It seems that it's time for Senator Craig to make a decision and move on. With the audio of the arrest all over the Internet and in newspapers it is obvious that there is no place for the Senator to hide. When we make decisions such as this one, soliciting sex in a public bathroom, we can't expect it to go away by simpling saying "I'm not gay and have never been gay." For every action there is a reaction and in this case it's resigning.

The World of Technology

We are driving back from Provincetown after a wonderful week and I'm blogging from the car. This is totally incredible. I feel like a kid in a candy store. I just purchased a PC card from Verizon and it works like a cell phone and I couldn't be happier. To ride in the backseat of a car and be able to blog and browse the Internet is fantastic. Forgive me if I seem like a country bumpkin but this is wayyy cool.

Dionne Warwick Theme from Valley of the Dolls 1967

Remembrances of times past. This was a great film and the music is wonderful.

The Bigger Picture

There is almost a sense of vindication on the part of gays by whats happening to Senator Larry Craig. After years of having his sexual orientation questioned his guilty plea may just prove everyone right. However, the bigger picture, as I see it, is not that Craig plead guilty nor that he now regrets it, it is that having sex in a public bathroom has become synonymous with gay men.

For many, many years gay men have seen fit to indulge in public sex because, as history tells us, they didn't have anywhere to go or that they were hiding in the open. In the 1950's and very likely before then, gay men have been arrested in Central Park and other places where they sought the company of other men. A furtive look, a stroll in the same direction was all it took for these men to acknowledge their "sameness" and then engage in anonymous sex. Engaging in such activity afforded them the opportunity to stay in the closet, return to work the next day without having their image splattered on the front page of the local newspaper and it didn't require a long term commitment. One would think that with the passing years this type of behavior would have abated especially with the advent of no tell motels. But here we are in 2007 and we are debating the sexual orientation of a Senator that should have known better.

So, the question here shouldn't necessarily be, is he gay but rather, why is he or anyone else for that matter seeking sex in a public restroom? I would guess that this question has many different answers but the one I'm looking for. The bottom line here is that no one should be having sex in public bathrooms. Ok, maybe that's a bit naive and why we have undercover cops patrolling public bathrooms but there is something to be said about this statement. My simple point is this, if gay people are going to cast off the horrible impressions that some have about us we have to start saying, I don't care if Senator Craig is gay or straight what he has done is inappropriate and he should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen because to do that we would then have to hold gay men, or men in general, accountable for their behavior and of course we can't do that. So in a sense we have a double standard - we condemn the hypocritical Senator for soliciting sex in a public bathroom but ignore the larger issue of men having sex in a public bathroom. Sorry, but I have a hard time buying into this hypocrisy.

What Does It All Mean?

After reading the arrest report that has gotten Senator Craig into hot water I'm beginning to wonder what all the hullabaloo is all about. In reading the arrest report this is what is clear: 1) Craig placed his roller bag at the front of the stall; 2) Craig tapped his right foot; 3) Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to the officer; 4) Craig ran his hand up and down the underside of the stall. Apparently several of these acts indicate that the individual wants to engage in behavior that would be considered lewd. I'm not a cop so this is foreign territory to me. But other than Craig actually verbally soliciting sex how does one determine that he's indeed looking for sex. Don't get me wrong, if that was his intention then arrest him like any other cretin engaging in such an act but you have to make sure that the intent was there and therein lies the problem.

The other problem I see with this case and is one that many may not want to talk about and that is - we need to be careful when we immediately label a person in this situation, gay. When we do this we play into the hands of those that dislike us because of our "behavior." We say on many occasions that behavior doesn't necessarily define us as gay so to say that this automatically makes Craig gay is to say that behavior is all that defines us. Words and how we use them are extremely important. Lets see what Craig has to say next. If he is indeed gay I doubt very much he will "come out" and will do his best to blame his actions on gays and their "influence" in our society.

Stay Tuned

I have guests so stay tuned for my comments on Gonzaez.

Guilty or not Guilty

I realize that being on vacation you are going to miss a few things so I apologize for commenting on what is now considered old news. I thought it important to comment on this particular news item because I find it so amazing. I realize that one is innocent until proven guilty but Senator Craig of Idaho has already declared his guilt. The amazing thing about it, like the case in Florida, he now claims that he should not have been so quick to do so. I'm not sure about you but I don't really think that I would confess to a crime or misdemeanor if I didn't do it regardless of how quickly I wanted to get out of the police station.

Senator Craig states here that, "I should have the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have plead guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously." Ok, lets look at this. Isn't there a process where you ask for counsel if you are unsure of what you have been charged with? The Miranda waring states you have the right to be silent until you talk to your counsel. So what happened here? Did Senator Craig forget his basic rights? Or was he hiding something? I'm not so much concerned with whether or not Senator Craig is gay but more with telling the truth. Which is it? Did he plead guilty too soon or was he an accident waiting to happen? Like everything in life - time will tell.

On Vacation

Labor day is right around the corner and I'm taking my last days of vacation. I'm sitting in a condo right now in Provincetown, MA or Cape Cod. It is one of the most beautiful days here - cloudless skies and temperature that is actually bearable. I went to the beach with my gf and a friend today and while the water was cold it was very nice. Lying on the beach and watching the boats and applying sunscreen was and is a great way to spend my remaining vacation days. I'm kind of hoping that I run into Andrew Sullivan to wish him congratulations on his recent marriage. Speaking of marriage, my gf and I went to have our rings engraved yesterday and they did a great job and gave us a free cleaning to go along with it.

If you have never been to Provincetown I would highly recommend it. Provincetown sits at the very end of the Cape and is home to mostly gay men and lesbians. But its a nice mix of gay and straight people with the occasional dispirited straight person who seem to somehow have loss their way when they start staring at gays. The food is wonderful and there is always a whale watching tour in the plans. We have started a kind of ritual in that we stop at a regular joint - Clem and Ursies on the way into town. C&U is a seafood place that welcomes many a visitor. The restaurant is run by a sister and brother team and features some of the best seafood in town. Ans it's always great to wash it down with a Red Stripe beer or a Margarita.

For the rest of time you are in PTown there is a lot to do like sunning on the beach, whale watching, dunes tour, bike riding, tea dances, comedy, and of course drag shows. Or you can just sit on your deck and read a good book.

Beware of

After 23 years of working in higher education there is one thing I know is true - with each new administrator comes a new way of doing things. I have always been amazed at how quickly new hires plow in and start changing policy. As an example, a new VP comes in and based on very little knowledge, if any, on topic A and learning the culture of the institution he suggests that the school should mandate that students take a placement test in math regardless of their SAT scores. Now, if you follow the logic that SAT scores predict success in college this plan would run counter to the previous policy where only a few students would be tested. In this example, there would be a mini war from several factions. And why would a war erupt? There are three reasons why an uproar would take place.

First, its very possible that any prior conversations about this topic was never relayed to the newby or better yet, he may have been privy to the conversation via a colleague but chose to ignore it. Second, as a new person he needs to test his mettle and has decided to put his new loved theory into practice. Third, he may not have a lot of experience in this area but he was put in charge. The end result would be a new policy put in place on top of another policy that probably worked just fine but this one now has the signature of the new VP.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not simply trying to be melodramatic here but this is reality in higher education and other places as well. I think its unfortunate but like many other things, i.e. illegal immigration, the policy already in place should be looked at and tweaked if need be. Creating new policies aren't always the most cost effective, most reasonable or simply most appropriate.

Shirley Bassey - THIS IS MY LIFE

Remembrances of times past. Who could sing it better than Ms. Shirley Bassey. This is my life, who gives a damn with lost emotions...

Sound of Music: So Long, Farewell

Remembrances of times past. I love this movie for a lot of different reasons but mostly because it reminds me of family.

Remembrances of Times Past

I have been thinking of different things I want to do on my blog and have come up with what I think is a great idea. As we grow older we tend to remember our childhood, and boy do we, so I thought I would share things that remind me of the "good" things from my childhood with my reading audience. These "remembrances could take the form of videos, poetry, articles and maybe pictures. All in all it's an opportunity to share and to remember. Drop me a line if you like the idea.

You Have to be Cynical

The more I follow politics the more I become cynical and the more I find laughable episodes like this one. Am I to believe that allies of Governor Spitzer gained access to Mr. Stone's apartment and made this call? I know crazy things happen but these guys are out of control. Why would a sitting governor risk this kind of behavior? Didn't we learn anything from Richard Nixon?

Cases That Made a Difference: Plessy v. Ferguson

Before Brown v. Board of Education there was Plessy v. Ferguson. As a matter of fact, Brown was the case that did away with Plessy. The crux of Plessy was separate but equal, a standard that became commonplace up until Brown. After the American Civil War freed slaves were allowed the same accommodations as whites in Southern states. However, once Reconstruction ended and Jim Crow laws became paramount freed slaves were no longer allowed the same privileges as whites.

Facts: In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed Act 111 that called for separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroad cars with the caveat that the accommodations must be kept equal. On June 2, 1892, Adolph Plessy boarded a railroad car that was designated for whites. It was said that although Plessy was one-eight black and seven-eights white he was still considered African American and thus required to sit in the colored section. Plessy refused and was arrested and jailed. Plessy argued that his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated but Justice John Ferguson disagreed and stated that the state of Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies as determined by the state. Plessy was then found guilty of violating the segregation law. Plessy was not happy with the decision and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court rejected Plessy's argument based on the Thirteenth Amendment declaring, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the of the plaintiffs argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

Plessy v. Ferguson continued for years and brought about many other statutes that enforced separate but equal policies. It was not until 1954 that this policy was challenged and summarily defeated in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education. It took fifty-eight years before blacks could move about and "share" in the same accommodations as whites. Of course this was not easy nor was it met with enthusiasm but with "deliberate speed," blacks could take advantage of what many whites took for granted as their god given right. Here is the case in its entirety.

There is Hope

I am very happy to read here that what I posted on Fred Thompson yesterday was wrong. Thank goodness.

Back to School

It's that time of year again when parents shop for school bargains and young adults start readying themselves to start a new school, go to the next grade or simply meet new friends. Some states, especially in the South, have already rung the "start of school" bell and others are merely weeks away. As parents and children work towards the same goal they do it in two different ways. Parents are concentrating on lesson plans, academic vigor, college prep, AP scores, athletics etc. And kids are all about the new fashion, and maybe academics. Of course, the kids who are looking towards getting into ivy league schools are probably coming back from a foreign country or adding to their extracurricular transcript by working as camp counselors, volunteering at various organizations like Habitat for Humanity etc. By mid-October both will probably be on the same page once the first set of grades come home. High school graduates are packing for college and wondering if they made the right choice in school. They have their room assignments, college id, money on account for food, book voucher and all the electronic equipment they can fit into a two room dorm. For seniors in high school its all about visiting colleges, applying early action, early decision and getting those AP scores in.

Here is where it gets tricky. From June to September colleges and universities are busy seating their classes. Some may have already seated their freshman class by August and some may take until the start of classes in September to do just that. Whatever the case maybe the summer, although many think admissions offices are closed during this time, is a very busy time for admission officers. In other words, the seniors that I'm referring to here are college students for 2008. So the second part of this is that at the same time that colleges and universities are seating their freshman class they are also recruiting for the following fall semester. Sounds confusing? Its not really but to parents it can be extremely so. The key here is that there is always two classes being recruited at anyone time. The big difference is that for several months the immediate freshman class is the most important but there is a plan in place to attack the next year's class, i.e. open house.

So, all those of you out there who are worrying about getting you child into a good college next year need to start your work now. Its not about waiting until April its about visiting colleges now. Its about attending information sessions. Its about talking to admission officers and its especially important that prospective students meet with their guidance counselors and start getting their act together. Don't let the bus leave you at the station.

Way to go Fred

This is just great. Fred Thompson is not in the race yet but he's already willing to discriminate against gay Americans. These and other reasons are why the Republican Party may lose the White House in 2008. Voters are growing weary of gay Americans being thrown under the bus.

Brick by Brick

This story tells us many things some of which are:
1. Survival of the fittest trounces party ideology
2. Republcians are not running strong candidates
3. There is too much emphasis placed on the Conservative and Independent endorsements
4. Are moderate Republicans seen as part of the Republican ideology?
5. There hasn't been a real build up of the Republican Party in the last several years
6. Hillary Clinton will win big time in Westchester in 2008
7. A strong Republican Party must include moderates for the party to grow and win

Cases That Made a Difference: Gideon v. Wainwright

This case is the crux of the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."1

Facts: In 1961, Clarence Gideon was accused of robbing a pool hall in Florida and was charged with various crimes in a state court. Gideon could not afford a lawyer and asked the judge for a lawyer based on his Sixth Amendment right. The judge refused Gideon's request based on Florida law at the time and Gideon, unable to defend himself was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail. While in jail Gideon wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to petition his conviction on the basis of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and stating that poor defendants should be afforded the same right as do wealthy defendants. The US Supreme Court heard Gideon's case and ruled in his favor.

Conclusion: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, March 18, 1963 stated that, "The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel." The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Gideon's conviction and ordered a retrial with counsel. Gideon was eventually acquitted under retrial.

Lets think about this. What would have happened if Gideon did not write his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court but more importantly what if the Court did not hear his case? Well in all likely hood Gideon would have served his time and the states would still be in a quandary as how to handle this question. Thanks to Clarence Gideon we are now all entitled to counsel without regard to income status.

Notes:
1. The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It. 1993, Oak Hill Publishing

Another One Bites the Dust

If one were paranoid one would think that Republicans are running scared in Westchester County. Three weeks ago, Michael Spano quite the Republican party to join the Democrats and two days ago so did District Attorney Janet DiFiore. Her reasons were not clear but DiFiore insisted that this was an, "intensely personal decision," for her. GOP Chairman Doug Coltey did not have kind words for DiFiore and shared his disappointment. The story is here.

Funny How Things Happen

I find this quote from Rudy Giuliani very interesting and hypocritical. As a presidential candidate he wants nothing more than to interfere in families, especially gay families. His support of gay and lesbian Americans have taken a nose dive since his announcement to run and now it's all about impressing the social conservatives. Funny how things happen.

Cases That Made a Difference: Loving v Virginia

In 1958 a couple, whose domicile was Virginia, got married in the District of Columbia and then returned to Virginia where they were arrested several days later. Did they rob a bank? Did they kill someone? Why were they arrested? They were arrested because they broke a Virginia law that stated that blacks and whites could not cohabitate, have sex or marry. The anti-miscegenation statute in Virginia, known as the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and made it a felony for whites marrying non-whites.

Facts: Mildred Jeter and Richard Perry Loving left the Commonwealth of Virginia to marry in the District of Columbia because of the ban on interracial marriages in Virginia. Upon their return to Virginia they were charged with violating the ban, pleaded guilty and were arrested and sentenced to one year in jail. However, the one year sentence was suspended for 25 years on the condition that the couple leave Virginia. The judge, at trial, proclaimed the following: "Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia and in 1963 started a series of lawsuits to overturn the conviction and used the Fourteenth Amendment as their foundation. The Fourteenth Amendment includes the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court and was decided on June 12, 1967.

Decision: The Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, or the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional. This decision then ended race-based legal restriction on marriage in the United States. The decision by the Court was unanimous and declared: "Marriage is the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statues, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."

To say that this case changed how marriage was viewed after the decision is an understatement. It forever changed the right to marry the person you love and the argument that the State should not interfere with that right. This case, more than any other, has been used to buttress the argument for gay marriage in the United States. The argument, while having its proponents, have many naysayers. The argument against is that there are no laws criminalizing same sex marriage. However, this issue, gay marriage, will not be decided anytime soon. The case is a precedent setting case and what that has changed how Americans think and view marriage. The debate continues but in a different context.

Our Responsibility is Real

One of the many books I have read over the years is, And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic. The book, written by Randy Shilts, chronicled the discovery and spread of HIV and AIDS. The book was and still is an excellent book on the advent of HIV and AIDS and gave a very informative timeline to the disease. The book was made into a movie in 1993 staring Matthew Modine. I read the book and then watched the movie. The book was a history lesson for me and it awakened in me the happiness, the sadness, the misery, the loss and the hypocrisy that existed then and now in the gay community. In the book, the many permutations of HIV and AIDS was traced to Africa and to patient zero, Gaetan Dugas.

Two and a half years ago I attended a dinner given by my partner's friends who lived around the corner from us. A few minutes after I got my drink one half of the couple went on a tirade about Republicans, HIV & AIDS, Ronald Reagan and his shunning of the gay community to George Bush and his hatred of gay people. I took a deep breathe and sat down to dinner and said nothing. When we left I said to my gf, "If we are invited to this house again I will not sit still and listen to the ranting and raving by some queen who have no respect for me." The next time we attended an event at this person's home he behaved himself and I didn't have to challenge him on his turf.

I try to respect where people are coming from but I have a really big problem when gays insist that "everyone" is against them. And in reading this blog you know that I feel the same way about blacks and everyone else who believe the same thing. In the 1980's NO ONE knew about HIV and AIDS including the president of the United States. The doctors who were dealing with this "cancer" knew nothing about it so how the hell did we expect the president to know about it. And the myth that has lived on about Ronald Reagan is that he said nothing about HIV and AIDS until 1987 but it has been proven that he talked about it and the money that was allotted for it in 1985. But the thing that gets me the most is this - when the health department in San Francisco found the virus in gay bath houses and wanted to shut them down gays hissed and booed and said no. We don't hear about this very important little fact when gays talk about Ronald Reagan and his supposed homophobia. We don't hear about it because it would suggest that gays had a hand in their deaths. We don't hear about it because it's not politically correct. We don't hear about it because it calls attention to the victim hurting the victim. Maybe we should hear about it and all the other things that politically correct and angry gays don't want us to hear.

Lets Talk

One of my dreams is to go to law school. I think law school is a wonderful opportunity to learn the law and learn about the laws that have made a difference in our lives and our country. Since I was a little girl I loved the look of a law book, the smell of a law book and in later years I truly enjoy reading law cases. Now, don't get me wrong, I have some idea about law school having worked in one for three years so I'm not totally obtuse as to what goes on in law school classes. And each and every time I spoke to prospective students I thought about applying myself. Plus, I have several friends who are lawyers and two brothers who are, so I know a little something.

So my plan is to present a law case each week and comment on it. I would love to have folks write in with their comments because it would add to the conversation. I will start tomorrow and since there are so many that interest me I'll wait till then to post it. Lets talk.

Roll Them

After much thought, I've added another section to my blog. I read a lot of blogs and websites and there are ones that I love and ones that I just browse on occasion. I found Issues & Views by way of the Wall Street Journal and fell in love with it. I still have a lot more to read but it says a lot of what I agree with. I'm going to be very selective in the blogs that I list here and they will be ones that I think are informative and ones that I agree with. Maybe they will list me on their sites. In any event, enjoy.

I Affirm Your Racism

I may have said this before, and if I did I apologize, but it is an important link to the point that I would like to make here. Several years ago, I dated a woman who said to me, "You are more prejudiced than any white person I know." I wasn't shocked and I think I laughed at this pronouncement of my attitude towards blacks. I had not thought about such a thing even though I knew that blacks were more than capable of being prejudiced. It seemed to me, based on our conversations, that she saw me as prejudiced because I didn't give black people a pass. I didn't express sympathy for the black family on welfare. I didn't express sympathy for the kid with the $250 sneaker who couldn't form a sentence. I didn't buy into Afrocentric beliefs when I thought them ridiculous. I didn't buy into Kwanzaa but Christmas and I didn't have the chip on my shoulder that was common place with blacks. If I had continued dating her I probably would have had to go to black, oh sorry, African American, indoctrination.

My life has not been an easy one but its not due to my skin color. My life has been influenced by the decisions of my parents and ultimately by me. There are other external decisions that I did or did not have control over that have brought me to this place. But I have not for any period of time thought that this or that happened because of the color of my skin. OK, so once I was called the n-word by a stupid taxi driver because I didn't tip him. But I didn't tip him because he didn't help me with my bag and he called me the n-word because he was stupid. OK, I thought once that I was admitted to a college because of affirmative action. And once, a couple of months ago, that my boss's boss had a problem with me because I'm black but in hindsight I think its more that I'm a Republican and she hates Republicans. But I digress.

I'm saying all of this to say that there are times we look for racism in all the wrong places. For example, we have been taught, mostly by liberals, that blacks can't be racist. But each and every time I hear about black on black crime I think to myself, why do we hate each other so much. And when I look at the preferential treatment given to light skinned blacks versus dark skinned blacks I wonder who has the problem. And yet another example is welfare and the misnomer that it "helps" families, especially black families. Well, lets see, a woman goes on welfare and she gets paid to have children because that's what she's really doing. Each child she has means more money. But she can't have a man in the house. So she is dependent on the government to be her sole provider, her husband and her baby daddy. And that makes a family. Now, if that's not racism I don't know what is but liberals were up in arms when welfare reform came to be several years ago.

And then we have affirmative action. This policy tells us that because I'm black I need a step up because I really can't make it on my own. So much for being judged by the content of my character. But liberals will say, we are leveling the playing field. Let me tell you how they are leveling the playing field. They are placing black kids in institutions of higher learning that do not fit their educational experience. And so the kid will go to a school that they don't belong in and they will either sink or swim while the good natured liberal pats himself on the back for doing a good deed. And when the next cocktail party comes around they can stand around and drink martinis and congratulate themselves. And I'm told that Republicans are racists? Did I miss something here?

So Long, Farewell

Karl Rove says that George Bush will "move back up the polls and that Iraq will be a better place." He said that here in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. As he makes his predictions I wonder why he's really leaving the White House. After more than six years with Mr. Bush Rove says he looks forward to spending more time with his family.

The "architect" as Bush calls him, convinced Bush to use gay Americans as fodder in 2002 giving his support to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I wonder who he wants to throw under the bus this time around. With Congress in the hands of Democrats and Republicans losing in the polls it seems like the smart thing to do and step down. The Republicans still have a lot to answer for especially the sex scandal with Mark Foley. Rove might be leaving but there are still dead bodies to uncover.

15 Minutes of Fame

The gay channel LOGO and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) are feeling good about themselves for having put together the first ever presidential forum on Thursday night. The panel consisted of Margaret Carlson, editor at Bloomberg.com; Joe Solmonese, president of HRC; Melissa Etheridge, singer; and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post. The six Democratic presidential candidates were Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton. The two candidates that did not participate was Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Carlson, with a stupid smile on her face, declared at some point during the forum that Republicans were invited but none accepted at which time members of the audience hissed to show their disapproval. More on that later.

I decided to watch this event for no other reason than to hear what the candidates had to say about some of the many issues relevant to gay and lesbian Americans: gay marriage, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the defense of marriage act (DOMA). I went in with no expectations and came away with none. I thought the whole thing quite boring until Richardson said being gay was a choice. Now that made headlines which prompted a new statement by Richardson. Here are my thoughts on each candidate and how they handled themselves.

Barak Obama - as usual Mr. Obama handled himself very well. On marriage he said, "the government has to treat all citizens equally." He also said that he "doesn't talk about [gay] issues where it's convenient but talks about it when its hard." My overall impression of Obama is that he is sincere especially when he expressed annoyance as to why he was there. He asked the panel to look at his track record on LGBT issues and they will not come away wanting. I thought he handled himself professionally and came away with a couple of new recruits.

John Edwards - one of his memorable comments was when he said, "In America it cannot be okay to have homeless gay people." He also apologized for opposing gay marriage based on his religion but he still opposes gay marriage. Edwards went on to say, "I don't believe that a president should impose his faith on people and I will not." While I agree with Edwards on the latter I think he should have kept his initial statement of why he did not back gay marriage. I think that when we start telling or demanding that people back away from their rationale, regardless of whether or not we oppose it is when we run into problems and get candidates who say what "they think we want to hear." And this is a perfect example of why it didn't work for gays because Edwards still opposes gay marriage. I have to say that Edwards impressed me during this forum.

Dennis Kucinich - supports everything and was asked if there is "anything" he doesn't support and came up with a no response. I think Kucinich is a very, very nice guy. He almost reminds me of Mr. Rogers. He is like someones grandfather. I think what would be best for gay Americans is for Representative Kucinich to stay in the House and try to do some good work there because he's not going to get the nomination.

Mike Gravel - supports same-sex marriage. Mr. Gravel thanked Solmonese for reversing himself and letting him into the forum. Gravel set a time limit on the issue of same-sex marriage by stating, "In five years same-sex marriage will not be an issue." I thought this guy was a wacko. I couldn't understand half of what he was saying and he came across as an idiot.

Bill Richardson - in response to same-sex marriage Richardson stated that, "Same-sex marriage is achievable but not right now and that gays need to fight for civil unions." He regrets his vote on DOMA and says it should be repealed. Richardson did not seem comfortable to me. He seemed as though his suit was too tight which made him look uptight. But I do agree with him on his assessment of gay marriage. Unfortunately his comment about gay being a choice lost him any accolades he may have had in the beginning of his fifteen minutes.

Hillary Clinton - thinks Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be repealed. Clinton stated, "We will lay the groundwork and when I'm president we'll get the job done." She is more positive about civil unions; repeal section 3 of DOMA. Clinton did well but trying to hide her husbands failings was almost laughable. Her response to Etheridge was well planned and saved her from being inundated with harsher questions.

The forum probably gave left wing gays what they wanted. All the love in the room made everyone laugh and smile and love the Democrats. Of course there were no Republicans in the room which was unfortunate but here is my rationale for their absence. The Human Rights Campaign claims to be non-partisan but they are not. They have never endorsed a Republican even when the Republican came out as strong as the Democratic candidate on gay issues. They are not friendly to Republicans so why should a Republican come before them just to be beaten up? It is said that Solmonese is more welcoming to Republicans so I'm waiting.

A word about the panelists. I'm not sure where they got Margaret Carlson but they should never invite her back. She was silly, condescending and at times down right rude. She seemed to be mocking Kucinich when he was talking and her bit about loving Hillary's jacket was sophomoric at best. And my friend Melissa. I'm not sure why she was there either because she was an embarrassment. She could not get out a complete sentence without stumbling over her words and acting like a school girl with a crush. Yet another reason why "Rockers" should stay in the audience and not participate on a panel. My favorite was Jonathan Capehart who was articulate and sensible in his questioning. And of course Solmonese was good because he does that kind of thing for a living. The format of 15 minutes was good; the seating for panelists and guests worked; some of the questions were good; the wrap up from each candidate worked. Not bad on the first try. Just don't invite Etheridge nor Carlson back.

This is a very interesting take on race and homosexuality.

She's Baccccccccccccck

Cindy Sheehan assumes that she is the only parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war and as such has tend to make an idiot of herself by camping outside the president's ranch in Texas. Here she announces her run against Nancy Pelosi because Pelosi missed her July 23rd deadline of impeaching the president. May I remind Ms. Sheehan that she is not the only parent that has suffered the lost of a child nor is she the only parent in pain. And, whether or not you have lost someone doesn't mean that you don't hurt for these people's loss. Maybe if I gave her a dollar she'll go away.

Footprints in Paris - Part 7

Our street in Paris. We stayed in the 3rd Arrondissement and there are 20 of them. Arrondissements are governmental districts which are split in half by the Seine River. We stayed in the 3rd Arroondissement which is the Marais. This area is trendy and hip (as described in our guide book) it is also known as the gay district. The area was fun and there were some great restaurants to chose from. One in particular, Le Rouge Gorge was down the street from our hotel and had a great description in our guide book. We went several times and the owner Francois, while a curmudgeon, was really nice and his wife nicer. The food was good and the wine wonderful. Francois has a wine cellar downstairs so you can't go wrong with wine.

Francois' wife was very sweet and nice and helpful. We were told that there was a featured wine each week from areas in Paris. On one of the evenings we were there she had us try orange wine. It was wonderful and that night we ended up buying four bottles of wine. Besides Le Rouge Gorge we went to several other great restaurants. Our hotel had a Hollywood theme - strange but nice.

When All is Said and Done

I have written here before that I became a US citizen in 1984. It was one of the proudest days of my life and I'm very happy that I did it. I don't think, however, that the sentiment is quite the same today. I think that a lot of people become US citizens but do not feel an allegiance to the United States. I find that a lot of these people tend to see themselves as hyphenated Americans and that is unfortunate. I truly believe that once you become a citizen you are an American and nothing else. You cannot be an American and a Parisian. You cannot be an American and a Briton. You cannot be an American and a Jamaican.

As Theodore Roosevelt said, "There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

The following is the oath of US citizenship:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant services in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Some of the lines are optional such as so help me God and that I will bear arms etc.

Race to the Nomination - Part 2

Okay, let me state now before I go any further that I voted for Hillary Clinton when she ran for the Senate. Now that I have that out of the way let me opine about Hillary and her race to the nomination. First, let me say that I believe that she will get the Democratic nomination. Why do I believe this? I believe it because she has talked, walked and dressed the part of commander in chief. She is extremely polished, intelligent and articulate. She is also standing on principle by not apologizing for her vote on sending soldiers to Iraq.

Second, people either love or hate the Clinton's. There is no middle ground when it comes to Bill and Hillary. But when you ask the people who hate her why they do they usually start hiccuping or hemming and hawing. A usual retort is, "she's married to Bill." Now if we all were hated because of the people we marry, live with, associate with etc., there would be a lot of hating going on. But lets be realistic. Hillary Clinton has proven herself as a Senator since she took office several years ago. She has gained respect and garnered positive observations from the unlikeliest of places. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, stated this about Clinton in the Washington Post, "Obama is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become the commander in chief in a post-9/11 world." Agree or disagree with him, Kristol has a point which may come to fruition. And then we have former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who said, "those who think the New York senator can't run the White House are just wrong. Hillary Clinton is a very formidable professional. She works very hard. The suggestion that she would not be capable of this is just wrong."

Third, she is keeping a short leash on Bill which is necessary if she is going to get the nomination. While people love to see Bill on the campaign trail it is obvious that he has been told to keep a low profile and show up when she needed to raise money. And it doesn't hurt that he takes pictures with her supporters which always helps ticket sales. Fourth, she has been tacking to the middle since her announcement to run for the presidency. Fifth, she is a hard worker. She does her homework and shows up to work for the people of New York. Sixth, she has more experience at being a senator with her hand writing on more bills than her opponents and she won her re-election by 67%. All these things say something serious about Clinton's candidacy. A recent poll shows that she has jumped ahead of Obama by 20 points. Lastly, she has experience in the White House.

Unfortunately Hillary is not very good on gay rights and said she would vote for DOMA. So there is work to be done there. But then again she continues to get a pass by a significant crowd in the gay community. Go figure. Now I know it sounds like I may just vote for Hillary but she's not my horse in the race. The bottom line is that she will be hard to beat for the Democratic nomination unless of course she does something really stupid between now and February.

Footprints in Paris - Part 6

Ahhh, a stroll down the Champs-Elysees is a perfect way to see the elite of Paris but it's also the way to the Arc de Triomphe. While stopping for a cinnamon filled crepe and a beer, yes I know its a strange combination, my gf and I strolled along taking in the haute couture scene that is Paris. If you want an upscale car, handbag, scarf, suit this is the place to be. And you will probably pay and arm and a leg for water. The cinnamon crepe was enough for us before dinner.

You can't cross the street to the Arc de Triomphe but must take an escalator to an underground path. There are 284 steps and we took all of them with a brief break on a ledge. The view is awesome and worth the 284 steps and the realization that we need to get back to the gym. The sweeping skyline is a must see and the Arc itself is a testament to the people who came before us. We took the elevator back down.

There Is Work to Do

Maybe its the time of year. Maybe its the heat. Maybe its a lack of work on the part of the New York City Council. Whatever it is constituents should ask the Council to get over themselves and do some actual work as opposed to sponsoring "symbolic" measures to ban words deem inappropriate. Here Councilwoman Darlene Mealy has decided that the word bitch is not to be used but much to her dismay many people, including her peers on the Council, use the word quite regularly. Several months ago Councilman Leroy Comrie sponsored a "symbolic" moratorium on the n-word which passed so I guess Councilwoman Mealy doesn't want to be outdone by her colleague. Lets see, I'm going to think really hard and try to come up with a few things that Councilwoman Mealy and her colleagues could spend sometime on as opposed to pretending to work. I'm trying really hard now.

1. Investigation into the steam blast that occurred in Midtown two weeks ago
2. Affordable housing in New York City
3. Censoring Charles Barron

I don't know just a few things.

This past weekend was a tough one for Mayor Cory Booker. Three college students will not be returning to college this fall as bullets riddled their young bodies. Mayor Booker is asking Newark to pull together but residents are asking for his ouster. He has to stand strong and not let this run him from the streets of Newark.

Footprints in Paris - Part 5

This picture is that of Sainte-Chapelle. It was built in 1248 for King Louis IX. There are two floors to Sainte-Chapelle and both are absolutely beautiful. I may even venture to say that I think it more beautiful than Notre Dame. History has it that the lower floor was used by staff and more common folk and the second floor was used by Royal Chrsitians. Whoever used it were blessed by its beauty. The second floor called the Haute Chapelle has fifteen panels like this one and the light shines through and covers the room like a calm presence. On each side of the room there are chairs set out for visitors to sit and rest and enjoy the peace. I hope you enjoy it.

Consensual Sex Doesn't Mean It's Okay

I'm not about to convict City Councilman Dennis Gallagher who has been charged here with raping a woman in his district office. But I will say that he did do something wrong - he had sex with someone that wasn't his wife. Stating that the sex was consensual shouldn't get him off the hook. It would seem to me that men like Councilman Gallagher think that its ok for them to say "the sex was consensual" and that relieves them of all responsibility. What was he doing picking up this woman in a bar when he should have been home with his wife and kids?

Blame it on the Black Guys

Now this is an interesting one for the books. This is a new way of getting out of trying to have sex in a public area. State Rep. Bob Allen, of Florida, told police after he was arrested for soliciting sex, "This was a pretty stocky black guy and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park. Allen continued that he feared he "was about to be a statistic." Hmmm, what's next, he held my head down?

Footprints in Paris - Part 4

This is a shot of the Justice building. It is a beautiful building and I wanted us to capture the words: Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite.

I'm sick of these "symbolic" gestures found here. Doesn't the New York City Council have the people's work to do? This is silly.

Good Luck to Robin

Robin Roberts tells of having breast cancer here. Tomorrow she will have surgery and my positive thoughts go out to her.

Race to the Nomination

I usually do not pay attention to primaries or all the fuss leading up to it plus I think there are always too many people seeking the nomination. But I guess if there weren't that many it wouldn't be a horse race. So I have decided to make a few comments on the candidates and some preliminary observations.

There are eight candidates seeking the Democratic nomination and I see only two having a real race for the nomination. The candidates are in alpha order: Joseph Biden, D-Delaware; Hillary Clinton, D-New York; Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut; Former Senator, John Edwards; Former Senator Mike Gravel; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barak Obama, D-Illinois; and Governor Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico. There are others that are "interested" but have not formed exploratory committees. Sounds to me like the interest is lacking.

So, the top contenders are Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The former is suspect. If he stops fussing with his hair long enough maybe he will actually say something that makes sense. So I think that the two most formidable candidates are Hillary and Barak. The polls say so, their money say so it must be so. So let me start first with talking about Mr. Obama. I'll take one at a time over two days.

Senator Barak Obama's trajectory started on the night of July 27, 2004 when he made the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. From that night forward pundits kept asking the question, is he going to run for president? After much wrangling Mr. Obama decided to run. Mr. Obama has been in the Senate for two years. He missed the vote on Iraq but he insists that he would have voted on it. In street vernacular the response to that would be, coulda, woulda, shoulda. In his book, Dreams from my Father, which I read and thought it was good, he talked about not knowing his father and feeling distant, he didn't have a great relationship with his stepfather but seemed to have a good one with his maternal grandparents, he smoked pot and he was a community organizer, he went to Columbia and Harvard Law School. He is accomplished and forthright. But is he presidential material? His two main themes is ending the Iraq war and implementing universal health care. He hasn't really stated how he will do these things but now he wants a piece of Pakistan.

Things I like about Barak Obama: He is very intelligent, he is very articulate and he is confident. I would like to think that he transcends race and stands for everything that Dr. King dreamed about. Some say that he is the embodiment of hope and he may just well be but hope alone is not going to get him through the door of the White House. I would have liked to see more experience under his belt but it is what it is. He may just be a formidable opponent to Hillary but everyone will have to wait and see.

Footprints in Paris - Part 3

On a clear day... The Eiffel Tower. !,000 feet of 7,000 tons of metal with three observation platforms, at 200, 400 and 900 feet. The higher you go the more you pay but it's not that bad and worth every bit of Euro. The closer you get the more immense it is and when you are under it you just can't believe that something like this was built. If you see nothing else when visting Paris this would be ok.

Hillary's Cleavage: Get Over It

I don't think you have to be a feminist to think that too much is being made of Hillary Clinton's cleavage. And I don't think you have to be a femi-nazi to acknowledge that there are different rules for men and women politicians or many other occupations. Now, I can see why people may think that women are super hyper to these things because of the extreme fringe of women's groups but not all women are built the same. Robin Givhan has started a small war about Hillary's cleavage and for that she shouldn't be excused but derided.

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton but come on. This woman can't win. From her coffee table thighs to her black pant suits its ridiculous. And now we have to talk about her cleavage? Give me a break. Nicholas Wapshott puts it best here when he says, "Hillary Clinton is a middle aged woman with a bosom. Big deal. Get over it. Sniping at her for daring to dress as a woman is old fashioned sexism at its worst and should have no place in a serious debate over who is best suited to replace President Bush in the White House." I don't recall anyone talking about Obama's suits that look like he bought them in Barney's. I don't hear anyone talking about Rudy Giuliani's or John McCain's clothes. So let's get over it folks. Hillary is not a model, she is a middle age politician.

New York City Bicycle Riders See Memo Below

Memo to Bicycle Riders in New York City:

10. Use the bicycle lanes
9. Use hand signals
8. Don't run red lights especially if you are carting a child around
7. Don't weave in and out of traffic
6. Don't ride in the wrong direction of a one way street and then have the gall to glare at a motorist going in the RIGHT direction
5. Don't wear your Walkman while riding - you CAN"T hear what's going on around you
4. Don't hold on to trucks so you can get to your destinations faster
3. Wear a freaking helmet
2. You want motorists to share the road then you do the same
1. Follow the instructions above

Footprints in Paris - Part 2

The Gates of Hell - Auguste Rodin

Rodin depicted Dante's Hell in this sculpture. He used models to run, squat, leap and spin to depict the various images as the Thinker looks on. Does it look like Hell? You decide.

It Takes Two

August is the month for sweating, choosing college roommates, shopping for college, attending orientation programs, going to the beach and going on last minute vacations. For those of us in higher education its about seating our fall class which means deposits, deposits and more deposits. For high school students its about being the new kid on the block and reuniting with old friends in a new grade. For teachers on both sides of the fence its about wishing for students who want to learn. And while some teachers will have their dream fulfilled some will not.

Several years ago when I was still actively recruiting high school kids I attended a school in the Bronx and was shocked at what I saw and experienced. It was a college fair of sorts and the first half was talking to interested students at my table. The second half was going into the classroom and talking to a captive audience about why they should chose my college over any other. In one word the kids were "unruly." As I stood waiting to go into the classroom I watched several kids run from the classroom I was expected to give my presentation in with the teacher running after them. The teacher was successful in returning two to the room but failed at rescuing the toher two. When I finally entered the room and was going through my presentation I realized that these kids really had no interest in going to college so their interest was in their cell phones and each other. I did my thing and left.

The lack of interest I experienced is not new to teachers. I have had teachers apologize to me and I have had kids give me the once over as if checking my bona fides as a black woman. This is not to say all high schools in the Bronx are like this and we have some wonderful kids apply from the Bronx. The point that I'm making here is what do you do with kids who could care less about learning? Do you work with them and try to get them to change their minds? Do you give them examples of what odds they face if they do not have a high school diploma and a college degree? And do parents figure into this equation or is it the sole responsibility of teachers? Well call me crazy but this should be a partnership. Teachers have enough to do in and outside the classroom they should not have to serve as teacher, parent and bottle washer.

In this article by Diane Ravitch, research professor of education at New York University, argues for parent involvement in the lives of their children and shares the "fascinating" feedback she received. The views were typical in that some blamed her for defending "lazy" teachers; others said she was "blaming" parents; and still others said she was blaming poor kids. But thank goodness one writer, who was a teacher, was spot on about the problems facing teachers in our schools and how parents can help. This is not rocket science. The responsibility that parents have to their children doesn't stop at the school door but goes from the dining room table where homework is done to the classroom where their child sits up and pays attention.

Who Will Protect Our Children?

There are somethings in life that I do not understand. One of those things is how an anyone, anyone can abuse children. I have a really, really hard time understanding the mind set of someone who could look at an innocent face and harm him/her. The story here about Judith Leekin is truly outrageous. Wasn't there anyone who saw, heard or noticed something wrong? Was there anything that came across as strange to Children Services about this woman? Wasn't there anyone that could have saved these children?