Don’t Ask, Do Tell

The proposed removal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the American military in regards to gay service members has inflamed the homophobic elements of American society. The very fact that there is such a hostile response to this policy change only enforces the idea that the former policy promoted segregation and enforced silence. There is no evidence or study to show any detriment to the military as an organization by having openly gay members serving. The resistance against this is born of those who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they feel that all people should reflect their personal sexual preferences in every situation.

The group opposing a volunteer military having the option of members declaring themselves in their sexuality, if they so chose, are opposed to a society in which citizens are allowed the freedom to be honest with the public in regards to their own sexuality. These people seek only to silence the open discussion of sexuality in America and the free exercise of liberty. There is no excuse or ideology that allows for suppression of certain individuals based solely on sexual persuasion. A person who belittles and degrades another for such reasons is only expressing their own beliefs that the homosexual minority in America should be kept silent and ignored by society.

Many men feel the need to declare their sexuality when speaking about this or any issue regarding sexuality. I think these men should find women that are willing to have sex in public so they can prove to everyone they are indeed straight. I really don’t care what anyone thinks of my sexuality and really don’t care about your sexuality.

If there is a need within a person to prove their sexuality to others, it speaks volumes on how secure they are in themselves as a sexual being.

Conservative Victims and their Assault on Freedom

housegopIn an age where conservative agendas have mired this country in a war based on false intelligence and a radical change to our military detainee policy, there are still individuals who seek to make all the many failings of the conservative-control over our nation for the past eight years appear to stem from liberal agendas.

Be it a ploy to sell books and promote ratings by giving false positions designed to illicit anger and promote misinformation or a genuine expression of a political perspective the damage of placing any one party as beyond rebuke is the same.

It is an attack on very nature of our political freedoms to engage in partisanship guised as truth. Though all groups are guilty of partisanship only one group has completely monopolized the market on misplacing the blame for all the things that are wrong with America on “the other guy” and that group is the conservative movement and the Republican Party combined.

The greater tragedy is that there is not enough popular rebuttal in radio and literature to combat this spreading of intolerance of political thought. The offenders are allowed to carry out their offenses as long as the public continues to buy books and subscribe to broadcasters who promote the false ideology of holding the conservative movement above all others, in all possible situations.

This unwillingness to address facts and face the nature of the failings within the public policy and the fiscal policy promoted exclusively by Republican representatives in government is appalling to me.

The Freedom of Speech does, and always should, protect these people from being silenced in any form. But what exactly is the force that silences the majority of the intelligent and composed rebuttal from major media and big publishing houses? It is both willful ignorance of the public from hearing any contrary opinions and the selected omission of formats who refuse to engage an issue as important as an attack on continued political freedom in the United States of America due to fear, or corporate bias, or both.

Eric Lightborn
http://ericlightborn.blogspot.com
January 26th 2009

Rick Warren and Barack Obama: What You Didn’t Know Already

In the 2008 presidential campaign for The White House there was something referred to as a “polling anomaly” surrounding Obama.

The evangelical and born-again Christians, that took polls, showed significant support of the candidacy of Barack Obama and held numbers higher than Bush’s numbers from 2000 and 2004 to a very significant degree. (PEW Research & other polling sources)

Those who were watching closely know exactly why Obama picked up a recordable amount of support in these religious fundamental communities, in fact it is fairly obvious. Obama, unlike McCain, never once shied away from the topics of faith in the media circus. Beyond that his words and visible convictions regarding religion, Jesus and God have been forward and direct instead of evasive and vague.

In the mind of many evangelicals the resistance to speaking openly about Christ translates to a resistance to Christ’s message in your life. Essentially, if the name “Jesus” or the word “God” cause you any discomfort then you must be against spreading The Word. Obama has never once spoken directly to the evangelical and born-again movements of America in his national rhetoric, yet he has somehow gained some amount of notable political support from them.

Any politician worth his salt takes every advantage afforded to him when it comes to being able to represent the people that elected him into office. Obama saw all the same numbers I did and I imagine found it confounding for a time that a group which normally doesn’t support Democratic agendas was showing support for his Presidency. This is a question I would ask of him among others should I ever have some of his time.

Rick Warren, along with hosting the second Presidential Debate, is a strong advocate for evangelical ideology and fundamental views of religion.

His rhetoric doesn’t provide equality for the gay community or for the views of the so-called radical religious movements of America (“New Age” ideologies). I completely disagree with his political positions and his opposition of Proposition 8 in California which I personally voted against.

This is what my point is in regards to the disgust expressed to his inclusion in coming public national events:

Since when does agreeing with someone have anything to do with loving them?

– Rick Warren, 12/21/2008

Rick said it for me. Since when does loving one another in a lawful and peaceful nation have anything to do with agreeing with your neighbor’s politics? I believe that given time we will have legal same-sex marriage but it could take awhile. In the meantime we need to not rip each others throats out every time something like this happens in America.

If Rick Warren were to be presented with a “National Spiritual Adviser to America” position or anything smacking of that … well then I’d be out in the streets throwing a whole big fuss about it.

Much love, as they say these days. Nobody gets left out when I say that.

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 23rd 2008

Global Warming: Politi-Science or Fact?

Let’s crack this egg wide open.

Here’s what I understand so far:

————————————————————

Years back, a group of scientists came together and presented a case to the world based on their work.

 

They sought to show essentially three items:

 

a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gases are increasing due to human action.

 

b) CO2 causes a green-house gas effect that causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme climate change including extreme colds, warms and weather.

 

c) Unless CO2 levels decrease worldwide the planet will be damaged beyond a repairable state.

————————————————————

Now another group of scientists recently came out to try to disprove the ‘global warming agenda’ citing their own evidence.

 

They are seeking to show essentially these three items:

 

a) CO2 is a natural gas that is less harmful to environment than reported previously. Harmful gases such Carbon Monoxide should fall under government regulation but not CO2.

 

b) They have studied the green-house gas effect data presented and do not concur that this is the cause of climate change. The planet is undergoing cyclical changes not recorded previously due to lack of technology required. 

 

c) CO2 levels and their mandated decrease is ‘politicizing science’ and not a scientific agenda but rather an anti-industry agenda.

————————————————————

 

I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this but I’ve listened to a lot of commentary on it, I can assure you.

 

The bottom line is that no significant figure in any government is coming forward about the one important issue to address:

 

CAN WE LIMIT CO2 GAS EMISSIONS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN INDUSTRIAL NATION?

 

Those versed in this topic will know that certain major super-power nations (China & Russia) refuse to participate in carbon credit programs or CO2 gas mandates on their industries.

 

They believe that regulating such gases will cause a loss of profit necessary to maintain their populations. Or a similar case made in defense of themselves.

 

I would like to take the time and read both of these studies and all the data and every professional I can find who ever said / wrote anything about it. But this is what I see. One side brings a valid argument about how far we can do these actions and remain strong in industry and the other side brings a valid point that once enough damage is done in ignorance there is no return from ruin.

 

Michael Crichton, famed author, held the opinion before his death in 2008 that the combining of politics and science was something he saw as very possible in coming years and very dangerous in its nature. I tend to agree with the author of “Jurassic Park” but I don’t know if I fully trust some internet downloaded research data, and I’m not flying of to foreign countries to gather up all the documents either.

 

I just want to focus on empirical evidence when we talk science and focus on personal conviction when he talk politics. That’s all. Is that some crazy request?

 

I feel it important for those who didn’t know to know that the worldwide scientific community accepts the idea of green house gases effecting current climate changes.

 

————————————————————

 

And let us not forget the pure-politics side of this:

 

Former American Vice-President Al Gore of the Democratic Party has run up the ideological hill and he is not coming back down on this one.

 

He is behind the ‘carbon credit’ concept along with others. Gore remains one of the most controversial figures in certain circles of America because of his intractability on the global warming crisis-issue.

 

The Republican Party, long before any but bought-off scientists said word one on global warming, decried the whole thing a myth created in some liberal agenda book or manifested by what some called ‘religious-environmentalism.’

 

The study I mention are not bought-off scientists, as far my informational sources provide, but rather simply dissenting scientists from the group of scientists that initially presented the whole concept.

 

In the campaign for The White House this year (2008) each campaign had the same line on global warming:

 

“We need to do something about global climate change.”

 

The critical thing to know is that the vocal conservatives, prior to the RNC speech of John McCain where he directly addressed global warming, there was a constant smearing and mocking attitude of people who wanted to speak out on this issue of climate change. Then all of sudden they just stopped talking about it and mocking anyone about that. Not one more mention of those ‘crazy global warming kooks,’ for quite a long time.

 

I tend to believe they and most outspoken-Republicans did was actually read what I read when it came out like 8 years ago and now I can’t remember the name of. The Global Warming Treaty let’s call it for now, because that’s easy for me.

 

Another strange hush-factor that struck the limited-conservatives during the campaign is the whole immigration issue.

 

That’s another issue entirely but both candidates and the right-wing media just completely shut their traps on that issue, almost entirely to date.

 

The only reason it’s significant to bring up is that these loons that call others ‘Enviro-Nazis’ also bashed anyone who didn’t want to ‘kick the bums out of my country.’ They did this ten-fold on John McCain when he sought some kind of solution oriented legislation on the issue. Now they feel better about starting those old lines up again but nobody seems to want to actually do anything about it over in what I hear from Republican-land.

 

It is like a willingness to shove your head in the sand as far it will go. Then leave it there for the course of an entire campaign.

 

Evidence that the Republican Party is willing to engage in not only ‘Politi-science’ tactics but to a willing blindness to anything that is a serious issue in the nation. 

 

They just want to talk about homosexuality or atheism while we go broke and choke to death.

 

 

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 22nd 2008

R.I.P. Mark Felt (1913-2008)

1.JFKfelt2

A true hero of America if there ever was.

‘Deepthroat’ they called him back when the mass media was young and I wasn’t even an idea yet.
While he was but a speck in a huge pile of corrupt politics, he was a voice of conscious in a storm of perversion.

Those blind to reviewing facts even to this day call him a “traitor.” Where do their allegiances truly lie? With the truth, or with whatever corruption their assume to impose upon them?

He spoke out to the free press to the American people about an issue that concerned them. The things he said that were factual led to bringing down a dangerous President.

Let it never be said unchallenged that Mark Felt should not go down in history as a great American and a defender of the people’s right to a lawful and ethical government.

 

The Hammer, The Sickle, The Shoe?

In regard to recent tossing of footwear:

If an American press corps member threw a clipboard, let’s make it metal, at the Iranian Prime Minister the conservatives of our nation would decry for his immediate release from detainment on the grounds of being a political prisoner held against the will of the public.

There is a big, bad logic flaw in this latest conservative blab:

“Under Saddam, this guy’s held would have rolled after he threw any footwear.”

Who is getting the treatment here? The Iraqi Prime Minister had no shoes thrown at him, as far I can recall. Bush is not and never was the ruler of Iraq. If Bush were to visit like that under Saddam’s rule then they probably would build a statue of the reporter holding hands with good old Saddam. If he threw one at Saddam then it comes to if the international eye was on him or not. If not then this idea might work and we would never hear about him in the first place, making in the entire issue moot. But if every country could pick up that feed then even someone like a dictator would have some troubles. Saddam still might off the guy, in this reckless scenario, but the worldwide media would go right ahead with reporting that he was executed for his actions under a dictator and this man would die a hero. All thanks to the “disgusting liberal media hounds.”

There is also an obvious logic flaw in non-violent American individuals who promote throwing things in protest:

Political statement in our culture is our issue and they have theirs in Iraq. If you don’t like the idea of the image of ‘America the Bully’ then try to do yourself what we teach our children to do. Use your words.

I understand the sentiment but anytime I write about things like clipboards and shoes and the slapping of lips, I am using examples or failed attempts at comedy. The test comes not in what we say but what we do and I actually walk away from fights in the real world.

No security blanket of the web.

I’m not perfect. Just last night I was illustrating the point that if someone had some serious beef with me to just bring it and let’s be done with it. I‘m not down to hold on to that garbage and nonsense. In a strange way, that sums up my foreign policy stance.

The classic true pacifist-test is would you join the Army or other military org if there was mainland invasion or the ‘a real WWIII?’ God forbid.

The bottom line is that I have the luxury of being a ideological pacifist because I don’t have to fight for food or survival on a day to day basis. Or at least the last time I went outside I wasn’t dodging bullets and secret police squads.

I think the concept of spreading democracy where there is none is great, in principal, but a nation that holds recent debates over the results of its own elections in the highest court are hardly fit to bring democracy to anyone.

Let alone at the end of a gun. Let alone there was no preceding invasion of another nation state to drive us into the war. Let alone we allowed our proud military to mix with guns-for-hire.

Savage Radio, Savage Language, Savage Consequences

For those unaware of Michael Savage and his San Francisco based talk radio show, I do not recommend you listen to this show.
Here’s why I bring it up at all:

The first inclination, and the standard political response, is to decry calling another person any form of trash or saying that they have no worth. But I can assure that Michael Savage does nothing but spew hateful trash and provides nothing of worth to society with his radio program.

Words and their definitions do matter, but each individual is allowed to draw their own opinions on what those definitions interpret as and how they fit into our language. Savage is entitled to express his opinion over competing definitions.

Just as I will now say that scum who promote one-sided agendas and wrap themselves in the flag whenever challenged are one of the biggest threats to political discourse and continued freedom of choice in our leaders.

Next the issue of mental illness and the seriousness of accurate diagnosis:

The need to explain in rational terms the vast divergence of political thought is not some fresh issue that Savage stumbled upon and wrote a book about from empirical evidence and under credible peer review.

His views are his and not supported by any empirical facts whatsoever.

It is a pure mystery of humanity that he and I can read the same Constitution and case rulings, then come to such utterly different conclusions. Anyone such as he who claims to have solved such a mystery must immediately be called into suspect classifications in terms of credibility and reliability.

Our entire government is designed around facilitating a bipartisan exchange of concepts between significant parties. The political parties hold the general popular beliefs of the people and represent the ideological and social shifts in America. albeit poorly.

To claim that any one group (liberal, conservative, federalist, libertarian, socialist, communitarian, anarchist, etc.) a thinking or set of beliefs that originates from chemical imbalances in the brain, without insurmountable and overwhelming proof is tantamount to encouraging the spread of tyranny into our American electoral process.

The concept in question also devises a situation in which all information or perspectives outside of a status-quo are rejected off-hand without consideration. Were this mentality to spread into our private industry, political lobbying and daily culture we would cease to live in the Land of the Free and contort into the Land of the Afraid, the Land of the Ignorant.

Freedom of speech means Savage can and should stay on the air until America finally laughs him off the radio stage, or he just quits. If his on-air commentary and sentiments are at all honest I would quit my job and move to some undisclosed island were I him.

He obviously despises about sixty-percent of the country, for one reason or another.

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to listen to the Savage program daily. I never once agreed in political terms with him but, like so many radio conservatives, I agree on certain social issues. For example, both Eric and Michael think high school kids should get a job and earn a paycheck instead of a phone bill each month.

The point being that finding common ground is not that hard, if only you look.

These days I cannot withstand the bile coming from Savage for more than short bursts so perhaps there are many more little things I could flower-up my comments on this man with and I am admittedly ignorant of.

The fact that he wants Muslim-Americans persecuted for pursuing freedom of religion, desires free thinking youth silenced or jailed for protests and holds the illogical belief that police departments and government officials never ever make mistakes so we can just get rid of all those defense attorneys out there leaves me little sympathy for someone with whom I would otherwise enjoy logically debating national issues.

Men like him pick a target and don’t care if it doesn’t make sense or hurts the nation or degrades our freedom. Destroying bipartisan hopes with mad clatter and hate rambling.

Like his sentiment that crime, gang violence, low-moral conduct and drug abuse begins at home with the parents, the nature of wasted time in the courts also starts at home. The personal choice to sue as a first resort or sue to pay the bills comes from parents who fail to instill a strong sense of personal responsibility in their children.

The people who file these lawsuits and the lawyers arguing them instead of refusing them are at the core of this blame. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what Savage proposes we should do in regards to the legal / civil litigation issues in this country.

The greatest trouble I see with this loose cannon on the air is that his rhetoric will only drive people into the fringe camps of the media-government censorship legislation advocates, like the Fairness Doctrine advocates. Most people do not share in my faith in the intelligence of the American people and believe that someone so vile would surely be a danger to us all. This is not so.

There are times, in my personal opinion, that Savage crosses that line of clear and present danger to the public as a whole. But it is highly unlikely any court would support my ideas on this. If you personally ever think he or any person actually posed a threat, in something you actually heard them say, then call the station.

Savage takes calls, I’ll give him that. He knows that it is not his format but the people’s format.

Let it never be said I do not take some efforts to be fair about my subjects.

Shoe vs. Bush

The Shoe Heard ‘Round The World

I don’t pretend to hold any grasp of full cultural understanding in any culture outside my own, but I think it is safe to say that other cultures outside of America have their own versions of “flipping the bird” as we enjoy so well here in American society. The degree of the insult or how to avoid committing such an egregious insult in a foreign land is outside my ability to comment on, but there is no doubt that these gestures are both insult-oriented.

The shoe thrown at President Bush by a member of the Iraqi press-corps was a physical embodiment of the sentiment of millions across many nations and many peoples given flight. Expressed clearly, and with due consequence, so that there can be no doubt.

I commend President Bush for taking the situation light-heartedly and openly discussing the incident without an interruption for security considerations.

Were it another politician, I would write that claiming they did not know the motivations behind the outburst was an outright lie. In the case of President George W. Bush, I believe he was being truthful in his comment. I tend to believe that he has no idea that his actions in office, in their majority, have served to do lasting harm to this country that he and I both love.

I wish to add a Democratic voice into giving the Bush White House commendation for all efforts of humanitarian aid in Africa and all other humanitarian aid provided under their supervision. Were the Bush White House not instrumental in altering US military policy regarding torture, a war that is now admittedly started on suspect intelligence and the loss of privacy granted within the Patriot Act I would be able to give further favorable remarks to a President in his final days of office. If evidence were to come before me that Bush had prevented a major American terrorist incident then I would, first and foremost, commend his office in this operation.

I would be happy to write even more favorable commendations for a political figure, and a man, with whom I share very little common ideological ground but ultimately we both are doing what we believe it best for our nation. This sentiment is the foundation of bipartisanship and almost entirely devoid not only in our mass media machine but also within the national radio machine and the political internet machine. Literature and the wisdom of trusted elders being the only recourse left to the youth of America in this sad state of affairs.

I don’t subscribe to the Bush-hatred that spawned a shoe in the air and the ‘flipping of birds’ on the streets of America but I certainly didn’t vote for him, at any point. I was very critical, by recollection, of my peers in 2000 after Bush was elected (I feel the need to say legitimately) that he should fail horribly so he would be removed quickly.

I reminded them that wishing for the President to fail was the same as wishing for the country to fail. We all share in the consequences as Americans. On November 5th 2008, Rush Limbaugh put forth the sentiment to his audience that President-elect Obama held nothing of his support and wished him to fail horribly so he would be ousted from office in a matter of months or years. Ushering in a new conservative age in government.

Rush Limbaugh and similar counter-parts on television & radio by no means represent the conservative movement as a whole. Just as the Bush-haters, 9-11 Truth groups, atheist-agenda activists and a member of a foreign press agency do not represent as a whole the liberal movement, but these events and statements become more and more widespread under bad government and bad media in all their many forms.

George W. Bush has been the butt of many of my comedic efforts so for the sake of showing where my motivations lie I will say these words on Barack Obama:

Our, uh, rightfuly elected, President-elect, uh, sure, uh, likes to, think real, uh, hard, while the cameras are, uh, rolling. I, uh, sure, uh, hope that, he, doesn’t, uh, do that, in, uh, foreign negotiation. That would, uh, be, uh, annoying.

Take notice I didn’t use their titles and referred to them as men. Try to remember that intelligent men and women say unintelligent things and if they didn’t the comedians of the world would not have anything to joke about. Does anybody really think the cast of SNL was mainly a conservative cast in the Clinton years and switched to a liberal ideology when Bush came to office?

It is one thing to poke fun at the members of high office and another to spread falsehoods or misrepresentations of the character and ideals of real people. No side can claim innocence of these affronts to the voting American public. No matter what they tell you about being “the place for politics” or “fair and balanced” I just don’t think the idea of bipartisanship in politics is selling right now. Making bad media ever more popular.

Let’s talk solutions before anyone calls me a “doomsayer.”

The consumer solution is not to reject all alternative media but rather to not support the products and private promoters of the shows that resound the most negative influence in their broadcast. Boycotts are unadvised but never be afraid to tell a station owner or business owner of your choices and tell any interested friends why are doing it. Also don’t be afraid to support a host and their sponsors who you find wishes to be bipartisan, in as much as is possible, or seeks to bring more voices into political discussion.

Your views on exactly who those people are might include Rush Limbaugh but I still remain in my central point of this being a consumer solution to whatever you believe to be bad media.

The federal or state solution in a non-starter. There is already a law requiring on-air balance in campaign messages over the radio. The pro-Fairness Doctrine arguments I hear usually lack the perspective of history by not recognizing that the Mayflower Doctrine also exists in possible retro-active policy. That doctrine would ban editorializing of any form on the radio. Both doctrines only serve to crush free speech via microphone and remove the choice of the people from the radio formats.

The network solution is more handled than most people seem to think. Most the reason we do not see Democrats on FOX and Republicans on MSNBC is because they won’t go on. Not for lack for trying by any means on the part of the networks. Same with what I can see of hiring practices in all the major networks. They all have different people of different political stripes walking around those studios and offices. I have not and never plan to work any news network and I find it funny how many people in the media today seem to think they are fit to tell us about these issues. An example of asking a used car salesman or a mechanic about the quality of lot car’s engine comes to mind.

The burden falls to the nation to be more discerning in their media consumption.

shoe_vs_bush_1

shoe_vs_bush

Media Bias Effects You Everyday

Let’s talk about the news media:



A lot of people on the internet are highly active in political commentary, but there is much to consider in the realms of social policy and being more than just a mere echo-box for party-line agendas.

In an article on The Huffington Post, Colin Powell addresses the nature of Rush Limbaugh doing harm to the Republican and conservative movements.

I am no fan of Limbaugh but I want to be very clear about the nature of my distaste. Limbaugh is by all shades of the definition a “master broadcaster” that is highly professional in the manner in which he handles material.

I would challenge anyone to say the same statement about Powell’s endorsement of Obama in different words and not sound explicitly racist in the process. Limbaugh has way of taking the hurtful and hateful and converting it into somewhat-tasteful baloney.

The title of “master broadcaster” is not shared by his clones within the radio media, by my estimation. Slander and false claims don’t amount to anything but a waste of everyone’s time.

Then we return to the concept of why we should care about media figures and what they say or do. No matter what your political leanings are if you have some then you are doing yourself a disservice by viewing only media that agrees with your core values.

I can be made extremely angry by comments made on the radio but I can also turn it off.

We have “freedom of media” in this country which means it is up to you, if you vote, to get the real deal story and not just buy what they sell at your political party gift shop.

This is far easier to start than you think. Just start taking time to consider how much of each side you have heard in your day and attempt to fit the opposite point of view through the media into the end of your day.

Local radio hosts tend to be less biased than national on both political sides, try tuning in to your local AM stations.

Failing everything else you can just click between Fox News and MSNBC instead of locking-in to one or the other.

If anyone thinks this issue is extremely unimportant or bad advise I say to you that we killing this country in partisan politics mainly because of the absolute loss of perspective from slanted media on every side.

We will lose this country with these attitudes, if not for yourself then certainly we must do this for our children.