Letter about Chamblis election

Should Saxby Chambliss be returned as a from Georgia?No. He does a fine job already as a representative of the Imperial Sugar company. After the explosion at that plant in Savannah earlier this year he went to a Congressional hearing and attacked the whistleblower for pointing out that this explosion didn’t have to happen if Imperial didn’t ignore the high risk of combustible dust hazards. Indeed, OSHA chief Edwin Foulke, Jr stated that the explosion could have been prevented if Imperial had complied with existing OSHA standards and health safety standards. Savannah Morning News stated that the good senator was put up by Imperial to harass the whistleblower. Senator Isakson, a fellow Republican and no leftwing partisan, stated that the whisteblower’s evidence was credible. Does Chambliss care more about the people of Georgia and its’ workers or the elite? Indeed, Chambliss’s PAC received $9500 from the sugar lobby. Now, is this is the Senator’s opinion, that the profits of his “donors” are more important then ensuring the safety of the voters and workers of Georgia? Sen. McCain stated about a campaign ad directed against Chambliss’s opponent in 2002, Vietnam Veteran Max Cleland, that it was “it’s worse then disgraceful, it’s reprehensible. Fellow Republican Senator Chuck Hagel decried it as “beyond offensive to me.” Senator Chambliss supported the massive financial bailout without restrictions on “golden parachutes” of crooked or corrupt CEOS and senior executives. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which dismantled the safeguards that had been put into place after the collapse of the stock market in 1929 and helped lead to the present financial collapse that is burdening taxpayers already with the fallout. Chambliss also voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated whole sectors of the financial markets, including derivatives like the credit default swaps that brought down AIG. More costs to the taxpayers. Does Sen. Chambliss represent the people of the state of Georgia? Yes, absolutely, along as you are one of the elite who are able to give generous amounts to his political campaign. Along as you are an elite who wants legislative favors from the good senator. If that is you, if that meets the definition of you as a Georgian, then by all means support Senator Chambliss. If not, then maybe you want to look for a change. His name is Jim Martin.

Same Sex Marriage threatens society?

Some state that same sex marriages are threatening their right to see these marriages as illegitimate. This is not true. If one wants to disagree with sex marriages, fine. They lose this right to do so no more then those believe that there should be no right of marriage between a couple where one is 20 years older then another. But, the government represents all taxpaying and law abiding peoples of that state who enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The government has to ensure everyone is treated equal under the law. What about civil unions? Well, if civil unions are fine for same sex couples and their children why then not for heterosexual couples and their children? Marriage was invented by human beings to serve our societal/individual needs such as the raising of children. Hundreds of thousands of children today are being raised by same sex couples. They would be better off if their parents weren’t married? I don’ think those who oppose same sex marriage are full of hate but I don’t think enough of them have gotten to know the proud gay parents across the street who are raising great kids.



Another letter on domestic partnerships
I am confused, if domestic partnerships are ok for same sex couples, they aren’t for heterosexual couples? After all, both groups are today raising children. Are the children of same sex couples inferior and less worthy of protection? I think that most Americans would say of course not. They aren’t 2nd class citizens and their parents aren’t 2nd class parents who should be ok with a watered/legalistic version of marriage which ironically doesn’t even offer the same full rights as marriage. Even if civil unions in fact did that would we say that was ok? No, marriage is also symbolic. It is a statement that we don’t think of one group of people as so inferior to the rest of society that we have to create a special system that no one else really wants for themselves, for them. Those who oppose same sex marriage don’t hate but I don’t believe they truly understand what it is for society to say to you, that you are not a full member of society or at the very least your relationship is not really valued by society.

Couple denied same sex marriage license in CA

While online I saw a picture that made me stare and made me think that a picture is really worth a thousand words. It showed two women being denied a marriage license in California right after the election. One can’t see their faces, just their backs as they walk down the long hallway after being turned away. I know some might be happy at that sight (or at least relieved) under the idea that “marriage was being protected” from those two women. I don’t remember their names or if they were printed with the article. But those women, who loved each other and cared for each other (I am sure) were turned away. Now, was it the will of the people of California. Sure, a slight majority but I wonder if some of those 52% who voted to take marriage away from that couple, would have changed their minds after looking at that picture. I never saw the couple’s faces but I could imagine the utter disappointment of not only those two women but their friends and families who wished for the couple not only to enjoy the benefits of marriage but the symbolic meaning of two people who love each other being able to wed. I imagine that one of the couple’s mothers might have given their daughter a token from her own wedding. The problem with a ban on same sex marriage is that it is one thing in the abstract when one doesn’t have to deal with the pain, the hurt, the disappointment of someone one doesn’t know or talk to and another when a person actually has a close gay family member or friend or wishes to marry someone under the law but are denied to do so. I realize that those who voted for the ban believed they were doing the right thing for America. That they weren’t voting for a ban because they hate gays, but because they sincerely believed they were protecting marriage. But the problem is, when you vote to restrict someone from marrying the person that they love (just as you could marry the person you loved) are you not saying that their love should be valued less and that the government of all people should put this into law? Who is the government to say one the love of two people is less worthy? When has the government become Cupid? Are civil unions just as good? To a certain extent they have some of the same benefits but in America symbolism is also important, as it should be
No, I believe times will change, as they often do. Are there setbacks? Yes, on election day there were when it came to the rights of same sex couples to marry but I believe in America. I believe that America, in the end, will do what is right. I believe that in the end America will say to its’ gay cousins and aunts and uncles and brothers and children that you are one of us. That you work and pay taxes and serve our country and yes you deserve the same rights as everyone else. I believe that day is coming. I wish it would come sooner but it will come.

Palin to would be protestors: Basically go to Cuba

Sarah Palin has said to would be protestors ( actually supporters of hers) at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using that freedom. Mrs. Palin, people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say yes to whatever the government says we should follow. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio (who opposed the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Neither fringe of both parties does their side justice. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those conservatives who also do the same exact things, is absurd.

A GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.

Libs hate real Americans?

North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those who also do the same exact things, is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.

Colin Powell and and McCain and Sarah Palin

Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for President and not John McCain. This is a man who was Chairman of the Joint Chieff of Staff, highest position in the US Military. He was National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. No man or woman has higher qualifications on who should run this country and its' military and foreign policy. The only question I have, when is the rightwing smear campaign about to begin on Gen Powell? For a group that supposedly supports members of the military I bet they smear this fine man's character. Sarah Palin, she of the secessionist family ties, talked about in a speech about a "pro-America" region of America. So those Americans who died in the WTC attack weren't pro-America, Ms. Palin or were you talking about other parts of America? Which parts do you mean? It seems pro America regions are only those that support her. Mrs. Palin has said to would be protestors, actually supporters of hers, at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using their free speech rights. Mrs. Palin people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. Defend your accepting favors as Governor of Alaska. Defend your abuse of authority as Governor of Alaska including firing the Public Safety Commissioner of the State of Alaska. Don’t hide behind our brave troops Ms. Palin. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say, ok to whatever the government says and wants but questions are government when need be. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Sean Hannitys of the world (who questioned the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. Finally what about John McCain’s connections? He has on his staff, Rick Davis, Charlie Black and others men who lobbied on behalf of dictators in Philippines, Zaire etc. He tried to get an entry visa for Russian Oligarch and mobster Oleg Depraska. He served on a board that was involved with death squads in Central America and that board had connections even with Klaus Barbie, one of Hitler’s Nazis. Was McCain connection to these individuals and despicable actions no but if serving on a board is reason to state one shouldn’t be President (as with Obama and Bill Ayers) then shouldn’t that be a reason against McCain? Lastly who else was on Ayers and Obama’s Board? None other then Arnold Weber, McCain donor and aide to both Nixon and Reagan.


Palin more pro-American?:

Sarah Palin talked about in a speech about a "pro-America" region of America. So those Americans who died in the WTC attack weren't pro-America, Ms. Palin or were you talking about other parts of America? Which parts do you mean? It seems pro America regions are only those that support her. Mrs. Palin has said to would be protestors, actually supporters of hers, at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using their free speech rights. Mrs. Palin people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. Defend your accepting favors as Governor of Alaska. Defend your abuse of authority as Governor of Alaska including firing the Public Safety Commissioner of the State of Alaska. Don’t hide behind our brave troops Ms. Palin. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say, ok to whatever the government says and wants but questions are government when need be. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio (who opposed the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Neither fringe of both parties does their side justice. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those who also do the same exact things, is absurd. GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
Finally what about John McCain’s connections? He has on his staff, Rick Davis, Charlie Black and others men who lobbied on behalf of dictators in Philippines, Zaire etc. He tried to get an entry visa for Russian Oligarch and mobster Oleg Depraska. He served on a board that was involved with death squads in Central America and that board had connections even with Klaus Barbie, one of Hitler’s Nazis. Was McCain connection to these individuals and despicable actions no but if serving on a board is reason to state one shouldn’t be President (as with Obama and Bill Ayers) then shouldn’t that be a reason against McCain? Lastly who else was on Ayers and Obama’s Board? None other then Arnold Weber, McCain donor and aide to both Nixon and Reagan.

Nation under God?/McCain a straight talker

James Wilson stated that “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge does not divide our nation. Well it does to the extent that tens of millions of Americans, though a minority I admit, object to the inserting of pro-religious language of our secular government. Not all of these people are the “dreaded atheists”, a good deal are devout religious believers who don’t believe this is the arena of government. Let the question of God existing or not by public debate, the government shouldn’t take sides. I would be just as opposed if our national motto stated a deity did not exist. God. If God exists, he does not need the help of government. I am not in offended by the mention of God, by private citizens or groups or even by the placement of pro-religious material on public property along as humanist or atheist citizens have the same right to put their message on public property. The rights of religious individuals and groups is dear and fundamental to Americans but those rights are not contingent on the government stating they are true.


Letter on McCain being a straight talker, supposedly.

John McCain likes to call himself the “Straight Talker”. Maybe he was at one time, but not anymore. He has stated that Barack Obama favors comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners, implying that Obama would teach 6 year olds all about sex. Karl Rove, by no means an Obama partisan but a mastermind behind the GOP, has said McCain has gone too far in his “truth” telling. Sen. Obama has supported, as have many republicans, the common sense notion that some touch is good and some is bad touch and that is what should be taught. McCain’s VP running mate Sarah Palin has said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Actually, running for governor of Alaska she supported it and her support of the bridge did not change until it became politically unpopular by ironically, such critics as Sen. McCain. Another reason for her sudden opposition was that the federal government wasn’t going to pay for the whole bridge for the state of Alaska. The pastor of a church in Alaska that she was for a member for years, and she still has connections with, made a comment that criticism of the President is like criticism of one’s pastor. Pastor Kalnins seems to believe dissent from a President is analogous to a divine right of a monarchy. This is an idea that even the most conservative and religious Americans would be aghast at. I hope Sarah Palin does not share the same view as Kalnins. What about Palin and the Alaska Independence Party? She has connections to that party and at the very least her husband was a member of that party. The founder of the AIP is Joe Vogler, a man who stated about the American flag, "and I won't be buried under their damn flag," Now, imagine for a second that Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, had connections to a secession party and the implications of it on (GOP) rightwingradio. She would be condemned as a “hater of America”, “unpatriotic” or any of the statements that those who disagree with conservatives and their policies have been called since we became a nation. Mrs. Palin wants us to vote for us because she is from a small town and a hockey mom, I don’t care if she was from the smallest town in America or New York City. I want a competent President not someone who condescends to Americans. Are the Obama’s perfect? No, of course not. They both have made statements they regret. Everyone regrets, especially those who speak a lot, statements that they wish to take back but the difference between the Obama’s church and patriotism issues is that those have been questioned and examined to a high degree by the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world who completely and totally excusing every flaw in the Palin pick.