Archive for the ‘Choice’ Category

>Choosing to be straight

October 25, 2010

>Here are the sample ballots for Jefferson County for the November 2, 2010 election. There are several ballots there, because there are County Commission races and state legislator races and such where everyone does not have the same choices so they will receive different ballots.

The ballot is continued on the back.

There are 44 races on the ballot, if I counted correctly. If not, it’s close. There are a lot of candidates to become familiar with in order to make a decision as to who to vote for.

There are a few races that you might be familiar with: Governor, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, but how about State Board of Education District 4? Quick, tell me the candidates.

But there is a solution. Use this quick guide to voting provided by Bessemer Opinions.

Make one mark on the ballot.

Straight Party Voting.

Mark “Alabama Democratic Party” on your ballot.

Remember, if you are voting for Republicans you are supporting a party whose members want to do away with Social Security, wants to take health care away from those who now have it, want to increase unemployment in our state, want to do away with the 14th Amendment, want to re-criminalize homosexuality, want to take away a woman’s right to choose even in the case of rape or incest, want to allow Wall Street to run rampant, who don’t believe the part of the 1st Amendment about not establishing a religion, who want students to carry guns to class, who want to censor books like mine, that have gay characters or are written by gay authors, who want to demonize immigrants, who want to remain in Afghanistan for 1000 years, who disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (If you aren’t familiar with these issues and the Republicans that support these positions, ask me in the comments section).

This picture is actually a message to those 19th century holdovers that believe one’s sexual orientation is a choice.

This is one time that flaunting your straightness is allowed.

I decided I will be straight, on November 2. A Straight Democratic Party voter, that is.

Won’t you be Straight with me?

>Catching up on the craziness

April 14, 2010

>There is so much craziness going on, and all of it seems to be coming from the Party of No, at various levels.

The picture is not of Republican crazies, more on this group later.

First, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed a bill that restricts abortion to less than 20 weeks based on the assertion that fetuses feel pain after that.

Based on that logic, shouldn’t he also be signing a bill that bans circumcision? I’m just askin’.


Hillary Clinton’s name is being tossed around as a possible nominee to SCOTUS to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. A Republican friend of mine is promoting a conservative Internet “poll” which so far has 91% of respondents voting “no” to the possibility of a Clinton appointment. I would love to see Secretary Clinton appointed.

Also a lot of talk is being generated about Obama has to pick a “mainstream” nominee. What in the world does that mean? Republicans want a a progressive president to pick a conservative Supreme Court Justice. Ha! Obama could pick Mother Teresa (were she still alive) and Republicans would fight the nomination. So, President, pick whoever you want, because you are going to get a fight anyway, so you might as well fight for someone that fires up your base.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell want the big banks to fail. In fact, he says we can’t get out of this recession until they do.

Not only is the GOP the Party of No, they are the Party of Fail. Rush Limbaugh wants the president and the country to fail, now their senate leader is wanting the banks to fail.

Sorry, Mitch, but the President’s plan (that rescued us from economic meltdown) is working. I hate to get all “economics” on you (maybe in a later post), but we need to be hoping for the banks to succeed, just as we need to be hoping for small businesses to succeed.


And John McCain. What can I say? He is just a poor old man that should have quit while he was ahead. Americans used to love and respect him. Many Democrats and independents supported his presidential bid in 2000. You know, when he was making his name known as a maverick.
Now he has just gone Borneo it seems (that’s an old college phrase for “whacko”).


Speaking of old college days and such, I’m sure glad that there are still some hippies entertaining us.

Enjoy this video by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros.

>Western Tribune Column April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

>This column has already angered some. But here it is:

To say that President Obama “favors the taking of life from the unborn” is a misinterpretation of policy if I have ever heard one. But that is part of the rhetoric being applied to the debate over the invitation by the University of Notre Dame for the president to speak at commencement.

For the Catholic Church to be so focused on abortion is not surprising. After all, anything to take the focus off of their own misgivings. Remember, this is the church that allowed Cardinal Bernard Law, the prelate who obstructed justice in the investigation of pedophilia in his own diocese, to remain a member in good standing, in fact, allowing him to run the third largest basilica in Rome.

Catholic universities have always been places where freedom of thought and differing opinions have been allowed. Thomas Reese, a distinguished fellow at Georgetown University, wrote that in denying the voices of people with different views, “We are admitting that our arguments are not convincing.” And Dick Meister, the former provost of DePaul University (the nation’s largest Catholic University), said that allowing Obama to speak “epitomizes Notre Dame’s Catholic identity.”

On the subject of abortion, if that’s what the Catholics in opposition to Obama want to talk about, a recent Gallup Poll released last week shows no difference between American Catholics and Non-Catholics on the issue. And the majority of Americans do not want to outlaw abortion, although they may want to limit the procedure to certain circumstances.

Our president, regardless of what one might want to believe, is more interested in preventing unintended pregnancies than in taking away a woman’s right to individual choice as a way to reduce abortion. If unintended pregnancies are significantly reduced, the number of abortions will decrease also. Is that so hard to understand?

On the other hand, if abortion were outlawed, abortions would continue, but would be less safe. I recently attended a presentation at UAB on what might happen if abortion were outlawed, by physicians who were practicing before it was legalized. Their predictions regarding the health of women were dire. I couldn’t help reflecting on Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s scoffing at the concern over the health of the woman when abortion was mentioned during a debate.

Many see the hypocrisy in the current debate and believe it’s just a way for Catholic Republicans to demean Obama.

Meanwhile, his approval ratings remain steady.