You have to be governmentally-identified to affect the government by the franchise - but you don't have to be identified in any way at all to affect the government by money?

Riiiight ....

Understand this very clearly: ( they do not respect women. )

The president has evolved! He has finally said it!

He is officially now in favor of our having full marital equality!!

It has been an exciting three days. I'm not in Madison today because I have to take care of family business, but here is how it has been.

1. Peaceable, but loud. People march outside, occasionally shouting one cheer or another. "Kill the Bill" is a good one, but the favorite, and growing more so over time, is "Tell me what democracy looks like?" "THIS is what democracy looks like!" - often with percussive accompaniment. Inside, people are jammed into the Rotunda and around the balconies overlooking it. The balconies over the stairs are always crowded, and sometimes jammed. In between deafening chants and cheering (and the occasional boos), people talk to each other, exchanging news and rumors, and pointing out places of interest (conference chambers, and bathrooms, and electrical plugs, mostly).
There is much smiling, and much giddiness. Inside, we wander (and stay warm), or sit down on stairs. On Thursday, there was a massive sit-in to bar the movement of the legislators. (And also because of all the college students, who were just adorable.) (so were the grade-schoolers and babies, who were all with parents.) Folks would shift to let each other through, and I managed to clear a path from the elevator to the banister for a wheeled person with no anger.

2. Increasing. On Wednesday when I went, we re-arranged ourselves to fill two buses, so that the third could go directly to another collection point, leaving us to go directly to the capitol. We were told that there were more people than on Tuesday. On Thursday - which was, actually, not planned for - the people in the buses were sparse, but the capitol was full: the building was packed (see above), and folks were walking en masse around the outside of the building and around the sidewalk next to the street. Apparently people had carpooled in on their own, not having found out in time that the union was providing buses again. On Friday, the buses were jammed, and I got to be the Bus Captain (which was delightful). The Rotunda was packed, the balconies were packed, but you could walk around, and there were a (precious) few staffers available to be spoken with. People were marching around the building; around the sidewalk; and around the streets. Estimates were 10,000 Tuesday, 15,000 Wednesday, 25,000-30,000 Thursday, and at least 40,000 Friday. Some few were from out-of-state, but almost all were Wisconsonites.

- Gotta go do business. More later.

In The New York Times article Rare Source of Attack on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ By ELISABETH BUMILLER we read, in part,

Colonel Prakash, who researched the issue while a student at the National Defense University, in Washington, and who now works in the Pentagon, concludes that “it is not time for the administration to re-examine the issue.” Instead, he writes, “it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.”

The article, which was first reported Wednesday by The Boston Globe, also says the law has been costly — about 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been discharged from the service as a result of “don’t ask, don’t tell” since it took effect in 1993 — and argues that it undermines the unit cohesion it has sought to protect.

“In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve,” Colonel Prakash writes.

Like we done been sayin'.

The original article, published in Joint Force Quarterly, can be found as a pdf file here.

Reading it, I have to tell you that I am made all warm and fuzzy by the logical arrangement, the detailed examination of all the arguments, and the quality of the writing of this paper, wholly apart from its actual content. I tell you this in comparison with my rage at the writing by so-called experts on the Black Death that I have currently been reading, whose organizational and prose styles have been maddening in two separate dimensions. That said, on page 90, he says:

If one considers strictly the lost manpower and expense, DADT is a costly failure. Proponents of lifting the ban on homosexuals serving openly can easily appeal to emotion given the large number of people lost and treasure spent—an entire division of Soldiers and two F–22s. Opponents of lifting the ban offer interesting but weak arguments when they compare the relatively small numbers of discharges for homosexuality with those discharged for drug abuse or other offenses. It is necessary to look past both of these arguments, remove the emotion, and instead examine the primary premise of the law — that open homosexuality will lead to a disruption of unit cohesion and impact combat effectiveness. If that assumption holds, then the troops lost and money spent could be seen as a necessity in order to maintain combat effectiveness just as other Servicemembers unfit for duty must be discharged.

Point. If a characteristic of a servicemenber, even if congenital, makes it impossible for the team to work together, then that servicemember must be removed. Consider the case of extreme body odor unassociated with hygiene. Such a person, no matter his or her skills or personality, could not, for example, serve in a tank or on a submarine. (I knew such a person, a professor at Purdue, who was a magnificent teacher, but with whom we could only speak at a minimal distance of 5 feet. It was definitely worth the effort; but I, with my wholly insensitive nose, would have fainted if forced to be closer than 3 feet to him for any length of time exceeding 4 minutes.)

He says, later:

When measuring unit performance, task cohesion ends up being the decisive factor in group performance. Common sense would suggest a group that gets along (that is, has high social cohesion) would perform better. Almost counterintuitively, it has been shown that in some situations, high social cohesion is actually deleterious to the group decisionmaking process, leading to the coining of the famous term groupthink. This does not imply that low social cohesion is advantageous, but that moderate levels are optimal.20

Several factors contribute to cohesion. For social cohesion, the most important factors are propinquity—spatial and temporal proximity—and homogeneity. For task cohesion, the factors include leadership, group size, shared threat, and past success. Interestingly, success seems to promote cohesion to a greater degree than cohesion promotes success.21

This leads to the conclusion that integration of open homosexuals might degrade social cohesion because of the lack of homogeneity; however, the effects can be mitigated with leadership and will further dissipate with familiarity. More importantly, task cohesion should not be affected and is in fact the determinant in group success. Given that homosexuals who currently serve do so at great personal expense and professional risk, RAND interviews suggest such individuals are deeply committed to the military’s core values, professional teamwork, physical stamina, loyalty, and selfless service—all key descriptors of task cohesion.22

Were I still fertile, I would get my wife's permission to bear this man's children. Go read his article.

British citizens, this is primarily for you, although it is ammunition for the rest of us who must argue with bigots and the ignorant.

Alan Turing was a genius, a patriot, an Olympic-strength marathoner, and a homosexual. Via his cracking of the Enigma machine, he enabled the Allied governments to keep track of what the Germans were doing when the Germans felt that they were perfectly secure. He enabled, directly, the saving of tens of thousands of Allied lives during World War Two. He came up with the Turing test for artificial intelligence and is called the father of the modern computer - for which we all should celebrate him annually if not daily.

And, because he would not be blackmailed by a petty thief and, indeed, could not conceive of why he should be ashamed, Alan Turing was tried by his government, chemically castrated, vilified, and driven to take his own life at the advanced age of 41.

FOR BRITONS ONLY: there is a petition on the official website of Number 10 Downing Street calling for the Prime Minister to issue an official apology for prosecuting him, leading to his death. The URL is

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/

You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition. Please enter your name only; signatures containing other text may be removed by the petitions team.

FOR THE REST OF US: Whenever some idiot rails about the uselessness of gay people, and the necessity for us to live in secret and in shame, tell him or her the story of Alan Turing, and ask whether he should have been prevented from contributing to the War effort.

Useful sites:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/18/turing_pardon_campaign/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-turing-enigma-campaigners-demand-pardon-for-mathematics-genius-1773480.html

http://www.365gay.com/blog/davis-lost-stolen-or-gayed/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing

xtricks pointed this out. In his post More Diversity And More Perversity In The Future, johncwright wrote, in part:

The Sci-Fi Channel (I cannot bring myself to type the phonetic/stupitastic new version of their name) has recoiled in craven fear and trembling when lectured by homosex activists, who gave the SF channel an "F" rating on their political correctness. Alas, the thoughtcrime! Not enough perverts on TV! The children have to be indoctrinated!

He goes on to a bitter and, in my opinion, unreasoned and ad-hominem attack on gays and on the Left.

Following is the full version of my response to Mr. Wright's post, which I was forced to edit for length. No meaningful cuts were made; but they are not identical.


"What argument can be given to outlaw incest that cannot be given with even more logic to outlaw homosexuality? 'Gee, I dunno, why don't you ask a victim of incest? I've heard plenty of such people describe EXACTLY how much difference there is'."

You do not even seem to notice the fact that you are not giving me an argument: you are merely expressing the hope that such an argument exists, somewhere.

This is not very far down the very long list; perhaps someone else has already given you the answer for which you asked. In which case this may be redundant.

I will not speak to the damage caused by sibling incest. I am insufficiently familiar with it to know, so I leave it to others to define.

However, with intergenerational incest I am perfectly and personally familiar, and so will speak to it.

Intergenerational incest on the instigation of the elder damages the younger person. It does so by betraying the trust that the younger person has that the elder person is committed to the younger's welfare, and will not act against it. It does so by removing the choice of whether and when and with whom to have the initial sexual experience (and all subsequent sexual experiences) from a matter of negotiation between the participants into a matter of command by one of the participants.

Let me repeat the core of that. Any sexual situation that happens at the command of one person without the full and enthusiastic consent of the other person is a damaging situation, and the cause of identifiable neuroses from sleep disorders and eating disorders to memory lapses and the inability properly to deal with authority. I have years of therapy, plus hundreds of studies, to support that claim.

Any situation in which one party is unable to consent to the proceedings, whether through being underaged, or being normally in the control of the other person, or through being mentally incompetent either temporarily or permanently, damages the person who is unable to consent.

Polygamy, if defined in such a way that the wives are powerless in the relationship - by being underage, or at the control of the men in the community, or both - would be similarly nonconsensual and therefore damaging.

However, when polygamy is defined so that all the participants are of full age and are fully and enthusiastically consenting to the situation, it is not damaging.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, does not cause damage to the participants.

Let me repeat that: the act of having sexual relations with a person of the same gender does not have any psychological effects on the participants in and of itself.

I have tested this proposition, and personally avow it to be true.

Having sexual relations with another person on any basis other than the full and enthusiastic participation of both (or all) parties causes damage; therefore rape causes damage, regardless of the genders or ages of the people involved.

Having multiple sexual encounters with strangers is damaging, not on the basis of consent, but to the extent that it may confirm a pre-existing feeling of worthlessness, and insofar as it exposes the individual to more opportunities for the spread of various diseases. This issue is common to all people who have multiple encounters with strangers, and is not predicated on the gender of the participants.

Neither corpses nor animals are capable of offering consent, let alone enthusiastic consent, and the fact of desires toward such partners indicates the same kind of mental disease that is present in all those who prefer partners who do not or cannot consent. It does not cause such disease; it indicates such disease, and does so regardless of the genders of the corpses, animals, or rapees in question.

Adults who are willing to commit to the long-term sexual, emotional, and financial support of each other are not perverted, regardless of the gender, number, or legal documents involved.

Adults who are happy to cause distress to others for their own sexual, emotional, or financial gratification are perverted, regardless of the gender, number, or legal documents involved.

Homosexuality has not destroyed my life. A long-term, loving, and supportive relationship with the woman who is brave enough to take on my issues has allowed me to make a thorough repair of the life that was nearly destroyed by heterosexual pederasty/incest.

At least the Rob, Arnie, and Dawn show folks, of Sacramento, have. Please note: Dawn has not been vilified in this matter, as she kept attempting to defend the children in question. Rob and Arnie angrily defended their comments as free speech and as jokes.

Many people wrote in to them. Many advertisers pulled their ads.

Today, on their site at http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/ the following message appears, reproduced here in its entirety:

UPDATED JUNE 7TH, 2009, 11:50AM

TO OUR LOYAL ROB, ARNIE AND DAWN FOLLOWERS,

WE HAVE FAILED YOU. AS A SHOW, AS PEOPLE, AS BROADCASTERS, WE HAVE SIMPLY FAILED ON ALMOST EVERY LEVEL.

WE PRESENTED OUR OPINIONS ON A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT IN A HATEFUL, CHILDISH AND CRUDE FASHION; AND THEN, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETRACT THOSE REMARKS, WE DEFENDED THEM.

SINCE THEN, YOU, OUR LOYAL LISTENERS, HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT WE WENT TOO FAR. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN OVERWHELMING. NONE OF YOU SAID THAT WE COULDN’T HAVE OPINIONS, YET SO MANY OF YOU SAID THAT THE WAY WE GAVE THEM CROSSED THE LINE. FURTHER, YOU SAID THAT OUR ATTEMPT TO MASK OUR COMMENTS AS “JOKES THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY OUR AUDIENCE,” WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I WOULD SAY NOW THAT IT WAS WORSE THAN THAT, IT WAS COWARDLY. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.

WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO VARIOUS GROUPS AND ASKED FOR A CHANCE TO MAKE THIS RIGHT; TO RESPOND, WITH THEIR PARTICIPATION, TO THE EDUCATION THAT OUR AUDIENCE HAS PROVIDED US. THAT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GRACIOUSLY GRANTED THIS THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 11TH. AT 7:30 A.M.

THE WORD APOLOGY APPEARS NO WHERE IN THIS LETTER FOR A REASON. WE ALREADY HID FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING ONCE AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN. APOLOGIZING IN A WRITTEN, POSTED STATEMENT IS A FORM OF COWARDICE. WE WILL SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID THIS THURSDAY.

ON A FINAL, PERSONAL NOTE, AS THE LEADER AND OWNER OF THE SHOW, I HAVE MADE THE DECISION THAT WE NEED TO REFRAIN FROM BROADCASTING NEW EPISODES UNTIL WE CAN ADDRESS THIS ON THURSDAY . WE WILL RETURN TO THE AIR AT 7:30 A.M. JUNE 11TH.

ROB WILLIAMS
ROB, ARNIE AND DAWN

I look forward to hearing what may happen then.

In an article in Foster's Daily Democrat discussing the vote to allow gay marriage in New Hampshire, the following lines occur:

"I was raised in the church and my family was raised in the church and my grandchildren are being raised in the church and we have always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman," Brown said, bemoaning the "disrespect for decorum" showed by people in the House balcony during Wednesday's vote.

"I am not prejudice[sic]," she added. "I have known homosexual men throughout my entire life and I have never had a problem, but marriage to me is between a man and a woman."

If to you marriage is between a man and a woman, Madame, then I urge you to partake in a marriage of that kind. To me, marriage is between unrelated sapient adults who are prepared to share passion, protection, and personal space; and I partake of a marriage of this kind. But in your definition of what marriage is to you, you wish forcibly to deny others the right to participate in what marriage is to them. Why is your definition one that deserves to override theirs?

Moreover, you are an American, and your allegiance ought to be to the right to individual liberty of conscience, rather than to your church, as you act as Representative of your constituents: not all of your constituents, Madame, belong to your congregation or to your denomination or even, Madame, to your religion. Why, then, are you proposing that your family's adherence to your church should override the adherence of your constituents to their churches, synagogues, mosques, circles, and societies? I dare imagine that, should you find yourself replaced by a Moslem of like mind, you would be appalled at her attempts to enforce a Shari'a interpretation of marriage customs upon you.

You are proposing, Madame, that your personal religious convictions should override the individual freedoms of the rest of your state.

And that, Madame, that is unAmerican.

"I'm very concerned about the kinds of things Cheney is saying to make it seem Obama is a danger to this republic," Wilkerson said. "To have a former vice president fearmongering like this is really, really dangerous."

This is from the article

Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent

By ANDREW O. SELSKY, Associated Press Writer, in which he quotes Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell as also saying "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."

And there stands Cheney, doing what Cheney always does best. And the Party Republicans are baying along behind him, hoping for ... not for the good of the United States, nor yet for moral or principle, but for any weakness by which they may tear down the Democrats' leader. Which is to say, our President.

Newspeak, the lot of it.