Gosh, so much has happened lately. Elections and raucous in Iran, health care debates here at home, and of course the absurd debate of DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and other nonsense. Out of the list, it is difficult to pin-point one issues that is currently more alarming, but it much easier to pick out the one that will have the longest lasting effects in our country’s future. That is, healthcare. Congress is about to take on health care reform, once again, after the last failed attempt from Hillary and Bill in the early 90s. It’s huge, or at least it has the potential to be. The discussions of course exist among party lines, but also in between parties. The debates range from whether or not there should be a government run plan, to how this overhaul will be paid for, to how much debt it will leave us with, to how many Americans it will actually cover. The questions can go on and on, as could the debates. All that we know currently, is that the plan is being crafted by House Democrats and that the President has set a deadline for August 1st. 

Basically, a bill that will probably affect America’s economy for decades to come will be drafted in less than two months. The main question is how much reform will this bill really bring? Certainly the definition of reform ranges in the political spectrum. Liberals are calling for a government run plan, some other are calling for a government run option in addition to private companies, and obviously most conservatives want the government out. Personally I have not taken a stance yet. Although a government run plan seems like the most affordable path that would cover more Americans, I am also worried that the government run plan will drive the private companies out of business. And then, there is Medicare, and Medicaid, programs which are taking out tons of money and not exactly succeeding in the mission, so would government run plan be a model of those two plans? Of course, in order to reach a consensus on the type of reform, other questions need to be answered first.

How many Americans will the plan actually cover? This week, estimates were released saying that the tentative plan right now would cost $1 trillion over the next 20 years and cover about 12 million Americans. Of course, that is disappointing, because more than $30 million Americans would still be uninsured. Also, how will we pay for this? What kind of debt will this leave my generation with? I seriously have no idea, but considering that the bill has its deadline on August 1st, I should know. Americans should know. Such a huge undertaking that will probably define Obama’s presidency and our economy for years to come, needs more time to be discussed and drafted than 1 month and a half. Well, we shall see what our wonderful elected officials in Washington will come up with. 

Oprah. I have never been able to wrap my mind around the idea of Oprah. It is so silly to be writing about this at 11pm, after a two hour meeting, but after reading this  week’s Newsweek, some old thoughts re-emerged. Oprah is stupid. Plain, and simple, I think she’s not the brightest woman. It’s kind of an absurd statement considering that she is worth more than $2 billion dollars, and that her own magazine sells about 3 million copies a month, and that she is about to launch her own television network. But in the end, Oprah is not that smart. All in all however, she is, indeed, a very interesting figure because she is not so smart, and yet she still attracts so many American men and women. 

In America, there is the idea of Oprah, and the woman by the name of Oprah Winfrey. The idea of Oprah is what sells, and attracts viewers, and even voters. The word Oprah is associated with success achieved the hard way and women leading in different fields. The individual, Oprah Winfrey may be that, but watching her show, one could portray her as plain stupid sometimes. It is so interesting though. The Oprah Winfrey Show is a one sided presentation of a controversial, or unconventional topic, presented mainly to women of all age groups, usually receiving the final stamp by Oprah herself. Newsweek mentioned a show about a woman in her 60s who was taking drugs, hormones and vitamins in extremelly high dosages just to look young, and with the absolute disapproval of doctors, Oprah not only supported it, but indicated she would try it herself. Clearly, if aging could be slowed down or stopped by hormones, drugs, or pills, many women would be taking them, but Oprah being so intelligent, goes with it. And just like that, Oprah falls for authors who tweak their non-fictional stories, and for weight loss programs. Remember, “Live your best life?” If Oprah wasn’t Oprah, many Americans would think she is dumb. Instead so many women, men and children are inspired and believe in the stories and studies they hear every day, and so many of them do what Oprah tells them to do. She promotes a book, next week the book hits #1. She campaigns with Barack Obama, soon enough he is upfront and center in the media in both YouTube videos and news coverage. 

The bottom line is that so many Americans believe what they are told, based on… names? associations from names? It is funny to look at the latest ratings for cable news channels. Fox has the most viewers, then MSNBC, then CNN. The most neutral out of the three, is seen the least by viewers. Oprah isn’t the only example of gullibility in this country, but it is certainly shows that women and men are going along with what is liked, or what is presented by a certain filter of the media, or important names. Who do Americans trust? Oprah shows just how many Americans give away their trust without having enough information, or hearing both sides of the arguments (something which is not fairly done on the Oprah Show.) This phenomenon does not only affect showbiz, it affects politics, it affects our lives. The full truth and true integrity seem to be fading away as the era of persuasion through power sets in. There is still hope though, when magazines like Newsweek offend Oprah, and when individuals, including myself call her… stupid. 

Ps. Don’t get me started on Gayle

I forgot that today is June 1st, which marks the beginning of pride months. In month of June, us homosexuals are supposed to celebrate our sexual diversity and everyone else is encouraged to put aside their biases and discrimination. How perfect. The White House released a statement today by President Obama in which he says ” that here at home, I continue to support measures that bring full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. ” In that spectrum he measures civil unions and his opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and adoption rights. He continues by saying that until America’s “promise for equality remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected.”

I’m sorry, am I the only one rolling my eyes? A more proper statement would be one in which the President explains why he is part of the people who are not advancing gay rights as part of his agenda. A more proper statement would be one in which he states that his plate is too full to introduce legislation that would repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A more proper statement would be one in which he admits that he is not as fierce of an advocate as he likes to believe, or as he would like others to believe. Maybe it’s just me, but since he’s been in office, nothing substantial has been done in the LGBT front by the President. Maybe I’ve missed something, because according to him, he sounds very satisfied by his “accomplishments.”

In any case, pride month is here. Married or not, in the military or not, adopting or not, we should just celebrate our… sexual desires? Yeah, something like that

Ps. This is the PDF of the statement:

So today, after days or even weeks of speculation, rumors, and predictions, the President announced the bankruptcy of General Motors. An announcement long foreseen by many experts, the bankruptcy of GM is still devastating and at the same time, necessary for the American auto industry. At this point, there are two questions to ask? How did GM arrive at this point? and what happens to the thousands of unemployed people, and the legacy that GM is leaving behind. 

The GM (& Chrysler) case has offered, and still is offering a complicated question for the federal government. Would it be best to lend money to these companies so that the economy doesn’t go into shock and we don’t spiral down further in the recessions, or should the government let these companies fail and allow for the dynamism of the U.S. market to do its job? Back in December, Bush’s Treasury Department offered GM and Chrysler $17.4 billions. In April, GM got another $2 billions out of Obama. In the end, both companies have filed for bankruptcy and the money that was given to them prior to their filings seems to have not acquired the desired outcome. Now that the predictable finally happened, the government has agreed to give GM another $30 billions and Chrysler $8 billions during and after their restructuring. Is this really the most intelligent action to take? In my opinion, no. GM failed. Chrysler failed. These companies, especially GM, kept producing cars (SUVs) that were not marketable and were not attracting American buyers. In addition, their fuel efficiency efforts did not exactly deserve an “A.” All in all, GM has been losing to its foreign competition for quite some time, for reasons that are not directly cause by the recent economic times.

Therefore, why should we give money to GM? In my opinion, we shouldn’t. There is an article in this week’s “Economist” that discusses the President’s problem in dealing with America’s dynamism. Up ’til now, the President and his economic team have been trying to pump money and take control of private corporations and companies, hoping to preserve America’s capitalism. In many cases, the President and Congress have put money even where capitalism wasn’t being “preserved,” but because of the times and the urgency of the situation, they have gotten away with sneaking some of their own interest and initiatives into bills and stimulus packages. But anyway, the problem is that all these bailouts and stimuli that are going into failing companies are conflicting with America’s dynamism. The U.S. market is one of the best markets in the world because people who work hard and diligently can become rich. Recent studies have shown that 90& of Americans still appreciate people who become rich by working hard and diligently. In giving failing companies money for their non-accomplishments, the federal government and the President are running the risk of destroying this system where those with the best ideas, and sometimes the lowest prices (ahem…Walmart) can survive even the hardest of times. 

So in conclusion, I think that now that GM has officially filed for bankruptcy and now that 20,000 middle class, skilled workers are jobless, it is time to move forward. GM’s formula failed. Unfortunately, Michigan is one of the states suffering the most from this, but all 1,000,000 projected lost jobs, can be turned into energy efficient jobs. Why doesn’t the President propose plans for new roads, or railroads so that these workers left unemployed by their companies can find jobs easily, and in that way the unemployment right will not go up drastically. Hm, just a thought. 

So this week, the President announced his first Supreme Court pick, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In what is likely to remain as one of Obama’s proud accomplishments in his first four years, the Sotomayor pick is a historic one, she is a woman, and she is the first Hispanic to sit on the bench. In addition the history of the pick itself, Sotomayor offers a lot to the Supreme Court. Prior to the nomination, Sotomayor was a judge in the Second U.S. Circuit of Appeals Court, a position in which she was appointed by Bill Clinton. She has served on the bench for at least 16 years. However, the pick of Sotomayor, also offers some cons. If the nomination is approved, Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic justice, advancing the Catholic shift in the Supreme Court. All in all, Sotomayor seems like a decent, well-qualified pick for the Supreme Court. The next steps to her confirmation are the hearings before the Judiciary Committee, and then the vote of the Senate. These hearings are meant to show some of Sotomayor’s positions on controversial issues that have, and will likely appear in the Court, in the near future. In the end, Sonia Sotomayor would be nominated if she shows even-handedness and fair judgement towards different issues, despite her own personal opinions. 

Before Sotomayor has even confronted the Judiciary Committee, and before she was even announced as a nominee, Republicans had been throwing attacks towards her calling her an “activist judge” and accusing her of being biased in her rulings. As a basis for this criticism they are using two remarks. One where Sotomayor said that policy is made on the bench, and another remark where she said she “ would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Due to these remarks, Sotomayor has been called a racist, by the honorable Newt Gingrich and many Republican senators have announced they will vote against her confirmation.

In the political cycle, it is very easy to get lost in the accusations and all the back and forth, but in this case it is important to understand why these accusations are actually accusations. First, she is a accused of being an activist judge who will make policy on the bench. Why is it negative for policy to be made on the bench? Hasn’t it happened before? Isn’t it supposed to happen? Yes, and yes. Even Justice Scalia, the most conservative on the bench has said that policy is made on the bench. And in addition, who can forget about Brown V. Board of Education ? Didn’t that ruling end up making policies that elimination racial segregation is schools? Secondly, Sotomayor seems to have stated that her gender, or ethnicity, or life experiences will affect her decisions in rulings for specific cases. Okay? and that is negative because? Of course her rulings will be affected by her life. She was born in the Bronx and made her way to the top the hard way, why would that not affect her rulings. A few months ago, there was an article in TIME that mentioned the term jurisprudence, and the article featured a few words from Justice Grinsburg saying that it would be favorable to have another woman on the bench because women are usually more sensitive than men in specific rulings. If Sotomayor’s life experiences are a liability, rather than an asset, then maybe Justice Grinsburg should be taken out of the bench too, for her remarks in TIME. 

In the end, I just find it hard to understand why Republicans are criticizing Sotomayor even before her hearings, and secondly why are Republicans not concerned about losing even more Hispanics in the upcoming elections. 2/3s of Hispanics voted for Obama in November, whereas 40% of them voted for Bush in 2004. Hm, logic anyone?

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 because of legalities and technicalities. The people of California did vote on this issue, and to repeal it probably would have caused an outrage. Instead of taking the role of a body that overrules the “will of the people” which in itself is kind of a flawed concept, because the vote of the people can be wrong sometimes. However, the Supreme Court simply threw the ball back to the voters. Proposition 8 won by 4% points, more or less. The defeat of equality proponents came from a combination of causes. The wording of Proposition 8 was not clear. The campaign our side ran was not the best campaign they could have run. Etc, etc. What happened, happened. 

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8 for purely legal reasons. It did not uphold it because they believe that marriage would ruin the fabric of society or any of that nonsense. If this hadn’t been a matter or legalities, the 18,000 marriages would have been declared invalid. This isn’t the end of the world. It’s clearly very disappointing to see it happen. But every statistic shows that it’s a generational issues. And to our misfortune, there is no voice for LGBT issues in the Congress or the White House. This movement doesn’t have a leader in one of the branches of government. The only name that comes to mind is Meghan McCain, who is John McCain’s daughter, a Republican, who believes and speaks out in favor of marriage equality. Democrats, even those in support of marriage equality, have not made gay rights such a priority, and once again the White House seems to bring up their excuse of having the  ”plate full.” In any case, today’s ruling is not the end of the world, and it’s certainly not the end of the battle for marriage in California. 

I met Hillary Clinton in the 1980s when she spoke in Washington at the Children’s Defense Fund. Already her essential public qualities — intelligence, compassion, eloquence and wit — were on display. She was also a fighter for causes that count. Whether people agreed with her or not, they learned quickly that it was worth paying attention to what she had to say.

A quarter-century on, Hillary, 61, has proved herself as First Lady, U.S. Senator, author and the most successful female presidential candidate in American history. Yet her incredible journey continues. As Secretary of State, she must summon all her skills as a communicator while administering a large bureaucracy in a turbulent era on a global stage. For her, the hardest part may be accepting that in diplomacy, clear-cut wins and losses are rare. Foggy Bottom is a land of carefully chosen words, where unnecessary fights are avoided and multiple perspectives rigorously weighed. A skilled diplomat rarely generates extreme reactions; often, the most one can hope for while speaking is that when heads nod in response, it is in quiet agreement, not slumber.I met Hillary Clinton in the 1980s when she spoke in Washington at the Children’s Defense Fund. Already her essential public qualities — intelligence, compassion, eloquence and wit — were on display. She was also a fighter for causes that count. Whether people agreed with her or not, they learned quickly that it was worth paying attention to what she had to say.

Can Hillary adjust? She already has. It helps that no one doubts her courage, toughness or brains and that everyone knows who she is. It helps more that despite living under intense scrutiny for so long, Secretary Clinton knows exactly what she believes. The mission of public service is in her bones. She loves to tackle hard problems and has an assignment now where the supply is inexhaustible. She brings with her a lawyer’s ability to marshal arguments, a pragmatist’s skill at negotiating agreements and a natural leader’s knack for making herself heard. In the end, she is more likely to change the job than the job is to change her.

As a gay man, getting gay-married is clearly something that interests me. The ongoing debate against it though is led by such primitive, ignorant beliefs that sometimes it does not seem worthy of my time, or anyone’s money. It is shocking for me to read about the enormous amounts of money  going into pro- or anti- marriage campaigns, out of all the other campaigns that could be fought today. However, as much as I believe in political campaigning, the grassroots way, I don’t think marriage equality will be achieved only by political activism. As a matter of fact, anyone who looks at the demographics of the states that have marriage equality can make correlations, and identify patterns about who is likely to support it. A recent CNN poll, showed that the debate over gay marriage is a generational one. Duh. Gay marriage falls under social issues which define social liberalism or conservatism, which identify one as a Republican or a Democrat. Generally, the Republican base is made up of  older, white men. The Democrat base is made up of younger people and women. Of course, the CNN poll suggested the same fact. Younger people overwhelmingly approve it and older people overwhelmingly disapprove it. It’s purely generational. The older generation today, was raised in the 40s and 50s, decades when most did what was proper and most popular (men worked, women stayed at home to feed the entire family.) 

My point is that too much money is going into this specific issue, from both sides, pro and con. I have never heard of anyone predict that in the years to come, the gay movement will tone down. Instead, it will rise. The generations will change. The younger people today, will be the ones making up the majority of voters. I think that we are starting to see some of this change even with the GOP today. In a recent study, only 21% of people identified themselves as Republicans. This resistance to social reform from the older generation is resulting the self-destruction of an entire political party that is based on many more important ideals, than the upholding of Christian fundamentalism, A.K.A. “family values.” As history is shifting and the facts cannot be denied and the biases cannot be masked anymore, issues like gay marriage will not seem pathetic only to me, but to everyone. Soon enough hopefully, this issue will be such a joke that we will be able to get our hands into more complex issues like the economy, or health care, or the environment, or our foreign affairs. Who knows, maybe Christian fundementalists will realize they are on the wrong side of history and they will get back to working for this country rather than for… their God? Hm, perhaps.

Lately I’ve been tackling the idea of conservatism, clearly not the social type of conservatism. Having read and seen the younger Republicans, like Meghan McCain or Steve Schmidt come out in favor of same-sex marriage has gotten me thinking about why I am not a Republican. Until now, I had focused much of my opposition to the Republican Party based on their stances on social issues, such as abortion, or same-sex marriage, because it directly affects me. Although I am an avid proponent of marriage equality and gay rights, and women’s rights, I am starting to think that maybe I should consider other aspects of the GOP. You know, fiscal conservatism.

The GOP represents a very interesting group of individuals. It’s a mix between those Americans who do not find interest in new proposals, new plans, or revolutionary concepts, but there are also those who identify as Republicans because they believe in less government control, and focus their fiscal worries into lowering the deficit and spending, by imposing lower taxes and by not nationalizing, or pseudo-nationalizing (bailouts) the banks. The Republican Party represents the old, and the new. Some people vote Republican just to make sure that gays don’t marry, and hoping that all abortions become illegal. Others vote Republican, because they go by the fiscal aspect of conservatism. Unfortunately, for Republicans and for the gullable public, Republicans are often represented by the bigots, the nut-jobs (Michael Steele, Sarah Palin), or those afraid of any sort of change. And that has had an effect on Republicans. Their party is shrinking. In a world that is becoming more accepting and more open to equality, acceptance, and tolerance, Republicans and their social stances are falling behind. 

I would find it very sad, if one did not vote for a certain candidate or party, simply because he or she is gay, or wants an adoption. At the end of the day, I would rather have a job, and a healthy economy, than the right to marry. To find a job, you rely on your economy, which relies on the decisions made by the government and their effect on the people. To fight for marriage, you can rely on yourself and your willingness to volunteer at your state’s pro-LGBT organization. Having said that, I would not vote as a Republican in these times, and that is not because Republicans do no support the LGBT agenda. I do not believe that the theories of fiscal conservatism are the ideas that will get the economy out of the recession, or that will create jobs. Tax cuts will not create jobs. Deregulating the economy will not offer consumer confidence, because it was the lack of government oversight and regulations that got us into this financial meltdown to begin with. Right now, fiscal conservatism is not the way to go. Maybe, after, when the economy is back on track, and we will likely have an enormous deficit, we can rely on fiscal conservatism to lower the deficit and reduce government spending. Until then, the GOP needs to step up its game, and move on the right side of history when it comes to the social issues, which have given it the image of the religious, intolerant, and unaccepting party.

Every once in a while, I lose. I fall off track, I make”mistakes” and chose to do what’s “wrong” and what’s not “intelligent.” These past weeks have been characterized by losing, and doing things the unconventional way, and making uncharacteristic choices. I have gone for the wrong person, and the wrong type of relationship, and at the end, I have received what I set myself up for. Falling off track does not mean I can’t hop back on. Losing, doesn’t mean I’m lost.