, it's time to tell your Legislators that you want them to put this Amendment on the ballot in November for an up or down vote by Floridians.

Do we ever want drilling rigs within 10 miles of our shores?

And, oh yea, by the way, you can remind your Legislators that there are many more issues for our Legislature to start working on immediately, because it is clear that we are going to have an even more severe budget shortfall from the loss of sales tax revenues as a result of this disaster.

Make some noise. Pay attention to this Special Session. Take note of how all of our elected representatives vote during the Special session and act accordingly to get the right people elected in November who want to protect our natural resources and our jobs.

Breaking News: It's An Information Vacuum....

Can't you just see Jack Nicholson's face and hear him screaming..."You want the truth? You want the truth? ....You can't handle the truth!"



That's the way we have been dealt with from the first hours of the BP disaster. First by BP and then by our Federal Government. This tragedy has magnified the weakness of real journalism in America today. Journalism and news reporting in America today is as broken as the Deep Horizon.



Constricting news budgets, minimal reporting staffs, fewer newspapers and news magazines, and 24-hour cable "news" networks are a sad reflection of where we are today and what we now settle for insofar as news reporting is concerned.



The 24-hour news channels on cable TV are the worst. They never dive into depth on stories, even though they have unlimited time to do so.



Jon Stewart ran a spoof on this and showed all of the cable show hosts cutting off the questioning and using the phrase "We'll have to leave it there...." and then they move on to some other insignificant story just when they were getting to the interesting part of the interview or actually get to the point of the interview where they might actually ask follow-up questions.



Really? We have to leave it there? Time and time again?



Let the manipulation of the masses begin (or should I say, continue).



To prove my point, next time you see "Breaking News" scrolling across the bottom of a cable news show, just change the channel (to all of the other channels within 30 minutes) and you'll see them all covering the same story. It doesn't matter what it is--they all cover the same things and call them "Breaking News."



Meanwhile, there are so many things going on in the world that receive no coverage from the mainstream media in the U.S.


Instead, we get the same talking heads commenting about the same stories. Meanwhile, there are stories that are virtually ignored. How long has it been since you have seen any meaningful reporting from Iraq?



Ever notice how the advertising on TV affects the news coverage? Follow the money from advertisers and then look at the absence of critical reporting on issues pertaining to the advertisers. And this is supposed to be "breaking news?" More like broken news.


And when there are reporters sent to report on a story, we don't hear about how they are being denied access to facts or to the scene of the disaster, because of corporate or government controls.


Have you heard about the No Fly Zone that BP has been able to convince our government to allow? Have you heard that BP has prevented journalists from getting close to the scene of the spill or do fly-overs on planes? It's happening, but you won't hear about it unless you dig deeper for your news sources, because, well, "we'll have to leave it there..."




Why has NOAA known for weeks that the amount of oil being spilled was 100 times greater than what was being reported, yet they weren't allowed to release that information to refute BP's numbers? Please tell me why, Mr. President.



Keeping us in the dark doesn't help. Releasing the information weeks later only makes us wonder why the deception occurred in the first place.

We can handle the truth. We need the truth. I look forward to the day when I don't hear..."we'll have to leave it there" and actually start getting some good reporting. Reporting breeds accountability and more competency because it helps to expose those who need to find some other line of work.


Treat us like adults.