F is for freedom of speech

I was watching one of George Carlin's old HBO specials this weekend when Carlin touched on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and freedom of speech. He pointed out that under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government may not regulate what is said, except for some obvious exceptions like screaming "fire" in a theater. Oh, and one other exception: the FCC.

Yep that's right, the FCC, a bunch of appointed friends of whoever is President can tell me what I can and can not listen to. These milk drinkers get to decide whether a dirty word, or seven, or image, based on their own opinion on what their community of standards is, is too horrible for me to look at. And many in our nanny state nation scream this is ok because we need to think of the children (heh, bet you thought I was going to link to the Simpsons). I don't know about that, I've heard more cursing from 8th graders at the mall then from my 30 something friends playing poker with a bad hand while whatever home team game we have on the tube (usually Knicks, Devils, Rangers etc as we tend to play more in winter) is getting clobbered.

If I don't want to listen to, or have my son listen to, raunchy material I have a very easy remedy: I change the station. Oh no, a parent being a parent!!! How will we survive without the government telling us what to do? Look, I enjoy adult programming but, as my children have gotten old old enough to understand what is being said or shown on TV, I've had to make adjustments. My morals, at least why my children are up, are actually much stricter then community standards allow. I no longer watch much network TV as I find the shows too raunchy. But that doesn't mean I get to tell other adults what they can or can not watch. What it does mean is that in lieu of patronizing sponsors of network TV I patronize sponsors of the many family friendly cable networks that have popped up to meet the needs of people like me. American capitalism at it's best.

Therefore, I find it so ironic that the Republican part controlled FCC wants to tell me what I can or can not watch. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be into less government? You know, keep government away from citizens' private decisions? Didn't we fight a revolution to allow us to do just that? Aren't you annoyed that the FCC is taking away your freedom of choice and wants to continue to do so, even if you are willing to pay for the privilege? I know I am.

Now you may think who cares I don't listen to Carlin or Howard Stern. And that's understandable, yet you also need to look at the slippery slope we're on. How long until the FCC decides that something you do want to hear is too filthy for your ears, such as the President is a crook? Maybe they decide that a newspaper hostile to the current administration is filthy. Maybe they decide a blog is. Oh, wait, this isn't broadcast, it is the written word and should be safe. Yeah, just like porn (limited to recordings between consenting human adults) is protected free speech on the internet -- for now.

Just something to think about as we celebrate our 232nd birthday this week.

We have no one to blame but ourselves

Airline analysts expect US airlines to slash flights at the end of summer, leading to some smaller cities losing airline service and generally making travel more difficult, especially for business people. Well, fortunately the US has a great railroad, with high speed trains, that has been invested in by our government in the same manner our airports and highways have been funded the last few decades.... Oh wait, we don't .... uh oh.

Why are people surprised that the end of cheap fuel would mean changing travel patterns and reductions by airlines? As private businesses, the airlines need to make a profit. We chose a long time ago to have private investors supply airline service and they not only look at supply and demand but also look at the bottom line, despite giving subsidies to provide service to less profitable locations. If rising fuel prices mean they lose money they cancel service. However, they have received money from taxpayers to help them stay afloat in the form of airports and air traffic controllers. Obviously those features benefit communities as airports allow more commerce to come into their areas. Truckers, while equally hurt by rising fuel costs, also benefit from all those federal highways build and maintained by the federal and state governments the last 5 or 6 decades, at the cost to rail freight. Yet, if similar subsidies aresuggested for rail, the public, especially those wi th a vested interest of keeping the status quo in place, freaks.

There is nothing wrong with subsidizing transportation in the US. A good transportation structure is key to our economic well being. However, we continue to provide billions of dollars in subsidies "to truckers unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to transit" and try to "solve our commuter traffic problems by building highways instead of railways, even though it takes fifteen lanes of highway to move as many people as one lane of track." We have foolishly built our structure on the assumption that cheap fuel wouldremain forever and continue to live that way. Well, non renewable fuels eventually start to run out and, along wi th other countries rising to our standard of living, fall victim to supply and demand. Now, because we have not invested in alternate transportation systems we are stuck with what we have, a system subject to the whims of the fuel/commodities market. We let rail die in favor of trucks and planes instead of, at the least, trying to treat all equally. For example, federal law establishes about 80 percent of highway funding for highway projects, but just 20 percent for transit investments. This has led, in part, to the decimation of our passenger railroad system (of course trains could not compete with flying to LA from NY in a few hours over taking a train across country for a few days, unless you are not in a rush). Now we are paying the bill for that.

The largest percentage of funding for transit projects comes from the federal government. The US has, and continues to, prefer funding for highways in lieu of rail or other mass transit for an automobile culture from the 1950s, leaving those who want to travel by something not as dependent on oil in the early 21st century few options. Fixing this won't be easy. But we better start soon and it better be more than the sad initiatives we've already started. We've wasted enough time foolishly starving our rail system on the theory they need to be profitable (mass transit is a service that is generally not profitable) while subsidizing the airlines and trucking industry with our federal dollars. We need to stop looking for excuses not to invest in mass transit. We need to wake up and realize that this nation will need effective mass transit of people and goods as the 21st century will probably not have the same cheap fuel as the 20th. For the good of the nation, we need to rethink our transportation methods. Because if we don't, we're going to wake up one day and find that it is too expensive to do anything but walk.

As to the airlines raising prices and decreasing services thanks to their effective transportation monopoly thanks to our funding initiatives of the last century of subsidizing the airlines, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If that means some of the major airlines collapse, so be it. That's part of the risk of capitalism. Annoy your customers too much and you fail. And, as smaller cities are abandoned by the big boys, I'm sure that some nimble competitor will eventually take their places.

If done the right way, it could be a good thing

"If done the right way, it could be a good thing," says Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex), co-author of legislation to convert Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey from a non-profit to a for profit company.Have scarier words ever been spoken by a NJ politician (probably, but work with me on this). I'm just curious what the Senator means by "right way." Right way for the citizens or right way for the political friends who will make a bunch of money off this deal while millions are forced to pay even more for health care. Since this is NJ, I think we know the answer.

Of course those in charge of this scheme will deny they, or their friends, are going to profit and will be insulted that we're even suggesting such a thing, changing the focus of the argument onto our accusations while dancing around the question of who, if anyone, they know will profit personally. To this I reply LOL!!! (laughing out loud). This state has a well established history of looking the other way when it comes to ethics, at all levels of government.

"When a company goes public, their obligations shifts from patients and physicians to shareholders," notes Michael Kornett, chief executive of the Medical Society of New Jersey. I think we all knows what this means: shareholders will get more money while the citizens of NJ will get shorter life spans as they are denied treatment that they can no longer afford due to higher rates that could keep them healthy. I'm not just talking about treatment to help them cope with chronic diseases, I'm talking about even preventive treatment. Can I prove it? No, but for profit insurers don't have a good track record and if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a good bet it is a duck.

Isn't the roll of government to help citizens and not leave them holding the bag? Ok, you can stop laughing out loud now. Personally, I would prefer if my doctor decided if some medication was inappropriate and not a health care administrator . I'm sure the non profit Blue Cross probably already does that to an extent, but I'd imagine a for profit company would do that even more as they had to answer to shareholders looking to make a profit. I don't have a problem with that per se, investors won't invest unless they can make a few shekels. However, a health care plan forced to answer to Wall Street and not to patients will undoubtedly place Wall Street's needs ahead of patients and doctors.

I know little is done in this country anymore for the common good, unless someone can profit. That is especially true in NJ. Still, with all the crooked schemes uncovered by U.S. attorney Christopher J. Christie in this state the last few years, I am incredibly alarmed by this latest plan. When it comes to its citizens health, I do not trust that the state will not go out of its way to willingly place money ahead of its citizens.

How many days until school starts?

I am fortunate enough to have a job where I have flexible work arrangements, meaning I get to work at home several days a week. This summer, in order to save money, we decided our eldest child will stay home with me 2 days a week in lieu of camp all five work days. Unlike our younger child, our son is old enough to fend for himself and not bother me while I work. However, not wanting him to spend the entire summer in front of the TV. I decided I will take a series of vacation days, a day here, a day there, to do something with him -- something I want to do as this age will be gone before much longer and I'll be the old man he wants nothing to do with. If this weekend was any example, my vacation days will be anything less than relaxing.

On Sunday, our temple sponsored a trip to Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty for the religious school students and their families. I thought "great" a wonderful way to take our son and not have to drive or deal with parking. My wife wisely decided it would be great if she and our daughter spent the day at the mall (at 3, our youngest would've not had fun anyway). After reading the security requirements and what we can and can not bring, I began to think she was right.

The trip was pleasant enough, though we started off late when a family failed to arrive. My son was fairly excited to ride the bus but the first problem arose when the 7 year old snob disapproved of the snacks I bought (fine more for me!). As for me, since most of the trip mirrored my own NJ Transit bus commute, I just went into commute mode, ignored those around me, and read the paper. Much to his delight, and my wallet's chagrin, we discovered you can buy snacks like popcorn and chips pretty much everywhere (to be honest, it was worth it to buy those on site after all the security hassles you'll hear about next).

The last and only time I ever went to Ellis Island was sometime in the mid 90s when my now wife, who didn't grow up in the NYC area, was on a mission to cure me of the habit of New Yorkers to not go to tourist destinations, except for school (and since Ellis Island wasn't open to the public when I was a child, I had never been there). Back then we just bought the tickets at Batter Park and got on the boat. It's a little more complicated these days. We got off the bus at Liberty State Park and headed for the ferry terminal where we almost had to do a strip tease to get through security (mental note: get the next size down in pants out of the garage because the ones I'm wearing now won't stay up without a belt). We headed for the ferry and .... since we were a big group ... missed it. Sigh. We waited 15 minutes for the next one as the sunny skies became grayer and grayer.

While waiting for the boat my cell phone rang. Not recognizing the number I asked who I was speaking to. "MOM!!" "I forgot Josh got you a cell phone. I thought I told him to program my home phone and not my cell into your address book. No, we're not coming over to visit today. Why? Well we're on the line for the Ellis Island ferry .... hello?" My mom's social graces have really declined since her stroke last year. Nothing like a little Jewish mother guilt to start the trip. However, the rabbi, who was standing next to me during this exchange, absolved me from guilt. Those rabbis, sometimes they really come in handy.

We got on the boat and, since it wasn't raining, went to the top to sit outside and discovered my son was afraid of being outside on a boat. Fighting against traffic, we went back down a deck to sit inside. This turned out to be a good thing because about 5 min later the skies opened. An onerous sign I thought.

Fortunately, the rain stopped by time we got to Ellis Island and we lined up for out tour. It was a few minutes later I took the first picture of my son on Ellis Island, a place where his great grandfather and maybe a few great, great grandparents went through -- in front of the snack bar because his majesty decided he was now ready for lunch and the nice peanut butter and jelly sandwich was still sitting at home because I forgot to grab the bag before we left in the morning.

We started on the tour and it wasn't long until the "I'm bored" and "This is the worst day ever" started. I guess the tour was a little boring for a small child, I saw other children his age getting antsy, but I wanted to hear it. Instead I only heard parts of it while also hearing about the horrible injustice going on in our house because his younger sister was getting to watch whatever she wanted to watch on TV all day while he was being bored. He cheered up a bit when we went outside so he could chase the seagulls. Meanwhile I was able to look at the list of old family names I wrote down (between marriages and Americanization of some names the list was quite comprehensive) and hopefully took a few photos of the right names on the immigrants board thing outside the main hall.

Deciding he had had enough of Ellis Island, we headed to the ferry for the Statute of Liberty and time that perfectly. Before long we were on Liberty Island and headed to the statute. The last time I was there was sometime around 1980 when my mother led my sister's girl scout troop, and me and my brothers to the statute. To be honest, I think we were more excited about riding the subway from Queens into the city, but I do recall when we got there we took an elevator from the base to the foot of the statute and then climbed up those narrow stairs to the crown. No more.

First, you need to make a reservation to go into the statute. Then you enter a big security tent where you have to strip down again and go through an air puff security device (like the ones in airports now a days). The nicest thing about that was that it did help to keep the crowd in the statute's base down. But that tent was awfully warm.

Finally we're in the base. We go through the museum portion and head to the part where you ascend up to the foot of the statute. Hmm, where's the elevator? You mean I have to climb all 156 steps? It's a good thing I didn't start figuring out how many stories that was until we were climbing or I might never have done it. It was a good workout , but that ultimately led to the "I'm tired" complaints. We quickly walked around the base, looking at the really dark storm clouds over Manhattan from roughly the Empire State Building and north that fortunately decided to stay uptown and headed back to the ferry to catch our bus at 4. Now one nice thing about going to and from the statute to NJ in lieu of NYC is that the lines are shorter. The bad thing is service is infrequent and time consuming. Though we got on line for the ferry at about 3:10 we barely made it back to the bus on time. Some folks who stayed on Ellis Island the entire time were late because they didn't realize it would take 45 min for the ferry to do the Ellis Island/Statute of Liberty/Liberty State Park loop.

Soon we were back on the bus. I tried to sleep for the 50 min ride back home but my son decided I made a very good pillow and pillows shouldn't dare try to get more comfortable. So, 8 hours after we left, we arrive home, my son nice and refreshed and willing to admit he had fun while I was all frazzled and just wanted something to drink And then he asked what we were doing next weekend. Oy. When does school start again?

Oh [bleep], [bleep], [bleep], [bleep], [bleep], [bleep] and [bleep]

Goodnight funnyman. George Carlin was one of the few people who truly understood that free speech means putting up with ugly, hateful speech too. He had a lot to say, and not everything that I agreed with, and many, colorful, cynical ways to say it. He cared about humanity, he cared about America, he cared about things enough to make fun of them and get angry about abuses. He was a curmudgeon if there ever was. Maybe he wasn't as funny the last few years as his health problems and the death of his wife obviously affected him, but I still looked forward to his cable specials (never saw him live). What's sadder is that I don't see that many comedians willing to take his place.

Summer time and the living is easy? HA!

Remember when summer meant care free vacation time? Yeah, me too. Now it means work, work, work. Of course, I have no one to blame but myself (and my wife as it took both of us to get us into this). Before I continue, can someone please explain to me how the kid who didn't want to get up the other day at 7AM for school was at my bed at 5:30 this morning asking when I was getting up because daylight was already burning away?

10 years ago, an early summer Saturday morning meant sleeping in in our city apartment after a night out, until maybe 8 or 9 (we had a dog who didn't care how hung over you might be),leisurely walking the dog to the corner to get the paper or maybe continue to our neighborhood's restaurant row where me might have a late breakfast outdoors (ok, we did that once, then learned you really can't have an enjoyable outdoors meal with a beagle with an over sensitive food radar nose). Then, we'd check the paper for any street fairs or what not (internet then wasn't what it is today, it was still easier to buy a physical newspaper to figure out what was doing instead of a few clicks on the computer) and then wander around the city, maybe seeing a Broadway matinee or staying in for dinner if we could bribe someone to walk our dog for us because, though we didn't make that much then, it still seemed like we had money to burn as our mortgage on our co-op, bought before the NYC market went insane (I really wish we had held onto that apartment and taken a bigger mortgage on our house instead of selling it and using the money as a down payment), was pretty cheap.

Today, a summer Saturday morning means our 7 year old is waking us up at 5:30, wondering when Little League starts (last day ... yay!). Of course, we're not as grumpy or exhausted as we might've been at that time in the morning 10 years ago because, hey, the alarm usually wakes us up at 5:40 (or 6:10 if I feel like sleeping in) since I'm the one with the commute during the week. The only downside might be if we dared stay up late until ... gasp... 11 PM to watch a movie or something. After a cup or two of coffee, which we seem to need more now then we used to, it's off to the gym for me to work off some of the excess pounds, and fail, I used to just wish away a few years ago. Of course, it doesn't help that I seem to always have those red light foods that the Weight Watchers leader told us to be careful of 11 years ago when I was losing weight for our wedding (I now sympathize with all those parents I chuckled about who were blaming the evils of children's food on their expanding waists).

Anyway, after sweating for an hour or so, I return home and examine the never ending yard work that awaits me, especially bad this year with all the rain that seems to make our garden grow. For the next hour or so I'm cleaning the gutter, pulling weeds from the front landscaping while again wondering how much it would cost to rip it all out and replace it with rocks and wondering what that smell in the backyard is; probably fresh kill from one of the feral cats that seem to roam our yard at will since our current dog just doesn't really care about cats (we think they paid him off, though he barks at them when we're around) until my wife asks when I'm taking our son to his game. 10 seconds in the shower so my fellow parents aren't looking at me and wondering what died and before I know it we're off to Little League for an 11AM game.

11AM is a nice start time in April, when it's chilly early in the morning. It sucks in June when it's already 80 and the sun is overhead and the ice water one of the dads is spraying on the boys, and the parents, isn't really doing much. But the kids don't really care. At 7 years old, they just want to play. Or league has a mercy rule, 6 runs per inning. And today we needed all the mercy we could get, which is why both coaches decided on 3 outs or once around the lineup, whichever came first. Of course, the kids kept batting around. Fortunately, after the 5th, the coaches decided that the kids had had enough and ended the season. It probably had something to do with the injuries. All season I never saw a kid get hit by a ball or collide on the basepaths. Today there were at least 3 plays where parents had to run onto the field and ice packs were broken out. But the boys had their trophies and ice cream and all was well at the end. Anyway, by about 1 I was thinking ... Ah, finally get to rest. Damm cell phone.

You know, I never realized how good we had when we weren't in constant communication with each other. You could do your own thing in relative peace and let things wait until another time. Not today. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say, Target and my credit card company were happy my wife needed me to get a few things. Of course, I had to look much more carefully at prices because, eventhough my wife and I make 2 to 3 times more than what we made 11 years ago (she was in grad school and only worked part time then), it seems like the money goes out the door much faster. Eventually we make it home. Well, delayed, I think to myself, ah, finally get to relax and download the new Star Trek movie (fan made with many of the actors from the various shows, not the best movie in the world, but better then some of the dreck I've paid to see, including at least one real Star Trek movie) I want to see. Downloaded the 90 min movie at around 2PM and finished watching it at about 8PM. Six hours to watch a 90 min movie? Back in the day I would've laughed at that. Not today.

You see, I forgot that it was a great pool day. Our development has a pool club that all are forced to join. It is a mixed blessing. While it is great to have a cheap place to bring the kiddies to burn off some energy (and for me to burn some weight) and to, oh I don't know, maybe play with my children, it can really stink for "me time." A few hours there, and then home to BBQ, bathe the varmits and walk the dog and it's 8:30 and I'm almost ready for bed.

Ah to have a drink on a nice warm summer evening, like I used to do with my buddies (ok, we had more then "a" drink -- we drank enough beers that we made pyramids with the cans (wonder what I did with those pictures?), but I've discovered that, with hitting 40, though I may still like beer, wine and the harder stuff, they no longer like me. I think that happened sometime after our eldest was born and I realized that it would probably be good to stay sober in case something happened (and that my wife had to have stopped drinking 9 months earlier and I hated to drink alone). Myself of 10 years ago would laugh at my drinking inability of today. Myself of 20 years ago would probably suggest I go home and sit on the couch with my dad, drinking seltzer and watching the baseball game, which sounds nice as that is what I do anyway late in the evening (aside from being with my dad who has since passed, but I have my own children to watch TV with now).

Summer is so much work, winter is relaxing. Aside from when the children have cabin fever, I do love that there are no outdoor chores to do (aside from when it snows). No Little League, no pool, no BBQ .... I can just relax, read a book, watch TV .... and wish it were summer already.

To drill or not to drill?

I'm a child of the 1970s. One of my major memories of the end of that decade is waiting on long gas lines with my father on Saturday mornings so he could fill up his big old Ford. He would get me up at dawn's early light (well to me) and, around 7AM, we'd drive to a bagel shop about a block or two from the gas station. He would drop me off with some money and continue to drive to the gas station to await its opening at 8AM. At the bagel shop, I'd buy us a couple of bagels, coffee for him, milk for me, and the newspaper and then walk back to the gas station where he was already parked on line (and sometimes not the first driver). I think he liked it better when we were forced to wait on the street as he was able to have a smoke that way. Anyway, we'd eat our breakfast, fending myself from my dad trying to take part of my bagel (he was a big guy) and then I'd wait for him to finish the paper (if I remembered I brought a few comic books with me) and we sat. And sat. And sat. Sometimes we talked, but age 10 or 11 I wasn't a great conversationalist, aside from comic books, baseball cards or the Mets and Yankees. All for the privilege of paying an outrageous $1 or so per gallon of gas. By time we left, at around 8:10, the gas line was already circling the block, with cars burning up their gas just waiting to get more. This process repeated itself among the several gas stations in our neighborhood (my mother, a teacher, was able to fill up her big Oldsmobile during the middle of the day when the lines were shorter).

So, it is with that memory that I look at today's gas crisis with a "what's the big deal" attitude. Don't get me wrong, I hate paying $50 to fill up my mid sized family sedan that gets 22-25 MPG. Same for my ever rising grocery and electric bills. However, I can still drive right up to the station and fill 'er up. Aside from the high prices, the only similarity I see is the newspaper's sports pages discussing how bad the Mets are (yes, I'm still bitter about the way the Mets fired Willie, but that's another story). However, unlike that gas shortage, we should've seen this one coming years ago. We've seen the Chinese and India economies becoming more industrial over the last decade or so as they improved their standards of living to match ours. They've started consuming goods and food like we do; all that requires energy to produce. We've seen them using more and more oil. Yet, we continued to buy our gas guzzling SUVs and virtually ignored alternate energy research. Now we're paying for our shortsighted outlook at the pump. However, at least we still have something to buy.

I'm not a big fan of off-shore drilling, I sure don't want to go down to the shore and smell refineries. However, I realize it may become necessary one day. Not so much to keep fuel prices down, but because that is all that is left. Oil is used in many things aside from gas, such as plastic bags and vinyl siding. Unless someone invents a replacement for those products, we're going to need oil for the foreseeable future. We also need oil to be converted to gasoline to keep our cars and trucks running as, even if were to shift gears tomorrow, it will be decades until we can rebuild our rail lines or have all our cars be alternate fuel cars (at least those that would use little or no fuel). So, I'm in favor of it to keep our society together and running. However, I'm not in favor of it just to keep our addiction to cheap fuel alive for a few more years, putting off the inevitable to a time when we don't even have the off shore option.

One thing left out of this debate though, even if drilling were to start today, it would probably be 5-10 years until the new oil fields would be active and flowing into our fuel supply and even the, on the world market, the supply would be fairly small. Prices won't go down from that. And even if they did dip, we, or our children, will face a worse problem in a few more decades. So I'm not in favor of off shore drilling unless it is combined with true research into alternate fuels and conservation of non-renewable fuels.

We need to make what we have last. The days of cheap fuel are over. We (we I mean you, me and the economy) better adjust to that soon. With gas over $4 a gallon these days, the day in the mid 70s when my dad's cousin asked for $5 of gas to fill up his car seem quite quaint. Though prices may fall, we'd best get used to paying more -- or walking everywhere.

Mr. Sulu. Set a course for marriage. Warp factor fabulous

With California's gay marriage ban over, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, George Takei, and his longtime partner Brad Altman, are planning on getting married this fall. Mazel Tov and congratulations.

As a Star Trek fan, I've been a fan of Mr. Takei for quite a few years. More recently, I've been listening to him as a semi-regular on Howard Stern's Sirius radio show, where, as tends to happens on Stern's show, he has been quite descriptive about his relationship with his partner. Although he only publicly came out of the closet a few years ago, he had been quietly out and I had heard he was gay some years ago (when I first read the online article where he came out I thought to myself "I didn't realize he was out;" a few days later the news hit the mainstream media).

I'm sure many of us saw California's first marriage on the news the other night between elderly lesbian partners who finally wed after being together for 50 years. Cities didn't fall. The earth didn't open. The planets didn't spin away. Instead we saw a nice elderly couple, who liked like my mother's elderly female relatives, expressing their love to each other in what looked to be a very nice celebration of their union. Go figure.

Of course there were the protesters standing around the building complaining sodomy is sin, in which case I know many people who have sinned according to the protesters, and the elderly couple will be spending eternity in hell, ignoring whether the gay marriage partners actually believe in those particular religious views (as if that should matter in a secular government). Then there are those who say our country was founded on certain beliefs of the eighteenth century and those foundations should be followed. Well, the morals and ethics of our forefathers included owning slaves and killing native Americans, things I strongly doubt they would advocate today. Times change and so do thoughts. We're not static beings.

I always wonder about the hate these people must have in their hearts for them to take time out of their day to protest people who love each other from getting married. I think there a lot more important things wrong with this country, such as the way we treat our war wounded soldiers, or some activists shaking down corporations, that they could be protesting against. I for one, despise the hypocrits who say they are looking to protect my soul while they seek to harm those who are actually living on this earth.

Clintonitis

Many of Sen. Hillary Clinton's supporters are blaming sexism in the media for her defeat to Sen. Obama for the democratic presidential nomination. And while it is hard to argue that there was not sexism (i.e. Chris Matthews calling her a she-devil), her being a woman isn't why she lost. There were other factors in play.

For starters, I, as a 40 year old man, was insulted when some of her supporters, in explaining why there was sexism, used an example of "here's the woman, staying home with the kids and having the husband come home at 5 and, with all his male power, take over the house by asking what's for dinner." Talk about old fashioned. Both my wife and I, equally educated, both work in our fields. However, my job allows for much more flexible hours then hers. So, while she shuffles the kids off to school and pre-school in the morning, because I'm out the door before 6:30, as I have a long commute, I am home before her most evenings (by just a few minutes) and beginning dinner. Though we do not equally divide our domestic duties, with my wife doing the majority of house work -- I have been banned from laundry, aside from putting the laundry in the washer or drier (or hanging it outside in summer) for "philosophical"differences regarding folding and the proper way to put clothes away -- I do 95% of the cooking, plus the grocery shopping, she brings my car to the mechanic to me (mechanic is walking distance to her office so it just works out easier that way). We kind of split the other chores, 60-40 favoring (so tho phrase it) my wife, though that closes to 50-50 when yard work gets thrown in. Additionally, I work from home several days a week and am the one who meets the school bus several afternoons. I attend way more school functions then her because it is much easier for me to slip away for a few hours. Same for staying home with a sick child (though, granted, my nursing usually means putting on the TV and working in the other room). So, while I'm not Mr. Mom, I'm far from the typical father of Hillary's generation. Somehow, I suspect the message that many of today's youth didn't have the same issues and expectations of Hillary's, was lost among her handlers. But there are other reasons she ended up losing my support.

When Bill Clinton was running for President in 1992 I was 24 and under employed after college, caught up in the Bush I recession (I was temping and working in a deli). I looked at George Bush as yesterday's generation and wanted fresh blood from someone closer to my age, someone who had a better understanding of my life. I had this experience again with Barack Obama, except this time I was pleased that it was someone from my generation, or at least born in the same decade as me. I was not one of those caught up in Obama mania, nor completely swayed by his superior oratory skills. But, I was intrigued enough to do a little research on him. Somewhere along the way, probably when my Clintonitis returned, Obama's relative inexperience, stopped bothering me, which was interesting because I thought George W Bush's inexperience (Governor of a state where the legislature only met every other year and, before that, a reformed druggie who ran businesses into the ground) really harmed his presidency.

When the primary season started, I was pretty sure I'd be voting for Hillary in the fall. While I wasn't in love with her, I felt she'd be a good president. Even when Obama started his campaign up, I still thought Hillary had more substance. But then, when it was just Hillary and him, something happened. During this portion of the campaign I remembered what always bothered me about Bill Clinton's presidency, even though I voted for him twice and generally thought he was an ok president. It was their always following the polls and the diverseness they brought.

When Hillary started going negative, she reminded me how tired I was of the Clintons when their presidency ended. I can't put my finger on any one thing, it was just that I was really tired of their act. I had forgotten about it though, that is until she and Bill went on the attack. Then I remembered, and, when added in with the diverseness that George W Bush has brought over the last years, decided I wanted to get off this 16 year merry go round and go a different route. With John McCain sounding more like W everyday, my route has put me squarely in Obama's camp.

I don't care that he is a black man just I didn't care that Hillary was a woman. I don't think it's generational, I think it's something else. The country is tired, or at least I am, of the rehashing of the 60s culture wars over and over. Though not a child of the 60s, McCain is squarely in this demographic from his service in Vietnam. Enough. It was 40 years ago. Can't we move on already?

Still I am a little sad that Hillary won't be president (at least this year). Hopefully she can find something in the senate or Obama's administration (assuming he wins). When explaining this to my wife's 22 year old cousin, I explained it as Clinton was our Obama and it's a little hard to let them go. Yet, I'm ready to do so.

Time flies

You always think you'll have time to make that call, then one day you can't.

My dad died many years ago, but his younger brother, was still around and he and I exchanged emails and phone calls from time to time. As sometimes happens when you're younger and raising a family time flies and you get busy. You think oh I'll call later and then one day later never comes. That is what happened to me this week.

Several months ago, I accidentally stumbled onto a portion of the family tree and had been diligently emailing, calling or writing some very distant relatives. The portion of the tree was several generations ago and we were missing a few branches. I called my uncle but, unfortunately, he couldn't remember the exact details of how that branch was related to us, aside from we knew it was ancestor of his mother. As I got more details from the far flung relatives, I planned to pass on the information to my uncle. I even scanned in some old family documents I wanted him to see. But then I realized I had misplaced his email address when my email program changed and didn't email him right away. The messages from the newly found relatives dried up for a bit and I let the project fall to the side as I git side tracked with little league, school and the other things young families get caught up in.

Then, about three weeks ago, I found his email address and I finally remembered to forward him the information. A few days later he called me, but I was out with my son. I called him back a few days later, but he was out. When he didn't return my call after a few days, I kept thinking I have to call him again, I have to call him again, but it was always fairly late in the evening when I remembered and I thought to myself, I'll remember tomorrow. Of course, when tomorrow came, I forgot. After quite a few tomorrows, over this past weekend I finally remembered -- and at a reasonable time! I called and no one answered, so I left a message. "Phone tag, you're it!"

Then came the evening, a few days later, when I came home from work and saw the answering machine flashing. The message was from my cousin's wife, asking me to call her so she could give me some news about my uncle. It was then I knew my uncle was with my father and grandparents once again. I looked up at my grandparents' wedding photos from 80 years ago, which are now so old that they are closer to being a decorative picture then a family picture, and thought, wow, that is it for that nuclear family as my grandparents and now, both their children, are dead.

My cousin said my uncle died in his sleep, apparently very peacefully. He had been in declining health the last few years. He wasn't that old, but I guess he was old enough. Now my uncle and his family had left this area a long time ago and I hadn't seen him in over a decade, probably since my brother's wedding. My cousins didn't know many of our fathers' relatives so he asked me if I could pass the news onto our dads' cousins. Since I knew most of them I agreed and got out the phone book. That's when I got the next surprise, how few were left.

Of that generation, our fathers were generally the youngest. The oldest of those cousins were in WW2, but our dads were too young for that, and my uncle was too young even for Korea. But it was a big family and I remember going to family events via the family's landsmanschaften (a Jewish family or town group immigrant benevolent societies formed and named for members’ birthplace in Eastern Europe, most of my great-grandparents' generations were the immigrants), especially when my grandparents' generation was still mostly around 30 years ago. I'm talking of events, usually once a month that if only 30 people showed up grandmothers and aunts were "annoyed" (to put it nicely). On a really good day, usually someone's 50th or 60th anniversary, there could be 80 people at these events easily.

But that was a long time ago and the grandmothers are long gone. However, I hadn't realized how many of the cousins were gone until I started making the calls. I made just 6 or 7 calls, wi th one of my dad's cousins passing on the news of my uncle's passing to a few more cousins, making the total 10 (and several of those were wives of the actual cousins). That's it, 10. Where did all those cousins go? At first I thought some were just cousins we lost track of after my dad passed, but then I thought about it and realized that no, I know where they are -- the same cemetery my dad is.

Here I am 40, with an ailing mother, and, with another death from my parents' generation, I realize that it won't be much longer until I am the senior generation. How did that happen? It feels like it was just yesterday I was in first grade playing with my friends. In reality, it was just yesterday I picked up my first grade son while playing with his friends. Time flies. Guess I should've called my uncle last week and not waited until last weekend.

Gas tax holiday or more bread and circuses?

For centuries, the United States has been an industrious, ambitious and frugal nation with a gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance, justice and frugality. This is something most of us learned in school as our teachers showed us how our country became such a great superpower. Over the past 30 years, however, much of that has been destroyed for various reasons. During that time, we have become a nation with a debt culture, spending what we don't have today for instant gratification and not thinking about tomorrow. While I expect that from our business leaders, looking to increase profit before shareholders fire them, I expect our nation's leaders not to be so condensing and pander to us that we can have our cake and eat it too.

With nationwide gas now averaging over $4 (though I saw it closer to $3.90 here in central NJ), Senator McCain is once again calling for a gas tax holiday. I'm sure this proposal will be well received. What is it with some politicians with leaving debt for tomorrow instead of having the guts to tackle the problem today? I know that the Senator probably won't be around by time those bills come due, but still -- show a little courage and tell us we're reaping what we sowed or something by buying gas guzzlers and exploiting our cheap energy prices for too long. I feel for those who are suffering, but when you build an infrastructure based on a non renewable resource and the whims of others and not using that non renewable resource as a bridge to a better energy resource, these things are going to happen.

Personally, I like my bridges to be maintained and not fall into the river. I like my roads to remain open and in generally good service because they are maintained. I like not having to buy new rims because I didn't hit the mother of all deferred maintenance pot-holes. I also like the idea of spending a few dollars today to keep a road in good repair than spending millions tomorrow to rebuild a bridge that needs to be replaced before its time. My time not spent detouring for miles and hours is worth more than the 20 cents in taxes I'd save (plus the gallons of gas I wouldn't waste by detouring).

I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy, but sometimes they are a necessary evil. I'm even willing to pay higher tolls on the NJ Turnpike or Garden State Parkway for their improvements (though not until some more of their waste is eliminated as if that'll ever really happen). Schools, roads, police, a well regulated military and other services that are important to our society aren't free. Even assuming that the tax dollars deferred from road construction and maintenance funds gets pumped back into the economy and not, somehow, simply absorbed by the oil companies somehow, that is still money for road construction and maintenance that will need to be made up somehow, either through new taxes or roads falling apart sooner. As anyone who remembers what happened to NYC's bridges and subways during the 1970s, when the city deferred maintenance and paid for it big time in the 1980s and 1990s (and into the 2000s) when they had to rebuild everything, this is not a great option.

A tax holiday is not even a short term solution to a long term problem. We have a supply and demand problem, we're demanding more oil than is being supplied for various reasons, such as not enough refineries and competition from abroad. It's been awhile since I took economics, but I thought conservatives loved the almighty supply and demand free market hand. Even if oil prices eventually fall, and it turns out these high prices were merely part of a bubble, cheap energy's days are numbered and we still have a long term problem. We're blowing all our resources on today instead of investing for tomorrow. And, under this plan, at the end of the day, we still don't have a good long term solution. As my mother used to say "penny wise and pound foolish."

In any event, even if I'm able to save $30-$40 in gas taxes this summer, I'm probably going to have to spend it at the supermarket as higher fuel prices force truckers to raise their prices or pull their trucks off the road. As this latest run up in fuel prices has shown, the sooner we figure out a more fuel efficient way to move goods from A to B, the better. Until then, of course, we're stuck with the trucks and the consequences that will bring. Somehow I don't think the, maybe $4 or $5 dollars we'll save a week (it helps my wife and I have smaller cars and I either take mass transit or telecommute for work) will make much of a difference (though it will pay for a small sushi package at Wegmans).

However, if the good Senator wants to give money back to consumers, I know where he can get $12B or so a month. If not, might I suggest he figure out ways to get alternate energy solutions developed or tell us what he plans to do with an economy dependent on cheap energy that no longer exists. Solutions to our energy problems are going to require more than tax cuts, bombs and God.

Cat v. car: What could possibly go wrong?

I read a letter to the editor the other day where a woman chastised a driver who hit a cat, and another who drove around it, for not stopping to help the cat. Unfortunately, she neglected to state if it was even safe for the drivers to stop their cars? Slamming on the brakes could've done more harm then good. If it was unsafe to stop, the law is not on the cat's side. Cats, or any animal, aren't people. Callous? Perhaps, but that is generally the law, probably based on the fact that animals are more likely to dart out into traffic then people, including children and disobeying it could've led to repercussions.

I once hit a cat on a multi lane road where the speed limit was 45. I saw it on the side, confused, seemingly deciding whether to run across the road or not. Sensing it would make a run for it, I started tapping my brakes. But before I could even slow down, the poor thing just darted out into the road. As there was a car right next to me, and heavy traffic behind, there was nothing I could do. I felt the thump and as I looked out my rear-view mirror I saw it get up and fall back down. I wasn't sure if I hit it, the guy next to me hit or it just bounced off our cars. I assume drivers behind us went around it but there wasn't even anyplace safe for me to pull over. It took a little while for me to circle back, but by then the cat was gone. I was never actually sure I seriously hurt it, I saw no blood or other damage on my car, but to this day it still bothers me.

Of course, I can always take my uncle's perverted point of view. Nearly a half century ago my grandparents lived in an area that was very rural (though today it is quite suburban). They had various feral cats who lived on the property. Several of them were, of course, hunters. One day, one of the cats, brought home a dead dead baby bunny that it had taken out and brought it to my grandmother as an act of love. The next day the cat did the same. And again, the day after. Same for the fourth day. Finally, on the fifth day, it brought home the mama rabbit. My uncle joked that if the mother rabbit was too dumb to remove her bunnies to a better location once the cat came back, then perhaps it was best that this line of genes were removed from the rabbit gene pool. Going by my uncle's logic, it is good that the cats who ran out into traffic are out of the gene pool:* of course I'm assuming they didn't reproduce first, in which case expect to find more cats trying to cross the road.

* Note: I do not advocate running over stray cats with your car. Whenever possible try to avoid doing so. I have several of my own and though they try our patience, especially when they let their displeasure of some action we took, or didn't take, known by breaking something or using my briefcase as a litter box, I'd be pretty upset if they I found them squished on the street.

NJ's bloatred government

Years ago, I remember reading a comic that featured an exasperated teacher, who, finally beginning the day's lesson after two panels of getting her class in order, thought to herself how well she could teach if she didn't have to deal with the discipline. I think of that as I listen to my wife, a low level manager at one of NJ's state agencies, complain how much work she could get done and actually serve the public, if she didn't have to fill out tons of rather irrelevant reports, compile stats, that are worse than they should be because everyone has to stop what they are doing to do the stats, create mission statements and goals (how about "to serve the public"?) and attend marathon meetings that basically produce nothing.

I work for a public company. Our reports on our daily metrics (our day to day tasks), at least to our directs, take very little time as most of the details are automated. Basically I report to my director once every two weeks (outside of emergencies) tell him what's going on with me etc. These meetings generally take an hour. He repeats this with all of his direct reports (6 of us) and sums it up for the senior director where it moves up the chain. Also, every other week, we have 1 hour team meetings where we all get together and catch up etc. That's it: 2 hours of team business (I'm excluding meetings from other projects we are individually running). They are usually incredibly productive, mostly because we have so much other stuff going on we don't want to waste time in a meeting. My wife, on the other hand, has 3 hour meetings every other week that accomplish nothing, apparently, aside from killing time. Same for the reports she is forced to create, aside from showing every team in her office is behind, probably because they are too busy getting the stats together for this meeting.

Like my wife's office, my company provides training. However, ours is usually onsite, sometimes just on the computer, and takes a few hours. My wife's ... well she has been to more off site trainings and conferences this year than I have been in the last 4 or 5 years. Training is important, but there have got to be better ways to get more bang for the buck then sending employees offsite, paying fees to rent whatever venue needs to be rented while keeping employees away from their desks for longer periods than they should be. Worse, she admits she can't even implement what she has learned because she is too busy just trying to get the work done that needs to be done. By the way, her office maintains a fleet of cars, in dubious mechanical repair, that is supposed to escort people to the offsite events in lieu of just letting the workers drive themselves.

I write all this because I've just read another article on getting state employee expenses under control. The article noted all the benefits that could be trimmed. That may be all well and good, but there is also tons of waste that can be trimmed. Why are agencies still sending employees to off site conferences? Why do they still have fllets of cars? Why are they forcing employees to waste time doing reports and attending meetings? I know some of this is necessary but I would think management would take a hard look first to see what bureaucratic waste could be eliminated. Heck, maybe some of the management jobs can go bye bye without all the reports. My office, is pretty flat. It is contributor (all with college and post graduate degrees though), director, senior director etc. In my wife's office, you have many different grades of contributors then a bunch of managers until you finally get to a director level. If companies can get rid of the bloat, so can the state. Other states have already done it, so can NJ.

Of course, this waste has been around for many moons. I have a co-worker whose husband worked for the state decades ago. He worked in Trenton, but lived halfway between Cape May and Trenton. One day he was assigned to do work in Cape May. Instead of just allowing him to drive to Cape May and have the mileage reimbursed, he was forced to drive to Trenton, get a staff car, drive past his house and finally begin work in Cape May 2-3 hours later than he would've otherwise. Of course, he had to leave early to bring the car back to Trenton. Ultimately, what should have taken a day took about 3 days to complete. When I heard that story, and my wife's constant stories of all the time and energy wasted in her office I, as a taxpayer, got upset.

There is no reason, aside from the unions of course, that state government can't run as efficiently as public companies. However, I don't blame the unions; they're doing what they're supposed to do, get the best deal possible. It takes two to tangle and the unions had help from "management" (our elected officials). I would be more impressed if the legislators, instead of making noise about reducing benefits, sucked up their guts and told the unions that the party is over and it's time to become a lean, mean fighting machine. You want your nice benefits, then get to work. Get more efficient in your daily tasks and let newer employees get benefits more in line with the current work force (meaning less, which stinks but it's expensive providing these legacy benefits) or we will start laying off so many workers that the survivors will envy the fired.

Obama and Generation X?

A few weeks ago I was at a barbecue at my wife's aunt's house. As we were chatting, the topic turned to politics. My mother in law, in her early 60s, started out by saying she wouldn't vote for Barack Obama, if he got the nomination, due to what she felt were his lack of qualifications (and race, but that's another story). When the aunt asked me, age 40, who I would vote for, I replied, "Obama. Your generation (baby boomers) have messed this country up enough." She sighed and said I sounded just like her early 20s son. Sorry about that. While the World War 2 generation held the White House for almost 30 years (JFK to Bush I), after only 16 years, it is already time for the baby boomers to pass the torch to a new generation.

So here we are, a few weeks later, and here is something I never thought I'd say, at least for another decade or two: a black man has been nominated for President by a major party (of course, if a few votes had gone the other way, I'd be saying the same thing about a woman). Not that I really care. A black candidate or a woman candidate are just symbols: what I really care about is substance. So, it is with that in mind, that I really didn't expect to write this for many years is that someone from my generation, or at least close to my age, is being nominated for President. For me, this election wasn't about a man or a woman, it became generational: Generation X versus the Baby Boomers.

Born in 1961, Barack Obama is technically a baby boomer (though some define those born in 1961 as part of Generation X), but he came of age after Vietnam, hippies, the draft etc were history. Just as John McCain, born just before WW2, was affected more by the boomers values then he was by his own generation's, so has Obama been affected by Generation X's. He himself has said it is time for a new generation to take over and remove the old, such as Bill Clinton did when he defeated George Bush, and then Bob Dole, the WWII generation. He is not weighed down by the baggage that seems to have followed the Clintons and George W. Bush. There was no draft to evade. Sampling drugs, while still not approved (obviously), were more accepted. Like many of Generation X, he grew up in a broken family and is of mixed heritage. We're the ones who understand our elders' concerns and values, and can turn our noses at their sometimes greedy ways (don't get me started on the big deficits they are leaving us as they finance their early retirements on my dime) yet are eager to embrace the technology that will define the next generation. We're also the ones who realize that we're going to have the clean up the mess baby boomers have made, paying for their retirement while hoping our job isn't outsourced. .

I liked Bill Clinton's presidency and thought Hillary would've been a decent president. However, as her campaign went on and it became negative, she reminded me why I was tired of the Clintons after the 1990s and am tired of the baby boomers in politics in general. Her campaign reminded me of all the partisan fighting that seemed to really have stemmed from the college campus "debates" of the 1960s. Enough of this already. That war is over. I'm tired of wars and fights of 40 years ago being rehashed. I'm neither liberal or conservative (best definition is I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative -- meaning that I don't care if gays want to get married, I do care about the large debts we're leaving for our children). There seems to be a different outlook to the way things need to be done in this country that is generational. Everything is not red or blue, republican or democrat.

I don't mean to generalize an entire generation, but there is something there. For me, perhaps it is because I am tired of hypocrisy. I grew up listening to how bad Vietnam was by the same people who have now brought us Vietnam on location in Iraq. I listened to the horrors of the welfare state by my elders. I watched them vote for candidates who ended welfare, as we knew it, and, due to fiscal necessity, also eliminate some of the programs they benefited from, such as low or free college tuition. I learned to live with it. Now, however, as those same people are approaching retirement, the "me generation" is demanding that no changes be made to their special welfare program: social security, no matter the cost. They want to live off of that welfare for the next few decades, forgetting that when social security was enacted it was really for those at the end of their lives, not really healthy enough to work anymore, to spend their last few years, not decades, in relative comfort. The thing is, I've also learned to live with is a generation about to retire and, perhaps, suck social security dry. However, don't rub my face in it.

I've learned to live with the fact that social security won't be completely there, if at all, by time I retire in 25-30 years, assuming I do retire. I'm not one of those who were advocating private accounts in lieu of the current fund, primarily because I thought the only ones to really benefit would be Wall St as they made tons of money on all the fees from managing individual accounts (why was putting a portion of the trust into a few funds never really looked into anyway?). I'm not one of those demanding cuts in medicare/medicaid. But my disillusion with the way baby boomers run things goes deeper than that.

Obama is not necessarily an elitist because he tells us the truth, such as we can't keep driving our gas guzzlers, keeping our homes at 72F, while wearing our flag lapels, because the rest of the world can't support us (though you can argue Obama is being a little hypocritical himself as he is driven around in SUVs). We knew that oil is a limited resource, we should've been exploring alternatives instead of building bigger trucks over the last decade. He is not being an elitist for saying voters are bitter and turning to God because they don't believe government can help them, he is insightfully telling us what many of us already suspect.

I can see how good or bad things are. I don't need a President who will tell me everything is fine, ignore the man behind the curtain. I want a President who will, rudely if necessary, lead us back to the right path.

Inherit the Wind

The other evening I watched the old movie Inherit the Wind. If you don't remember or know the movie, it is based on the Scopes Monkey/ evolution trial of a teacher who tried to teach his students Darwin's theory of evolution (that man evolved from a lower life forms and wasn't just placed on Earth by God). As I watched the film, I was amazed how much of it still seems relevant in today's political climate. Except now, in addition to those trying to teach the Bible as fact in public schools, we also have intelligent design, with gay marriage thrown in for giggles. All this though leaves me to wonder why some people feel it is so important for them to project their religious views on others in the public.

I have no issue with those who want to live, believe or pray according to their religious beliefs in private. I also have no issue with those who want to live their lives based on their beliefs, such as the traditional lives the Amish lead or Jews keeping a kosher diet. However, living here in the United States, I'd be pretty upset if I was forced to give up my car and electricity, or forced to never eat a bacon cheeseburger, based on the beliefs of others. I'm pretty sure most Americans would be equally upset. Therefore, I fail to understand why some people feel that their time is best spent making sure that their religion requires them to discriminate against others.

The Government of the United States is not founded on any individual religion, such as Christianity. While it is true that many of the founding fathers were religious men who believed in a supreme being, they were not necessarily Christian. More importantly, God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet, such as in the time of the Scopes trial, there are still many laws in the United States based on religious views. While some, like kosher or halal dietary laws, have a purpose, in this case to aid those who want to follow their religion's dietary laws, and do not bother those who don't care about those laws, other laws are meant to force all to follow a certain religion's (or religions) laws and do not serve a purpose aside from forcing others to follow another religion's views.

The latest cause is gay marriage. New York's Governor set off a storm last week when he announced that the state would recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The Governor, who is blind and black, said he came to this decision because he felt that gays faced the same civil rights battles that blacks endured almost a half century ago. Now, I can understand opposition from the legislature, arguing, maybe correctly, that the Governor is violating the state's constitution by doing an end run around legislature, and that a lot of work would be involved to change 1,300 or so laws and regulations to make this legal in the time the Governor wants. Both of those are legitimate questions. However, what I don't understand is how those, in other states, feel it is their duty to import their values on New York.

In this issue, it is an Arizona group called Focus on the Family that insists that marriage is a religious institution and that the US and state governments should make sure all follow Christianity's version of it, despite what that silly 1st Amendment to Constitution says about Congress making no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of (maybe the trick is for all marrying homosexuals to join the "Church of Gay" whose religious requirements were simply all members must be married to each to worship freely in their own, particular fashion).

Of course, by their views, love isn't the most important part of marriage. Marriage is meant to provide children and to keep society whole. Well good for them. I'm glad that is their view but I chose to marry my wife for love, not economics. I know the concept of love is relatively new for some, I grew up hearing the scandalous story of how my grandparents eloped in the early 1930s in lieu of waiting for an arrangement to be made.

They also note that the purpose of marriage is procreation. That we chose to have children is besides the point. My sister chose to marry her husband for love but is unable to have children. Does that make their marriage invalid? My aunt and her current husband married after their previous spouses, the father and mother of their children, had died and they (well at least my aunt) were well past child bearing years. Does this mean their marriage is invalid? By this group's logic, perhaps it does. That we are not Christians seems to be besides the point. Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, it seems they won't be really happy until they have run all with differing views out of town.

There are plenty of issues affecting American families that need addressing; doesn't this group have better things to use their energy and resources on aside from whether homosexuals can marry? There are a lot of issues that affect families, especially children, that need addressing, Why don't they tackle all the broken marriage between heterosexuals, especially those with children? Why not tackle economic problems that cause both parents to work, sometimes more than one job each, just to make ends meet? How about guns in failing schools? I'm pretty sure that affects families.

I don't mean to belittle the Focus on Family group. I'm sure they do many fine things. However, it is their, and many other groups focus on discriminating against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs, that I find disturbing. Take religion out of and then you just have civilizations standards, standards which are constantly evolving (what is fine today, such as inter racial marriage, was illegal just a few decades ago). Will this group prevent my children being married by a rabbi because we are not Christian?

We are not our bothers' keepers. Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we all just learned to mind our own business. Ignorance, bigotry and hate, especially against a minority, have no place in society. If two people who love each other want to get married, then the only proper response should be approval. Hopefully politics will stay away from continued prejudice. There is already enough hate in this world.