DADT is done

Mark your calendars, on December 18, 2010, the United States Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow for openly gay people to serve in the armed forces. Today should be celebrated as one of those days that we have formed a more perfect union. The final vote was 65-31 in favor of repeal.

Every military commander said that they could implement the repeal if it became law. This includes the Marine Commandant who is vehemently opposed to repeal. Why did they say this? Because they all believe in the professionalism of their soldiers. They follow orders. As of today, Don't ask/Don't tell is replaced by Don't care.

Every member of our armed services will soon be directly ordered not to give a damn whether anyone in their unit is gay or straight. How will they respond? They will respond as professional soldiers and not care.

When Johnny comes marching home

The army's Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy lives another day as the Supreme Court rejected a request to prevent the armed forces from enforcing it pending the outcome of an appeal. Now, I think the policy needs to end. It is wrong. It is discrimination. Nothing would make me happier than if President Obama announced that while he is Commander and Chief we will not prosecute violations.

Okay, winning the lottery would make me happier. My Christmas bonus is going to make me happier. Angelina Jolie dumping Brad for me would make me happier. So, lots of things would make me happier, but that's not the pint!(Get it?) Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is a fundamentally American value. I'm a big fan of equal protection under the law.

I'm old enough to have been a political junkie when President Clinton made DADT a part of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). I was performing as a stand-up comic at the time (not very successfully). I talked about homosexuals serving openly in my routine. I asked what people were afraid of- that they'd find an interrogator having sex with a terrorist? (Oh, he's from Libya? I thought you said he was a Libra- we're compatible.) Did I mention I wasn't successful as a comic?

The other reason I supported allowing them to serve, was that for each gay person who enlisted, it was one more reason they didn't need me. There is no draft, but when I was 17 registration for a potential restored draft went into effect. I thought I was going to be drafted, and knowing people who were in the lottery for Vietnam's draft, it hit home.

This brings me back to the question of what people opposed to homosexuals serving are so afraid. It seems to me the answer they would give is the "Homosexual Agenda." I must have the wrong gay friends, because they are unaware of this agenda. Perhaps it is a figment of the anti-homosexual mindset. It seems to me that the perception of the homosexual agenda is that gay people are going to try to have sex with straight people and turn them gay.

That is not going to happen. The rule, and by definition there are exceptions, is that we are all the same. Black people are no different than white people, brown people, yellow people, pick your color. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, in America we are all the same. Not being gay, I can't say for certain, but I am going to assert that gay people generally are not going to make any attempt at picking someone up unless they believe that person might be interested.

I should point out that having sex, straight sex, is prohibited by the UCMJ. The other thing that bothers anti-homosexuals is that when they think of gay, they think of the flamboyant displays at gay pride parades and cross dressers, and they think, "You're not going to turn my son into that!" They don't realize that their sons either are or aren't already- "that."

Gay is not contagious. Soldiers follow orders. When you combine those two facts, the army demonstrates unequivocally that gay and straight people can function together. Suddenly, fear of the "Homosexual Agenda" becomes absurd. We won't all be GAY when Johnny comes marching home.

Government creates jobs- call the News!

Republicans often say that government cannot create jobs. Job creation is the province of the private sector, and small businesses create the most jobs in America. We cannot raise taxes on small business. This, to use Rachel Maddow's words is "Bulpuckey."

The government absolutely does create jobs. When there is a pothole in a road, they say, "hire someone to fill it." When a bridge needs repairs, it's, get somebody to fix this before it falls into the river." Conservatives must think that it is better for the free market to determine who dies when a bridge collapses.

Of course, these jobs are government jobs, and in order to be free, we need to be less reliant on government, not more. Okay, I can deal with a philosophy of only as much government as necessary not not an ounce more. Then too, government costs money. The more we have the more i costs. This means higher taxes.

We've got a bunch of people out of work right now. They are so out of work that they are in danger of becoming unemployable. The private sector is not hiring. The government must. Not to mention the fact that there are many bridges in this country perilously close to collapsing like the one in Minnesota. Think about that the next time you cross one.

More on this later. . .

Democrats think you're stupid!

They don't, actually.

My boss was lamenting his inability to figure out aspects of his credit card bill the other day. He could read the list of charges well enough, but he was trying to find out how much cash back he was entitled to, and how to collect. On page one of his bill there was a clear indication of "Reward Dollars." However, this was not the cash back rebate he was looking for.

Indeed, later in the literature accompanying the bill, there was language about his ability to apply his rebate against his balance. Notice, it mentioned rebate and not "Reward Dollars." He said he felt so stupid. I told him that he shouldn't. Credit card companies spend millions of dollars a year on lawyers to intentionally create this kind of confusion.

The Democrats were writing legislation to clear this stuff up. The Republican objection to clarity was that Americans are free to sign the credit card application or not, and making things more customer friendly was just "Democrats think you're stupid!"

Election Post Mort em

If you believe the polls, voters like Republicans less than Democrats and by a 59% margin fully expect to be disappointed by them in the next 2 years. Despite that they still won. The important question is not "How"- it is "Why."

Historically speaking, the vote against has polled far better than the vote for. In sales seminars, they tell us that a negative customer experience gets circulated 10 times more than a positive one. Well the electorate is ticked off. Even though they don't blame the Democrats for the most part, the Democrats are the ones who held most of the seats that they could vent their anger against.

Americans want politicians to work together. 2 years of gridlock will lead to a Democratic reversal of 11/2/10

2nd Amendment Remedies

For starters let me state quite simply that THERE ARE NO 2ND AMENDMENT REMEDIES!

Was that subtle enough? In America we have the rule of law. As the Constitution tells us, the first step in setting up a government is to establish justice. If you have been wronged in some way, there are non-violent remedies you can pursue. If the wrong was criminal, you press charges. If it was civil you sue. What you do NOT do is grab a gun.

You have a right to be heard. You have a right to justice. You do not have a right to win. If a judge rules against you you can appeal. Just because you feel you have been wronged does not mean that you have been. You can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. If you lose, you lose. You do NOT pick up a gun.

Just like you have a right to a fair trial, you have a right to vote. You do not have a right to win. If you had a right to win, it would infringe on the right to win of someone who disagreed with you. Losing is NOT tyranny, it's losing. When your choice loses an election you take comfort in the fact that there will be another one in a couple of years, and you'll be able to correct it then.

By the way, an election is not what defines a democracy. What defines a democracy is knowing that there will be another one. The fact that there is always another election is what keeps our government accountable. If you do not like the outcome at the ballot box, you have one and only one course of action- work harder. anything else is Un-American.

Demand Side Economics

30 years ago, the Republican candidate for President, the sainted Ronald Reagan, was touting his supply-side economics plan. During the primaries earlier that year, the man who would become his Vice President called it Voodoo Economics. Today, virtually all Republicans and even some Democrats embrace Voodoo Economics. I don't know whether Voodoo is an appropriate metaphor or not, but it doesn't work.

We learn in Economics 101 that supply and demand are the invisible hands that guide the markets of capitalism. What is apparently not obvious is that it is demand that drives supply and not the other way around. There is an old expression that says, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." What if you lived in a world with no mice?

Does anybody think for a second that the automobile industry would have built all those gas-guzzling SUV's in the '90's if nobody was buying them? Imagine if President Bush had told the American People after September 11th that the most patriotic thing they could do was help reduce our addiction to oil. The demand for fuel efficient cars would have driven the market.

For 30 years, our economic policies have increasingly favored the supply side of markets. During that time, the deficit has gone from under $1 trillion to $13.6 trillion. Median income has fallen, and we've suffered the worst collapse in our economy since the Great Depression. It is time to switch to policies that encourage the demand side.