Bill

---
EDIT:
This is the kind of response I am glad to see: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/africa/libya-benghazi-counter-protest/
Likewise this - http://tribune.com.pk/story/440754/abroad-protesters-take-to-the-streets-sans
I don't mind protests - hell I think people should protest when they think it will help bring about positive change - but violent protests like those in Pakistan today (or in Libya 10 days ago) are just absurd. People should not be dying over this stupidity.
Here is another peaceful protest in Afghanistan (about 500 people):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtqm2r_afghans-stage-peaceful-protest-against-anti-islam-film_news

#islam #Commentary #politics

Huntington WV, like pretty much every other city has it's fair share of problems. One which many others are also dealing with is a budgetary shortfall. However, unlike cities like Los Angeles our's isn't caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. Huntington didn't really feel the bubble swell or burst. Instead, ours is caused by a combination of prior obligations (pensions, insurance, etc) and a collection of people who have not paid their taxes or fees on simply things like the garbage fees.

Here in Huntington we are supposed to pay $15/month for garbage collection for each property we own. That really is a great deal. I've lived in plenty of other places where the garbage fee was anywhere from 50-100/month so I have no sympathy for the people who are dodging the reasonable $15 Huntington charges for such an necessary service. The city has never failed to show up and collect my trash, they have always worked to keep the fee as low as possible by working with the least expensive landfills they can find, and I'm happy to see the trash go away. Thus, when the city published a recent list of folks who owe more than $500 in refuse fees and who haven't made any effort to pay in the past year I was a bit disheartened to see that over $4,000,000 is owed the city. Coincidentally the city is about $4 million in debt so it would be awesome if they could somehow collect these past due fees.

The PDF is a little difficult to consume however so I decided to plot the points in a Google map using the fantastic free tool BatchGeo. Here is the resultant map; I've embedded it here but if you'd like full screen access you can get that by following this link.



If you know anyone on this list please go ask them why they aren't paying their fair share. Ask them why they think it is OK that they are making you foot their share of the bill. The people who do pay their fees are being faced with an additional one time $100 bill plus an increase of $5/month to our refuse fees to help make up this shortfall. Make the deadbeats and dodgers pay their share. I'm not encouraging violence but I am encouraging accountability. If the city can't convince them to pay maybe a little peer pressure will do the trick.

#Commentary

The Video

I don't really talk about Politics too often.  To be honest the topic annoys me because everything is always presented in such a us-vs-them way.  However, on occasion, I can't help myself.  This is one such occasion.

I don't have cable TV so I also don't watch any of the "news" stations but today I was sent this video clip on youtube from the Rachel Maddow Show.   I know, going into it, that she is an outspoken liberal and thus I am taking my understanding of her bias along for the ride.  Please watch the video before you read any further.

The Budget

I'm actually not all that fired up about the first half of the segment that discusses the budgetary changes in Michigan. I think that some of the elements highlighted seem pretty crazy and irresponsible but I can at least envision a logical reason for the shifting of budgetary priorities.

Michigan's economy is in the crapper - if the stories about Detroit are to be believed - thus it makes sense to try to lure more business to the state. I'm not sure punishing the poor and the universities is a good trade for an improved business climate but clearly something has to be done to draw companies to the state.

My problem with this video is the second half - the half on "financial emergencies"

Dire Financial Straights

The budget is setup in such a way that many towns and cities will suddenly find themselves in a dire financial situation. However, the governor has planned for that by adding in plans to help those towns out by letting him declare a "financial emergency"

And then things get kind of scary.

By declaring a town as a financial emergency the Govorner can remove the towns elected officials by Fiat! And, even worse, he can put anyone (or any company) in charge. I knew our country was crazy about commercialization but I had no idea we were on the verge of giving over rule of our people to companies directly. If that doesn't scare you at all then there is something wrong with you.

We are a democracy. If there was ever a topic for the "Tea Party" to get fired up about this is it! Forget about a big government or too many taxes - this is a clear violation of our democratic rights at the local level. The governor of Michigan wants to be a King and he to reward companies or people with their own duchies!

I'm not ready to be a serf. Sure, I don't live in Michigan, but if this passes into law there and survives what's to stop the idea from spreading to other states. Furthermore, why should I only care if it directly affects me. This is part of my country - my fellow citizens are on the verge of losing their democracy!

Even if you don't live in Michigan I suggest you spread the word, contact your representatives and let them know what you think, and write letters to the leaders of Michigan - do something to help stop this craziness from becoming a law.

EDIT:

Here is a link to the actual bill

Also here are some of the relevant portions of the bill dealing, specifically, with the Financial Emergency stuff:

Starting on Page 22; I've tried to maintain formatting and line numbers. You can go back a couple of pages to see exactly how a town is determined to be in a situation where it qualifies for this sort of takeover.

9  (4) Upon the confirmation of a finding of a financial  
10  emergency, the governor shall declare the local government in  
11  receivership and shall appoint an emergency manager to act for and  
12  in the place and stead of the governing body and the office of  
13  chief administrative officer of the local government. The emergency  
14  manager shall have broad powers in receivership to rectify the  
15  financial emergency and to local government and>> the local government's capacity 
16  to provide > necessary governmental services  
essential to the public 
17  health, safety, and welfare. Upon the declaration of receivership  
18  and during the pendency of receivership, the governing body and the  
19  chief administrative officer of the local government may not  
20  exercise any of the powers of those offices except as may be  
21  specifically authorized in writing by the emergency manager and are  
22  subject to any conditions required by the emergency manager.

The powers of the emergency manager are then detailed including these relevant bits starting on page 28:

Make, approve, or disapprove any appropriation, contract,  
8  expenditure, or loan, the creation of any new position, or the  
9  filling of any vacancy in a position by any appointing authority. 
10  (h) Review payrolls or other claims against the local  
11  government before payment. 
12  (i) Notwithstanding any minimum staffing level requirement  
13  established by charter or contract, establish and implement  
14  staffing levels for the local government. 
15  (j) Reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more terms and  
16  conditions of an existing contract. 
17  (k) After meeting and conferring with the appropriate  
18  bargaining representative and, if in the emergency manager's sole  
19  discretion and judgment, a prompt and satisfactory resolution is  
20  unlikely to be obtained, reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more  
21  terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining  
22  agreement. The rejection, modification, or termination of 1 or more  
23  terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement  
24  under this subdivision is a legitimate exercise of the state's  
25  sovereign powers if the emergency manager and state treasurer  
26  determine that all of the following conditions are satisfied: 

This then goes on to discuss the conditions for satisfaction and then the further powers are picked up including these on page 31

6  (n) Consolidate or eliminate departments of the local  
7  government or transfer functions from 1 department to another and  
8  appoint, supervise, and, at his or her discretion, remove  
9  administrators, including heads of departments other than elected  
10  officials. 

Finally starting near the end of page 33 and wrapping to page 34 is this:

27  (aa) Enter into agreements with 1 or more other local  

1  governments > for the consolidation of services. 
2  (bb) For a city, village, or township, the emergency manager  
3  may recommend to the state boundary commission that the municipal  
4  government consolidate with 1 or more other municipal governments,  
5  if the emergency manager determines that consolidation would  
6  materially alleviate the financial emergency of the municipal  
7  government and would not materially and adversely affect the  
8  financial situation of the government or governments with which the  
9  municipal government in receivership is consolidated. Consolidation  
10  under this subdivision shall proceed as provided by law. 
11  (cc) For municipal governments, with approval of the governor,  
12  disincorporate or dissolve the municipal government and assign its  
13  assets, debts, and liabilities as provided by law. 
14  (dd) Exercise solely, for and on behalf of the local  
15  government, all other authority and responsibilities of the chief  
16  administrative officer and governing body concerning the adoption,  
17  amendment, and enforcement of ordinances or resolutions of the  
18  local government as provided in the following acts: 
19   (i) The home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.1 to 117.38. 
20   (ii) The fourth class city act, 1895 PA 215, MCL 81.1 to  
21  113.20. 
22   (iii) The charter township act, 1947 PA 359, MCL 42.1 to 42.34. 
23   (iv) 1851 PA 156, MCL 46.1 to 46.32. 
24   (v) 1966 PA 293, MCL 45.501 to 45.521. 
25   (vi) The general law village act, 1895 PA 3, MCL 61.1 to 74.25. 
26   (vii) The home rule village act, 1909 PA 278, MCL 78.1 to  
27  78.28.

I have heard, but not confirmed yet, that these same kinds of rules existed as far back as 1990 in Michigan. However, that doesn't really make me feel any differently about these crazy kind of power given to the governor. I have also been told that Detroit is in such bad shape these kinds of laws are needed to fix Detroit. If it is just Detroit then why is the entire state being targeted in the language to the Bill? Why not craft a bill that specifically deals with Detroit and its' problems? I still have a lot to learn about this topic but so far I'm not feeling any better about the stuff in the Maddow video than I was when I first watched it.

#Commentary

The US Military has been in the news quite a bit lately and, surprisingly, it hasn't been about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the battle ground featured in two of the bigger stories I've heard recently has been the impotent halls of congress and the bullets have been flying over two very different points: Don't Ask Don't Tell and The DREAM Act.

Don't Ask Don't Tell, in case you've been living under a rock, is the Military's current policy on gays serving in the military. It basically means it is OK for homosexuals to serve but they aren't allowed to be open about their sexuality (i.e. they can't have a romantic relationship) and likewise they can't be asked if they are gay and nor can they be removed from the military for being gay without evidence. Overall it's a pretty weak policy and every year it seems like quite a few people get chaptered out of the military, ending otherwise fine and honorable careers, simply because they were gay.

President Obama and some of the democrats want to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) and to allow gay soldiers to serve in the military openly. Survey's have been done and studies have been performed that show that the majority of soldiers are OK with repealing DADT. Likewise some of the military's key leaders support the repeal. Yet, there are still some, such as Sen Jon McCain who oppose the repeal. I'm not going to jump on the Bash McCain bandwagon - there are plenty of folks doing that already. Instead I'm going to draw my attention to a rookie Senator, Joe Manchin, from West Virginia. He was cited on WV Public Radio yesterday morning as saying he was concerned about repealing DADT because he worried about the chaplains who have religious views that condemn homosexuality.

It's hard for me to put into words my disappointment in Mr. Manchin. I don't understand how he can seriously use that as justification for continuing to legally discriminate against people who are willing to die for our country. It isn't as if these gay soliders aren't serving honorably and doing just as good of a job as their straight counterparts. They do it all the while they sacrifice their own personal happiness to be with the people they love. Yet, somehow Manchin thinks it is OK to keep gay soldiers in a state of dispair because some chaplains might be uncomfortable. Give me a break.

Another reason Manchin sites is because the head of the Marines thinks we should wait until we aren't at war in Afghanistan anymore. Why? Supposedly to maintain troop morale. Of course that ignores the fact that all the gay soldiers morale is probably about as low as it can be considering their status in the military. The thing is the war in Afghanistan is just a red herring; it has nothing to do with the Marine commander's objections. The Marine and many others just don't want to accept gay people; but, instead of being honest about it they hide behind various excuses such as the ongoing war or "chaplains feelings". The same types of excuses were used to keep Black people out of the military in the past and, just like then, the bigots will eventually have to be steamrolled over to bright about a satisfactory end to the ridiculous policy of exclusion.

The other hot topic around the military right now is the DREAM Act. Much like DADT the uproar is rooted in bigotry but in this case it focuses on nationalities rather than sexual preferences. Honestly, the DREAM Act is the first piece of legislation I have seen that tries to take a sensible approach to our current immigration problems. We have millions of illegal immigrants living in our country and nobody will deny that something has to be done about it. However, in general, it seems nobody is willing to put forth a reasonable solution. The DREAM Act is targeted at illegal aliens who came here as children; on their parents accord, and tries to offer them a legal path to citizenship. It isn't, as some opponents call it, amnesty but rather a seemingly fair approach to allowing these kids a chance to earn their citizenship.

The act offers a chance at citizenship to any illegal immigrant who was brought here before they turned 16 so long as they graduate high school and do one of the following two options: attend college for two years OR enlist in the military. Some republican's in congress have insisted they will oppose this bill at all costs because they view it as amnesty for those who came here illegally. I don't buy it. How is serving in the military, putting your life on the line to protect our nation's freedoms, amnesty? How is going to college and working hard to become a productive member of society amnesty? Amnesty is just saying - "Hey, no worries, I know you broke the law but as of right now, you're off the hook, nothing more needs to be done by you - you're a citizen!"

The Dream Act clearly is not amnesty - it is a chance for people to earn citizenship. Plus, simply joining the military or going to college isn't all it takes. There is also a background check and you have to have a clean criminal record. Basically the Dream act tries to help the best of the illegal immigrants who were brought here with no say in the matter. It aims to help brave, intelligent, hard working, and honest kids move forward so they can have the came chance European immigrants had over he past three centuries.

Itseems like a win/win to me. We, as a nation win as we have soldiers lining up to serve while we wage our wars. We also win as a nation by having a more highly educated populace - which helps make us more competitive in the world. And, finally, these kids win by learning a skill while also earning their citizenship; enabling them to live a legal and productive life that contributes to our economy.

On this day, a day that lives on in infamy, I sincerely hope American's of all stripes will come together to contact their congress men and women to support freedom by repealing the DADT policy and the Dream Act. The first is nothing more than legalized bigotry and the second is a great first step in helping to bring about a resolution to our illegal immigration problems.

#Commentary

It has been nine years since the twin-towers were destroyed; nine years since my world was shaken. The morning of Sept 11, 2001, had started off oddly by any normal measure; we had two stray dogs in our front yard that wouldn't go away and whom Lisa and I decided to try and help for a bit before we headed for work and to take Shannon to daycare. After walking around the neighborhood for a bit we returned home and received a phone call from an elder neighbor telling us to turn on the TV. He wouldn't explain just insisted we turn it on. So we did and every channel was showing the same horrifying image of one of the two towers smoking and on fire with a huge gash torn into the structure. The other tower hadn't been hit yet.

I sat, stunned, by what I was seeing. I was in complete disbelief and I wondered if I was being punked in the vein of H.G. Wells "War of the Worlds". Sadly, as we all know now, it wasn't some cruel prank; it was a very real tragedy.

Eventually I managed to get up and go to work. By then the entire nations fleet of planes had been grounded, the second tower had been hit, the pentagon had been hit, and another plane had been destroyed in a field in Pennsylvania. I was furious and focusing on work was exceptionally hard. We had one TV in the building, in our meeting room,and someone had tuned it to a news channel. I often found myself back in the conference room staring blankly at the destruction, learning about the personal tragedies that had been happening at the tower as people opted for the non-chance to live by jumping out of the windows from over one hundred floors in the air. Each little tidbit of information that managed to reach into my clouded brain just kept making me more and more angry. I wanted to do something, to lash out and someone, to exact furious vengeance upon those who would attack us. I imagine, I felt very much like an American on Dec 8 1941 when everyone discovered what had happened a day prior at Perl Harbor. I was ready to storm into my local recruiters office and sign up to go kill the brazen mother-fuckers who were willing to attack my country.

Of course I didn't rejoin the Army. I had a wife and a six month old daughter to think about - I couldn't just take off and try to fight in a war without thinking about them and, honestly, the two of them meant more to me than getting revenge. Had I been single there is no doubt in my mind that I would have left my job that day and re-enlisted. I didn't care who was responsible I just wanted to lash out at them.

Eventually I calmed down. I have never let go of that anger though; whenever I think about what happened on that day I find myself just as shocked and angry as I did then. Growing up I can remember my parents referencing the day President Kennedy was shot as a day they could never forgot; 9-11 is that day for me. I hope that my children are never able to mark time by a tragedy; instead it is my sincerest wish that they always mark their memories with times of joy and happiness.

#Commentary

I'm not a constitutional scholar but I don't think I have to be to understand some of the basics, you know, like the 5th and 6th amendments which deal specifically with granting all American citizens the right to a trial and due process. Yet, somehow, President Obama, doesn't think they are applicable thanks to President Bush's declared, eternal, war on terror.

[Pres. Bush] authorized the military to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests {source}

You see, Obama (I'm dropping the honorific on purpose) has taken that declaration and run with it and authorized the assassination of an american citizen no matter where he is found.

The American citizen in question is Anwar Al-Awlaki a purported terrorist who is supposedly planning and coordinating attacks against the US. I'll readily admit that the accusations against him are exceptionally nasty and that, if true, he should be punished to the full extent of the law (I don't mind the death penalty in cases like this). It's important to note though that the key part of my last sentence was "if true." You see, we just don't know if he really has done what the executive branch is claiming. Has Al-Awlaki actually committed the crimes he is being hunted for? Maybe, heck even probably, but we don't know. Why don't we - because he hasn't been given a public trial, with a jury, where the evidence was actually presented.

Look, Al-Awlaki isn't some guy the military apprehended in the remote mountains of Afghanistan who isn't necessarilly afforded the rights bestowed by the constitution (i.e. Guantanamo prisoner) because he isn't a citizen (that is a completely different discussion). No, Al-Awlaki is a bona-fide American citizen who still has all the rights that designation entails. Just because he is a muslim, or because he lives outside the US now, or even because he actively speaks out against US policy doesn't mean he has forfeited his rights or his citizenship. He is, in essence, just like me - an American. Yet, he is being hunted by his own government; not to be arrested, but to be killed - to have his death sentence executed without ever having the benefit of a trial.

How can any freedom loving American defend this? How can anyone, regardless of political orientation sit back and condone the assassination of an American citizen by the American government? It is unjustifiable. It is an abomination! And it sets a chilling and dangerous precedent. If we, the people, allow this to happen, then we silently say we approve of a government that is willing to murder it's own people without proving just cause. We are saying that anyone, of any walk of life, can be targeted by the government and we don't care if they provide proof for their allegations.

Think of how easily this could be abused. If you are a left-winger think of Cindy Sheehan, the symbol of a grieving mother who actively protested the war in Iraq in front of Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Her outspoken rhetoric would have been enough to convince the right that she was surely actively plotting in, and coordinating, attacks on America - that she was a terrorist who the government could kill with impunity. If you are a right-winger imagine that Rush Limbaugh, in his political shock-jock fashion, continued to overtly criticize almost everything that Obama does was implicated (without a trial or any evidence) of conspiring and coordinating an attempt to assassinate the president (plenty on the left would gladly believe it) - a clearly terrorist act - and thus he too could be listed for assassination without being granted due process.

Imagine, by posting this mostly unread blog post, that I too could be listed as a terrorist that could be killed at anytime by our government without fear of a revolt by the people - that we would sit idly by and accept it.

Sure, neither I, Sheehan, nor Limbaugh are Al-Awlaki however all four of us share one critical characteristic - we are all American Citizens and we all deserve the full protection of the Constitutional rights we were born with. If our government wants to mete out the death penalty they need to prove our guilt first.

Some people may argue that the constitution actually authorizes this type of action; specifically citing the fifth ammendment:

...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;...

However, the assassination order doesn't deal with a battle field or even a specific time where the public is in danger. It is a clear and unbounded decree that Al-Awlaki can be killed no matter where he is found. The government isn't trying to kill Al-Awlaki while he is actively engaging in a crime - they just want to kill him; whether he is sleeping, swimming, sitting back enjoying a book, or walking along a beach taking in a sunset. It is a completely indefensible policy and explictly contradicts all of the protections afforded him in the Constitution, the 5th amendment not withstanding.

No matter your political leaning please do not sit quietly by and allow this type of action to happen without demanding an answer - without demanding that the Constitution be respected. To paraphrase Dr. King it is not the actions of evil people we need to fear it is the silence of good people. If we remain silent we grant, in absentia, to our government the right to murder it's own people. Do not let this happen.

#Commentary

Overtime I have developed a bit of a pet peeve. I get a little annoyed when people make lame jokes on a cold day about "Al Gore and Global Warming." It's cold, big deal, it neither proves nor disproves any theory and is, overall an amazingly lame over simplificaiton of a complex issue.

Global warming, for better or worse, is actually happening. We don't know if we can stop it. We do know there are a variety of contributing factors to the problem such as cows which supposedly generate more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all other forms of transport combined. Go read the linked article it's pretty insane how much bad stuff livestock, and the care of that commodity, generates.

Honestly, I don't care if you care about global warming. I don't care if you are being more environmentally conscious or if you reduce your family's carbon footprint at all. But please stop denying that global warming is happening. There is plenty of disagreement on the why (manmade) -vs- (other) bit it's still a fact that the global temps are gradually increasing so please just deal with it.

The impetus for this post was a minor twitter conversation I had after someone retweeted a lame "Its cold out, take that global warming" joke. I find it funny that these same people never make an equally lame joke on a warm winter day (or a warm month like this past November, 2009). After I made that observation it was suggested that November wasn't really that mild compared to normal so I looked and it's true - on average it wasn't "that mild" but it was 2.75 degrees warmer than the average of the past 12 years. Here's a little table showing the avg November temps for Bluefield WV for the past 12 years:

2000 looked awefully nasty but 2001 sure did look nice! My curiosity kept me plugging though so I grabbed a different 12 year window; 1968-1979.

Again, this is not sufficient data to do any real trending on but I thought it was interesting that the average temp was 4 degrees cooler in this sample and that the temp only got over the 98-09 average one time during this 12 year period. All data was extracted from weather underground

#Commentary

This is always a weird holiday for me. Mostly becuase it is so widely discussed and rehashed in the media and this year it is even worse with all of the tweeting and facebooking that is happening. Everyone seems to be discussing the day and sending out their thanks to those who have served or who are presently serving in the armed forces. It's weird.

Sure, I appreciate everyone who volunteers and I think it's nice that people who didn't are thinking about them for a day or even a week; but, as a veteran the holiday always feels out of place. I'm not really the type of person who thinks having served in the military is something I should be thanked for. I joined the Army reserves while I was in High School (much to the chagrin of my retired Air Force dad) and then I entered the army as an Active soldier about one year later much to the disappointment of my older active Army brother and over the protests of my mother.

I initially joined the Army Reserves becuase I wanted to serve. I didn't think I would need the GI Bill as I was supposed to be getting a scholarship from the state of NY and I thought it would be a great way to help the state and country in times of need. No big deal really - we weren't at war. While I was in Basic training Kuwait was invaded and my older brother was deployed to Saudi Arabia as part of the 101st. He was there for the whole ball of wax that was the first Gulf War involving Iraq. I was deployed later; when the fighting was basically done to help keep the peace and other than a couple false alarms I had a pretty peaceful time there.

I left Active duty in Oct 1995. I was never shot at nor did I have to shoot anyone. The same held for all of my friends. It was a cake walk for me compared to what my brother, our father (Vietnam), and his uncles (WW2 or Korea I think) had gone through. The only time I was facing an armed enemy was when I found myself in the wrong night clubs at the wrong time in El Paso or Juarez. I started out in the army as a Combat Engineer (blowing things up on the ground) and ended as a Patriot Missile System operator (blowing things up in the sky). In general I just had fun, saw a bit more of the world, made some great friends, and accrued a great collection of stories.

Most of those friends stayed in the Army and I lost contact with them. I actually think about them and the times we had fairly often. More than likely they are senior enlisted soldier's leading platoons and companies that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully they are all still alive. I have no way of knowing. I don't really think of ex-soldiers like me when I think of "Veterans" because we had it easy and we didn't really do anything to warrant everyone's thanks. Sure, we were in a position where - if needed - we would have - but merely lining up for the job isn't the same thing as actually doing it.

Today I think about all the guys who actually had to go to war. I appreciate their sacrifice and I hope those who are still out there keep their heads down and their spirits up until they can come home and join me in the safe life as a civilian. Thanks to you guys for stepping up when it was needed and not backing down - stay safe.

#Commentary

Ok, there are some common exceptions to our beloved Freedom of Speech such as the "fire in a crowded movie theater" example but, in general, Freedom of Speech means you can speak your mind without fear of repercussions from the government; regardless of the topic.  That one freedom is the cornerstone upon which the remainder of our freedoms stand.  I don't care which of the rights you pick that are spelled out in the constitution, without the first amendment none of the others would still exist.

When President Bush (W) was in office I had to speak out against the efforts his administration made to curtail free-speech with such acts as "free speech zones".   I had hoped that things would improve, in regards to our civil liberties, when President Obama took office but a disturbing activity took place recently that leaves me very concerned.  The Obama administration, at the UN, has sided with a variety of muslim nations on the ironically named U.N. Human Rights Council to make an exception for freedom of speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." Let me be clear, this resolution DOES NOT bring any laws into being which restrict speech - however it certainly gives nations that support suppressing speech ammunition to back up their restrictions.

President Obama had better make it perfectly clear that we, as a nation, do not condone suppression of speech regardless of the religious or ethnic topic being discussed.  If he doesn't then, even without passing a law, he is implicitly supporting other countries suppression of basic human rights and that just isn't something we, the people, should be doing. Here are some additional takes on this, largely unreported, resolution.

• AP Story
• Reason.com Editorial
• Des Moines Register Editorial
• The Weekly Standard (perhaps the most extreme interpretation)

#Commentary

I've never really understood the purpose of gay pride flags, bumper stickers, shirts, etc.  I mean, really, who cares who you like to have sex with?  I don't wear or display "straight pride" stuff so why would you want to wear/display gay pride stuff? Well, this morning I think I finally got it.  Those flags, stickers, and shirts have nothing to do with the person's sexual preference specifically but rather their membership within a specific sub-culture.  The people who fly these flags aren't saying, "Look at me!  I prefer sex with the same gender!"  Instead they are saying, "I'm proud of and support the GLBT community." Those rainbow flags and shirts are no different in spirit than the jerseys and flags that fans of some college football programs wear on game day.  Both groups are part of their own subculture and are showing their pride in their particular subculture through the overt display of the symbols that represent their subculture. So, why don't straight people where "straight pride" stuff? Well, the same reason people don't fly an "Earth" flag but they will fly their nations flag.  There just isn't any exclusivity to being a member of "Earth" or in being straight.  Neither of these are sub-cultures.  Being straight is so prevalent that you don't even think of it as a group.  But the GLBT community has been marginalized for so long that they are a true subculture. I may be missing some of the nuance to the GLBT pride displays but I think this is probably the heart of the matter.  What do you think?  Am I just stating the obvious (please, only non GLBT people answer that one)?

#Commentary