Fallen Woman

Copied and shared from www.queerty.com.

 

MN Senate Majority Leader/ Marriage Equality Foe Amy Koch Steps Down Amid Adultery Scandal

Add a comment 3

It’s getting to be a bad joke: Pick a Republican who’s attacked same-sex marriage and they’re either gay themselves or done something totally skeevy to besmirch the holy institution.

The latest culprit is Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (left), who stepped down from her leadership post Friday after allegations surfaced she was having an adulterous affair with a male staffer.

Color us stunned. Really.

Koch isn’t resigning as a state senator, mind you—just her leadership post (and refusing to seek re-election). Because it’s genetically impossible for a Republican politician to fully understand the nature of hypocrisy. Koch and her cronies helped get an amendment into the voting booth next year that will let the people of Minnesota vote on whether same-sex marriage should be banned. That makes sense—she’s something of an expert on things that destroy marriages.
“I think in the end there are probably only two people who really know what kind of relationship [it was] and how long it had been happening,” interim Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michell told the Star-Tribune. “It certainly had risen to a level within our Senate family that people were coming to us.”
While Koch’s male paramour hasn’t been named, Michael Brodkorb—her communications chief—is no longer on staff as of Friday. Draw your own conclusions.

Anti-AIDs Discrimination Rears Its Ugly Head ... Again

The 1980's was a frightening time for many in America.  Particularly so for those who were/are members of the LGBT community and others who suffered from any number of illnesses where blood transfusions were or might be necessary.  Initially known as the "gay cancer," HIV/AIDs quickly came to symbolize the single greatest threat to not just gay men and women, but to ever sexually active person.  During the early years of what has been for a number of years referred to as a "global pandemic," little was known about how the virus was transmitted from one person to the next.  As a result, individuals, organizations, businesses and many other entities responded in many instances with knee-jerk reactions on how to address the issue of those individuals infected with HIV/AIDs.  Rampant discrimination and active and blatant ostracization and oppression of those suffering from the then-100% fatal disease was accepted and even promoted by some. 

This unwarranted sense of fear of those who were infected continued for many years (many would say it still exists more readily than most would like to admit or accept), even after medical researchers and doctors discovered that transmission was only possible by direct contact with the blood supply of an infected individual with the blood supply of an uninfected individual.  Despite America being told via a nearly unprecendented media storm of information, the result of tireless effort by many activists and AIDs support organizations (ASO's), the paranoia over possible infection continued to be prevalent years later.

During the 1980's a teenager named Ryan White became the virtual 'poster boy' for those afflicted with HIV/AIDs, as he was forced to leave the junior high school he was attending because school officials believed he posed a significant threat to the remaining student body.  Despite the nation slowly learning that someone with HIV did not present any risk of transmission as the result of casual, and even some limited intimate, contact, citizens of the United States remained seriously divided as to whether White's school acted responsibly, or reprehensibly.  White's legal case was ultimately decided in his favor, requiring that his school allow him to attend classes.  Such legal precedence would, seemingly, only have since been strengthened by passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990), along with a more recent package of amendments to the original legislation that effectively widened the scope of influence over what was deemed discriminatory, liberalizing (to some extent) what a disabled person would be able to expect/require of any potential (or current) employer or other public accomodation.  However, the Milton Hershey School believes otherwise.  In fact, their denial for admission to the school of a 13-yr. old who is HIV-positive is rather conclusive that despite legal protections afforded those are HIV-positive or who have been classified as having AIDs, along with the incredible medical advancements that have produced medications which reduce exponentially the threat of possible exposure (even through intimate contact) as they reduce levels of the virus in many of those infected to levels at which doctors refer to them as "undetectable," suggests that the school cares little about the facts about the science behind HIV/AIDs nor the legal responsibility it bears toward potential students who are HIV-positive. 

Officials at the school offered in defense of their actions denying the 13-yr. old admission, that,

“We understand that the risks presented by an HIV-positive individual who is on medication are low,” the school said in a recent statement posted on its website. “Taking all these and other factors in consideration, including the fact that we would be prohibited by law from informing our community of the young man’s HIV-positive status, we concluded that the risk was significant, and rose to the level of a direct threat to the health and safety of others.”

Ironically, the possibility that a student might be exposed to the HIV virus while conducting themself as a student is not the school's concern.  Instead, they are most concerned about the fact that students may well engage in sexual intercourse.  And that despite the univeral procautions against the transmission of bloodborne pathogens that all public accomodations are required by law to follow, students could find themselves exposed to the virus. 

It is difficult to decide which is most reprehensible about the school's behavior: their blatant and unnecessary discrimination against a potential student who is HIV-positive, or the fact that they consider themselves responsible for every Hershey student's sexual conduct.  If the latter is the case, then one could come to the conclusion that should an unexpected pregnancy of a Hershey student, or one that was caused by a Hershey student should occur, that the school would then agree to providing any/everything needed for the care of the expectant mother and the child before and after the child's birth.  However, it's HIGHLY unlikely that that is the case.  No doubt, if a pregnancy occurs the school most likely is of the opinion that while it may concede to making 'reasonable accomodations' to the expectant mother so that she could continue her studies while the pregnancy progresses, it in no way accepts any measure of responsibility for the student's condition.  Which gives Americans reason to ask, "Then why is it different for the kid with HIV?  Why consider sexual conduct that results in pregnancy NOT the school's responsibility, but that which might be engaged-in by someone who is HIV-positive is within their purview?" 

Let's face it: HIV/AIDs discrimination still exists.  Ask anyone who is afflicted with the virus and they will no doubt quickly accede to the notion that although federal law makes such discrimination illegal, it's still around, and it's just as ugly as it has ever been.  And in a strange twist of irony, while Americans find themselves in an era where those who embrace a conservative philosophy of government believe government at all levels, especially in areas like education, tries to provide too much to citizens, it's a private educational institution, one largely removed from many of the fiscal ties the federal and state governments have on their public counterparts, that is exhibiting blatant discriminatory practices. 

HIV/AIDs discrimination is offensive enough when it happens to an adult with the disease.  But such behavior reaches an even lower level of depravity and reprehensiveness when it targets a child. 

The Milton Hershey School should apologize to the student denied admission.  And the student should be allowed to attend the school, if he still desires to do so.  Furthermore, the school should willingly agree to pay all of the costs associated with the student's attending private school, whether that school is Hershey, or some other learning institution.  The school should also make some sort of public apology to all Americans who have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDs, stating clearly and unapologetically that their behavior was not appropriate.  That they failed to appreciate the challenges someone who is HIV-positive might face, but instead ignored those possibilities and rathe embraced a fairly unsophisticated and insufficiently educated position on the question of whether or not to extend admission to an HIV-positive student.

Schools should be this nation's, and the world's, "citadels of learning."  Institutions dedicated to providing the very best education possible for students.  This could not be more true than it is today, when a growing number of young persons who identify themselves as gay are resorting to suicide in order to free themselves from the constant threat and mistreatment suffered at the hands of bullies.  Those who are HIV-positive experience the isolation that is a common factor in the lives of members of the LGBT community, only it is usually more severe, direct, and even more harmful.  Hershey could stand in the way of the further marginalization of those with HIV/AIDs.  The school could also send a loud and clear message to educators everywhere that all students, regardless of their station in life, should be treated with the respect afforded to all human beings.  It is 2011, after all.  Nearly 30 years after the virus first 'officially' reared its ugly head, all Americans can and should do better by those who are HIV-positive.  And those who are HIV-positive or have been diagnosed with AIDs should be able to expect all institutions to respect them first, foremost and always as human beings.


 

Bachmann Says U.S. is 'Bananas'

During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" with show host David Gregory, Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman and candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination suggested that the United States was spending like a "' banana republic or 'Greece'."  Continuing her ongoing denunciation of all-things Obama, the Congresswoman again laid the blame for Washington spending, the federal deficit and the national debt at the feet of the President. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/45714607#VpFlash  Go here for the full interview of Ms. Bachmann.

What Congresswoman Bachmann again fails to admit is that she was a member of Congress during the final two years of the Bush Administration.  Years that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit.  She also fails to admit that during George W. Bush's two terms in office, more debt was added to the federal deficit in those eight years than during the entirety of our nation's existence.  That the reason for those massive deficits were two wars (one of convenience, one more rooted in necessity) that were entirely unfunded, the largest reductions in tax rates (in terms of dollars saved by the taxpayer) in our nation's history (without any commensurate reduction in spending), and the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program (alone adding $700-800 billion to the deficit over 10 years), which was hamstrung by the pharmacuetical manufacturers who essentially wrote the legislation by not allowing the federal government to seek quantity discounts from those same companies for the drugs the plan was intended to cover. 

What the Congresswoman also fails to either understand, appreciate or perhaps simply doesn't care is that if the United States has, in her mind (a frightening thing to contemplate, in and of itself), begun acting like a 'banana republic', it's not because of government spending or the federal deficit.  Rather, any resemblance to "banana-dom" is tied directly to the ever-expanding wealth disparity in the United States.  In an interesting article written by the late-Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair magazine, the writer provided readers with an excellent, and somewhat telling (and some might say clairvoyant), description of what a banana republic is.  This is shared, in part, because it seems fairly safe to say that while Ms. Bachmann knows the term 'banana republic', it is not entirely certain that she knows what it means.  And her denunciation of the U.S. acting like such a country affirms that suspicion.

"In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country." (Banana republic. (2011, December 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:00, December 19, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana_republic&oldid=466363585) 

Hitchens goes on to opine that what typifies a banana republic is when, ". . . a money class fleeces the banking system, while the very trunk of the national tree is permitted to rot and crash. . . .  ." (Ibid.)

In many respects Ms. Bachmann's declaration is somewhat correct, in that the United States is, in many ways, "a country operated by a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility."  One could look at conditions in the U.S. today and see striking similarities between the aforementioned 'definition' and the way our "free enterprise" system and the federal government works to each others rather lop-sided benefit; "free enterprise" reaping whirlwind profits while public debt goes through the roof.  However, where Ms. Bachmann stumbles is when she attempts to place blame for our tarnished fiscal condition at the feet of "big government spending."  It is NOT government spending that has resulted in private corporations making billions upon billions of dollars in profits.  Those are the result of previous administrations in Washington turning a blind-eye toward or even advocating for monopolistic corporate mergers that have given fewer individuals nearly overwhelming influence and power over this nation's financial, business and political policies.  And all the while as Corporate America was actively and effectively "raping and pillaging" the American taxpayer and consumer, the federal government, particularly when controlled by Republicans, provided the wealthiest of Americans their lowest income tax rates in six decades, coupled with loopholes and a capital gains tax rate that is less than half the highest income tax bracket for those same wealthy individuals.  Throw into that mix the completely disingenuous and fairly destructive practice of "privatizing" more and more of what the federal government had done in years and decades past, which only guarantees even MORE money flowing from the American taxpayer directly into the pockets of private companies/corporations, and you effectively not only have the monopolistic business environment, but you also have a government which has done nearly all that is within its power, short of handing them the keys to the White House, to ensure that those monopolistic businesses continue garnering ever-greater profits and influence. 

No.  Ms. Bachmann was not entirely wrong in suggesting that the United States has begun to resemble a banana republic.  Where she was wrong was in attempting to suggest that blame for such an ignanimous description of our nation be blamed on the current administration.  Like it or not, America did not reach the conditions in which we find it today in just the last 2+ years.  America today is the result of decades of "Trickle Down Economics," a political party that is hell-bent on making sure the U.S. has only two economic classes (the wealthy and their servants), and an electorate that has seen its influence over elections and policy continually diluted, wittled away, and in some instances, largely co-opted or done away with altogether. 

And what is probably the most ironic thing about Ms. Bachmann's appearance, past statements, and even her current candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, is her hubris-laden suggestion that she, and she alone, is the person best equipped to "bring America back."  If it wasn't for the fact that she hopes to run for President, the most powerful individual on the surface of the planet, her determination and steadfastness in the face of scathing dismissals as being 'irrelevant' or 'poorly informed' would almost be admirable.  Almost.  Instead, her laser-like focus on the Presidency, and her almost rabid belief that she knows the cures for all the nation's ills, is fairly frightening. 

As if the threat of the United States possibly being "Newt"-ered isn't enough to cause someone to contemplate a renewed faith in a higher power and the hope for deliverance from bombastic inanity, the haunting specter, and spectacle, that would be a "Bachmann Presidency" is reason enough to question how in Hell does someone of, at times, marginal intelligence and unchecked bravado and braggadocio find themself being a contender for the nomination to run for the Presidency on behalf of the Republican Party?  America has always been proud to promote itself as the "land of opportunity."  Where anyone can, with enough hard work and determination, reach untold heights of personal and professional success if they so choose.  But when the Michelle Bachmann's of the world come even THIS close to the "levers of power," we need to rethink how such a bizarre concurrence of events could have happened.  And strive to make sure that this particular bolt of lightening does NOT strike twice.

Majority Of Voters Support Protections For Gay Workers

 

By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: December 13, 2011

A survey released Friday found a vast majority of voters support protections for gay workers.
The poll released by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Research found that 77 percent of voters support protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment.
“Indeed, support for anti-discrimination laws and policies are so non-controversial that overwhelming majorities of Republicans, conservatives and observant Christians support them as well,” the report's authors wrote.
Seventy percent of Republicans and sixty-seven percent of conservatives support such protections.
The poll also found that a large majority (87%) of respondents believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for his or her sexual orientation, while 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.
The poll demonstrates strong support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a proposed federal bill that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 (except the 109^th; 2005-2007).

Pollsters surveyed 800 likely voters between November 9 and 13. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.

That Gay Marriage Thing ... It's Bad, Right? Right?! Apparently Not!

Gay Marriage Has Boosted Iowa’s Economy, Study Concludes

The legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa has provided an ecnomic boost to the state, according to a new study by UCLA.
The study was released by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law which focuses on sexual orientation and public policy. It found that since Iowa extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2009, the resulting spending on wedding arrangements and tourism provided an additional $12 to $13 million to the state and local economy.
The institute estimated that gay marriages have likely added between $858,000 and $930,000 in tax revenue to the state.
The release of the report, titled “Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax,” comes just weeks before the Iowa caucus, the first of the Republican presidential nominating votes.
None of the eight individuals currently running for president, including Barack Obama, have explicitly expressed support for gay marriage, but there is a strong opposition to the idea within the Republican Party.
Five of the seven candidates currently seeking the GOP nomination have come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Four of the candidates – Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum – have signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising their support for the federal ban.
Only Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have said that they would not support such an amendment. Paul believes that marriage is a private matter and that the government should have no involvement. Huntsman says that while traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does support civil unions for same sex couples.
Timothy Hagle, associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa, predicts that because the party is relatively united on the issue, this study won’t likely be a factor in the caucus outcome.
“It really shouldn’t effect what’s going on in this race because it’s not something that particularly divides the Republicans,” Hagle said.
Lee Badgett, one of the authors of the study, tells ABC News that timing of the studies release is a coincidence.

Are We There Yet?

As if the Republican presidential nomination contest wasn't in enough of a muddle, now rumors are running rampant that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is re-considering his reconsideration of his consideration about whether or not to throw his hat into the ring.  Honestly, any normal person would be embarassed by the attention being fauned onto the man!  Should voters be troubled that he's not?  That, despite his repeated protestations that he was NOT going to run for president, he does nothing to actually tamp-down the rhetoric surrounding his 'flirting' with a presidential bid.  In fact, the way he's been jet-setting around the country the last few months, if one didn't know better they could easily assume that he is, in fact, running for the nomination and the presidency itself. 

Despite the dearth of amusing missteps, episodes of epic foot-in-mouth disease, and general hilarity that oft-times arises when a bunch of grown adults run-around acting like so many 10-year olds, that the contest for the Republican presidential nomination continues to drag-on without any clear frontrunner coming to the fore should be and indication to those on the Right that they should perhaps do some serious party-wide soul searching about their true motives behind their drive to the 2012 election.  If only ...

No doubt if Republican party members did consider their respective and collective situations they would come to a few sad (some could even say almost pathetic) realizations.  First among them being that they seem to have misplaced the 'soul' of the party.  Granted, amorphous non-tangible entities do not possess the ability to have an actual 'soul'.  In this circumstance references to a political parties' 'soul' describes those key principles upon which all that they do is based.  If asked there's no doubt that many members of the party would spout the standard party "talking points" of their being 'for' lower taxes, smaller government, strong national security and continuing to secure our civil rights and personal freedoms and liberties.  But how exactly does such a laundry list actually address the issues our nation and its citizens face today?  They largely don't.  Therein lies the second problem Republicans would realize should they embark upon their spiritual stock-taking.

Unemployment continues to hover around 9% (although the 'actual' unemployment figures are north of 15%).  Economic growth is anemic, at best.  The U.S. is STILL embroiled in two major conflicts, in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively.  Natural disasters (which have only strengthened the resolve of those professing the woes of climate change) have seemingly run amok across the country, sowing widespread death, injury and immense property damage and general devastation.  Now, how do the Republican "talking points" address those issues?  Well, in a word, they DON'T. 

Lower (or no, if they had their way) taxes is a nice thought.  And sadly, under the guidance (if we want to hazard calling his leadership 'guidance') of the Bush Administration the U.S. currently has the lowest overall tax rates since the 1940's.  The premise behind W's lowering of taxes was that doing so is the right thing to do because that money belongs to the American people, along with the notion that a lower tax rate will promote and support economic growth.  Apparently the economic 'gods' (and no, I'm not talking about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan) weren't paying enough attention to the Bush years, because not only was economic growth lackluster during Bush's tenure, but family incomes fell and prices began to climb.  No less than David Stockman, the guru President Reagan put in-charge of slashing tax rates in the 1980's, has come-out describing how the Bush economic policies not only embraced bad or failed policies of previous administrations (including Democrats), but they essentially doubled-down on them.  Couple those tax cuts with a spending orgy the likes we've not seen since, well, the Reagan era actually, and you have federal budget deficits that now threaten the economic stability of the entire planet!

Now, reducing tax rates is a sure-fire "winner" for many voters.  Particularly those on the Right who have long believed that taxes, in and of themselves, are the root of all evil.  And reducing taxes would be fine if the general condition of our society was A-OK.  But one only needs to walk out the front door of their homes to know that such is not the case.  In fact, there are a variety of segments of our society that are facing such a depletion of resources that this country is, in many respects, going backward!  For example, our national infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, electrical grid, etc. ... the stuff we all use in one way or another every single day, period) has earned a grade of "D" from a national association of civil engineers.  Take a drive in any city, county or state and you're guaranteed to be subjected to an ever-increasing assault wrought by driving over/into/around potholes, dips and bulges in roadways, sagging and crumbling bridges, and unabated traffic congestion that shows no hope of diminishing in the near or far future. 

Add to the problems that our fairly pathetic infrastructure provides us the fact that our society has a whole host of "ills" and "woes" that are best (and in some situations can only be) addressed on a national level, and it doesn't take long before any sane person realizes that not only do we need to fully fund current federal government programs and policies, but we actually need to see some respectable increases in some funding areas. 
 
Every major, respected economist has loudly proclaimed that the U.S. federal government must increase revenues (aka, taxes ... please, don't gasp ... I actually said 'more taxes) in order to begin bringing its fiscal 'house' into order.  And while many on the Right continue to suggest that increasing tax rates would spell certain doom for our struggling economy, the fact that throughout the 1950s the top tax rate was in excess of 90% and the country experienced its longest period of sustained economic growth and genuine general prosperity for the majority of Americans in its history illustrates the falsehood of their rhetoric. 

The Right also beats the ol' "smaller government" drum like they're a stoned rock musician: oblivious to their surroundings and the consequences of their actions, but playing away just the same.  But let's look at the notion of 'smaller government' honestly and realistically.  The only way to have smaller government is for government to stop doing something it's currently doing.  Fine.  So, what should stopped?  Well, typically high on the Republican wish list of program repeals or elimination are doing away with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Dept. of Education, and the Dept. of Energy, to name a few.  Are these people high?!  What planet are they living on?!  Did they miss the colossal cluster you-know-what that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last summer?!  It's a fairly reasonable conclusion to make that the Deep Horizon oil spill occurred primarily due to a serious LACK of appropriate regulation of the oil industry.  And they want to not only do away with the regulations the agency imposes and enforces, but they want to do away with the entire agency itself!!  So, what are they thinking?  That as the rules on safe and sensible conduct in the workplace go by the wayside that Corporate America is going to willingly "step into the breach" and self-police itself as well or better than the government did, does or ever will do?!  Once again, consider the Deepwater Horizon disaster ... which came-about largely because when it came to deep-water drilling for oil and natural gas, the industry was its own overseers.  Anyone heard of "putting the fox in charge of the hen house?" 

But that's not all!  As recent as this last week news reports have covered how more voluntary recalls by food processors/producers were underway because of fears of possible listeria and e coli contamination.  Consider what that means: despite the fact that food industry supporters believe they are over-regulated, foodstuffs continue to be contaminated in the plants that produce them and/or when they are enroute to food outlets and grocery stores.  So, in response to a marked increase in the number of reported food contamination cases (and the resultant illnesses and even deaths that have occurred), Republicans want to reduce or eliminate the regulation on the food industry!  That would be fine if we all still lived on farms and owned enough land and livestock with which to feed ourselves and our families.  But the reality is, at every turn possible Corporate America continues to remind us that they are not only unable, but are simply unwilling, to adequately monitor their own behavior and thus provide goods and services that are safe to use and are of reasonably good quality. 

And as if those weren't example enough of they kind of irresponsible and just plain ignorant governance (or the sad semblance thereof) that today's Republican party is trumpeting, they are adamantly opposed to there being any reasonable and rational reduction in the amount this nation spends for national defense.  It's not enough that the U.S. spends more for defense than what, altogether, every other industrialized country spends.  It's not enough that the federal defense budget has grown from under $300 billion when W took office to more than $700 billion for fiscal 2012!  It's not enough that while our nation faces real economic uncertainty, we have Republican members of Congress who are out actively trying to drum-up even more conflicts in which we should become involved!  There is nothing wrong with a strong national defense.  And as the world's sole remaining true military superpower, the U.S. does have some moral responsibility to use its political, economic and military influence in an effort to improve the lives of Americans AND the citizens of the world.  But that doesn't mean we should be expected to be, or pay for being, the world's police force!   Want an example of the Bizarro-World thinking of some when it comes to national defense?  The Defense Department wishes to build a new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, with which it will anchor a new carrier battle group.  Price tag for the carrier?  $9 billion!  Price tag for the battle group (which includes the various cruisers, destroyers, submarines and maintenance and replenishment craft needed to service a carrier and its attendant escorts)?  $20 billion!  And guess where this particular battle group is intended to serve?  The Caribbean and South Atlantic!  Has anyone else been made aware of a growing threat to U.S. sovereignty and security from South America?  Are we facing the threat of a penguin invasion from Antartica?!  Get serious!

And finally, Republicans like to suggest that they are the champion of personal freedoms and liberties.  That's a nice sentiment.  Unfortunately, when considering Republican past performance on the issues of civil rights and personal freedoms and liberties, reality is a real bitch.  Not only has the "Party of Lincoln" actively strived to add blatant discrimination against a select group of Americans into the U.S. Constitution.  Their latest moves in support of our freedoms and liberties include a whole host of legislative initiatives across the country that seek to make voting more difficult, in general, and almost impossible for some potential voters who belong to the disenfranchised and/or poor.  America's 20th century saw the end of literacy tests and poll taxes that were once a part of citizens trying to exercise their right to vote.  The Voting Rights Act of the 1960's sought to put an official end to voter discrimination on the basis of race.  And yet, 2011 heralds in a new era of stringent voting laws and regulations that do nothing to significantly improve voter participation.  Nor do the various proprosed laws/regulations do much (if anything) to reduce voter fraud (which is largely non-existent in the first place). 

In 2008 when Barack Obama was sworn-in as President of the United States the Republican members of Congress, almost unanimously, declared that it was their sole mission-in-life to see that our first African-American president serve only one term: that they were going to do anything and everything (and they have, too!) to ensure that he would not win re-election.  Despite the President doing everything short of changing his party affiliation to Republican, and despite the fact that the U.S. is saddled with incredibly difficult challenges, the Republican members of Congress continue to refuse to act in any rational, reasonable or responsible manner when it comes to actually striving to govern, and improve, the United States. 

If Republicans wish to put-forth a presidential candidate who carries with them a genuine desire to make things better for all Americans, the country (and the world) is ready and waiting.  Who thinks they will step-up and meet that challenge? 

"Boo"r-ish Behavior

The third nationally-televised Republican presidential primary candidates' debate gave viewers another in what is becoming a rather embarrassing (or at least those guilty of committing the faux pas should have the sense to be embarrassed of and for themselves) litany of offensive reactions to questions offered to or comments given by the candidates in-attendance.  When a gay U.S. Army servicemember asked in his YouTube question of the candidates whether they would attempt to circumvent the progress made in gay rights, epitomized most recently by the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", shouts of "Boo!" were heard emanating from the attending audience.  And while those audience members called-out their derision for the gay man who had the courage to put voice to his concerns, the candidates on the stage stood silent.  They not only did not rebuke the disrespect those audience members showed toward someone who is currently serving in the United States armed forces; their silence, to coin an old phrase, "was deafening."  They essentially gave license to anyone who wished to condemn and ostracize an American if they are gay.  Such behavior is not only offensive, but it is beneath what this nation is supposed to be all about.

Political candidates have an opportunity throughout a campaign, and then later while serving should they win their campaign, to define the moral character that they embody.  It gives potential voters a chance to see/hear what ideals and principles are important to the candidates.  Often times current events helps to shape what 'ideals and principles' are at the heart of voters' consciousness.  The fairly protracted legislative repeal of the federal government's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (allowing gay servicemembers to serve in the U.S. armed forces openly and honestly), and the official recission of that policy from the respect codes of conduct of the various armed forces, thrust the issue of gay rights and gay men and women serving in the armed forces into the forefront of the ongoing political debate.  And such moments provide candidates with a perfect opportunity to portray themselves someone who does not side with those who would choose to discriminate against gay Americans.  Instead, the entire cadre of candidates stood mum; looking like the perverbal "cat that ate the canary." 

And if there was any doubt about how many Republican voters feel about gays in general, Rick Santorum gave voice to their despicable moral stance by declaring that he would not attempt to "get around" the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; he would reinstate the policy.  He doesn't feel that the U.S. armed forces is the place for any sort of discussion or recognition of sexual orientation/intimacy.  An opinion that is obviously out-of-touch with reality.  If our armed forces was such a paragon of non-sexual virtue, then we wouldn't have experienced the "Tailhook" scandal of the latter part of the 20th century.  We wouldn't have servicemembers reporting all manner of sexual assaults, rapes and molestations committed upon their persons by their fellow soldiers; they wouldn't exist is such a sex/sexuality-free vacuum. 

Let's face it.  There are some Americans who simply do not like homosexuals.  Period.  In fact, many of those same Americans feels so strongly in their dislike of gays that they would support the forced removal of them from American society.  That's fine.  While many would agree with the premise that discrimination against gays is simply wrong, noone is suggesting that Americans shouldn't be allowed to believe whatever they wish to.  But the right to think that homosexuality is some sort of corruption visited upon human society has not, does not and should never give anyone reason to believe that it is appropriate to actively publicly discriminate against gay men and women. 

It's safe to say that noone thought that the contest among Republican presidential candidates wannabe's would produce some stalwart defender of acceptance, tolerance and equality.  Americans aren't quite that naive.  But I do believe that most Americans would hope that those individuals who feel they are, for some reason, qualified to be the leader of the free world, would demonstrate the very best of our those very American ideals of acceptance, tolerance and equality. 

I don't think any American is expecting any sort of miracles to come about from the Republican debates.  I don't think most Americans expect much of anything from the debates, other than perhaps a certain measure of amusement and macabre entertainment.  I do think most Americans want our President, whoever he or she might be, to be someone they can be proud of when standing on the world stage.  Who could be proud of the shameful display we witnessed last night?  Not I.