The Declassified National Intelligence Estimate

(See here) an MSNBCmedia PDF file that shows the declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate dated April 2006.

There has been a great deal of flack flying between the Democrats and Republicans about this document. Both point the finger of righteousness at each other saying their path is the correct one to follow and the other side's path is foolish.

Let me sum up my own opinion on this document and upon the bullshit being spewed by our political leaders.

First, BOTH SIDES deserve almost equal blame for getting us involved in Iraq. With only a few exceptions (Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi being a notable exception) the vast majority of BOTH PARTIES voted to authorize George Dubyah Bush to use force in Iraq.

This NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) notes that:

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Hang on a second. Us taxpayers actually pay intelligence experts to come up with jewels of wisdom like this for our political leaders? Political leaders need jewels like this to point to so that they can discuss the obvious? I need to take up a new career if people can actually draw a paycheck for shit like this.

First let me scold the Democrats. They say "See, the War in Iraq is increasing the number of terrorists, causing us to lose ground in the War on Terror." First off, Democrats share the blame for us being involved in Iraq. Yes, we would probably be in better shape had we not invaded Iraq, however jihadists would have still used the invasion of Afghanistan to fuel their recruitment efforts if Saddam still reigned in Iraq. Osama and company would not have been reasonable and agreed that they deserved what happened if we had stuck to Afghanistan.

Now let me scold Republicans. They say "See, the War in Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror. We can't "cut and run". First off, I agree defeat in Iraq is not in our best national interests. However I wonder why our wise political leaders, and the authors of our National Intelligence Estimates, did not take into consideration the possibility of defeat prior to rushing into that conflict! Yes, the War in Iraq probably now is the focal point in the War on Terror. However this did not have to be. We could have limited our actions to Afghanistan.

So which side, Democrat or Republican, wins this debate? Well in my estimation it is a draw. Democrats want us to cut and run without victory while they share a large portion of the blame for getting us involved in the War in Iraq in the first place. Republicans? I want to support them in our efforts in Iraq, but I then wonder which other foolish action Dubyah is going to get us involved in next. Like it or not, while Democrats are guilty of supporting Dubyah's leadership in getting us involved in Iraq, the Dubyah Administration was most vocal in justifying the invasion. Republicans led, Democrats followed.

Sigh, and to think how things could have been. Oh, things would not have been grand had we not invaded Iraq, however we could have restricted military action to Afghanistan and things could have been a lot less dire. Let's be truthful. As bad as things now are in Afghanistan, they would now be worse absent the Iraq War. Jihadists would have focused their efforts on Afghanistan absent the distraction of Iraq. However by restricting action to Afghanistan we would have enjoyed certain advantages. We would have enjoyed complete NATO support and nearly complete favorable international opinion that our actions were justified. All these advantages were lost by shifting the front lines from Afghanistan to Iraq. In Iraq, we stand nearly alone.

Meanwhile, Congress is set to authorize another $70 billion to fund the War in Iraq, and even this amount will only last us until spring. The Pentagon considers ways to accelerate deployment schedules so as to maintain a 140,000 strong occupation force while opinion polls show the majority of Iraqis want us out within a year.

I'm worried about my nation. I'm beginning to think we have nothing but lunatics at the helm of our "ship of state" up there in Washington. Our President, George Dubyah Bush, is screaming "Stay the course" while the course heads us directly towards the rocks and shoals. Democrat leaders scream "All back full" while it is obvious we must continue to make forward progress.

One does not need to be a Prophet to look into the crystal ball and predict that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

How much torture?

How much torture will American law allow? George Dubyah Bush is asking for clarification.

(See here) a FOXNews piece that does a fairly good job on reporting on the issues that face us.

Let me explain myself. I am going to come at this from something I learned as a child. I think many of us have been taught the same thing. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Please note that this lesson I was taught did not say "Do unto others as they do unto you." If Jesus had not taught us the former but instead preached the latter, I think by now the world would have already ended. This is one of the reasons I am willing to accept Jesus as my savior. Jesus might not have been God, but he is my savior, I call him Rabbi. My Rabbi, my savior, taught the "golden rule". I love Jesus.

So how much torture should we allow? Just how evil should we allow ourselves to become? George Dubyah Bush described our adversaries as evil. I will acknowledge that our adversaries have some justified complaints, however I will agree that their actions might be described as evil. We could take this thought further into whether some of our own actions in the past have been evil... but I am going to stick to my point.

OK, they are evil. We are not. They cut off the heads of their prisoners. What do we do? Do we stoop to their level or are we somehow better? They suffer from not enjoying the leadership of Jesus, which we enjoy.

If we have to become as evil as they are to defeat them, then what joy will there be in victory? If we become them, to defeat them, why do we not just already open up the gates and welcome them as victors now?

Perhaps Jesus's Golden Rule will not work. Perhaps the conservatives are right. But I am going to place my faith in Jesus. I'll treat my adversaries as I would want to be treated.

But be aware the Golden Rule is not absolute. Well, yes it is absolute... if you are are evil enough, you would expect your neighbor to kill you to protect himself.

Let us live by the Golden Rule and hope somehow Jesus was right, that our adversaries will rise to our level. Let us refuse to sink to the level of our adversaries.

If Jesus fails us, we can always turn to the devil. Let's resist the devil as long as we can. My money is on Jesus. If Jesus was wrong, I don't want to live in what results anyway.

Jim Webb - Women in the Military

(See here) a Pilotonline piece (Hampton Roads, Virginia) written by Warren Fiske and Dale Eisman that reports on a magazine article that Jim Webb wrote 27 years ago that questioned whether women should serve in the military.

Five retired military women, trailblazers, condemned the magazine article and say it made their trailblazing service that much harder.

Well, the debate about women's service in the military is not yet completed. Women such as these have proven that they are capable of serving... but what about equality?

Will women such as these agree that since they have helped prove women are capable of serving, then all young women, once they reach 18 years of age, should be required to register for the Selective Service (the draft) just like our young men? We're talking equality here!

Personally I feel women should be allowed to serve in any position in the military for which they can physically qualify. They certainly have the intellect, however I think there should still be a physical requirement for some positions such as the Navy Seals. Even here, if a woman can qualify, she should be allowed to serve.

However, if a woman is "allowed" to serve, in the interest of equality, then why should she be exempted from forced service if that is required.

Jim Webb should be condemned for engaging in debate 27 years ago? OK you trailblazing women, how about you leading the debate today? Do you seek "perfect" equality for women serving in the military or will you be willing to settle for something less? Come on, you brought the subject up... now lead the debate.

Moderate Republicans

(See here) a Washington Post piece written by Jonathan Weisman that reports Republican moderates are starting to flex their muscles.

Led by such respected voices as Senator McCain from Arizona and Senator Warner from Virginia, we might be witnessing an earthquake. Moderate voices might be learning how to exercise their power. They do not have to yield to the extremists when the extremists scream for the unreasonable.

It is my understanding that the entire (probably not entire, someone will always try to make a name for him/herself) Democrat party is willing to back you. I think this is called a bipartisan solution. The Democrats might not get everything they want, but they are willing to follow leadership when the leadership is reasonable. They can either follow you moderates or settle for Dubyah's vision!

I do not see a problem with where moderate Republican leadership is directing us on these two issues. The key here is that we are witnessing moderate leadership where as in the past Republican leadership has tended to be extremist.

Damn, if we can get some of these Republican moderates to team up with some Democrat moderates, we might even be able to figure out how to "save the world" within a balanced federal budget.

Our train (our world) is headed for a trainwreck. Perhaps some reasonable moderates, grounded in reality, can help us apply the brakes.

George W Bush Addresses the Nation

Dubyah addressed the nation on the anniversary of the 911 attacks. (See here) a transcript of the address.

This address quickly progressed from marking the attacks on Sept 11, 2001 to a defense of the current War in Iraq. In the address Dubyah states:

I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

He then immediately attempts to answer the question:

The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

Well I do not quite understand which history book Dubyah is drawing from. He states "the United Nations saw the threat". Heh heh, I guess we are supposed to understand that the United Nations understood that Saddam Hussein was such a "clear threat" (like Dubyah did) that an invasion was required. OK George, then if this is so, why did they not sanction the invasion? Don't you remember all the flack about renaming French Fries "Freedom Fries" because our ally, France, dared to oppose this action? Don't you remember how you personally told us that if the United Nations would not sanction the invasion, you were going to do it anyway with the "coalition of the willing"? (Turns out much of this coalition has turned tail and ran on us - grin.)

Dubyah makes this point:

We're training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation. We're helping Iraq's unity government grow in strength and serve its people. We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

Got that? "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." I think there is at least some truth in this statement. But did it have to be so? As I remember it, the polls showed a majority of Americans (if you joined those against the invasion under ANY circumstance with those who were in favor ONLY if it was sanctioned by the UN) were against the invasion. This was AFTER the Dubyah administration tried to scare the populace into approval by putting into play that Saddam obviously had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember Condi Rice's remark about not wanting the "smoking gun" proving this to be a "mushroom cloud"?

Truth is, Dubyah led America into the invasion of Iraq without having majority American public opinion behind him. He insisted it was the right thing to do and, with his power as Commander in Chief, and with the approval of Congress, he conducted the invasion anyway.

If it had turned out he was right, if a vast arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction were uncovered, if ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were uncovered, it would have been worth it. But none of this happened.

Dubyah continues:

Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.

Got that? In other words, Dubyah is saying Iraq is now the front line in the "War On Terror". He is saying Osama agrees with him. In many ways I agree with him. Iraq is now the hot battle. The war might not be lost with the loss of one battle, however it will be harder to win the war with each lost battle. But did this battle need to be fought at the time and by the method Dubyah forced on us?

Don't get me wrong. Absent the War in Iraq, the war we are engaged in would go on. However absent the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan would be the front line. But there were at least a few strengths in limiting the front line trenches to Afghanistan. There was broad public support for the invasion of Afghanistan. Most of us were screaming for blood back then. It seemed damned near the entire world was willing to support us in our action. Our actions and goals in Afghanistan still enjoy broad international support.

In Iraq, the few nations that were with us are starting to abandon us. If "we" as a people are going to bring Dubyah's folly to a somewhat favorable outcome we are increasingly going to have to do it by ourselves. Majority support for our action was not present at the onset, and what little support there was is eroding. An unfavorable outcome to Dubyah's folly is not in the interest of America (or in my opinion the whole world) however a majority of Americans voted to keep that man in office last chance we had to pick someone else.

We had a chance to make a statement in Afghanistan. With the "entire" world supporting us and helping us to ensure victory, it would not perhaps been "simple", but it certainly would have been easier then the burden looking us in the eye in Iraq.

I'm still waiting to see just how Dubyah is going to lead us out of the folly he lead us into. On 09/11/06 I saw feeble attempts to do this. However, I did not see any apology for leading us down the wrong path. I only saw attempts to justify actions that led us down the path towards darkness.

On the Road Again

I am headed back out on the road.

On some occasions I obtain access to a Wifi hotspot while gone, however this is pretty rare. I do not intend to return home until the middle of October.

Joe Lieberman for Senate

(See here) where the Washington Post reports on Joe Lieberman's reception back in Washington DC after losing the Democrat primary in Connecticut and announcing he would run for the Senate as an independent.

In some ways, I almost feel guilty for expressing an opinion about the Connecticut political race, however if others who are not from Connecticut are free to express an opinion, then I guess it is OK for me to weigh in as well. The Post piece reports that this is what John Kerry had to say about Joe's running as an independent:

Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut.

Now is this statement by John Kerry even true or fair? Perhaps it would be if it was rephrased to "Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut who happen to be left wing extremists." How can I say such a thing? Well let us examine what has happened and what is going on in Connecticut. While Joe Lieberman might have lost the Democrat primary, it is not just a case of sore loser that leads him to running as an independent. Current opinion polls show him ahead by a few percentage points. How could this be so? Independent voters are not allowed to vote in either party's primary and there is a strong degree of support amongst these independents for Joe Lieberman. Independents were not permitted to register their preference in the primary so Joe Lieberman is going to give them the chance to register their preference in the general election. As I stated, Joe Lieberman currently is ahead in the polls. Joe's running is not going to guarantee the Republican candidate a victory by splitting the Democrat vote in the state. The Republican candidate lags far behind both Joe and the winner of the Democrat primary, Ned Lamont.

I am motivated to make this statement: John Kerry is out of step with the majority of Connecticut voters. Evidently most of the Democrat national leadership is as well. Perhaps what is going on in Connecticut is evidence of why Democrats are having such problems winning elections recently.

Perhaps if Joe wins the election, he will be magnanimous in victory and continue to caucus with Democrats in the Senate. However there have been rumblings that Democrats will withhold support from him for positions on committees if he is victorious. If this were to happen perhaps Joe might decide to not caucus with the Democrats? Seems to me Democrats need all the support they can get, and they should not be burning bridges behind them.

Critiquing Jim Webb

(See here) where WTOP (Washington DC) reports on a Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll that shows Jim Webb with a slight lead over incumbent George Allen in a tight race for the US Senate in Virginia.

Now I wish to identify myself as a supporter of Jim Webb. I want to run George Allen out of office. However my support of Jim Webb does not lend itself to my reserving criticism of anything he does.

Case in point: What does Jim Webb think is the greatest challenge facing America? (See here), on his campaign website, where he identifies the following challenges.

There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society.

Now I am not a tree hugging environmentalist, however I am appalled that global warming does not even rate an honorable mention in his list. Asked for the single biggest issue, and Jim Webb rattles off a list of four concerns and global warming is not included in the list.

Now everything he lists is a real concern. I would hope the person who represents me was concerned about all the issues he lists, however I am concerned that he seems to be completely unaware of the elephant that grazes within the herd of problems that face our nation.

Global warming is real. The polar ice caps are melting. Anyone of any intelligence who refuses to acknowledge the threat of global warming is either an idiot or dishonest. Some reasonable question can still exist as to what is the cause of global warming. Is it greenhouse gases or is it increased solar output? If it is greenhouse gases, then maybe we can do something about it. If it is increased solar output we are going to have to figure out how to live with it. But it is happening and we need to start planning for the future.

With all the other problems we face, how could this threat lead my list of challenges we face? (See here) where a Rense website piece written by Michael McCarthy reports that insurance industry experts feel global warming will bankrupt the world economy by 2065. That by that time the damage caused by global warming will exceed the ENTIRE world's GDP. Have you got that? If every man woman and child then alive on the earth worked as hard as they could to only repair the damage done, their efforts will fall short of repairing the damage done.

Now Jim Webb seeks to represent one of America's coastal states. It is fairly certain that Virginia will be severely impacted due to rising ocean levels. It is going to be a roll of the dice for interior states, but my money would be on even most of those states will be impacted by droughts and floods as their climate changes. At least with interior states it would be a gamble. Due to rising ocean levels, the impact is certain for Virginia.

But Jim Webb can not even include this FACT in his list of things he is most concerned about.

Jim Webb might still be preferable to George Allen to represent Virginia in the US Senate, however he too is going to leave a lot to be desired.

Mommy, I Just Can't Read

Mommy, I just can't read. I'm not stupid, I'm intelligent but I can't read.

Sigh. (See here) a Newsweek article that screams for watering down the Standards of Learning tests that our schools face. "They expect too much" educators scream.

I will reply with this. Prior to the Standards of Learning, we were graduating young adults from High School that still did not have the ability to read.

Let us explore this further. As children progressed through the grade levels, children of high achievement were not even allowed to be "fast tracked" so that they would not be hindered in their learning by those who could not yet read. Children who already were at their grade level where held back by those who should not have been advanced to the next grade level.

Well "Standards of Learning" helps correct that problem. If the kid does not deserve to be in the grade level, they will be held back while the majority continues on. The majority will not be held back at the next grade level by the children who were not ready for that grade level. No longer are we going to see young adults graduating from High School without being able to read. No longer will the learning of those who are ready for higher learning in high school be held back by those who are not ready to learn at that level.

If a child is not fit to advance beyond Kindergarten due to whatever cause, then let them stay in Kindergarten until they are ready for the first grade. If we acquiesce in allowing that Kindergarten is not learning time, but only play time, the heat will only be turned up on first grade. If Kindergarten kids are not ready for the first grade, let them stay in Kindergarten.

Limits on Freedom of Speech

OK, we have all been through school. At what point should there be limits upon what our fellow students are allowed to wear to express their rights to Freedom of Speech?

Here's an interesting case. (See here) where the Burlington Vermont Burlington Free Press reports that a student won his case to wear a t-shirt critical of George Dubyah Bush.

While I am supportive of everyone's right to freedom of speech, I wonder if this court case might not have been wrongly decided.

Let us examine this case for what it might result in. Now understand that the student was wearing a t-shirt that contained images of alcohol and cocaine in order to be derisive of Dubyah. It suggested that right wing proper Dubyah might not have been so proper in his youth. This criticism is proper.

However the school authorities were not objecting to the message. They were objecting to the images. If images such as these are allowed, what limit would there be on any depiction of illegal substances on any students garb? What would prevent the local "head" from wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with nothing more then a marijuana leaf in fluorescent colors? Must such attire be tolerated as well?

Seems to me that it would be required. If the depiction of drugs and alcohol on a t-shirt critical of Dubyah must be allowed, then the depiction of a marijuana leaf by someone who favors legalization of marijuana must also be allowed.

Perhaps you are amongst those that believe no limits should be placed on freedom of speech. I would admit that your opinion is not without merit. However, what of a student that chooses to wear a t-shirt in class that contains images of pedophilia? Will you at least admit that some limits are necessary? I bet we could come to agreement that some limits are necessary. We might continue to disagree on where these limits should be drawn.

For me, I agree with the school administrators. The students are free to wear t-shirts that support their political beliefs, however these t-shirts are not allowed to portray images that might condone illegal activity. Rigid enforcement might prevent expression that condemns such illegal activity, but that is just the breaks. The rules were, no usage of such images.

Zachary Guiles violated these rules. Enforcement of the dress code did not lead to any real violation to his rights of freedom of speech as long as he followed the rules.

What's next? High school students must be allowed to attend class naked because they are in favor of nudism?

Did Israel Attack Red Cross Ambulances?

Did Israel really attack Red Cross Ambulances?

(See here) a Zombietime blog article that attempts to show the attack(s) were a fraud.

Well the evidence produced by the author does convince me of one thing, that the ambulance was not hit with anything as potent as a hellfire missile. But could the damage have been created by something like non explosive cannon fire?

Perhaps coverage of the event was exaggerated. However even the pictures pointed to by the author seem to indicate something more then a roof vent being blown off by wind speed while driving down the road happened to the vehicle.

Perhaps the attacks did not happen exactly as they were portrayed, however evidence still seems to point that the vehicles suffered from some type of attack.

Just because some of the coverage might have been overblown does not automatically indicate that there was not some elements of truth in the coverage.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake

Phil Kellam, Virginia Beach, Virginia's Commissioner of Revenue is running against incumbent Thelma Drake for Virginia's Second District seat in the US House of Representatives.

I am rather pleased with the selection the Democrats made to run for the seat in the House that represents me. In this heavily conservative district, Democrats in the past have sometimes not even bothered to field any candidate whatsoever. With Phil Kellam, who I would describe as center-right, they have offered a candidate who might be competitive and for whom I would consider voting.

From what I have seen thus far, there is not a whole lot of difference between Thelma and Phil. I doubt either one of them will shame me in Congress.

For those who do not reside in the area, let me first clue you in to a little local history. The Kellam name enjoys instant recognition. One of Virginia Beach's high schools is even named Kellam High. The Kellam's have long been involved in local politics and Phil Kellam is following in the footsteps of those who went before him.

I wish to explore my hopes and fears as I go about deciding who I vote for.

First let me point towards what I know. I have been watching how Thelma Drake votes. She seems to follow Republican leadership in her voting record. Never drifting out of line, the Republican party could always count on her to support the party line. I am not enamored with the Republican party line, so this weighs against her. Can Thelma Drake point to a single issue where she made a difference in Congress? Can Thelma state "Here is where I thought my party was too far right wing and where I pulled them towards the center?" I have seen no evidence of it. Every time she voted, it was with the Republican party. The Republican party could count on her vote.

Now my fears about voting for Phil Kellam. If Phil, a center-right kind of guy, is elected, he will caucus with the Democrat party. Like it or not, if the Democrats win a majority in the House, this probably means Nancy Pelosi would be elected as Speaker of the House. Phil might not vote for her, but the majority of Democrats elected to the House probably will. Perhaps Phil will be a maverick (I like mavericks). Would Phil's voting record closely follow the leadership of Nancy Pelosi or will it reflect attempts to pull the Democrat party towards the center?

Truth is I am leaning towards casting my vote for Phil Kellam. However this support is very tenuous. A vote for Phil is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House and I do not look favorably on this outcome. However perhaps if the American public elects enough reasonable Democrats to public office, power can be wrestled from the hands of left wing extremists within the Democrat party. I have just about given up on hopes the Republican party can be reformed. (I am still willing to vote for reasonable Republicans like my Republican Senator John Warner.)

Perhaps Phil deserves a chance in public office to show us what he can do. If he is elected, we can watch whether he delivers on his promises. He claims that what America needs is bipartisan solutions to problems from which I take it that he will not follow the left wing agenda of Democrat leadership. I am willing to give him a chance and then hold him accountable on the next election.

Thus, I give a rather tepid endorsement to Phil Kellam to represent my district in the US House of Representatives. Thus far, I intend to vote for him, and then watch to see if he can help bring the Democrat party towards the center.

Gay Rights and Freedom of Speech in California

Gay rights and freedom of speech in California.

Is homosexuality right or wrong? Please do not be a bigot on this issue, please keep an open mind on the subject. It is still being debated in our society and I feel it is the duty of all of our citizens to listen to the arguments put forth by both sides in coming to a decision.

However this might now be a little difficult in California. In California the state government has decided that the debate is over and gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders have won the debate. Both sides of the argument will not be tolerated in, for example, colleges and universities within the state.

(See here) where the News Fit to Post reports on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing into law the Nondiscrimination in State Programs and Activities Act, SB 1441.

The News Fit to Post article provides a link to a Campaign for Children and Families press release (see here) that states:

...SB 1441 specifically requires "any program or activity that... receives any financial assistance from the state" to support transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality or lose state funding. SB 1441 contains no exemption for religious colleges and universities that accept students with Cal Grants, or child-care providers that accept CalWORKS vouchers.

Besides the obvious trampling of religious freedoms, what would happen if a secular professor at, say UCLA, dared to get up in front of his class and state that he/she felt homosexuality was wrong on grounds other then religious morality? Would this professor be subjected to sanctions or discipline for merely stating an opinion because it might offend someone in his class?

Meanwhile the pro-homosexual advocate will be given free reign at the podium to express his/her side of the argument.

I noted with amusement that the News Fit to Post article was titled "Schwarzenegger Called 'Evil' for Signing Bill Banning State-Funded Bigotry".

Let us examine the definition of the word "bigot". From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

- a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others

(As a side note. Merriam-Webster used to contain a similar definition of the word bigot. However Merriam-Webster's definition seems to have been changed to become more politically correct.)

So I ask, just which side of the argument on homosexuality is being "intolerant of the opinions of others"? Is it those opposed to "equal rights" for homosexuals but whom still allow the other side the ability to put forth their side of the argument, or is it those who are advocates for "equal rights" for homosexuals who try and squelch the other side from giving voice to their opinions? Which side is bigoted?

How about this? If the state of California can get away with this, how about all the states (which are a majority) where the majority of the citizens overwhelming oppose gay marriage enact legislation that similarly prevents any state-funded promotion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

Now I know the Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject. They have ruled that homosexuals are allowed to be homosexual IN PRIVATE. Homosexuals, too, enjoy the right to privacy. However this ruling does not give them the right to actively promote their lifestyle. If California can squelch one side of the debate within their boundaries in violation of the rights of free speech, then another state, say Alabama, should have the same rights in the other direction.

Personally, I believe everyone should continue to enjoy the rights of freedom of speech no matter which side of the fence they sit on. However if California is free to tilt the playing field in one direction, then other states should be free to tilt the playing field in the opposite direction. If the government of California is free to be intolerant and bigoted, then those from the opposition in other states should enjoy the same freedom.