Shopping for Outrage


There are many things I find wearying about political races, but few are more so than candidates looking for issues they can exploit for their own gain.

The latest here is the ongoing debate about President Obama and his Affordable Care Act: he proposes that beginning this September most insurers will be required to provide contraceptives. Some of the companies that will now need to provide that are certain Catholic institutions. Not surprisingly, some Catholic institutions oppose this: you can see the US Catholic Bishop’s response here.

The Catholic Church has had a longstanding view that artificial birth control is immoral. Almost nobody has done this, but you can read two encyclicals on this: Casti Connubii (1931) and Humanae Vitae (1968).

Interestingly enough, Catholics couples use artificial birth control at about the same rate as everyone else. Many liberal and faithful Catholics (like me) think this line in the sand by the Church is a mistake. It makes us look silly, out of touch, and anachronistic. It’s time for Rome to admit Paul VI made a mistake with Humanae Vitae.

What’s frustrating for us is that the Republican candidates have grabbed this silly issue and run with it: they have found a place to declare outrage. They are turning this into a religious freedom issue and making it sound like President Obama is waging war on us. He isn’t.

The president is simply making the point that we all do better when couples have the tools they need to make a better life for themselves and their children. It’s easy for (Catholics) Rick and Karen Santorum to have 7 children: Rick earned nearly a million dollars last year. For other couples who dearly love each other but aren’t blessed to be former congressmen, who are making their livings as cops, teachers, or construction workers, it’s not so easy.

We should hear their voices too.

Hank Williams Jr., Monday Night Football, and the First Amendment

I’ve been watching Monday Night Football since its inception in 1970. It’s gone through lots of changes, but for since 1989 we’ve heard Hank Williams, Jr. ask: “ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?” Truth be told I thought for the first few years the singer was Eddie Rabbit but he died in 1998.

Back to Hank: he’s an unabashed Republican and does not support President Obama. We disagree on this, but I can appreciate his talent as a musician while disagreeing on his politics.

Alas, last week he went too far. He compared the golf summit between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner as akin to “Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”

I’m of the belief that it will take about 200 years before any analogy with Hitler won’t inflame people and shouldn’t be used. But as an American I need to accept that any other American can disagree with me, and I have no Constitutional right to not be offended.

Mr. Williams is not of that belief.

ESPN elected to end their contract with Mr. Williams (there’s some dispute over whether he quit or was fired). Hank’s response was to say this:

“After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You [ESPN] stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.

OK Hank, here’s some hard truths:

The First Amendment does not support you. The text of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says this about freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hank, the Constitution states that you cannot be arrested for anything you say in a public setting. It does not mean that you can say anything you want without consequences. For example, if you tell your wife she’s ugly and stupid she can’t have you arrested but that doesn’t mean she can’t make your life a living hell.

Hank: you live in a wonderful country. You should learn more about it.

Michele Bachmann: Pushing the Envelope of Stupid and Scary

Michele Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota who is running for President. She’s one of the favorites of the Tea Party and has been a darling of the conservative press.

She’s also either crazy or stupid (or both). During the debate on the debt limit in July and August she promised to vote against raising the debt limit. She claimed this was the only way to reign in government spending. What she didn’t say was that voting against raising the dept limit wasn’t cutting up the government credit card, it was cutting up the statement after using the card. Fortunately she wasn’t successful.

On Monday night, September 12th, she was participating in a debate with others seeking the Republican nomination and disagreed with Texas Governor Rick Perry over the HPV or Human Papillomavirus. In 2007 Governor Perry signed an executive order mandating the HPV vaccine for 6th grade girls (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend the vaccine for 11 and 12 year old girls) but also provided parents with the opportunity to opt out. The vaccine is critical in preventing cervical cancer, but many oppose it because one of the risk factors of cervical cancer is sexual activity. The opposition fears that by giving this vaccine to girls, it is tacitly giving them permission to be sexually active as teens and young adults. I can’t imagine an 11 year old getting the vaccine and viewing it as a green light to be sexually irresponsible, but that’s their argument. In any case Perry’s decision was one of the few I agree with.

In the debate Bachmann argued against the vaccine and hinted darkly that Perry signed it in return for a campaign contribution from its manufacturer, Merck. Interesting that she didn’t also tell the audience that while she was in the state legislature in Minnesota she voted for mandatory Hepatitis B vaccine, which is also often caused by sexual activity.

OK, so far this is just ordinary politics. Unfortunately Michele couldn’t leave it alone. The next day on the Today Show she claimed that she spoke with a mother in Tampa Bay who claimed the vaccine caused her daughter to become mentally retarded. Of course, we’ve not heard from the mother since.

This is where Michele becomes more than just an annoyance: this is where she become dangerous. I don’t blame her for wanting to be President or for criticizing one of her opponents, but she goes too far when she scares people needlessly. It’s hard enough being an 11 year old girl, and it’s hard enough to be a parent who hopes his or her daughter will be sexually responsible and safe. Parents have to make decisions that will balance their trust and fear and it’s hard enough without added pressure. When Michele Bachmann falsely claims that this vaccine will harm your daughter, it makes a bad situation worse.

Simply put, she’s wrong. She’s giving bad information to a vulnerable audience in the hopes that they will vote for her out of fear. It won’t work (there’s not a chance she will be our next President) but it may cause parents to make bad decisions out of the fear that she perpetrates. I wrote an earlier post on the people who spread lies about vaccines in the hopes that they will benefit. This is just another chapter in that story.

Shame on you Michele Bachmann.

And Now We Have Two (Cats)

Scully In a previous post I talked about the frustration with dealing with the local Department of Animal Services.

As you can see from the picture, it did have a happy ending. I returned on Thursday, September 1st and was actually able to take him home. Now I can be fully honest. When I went to pick him up and they told me he had to be neutered, they also told me that they would have to test him for feline leukemia. If he came back positive I could “pick another cat.” In other words, they would euthanize him. It wasn’t a great ride home.

When I brought him home we had to come up with a name. When Craig and Alison found him they suggested “Slugger” since he was found on a baseball field. Nancy at first suggested “Patches” due to his coat but I found that too common. My suggestion was “TrouvĂ©” which is French for “Found” but Nancy thought that was too obscure. We liked the idea of a baseball theme, and Nancy suggested “Scully” after now famous Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully.

Scully came to us with a large measure of enthusiasm and purring, but also with an upper respiratory infection (ie, a cold). A kitten who sneezes constantly is always a cause for concern, but our veterinarian (Dr. John Hetzler) at Ark Animal Hospital believes it will take care of itself in a matter of days. It’s getting better, but still hard to take at 2AM.

You may ask how Scully is relating to our other cat, Missy. It hasn’t been the easiest of introductions but it seems to be working. Missy is playing the role of the older sister who is not happy about having a little brother, but she’s coping. They may end up as pals, but for the time being Missy is giving Scully a wide berth.

More later.

Reflections on The Day, 10 Years Later

Like Pearl Harbor and President Kennedy’s assassination, my generation will ask: “Where were you on 9/11?” I’ve been thinking about that day, and the last 10 years, for some time now.

The morning of the attack Nancy and I were getting ready for work. My parents were visiting from Virginia, and they were staying with us at the house we had purchased 5 months earlier. They were scheduled to fly home on September 12th. Needless to say they didn’t get home until that following Sunday.

I was still working for Vitas Hospice and that Tuesday morning I had to go into the office for a meeting. During the meeting (on the 9th floor of a building in Mission Valley) I noticed that one of my co workers kept steeling glances out the window. I guess we were all wondering if the attacks were really over.

I found many of my patients wanted to talk about Pearl Harbor because they were feeling many of the same things: what does this mean? What will happen next? What do we do now? In both cases we knew that this was the beginning of a long conflict, but in 1941 we at least knew who we were fighting against. When Franklin Roosevelt spoke to Congress the next day, it was clear: we were attacked by the nation of Japan and President Roosevelt asked for (and received) a declaration of war, in accordance of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

On 9/11 we knew pretty quickly that we were attacked not by a nation but by a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) under the leadership of one person (Osama bin Laden). We were also learning that Al Qaeda was located primarily in Afghanistan under the protection of a group called the Taliban. Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war, but the Taliban controlled most of the country by 2001. We had known about all these groups going back to the Clinton administration. The Taliban were known as an Islamic organization that read the Qu’ran (Koran) in such a way as to subjugate and virtually enslave women. Worldwide human rights organizations had been publicizing these events for a while, but while they were committing these crimes in Afghanistan, they posed no immediate harm to the United States.

The Bush administration had a fundamental choice to make: do we treat this as an act of war and ask for a declaration of war against Afghanistan, or do we treat this like a crime and seek out and arrest those individuals responsible for this act. At the time I believed there was a good case to be made for a declaration of war. Our government demanded that the nation of Afghanistan immediate hand over Osama bin Laden and anyone else associated with the attacks, and they refused. I believed then, and believe now, that we could have reasonably declared war on Afghanistan.

But I also believed (and believe more strongly now) that this was better pursued as a criminal case. This is grist for another day, but our intelligence services had mounds of information on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, but they didn’t share this information with each other and there was nobody to put together the pieces to have prevented this. As a matter of fact, the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing predicted the attacks.

Given the intelligence we already had, I believe we could have found and prosecuted bin Laden within the next few months. But I believe the Bush administration committed a series of errors that historians of the next generations will find hard to imagine.

First, to the question of which direction, they choose neither. A declaration of war meant that anyone captured had to be classified as a prisoner of war and have the protections of the Geneva Convention. A criminal case meant that anyone arrested would have the protection of civil law.

Clearly the Bush administration did not want to be constrained by either and so they invented their own path. This allowed them to come up with terms such as “enemy combatant” and “extraordinary rendition.” It also allowed us to arrest anyone, anywhere in the world, take him to Guantanamo, Cuba and hold him there indefinitely with no access to justice. At least at the beginning they were held with no access to council, their own government, or any idea what would happen to them. Many of them are still there.

Unlike President Bush, I have enough faith in our justice system to believe that we could have brought them to trial here. My best example of this is the case of Timothy McVeigh. I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that he didn’t have a spirited defense, or that justice was not served.

Now, 10 years later, I will give credit: Al Qaeda is greatly reduced and isn’t the threat it was. Osama bin Laden is dead, and most of its leadership is captured and unable to cause any more terror.

But we are still at war in two different countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. Again this is grist for another article, but I believe another mistake of the Bush administration is to focus not on Afghanistan, but on Iraq. Nobody seriously believes that Saddam Huessin had anything to do with 9/11, yet we invaded his country in 2003, dismantled the government, destroyed much of the infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians, and are still trying to get out.

And perhaps most troubling to me is the damage done to our reputation, and to our Constitution. President Bush claimed that they attacked us because we love freedom (they actually attacked us because of the presence of our troops in Arab countries and our support of Israel, but let’s not quibble). But what does this say about freedom when we hold people indefinitely and make up terms like “enemy combatant” for the express purpose of not having to deal reasonably with them?

I’m not sure if I’ll write on the 20th anniversary, but I hope we’ve restored much of what we’ve lost.

San Diego County Department of Animal Services: Run Far Away, Run Fast!

OK, almost everyone has a story about the nutty stuff we have to do when interfacing with local bureaucracy. Here’s mine: Last week our neighbors Craig and Alison were walking their dog Buddy about 9pm. Our street ends at a canyon that is full of coyotes; Craig and Alison saw a kitten there. Craig is allergic but they knew that the kitten would be eaten if left there and they called us. We agreed to keep the kitten for the night and suspected that it had been abandoned. But we also wanted him returned if it was lost.

The next morning Alison took him to the Humane Society to see if he had a microchip. Alas, the Humane Society doesn’t check for this and they sent Alison next door to the Department of Animal Services (aka the Pound). When Alison asked about the microchip the DAS took the kitten, told her that they would have to hold him for 5 days, but that Alison could apply to adopt him if nobody claimed him.

Since Nancy and I wanted to adopt this kitten I went down to their offices to fill out an application where I was told that I could have the kitten in 7 days (assuming he wasn’t claimed); when I asked why it went from 5 to 7 days I was cheerfully told that it was 5 business days. I filled out a form and was told that on Wednesday from 10AM to 11AM I could adopt him, but that after 11AM anyone could adopt him.

It was a long week, but I checked on him a few times. I could see him through the window but couldn’t have any contact. This morning I got there at 9:30. I was told that I could indeed adopt him, but when the caseworker saw the carrier I brought she cheerfully said: “Oh you don’t need a carrier. You won’t be bringing him home today.” When I asked why not she said that he has to be neutered and that appointment would be set for Saturday or Sunday (even though they are closed on Sunday).

Never underestimate the power of a well placed glare. Because of my glaring at the caseworker, the operation is set for tomorrow and I can pick him up tomorrow. I tried my best to get them to guarantee that there will be no other delays. We’ll see if that happens.

Here is my question: they have to neuter him by state law before releasing him and I support that. They’ve known for a week (or 5 business days, whichever comes first) that I want to adopt him. Why didn’t they neuter him during the week? Unfortunately this is a department that still euthanizes animals from time to time and I understand that they don’t want to perform an operation on an animal that won’t go home, but they knew this kitten would go home. I also promised them I would have my veterinarian neuter him if I could have him today but that went nowhere (even though I would be willing to pay and save the county money).

Speaking of money, they’ve had to house and feed this kitten for 7 days when I would have willing to take him. I’m not normally one who bangs the drum of government waste, but this is one time when it’s staring me in the face.

Stay tuned.

Is There Anyone Not Running For President?

In my last post I talked about listing the people running for President in 2012. Running for President is fairly easy: you just need to have been born in the United States (which includes our territories) and be 35 years old. There are, currently, two major parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. It’s a virtually certainty that the winner of the 2012 election will be from one of those two parties. Furthermore, I expect I join most Democrats in believing that President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. The Republican nominee is a wide open field.

Nevertheless, I’ve chosen to add other candidates to my list. Some are challengers to major party candidates; others are members of minor parties; finally, others are people who belong to no party and run as independents. I don’t expect any of them to move into the White House on January 20, 2013, but I’m including them to show that there is no reason they can’t.

Frankly, the job of looking at their web pages has been a painful job. I find most of them delusional and think our Founding Fathers would be holding their noses too. Most of them are running on a platform of “the past years/decades/centuries have shown that our forefathers would be horrified at seeing what the government is doing. I’ve arrived just in time to save us. Vote for me.” On the whole they believe that government is too intrusive and that we would do better if nobody told us what to do.

I’m American enough to not like to be told what to do but I also believe that most of us like what the government does when we need something. I like the idea that my local government will send someone to my house of I (or someone else in my family) have a heart attack or if my house catches on fire. I like having a public library system even if I don’t use it very often. I like the idea of having a good school system even if I don’t have children who attend (because, let’s face it, the students in those schools are the people I’m counting on to contribute to social security when we’re retired).

I’m not impressed by all the people who claim to “recapture” the values of the founders of our country and have no intention of voting for them, but I’m American enough to give them a voice. I’m encouraged by the belief that our next President is chosen not by those who chose to run, but by those who choose to vote.

Choose to vote.

Autism and Vaccines: Scaring Parents for Fun and Profit

For the past 12 years a former physician from England, Andrew Wakefield has been on a campaign to convince parents that there is a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism. The vaccine is normally given once at 12 to 15 months, with another dose before entering school (age 4 or 5). In 1998 Wakefield published a study in the British Medical Journal The Lancet claiming that a child who receives the vaccine has an increased risk of developing autism. In the first few years after the article, vaccine rates plummeted as parents of young children suddenly had to worry that they were trading protection against these diseases for a lifetime of autism.

Normally when a study of this importance is published, other scientists attempt to replicate it. This makes sense as anything true should be able to be replicated. But here’s where it started to unravel. Nobody who used Wakefield’s methodology came up with his results. Wakefield, being Wakefield, offered this theory: anyone who disagrees with me must be in the pockets of the drug companies who will lose money if their vaccines are shown to be harmful.

In 2004 Brian Deer, a journalist for the Sunday Times of London found that there’s more to the story than Wakefield is telling.

Wakefield claims this is about money and he’s been targeted by the drug companies. But the truth is very different. Wakefield has received $674,000 from lawyers who represented the parents of children with autism. At this point I strongly recommend that everyone buy and read a book called Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure by Paul Offit, MD. Dr. Offit shows that Wakefield was approached by lawyers who represented parents of children with autism. They were looking for a reason their children had autism and Wakefield began to look for a reason. Simply put, he couldn’t find one so he made one up.

He set to work falsifying the data. The study was conducted on only 12 children and he claimed 8 of them developed autism shortly after receiving the vaccine. Of the 12, it has since been shown that 5 of them showed symptoms of autism before the vaccine, and three of them never had autism. When these facts came out 10 of the coauthors on the study had their names removed. In February of 2010 the Lancet retracted the article and three months later Andrew Wakefield’s medical license was revoked. He now lives in the United States but does not have a license to practice medicine here.

There is an excellent CNN article on this. The British Journal BMJ has an article that claims this was not just bad science or histrionics, it is fraud.

In short, Wakefield was not mistaken or careless, he was fraudulent. He scares parents for fun and profit.

It Just Doesn't Pay to be Homophobic Anymore

You can probably guess my bias from the title of this blog, but I’ve been following 2 current issues with great interest: Proposition 8 and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (the current policy on gays serving in the US military).” It appears to me that equal rights for the gay population is only a matter of time.

Proposition 8 was a ballot measure here in California to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. There is some background to this: in March of 2000 California voted to prohibit same sex marriage by state law with Propsition 22. This law was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court who ruled 4-3 that Prop 22 is unconstitutional.

People who oppose gay marriage then decided that the best way to combat this was to pass another proposition that amends the state constitution. After all, the constitution can’t be unconstitutional. Backed by big bucks from the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Knights of Columbus, Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. Supporters thought they were done.

They weren’t. On May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court determined that Proposition 8 was constitutional, but opponents of Prop 8 then went to federal court on January 11, 2009, arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, Kristen Kelly and Sandra Steir, filed because they were denied a marriage license. The defendant was Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger by virtue of being governor. In a funny twist, neither Governor Schwartzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to actively defend Prop 8. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 fell to a group called Protect Marriage.

The case came before Judge John Walker. This appeared to be good news for the defendants as he ruled in a previous case that “Gay Olympics” was a copyright violation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and they had to change their name to the Gay Games. He had also been appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker surprised most of us by finding for the plaintiffs, deciding that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s now on appeal but it’s funny to see that all the people who liked John Walker before his decision have now decided that he’s gay (since he’s never been married) and the decision has no merit. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Meanwhile, in the military, they are still trying to decide what to do with men and women who are willing to fight and die for our freedom who happen to be gay. When President Clinton was running in 1992 there was pressure from the gay community to remove the ban on gays serving in the military. During the campaign he essentially promised to repeal the ban. Alas, once in office he faced more opposition than he expected and he bowed to that pressure. In 1993 Congress passed a bill called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and President Clinton signed it. Simply put, it legislated that nobody is allowed to ask if a service member is gay, and a gay servicemember is required to keep his/her orientation a secret. If (s)he says or does anything to indicate his/her gay orientation, (s)he can be immediately discharged from the service. Since passage 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged for being gay. In the gay community, DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) has been seen as open season on the gay population.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the debate began again. As I write this the bill to repeal DADT is moving through Congress. The House has already voted to repeal it, and it’s stuck in the Senate. It’s interesting to see what’s being said. My most interesting person is Senator John McCain. At first blush you’d think he’d be the “go to” guy on this issue given his background. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a pilot during Vietnam. He was shot down and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam. If ever there was a case where a group needed unit cohesion, it would be here. He has opposed DADT and it was easy to do this when the the leaders of the military opposed it. In fact, in 1986 he said this: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

He probably never expected this to happen, but it has. On December 2, 2010 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said this:

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.
And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

He made this statement against the backdrop of a study released by the Pentagon on November 30, 2010. The survey reviewed the beliefs of 115,000 active duty members of the military and 44,200 military spouses. About 70% of them indicated they had no problem with the idea of allowing gays to serve. Those in uniform lead those out of uniform: only 58% of all Americans favor this. Interestingly, the majority of both groups favor repealing DADT. And the 115,000? Well, 69% report that they have already worked with a gay servicemember and 92% of them said it had a positive impact or no impact on their working relationship.

So here we are: the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the repeal of DADT. And Senator McCain? He has abandoned his previous statement and now says: “This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency.” At no point does he admit he abandoned his earlier promise. Then again, he’s the guy who ran with Sarah Palin.

Of the people who still oppose DADT, they all pretty much respect Barry Goldwater who said this in 1993:

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing – but it’s pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn’t true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so. In fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act – not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows? (they say) perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential, period. That seems ridiculous now – as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man, our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy, like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least, and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it no American able to serve should be allowed – much less given an excuse – to not serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

Thank you Senator Goldwater (or, as your license plate said, AuH20).

Oh, and by the say, my favorite quotation from the report is this:

As one special operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy (in the unit). He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,’

Nowhere have I found a quotation that said: “I served with a homosexual and it hurt us as a unit.” Let me know if you have.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 4: Are We Ready To Go Backwards In Our Compassion?


This image may be a strange way to start a blog on justice, but bear with me. This is the death certificate of Joseph Arthur Calixte Lizotte in Greenfield, New Hampshire. For the record he’s my 7th cousin twice removed, though I doubt I would have ever met or heard of him had he lived. The death certificate is hard to read, but he died in 1915 at 16 months of cholera (that he had for 3 days) and malnutrition (that he had for his entire life).

I came across this death certificate about 10 years ago when I was doing genealogy research and was struck and saddened by the fact that someone could die (at least partly) from malnutrition here in the United States. Simply put, the programs that would have saved him wouldn’t exist until 20 years later when the country was in the middle of a depression.

As I look over the political landscape today I worry that we may be headed back to those days. The Great Depression lasted only a decade but framed much of the 20th Century. Talk to nearly anyone who lived through those years and he will tell you that it was when people came together to help each other. It was also a time when our nation began to reflect on common values. Led by President Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) we developed programs to support the elderly (Social Security), the poor (Welfare, later known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), and the unemployed (Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, and others). In later years help was expanded to include the hungry (Food Stamps). By the 1960s we began to provide health care to the elderly and the poor (Medicare and Medicaid).

Though far from complete, these programs ensured that most of the basic needs of most of us are provided. If my distant cousin had been born in 1934 instead of 1914 he likely would not have spent his entire life suffering from malnutrition. Because of progress made in plumbing and cleanliness he probably wouldn’t have even developed cholera, but if he did he would have had an 80% chance of surviving it (see the CDC for more information). All these programs were funded through the taxes we paid, and we paid them because they reflected our values.

Fast forward to today. I’m not sure we still share those values; as I read the political landscape, the only real value I see is that I should not be inconvenienced or charged for anything that will benefit anyone other than me. If you’re running for office, the fastest road to defeat lies in not promising to cut taxes. It’s become fashionable to claim that government does too much and is too costly. Meanwhile, on ground level, our schools, fire departments, libraries and infrastructure are crumbling. We are laying off teachers while school attendance continues to rise.

We’re also making it harder to access services. In 2008 here in San Diego, only 29% of those eligible for food stamps actually received them. Why not? These answers are always complicated but I don’t think anyone can deny that the process of applying is difficult and humiliating. Fortunately there has been some publicity around this and more hungry people are accessing food stamps, but the number is still too low.

This will ensure I can never run for office on any level, but I think we need to be willing to pay for what we value and be frank that we are all invested in good schools and full stomachs. We, as a whole, need to be compassionate not just with our minds but also with our wallets. We need to live in a society where nobody dies (even in part) of malnutrition.