Chick-Fil-A and the Marriage Equality Fight

As both a gay man and a born again Christian, I have to say that I am indeed troubled by what to think or what to say regarding this crazy Chick-Fil-A fiasco.  A few days back I posted a story in regards to whether the idea of boycotting Chick-Fil-A truly was an effective tool against the organization, because boycotts in general typically don't work.  Even one of the largest protests of our generation (Occupy Wall Street) has lost steam, and very little is getting done in regards to what we, the 99%, want to see done.  But I digress on that point.

I am in the here and now on this issue.  In our society, people of differing views are always going to exist.  Those people of differing views are always going to speak out against something that we are for.  Those people of differing views may even contribute their money to groups that agree with where they stand, which happens to be the very thing that we are against.  This guy Dan Cathy, the owner and operator of a privately-funded fast food chain, does not believe in marriage equality.  This is his right.  He has the right to say this.  Just as we have the right to disagree with him.  He also has the right to fund whatever organizations he sees fit.  And though we, as homosexuals, may disagree with each of these organization's agenda, there is no provision in our constitution that says that simply because a majority of people may disagree with somebody on their stance or how they spend their money, that somehow they have to stop doing so.  This is why the Westboro Baptist Church, in all of their hatred and speech, is able to keep operating the way they do.

In the same vein, we as the LGBT community and our allies can choose not to eat at Chick-Fil-A because of the owner's beliefs.  Or, as LGBT members and allies, we can choose to eat their because we also realize that there are a number of families and people supported by the work they do at that organization.  In either case, this is our choice.  And to ridicule somebody either way for making that choice I think is unfair and unjustified.  I personally am thankful that there are no Chick-Fil-A's in the Michigan area, because I really don't know if I'd choose to eat there or not.  But again, I digress.

And in that same vein, Christians, as a show of support have the absolute right to eat at their restaurant of choice, whether to prove some social point or not.  Look, it's no secret that the Bible says what it says.  Whether it's there because some King generations ago wanted to add something to it or not, or whether it is truly divinely inspired will be up for debate forever.  Christians, whether born again, or just those who go to Church because it "makes them a better person" have their religious canon and can make a choice on how and why to interpret it the way they want to.  I have a real problem with anybody who comes along (and I'm speaking to many of my LGBT brothers and sisters) and mocks Christians for their faith and classifies them all in the same category as some religious fanatics out to take away the LGBT's rights.  When you do that, you are no better than some religious zealots who do the same to us.  They classify us, as the LGBT community, as some perverted group of people who are sexually loose with our decisions, sleeping around, dangerously, with everybody we come in contact with.  They stereotype us, just as many in the LGBT community stereotype Christians.  In both cases, it is unfair and unproductive, and frankly every time I hear it, I am more and more disappointed with the person who does so, on either side, and I lose a tremendous amount of respect for that person.

I think what I'm trying to say here is - STOP.  Stop to both sides.  If homosexuality is a sin in a Christian's eyes, then so be it.  I'm not going to change their mind.  They have the absolute right to believe that, criticize people for living that life if they so desire.  But, where their right stops is when their belief begins to infringe upon my rights as a citizen of this country.  In the same vein Christians who do such things, your condemnations of your perceived view of people in the LGBT community are not going to have an effect on who we are.  We believe that to be gay is not a sin.  And, in our country, we have the right to believe that very thing.  And you condemnation isn't going to change that.  It isn't going to make us wake up one morning and suddenly change our orientation.  Contrary to belief, and science backs us on this one - to be gay is not a choice - you are born with a sexual orientation, or in some studies, orientation is quickly developed within the first few months of development (long before anybody can make a conscious choice).

I think it's important to point out that history is on the side of the LGBT community here.  I firmly believe that before the end of this decade that a decision will be reached by the United States Supreme Court on Marriage Equality.  In fact, I believe that decision is going to be made within the next 2 to 3 years, with California's Proposition 8 finding its way to the Supreme Court.  Just as the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's was a landmark decision for the African American Community, I believe the Court, conservative or not, cannot look at the facts of discrimination and rule against the LGBT community to have the same federal and state rights afforded to it under our constitution - whether or not Christians agree with it.  If we look at history, it was the Christians who believed that it was their right to own slaves in the south.  If we look at history, it was Christians in the south who wanted to deny blacks the right to be integrated into our schools and truly have the same rights as whites.  If we look at our history, it was Christians who didn't believe that whites and blacks should be allowed to marry - as some abomination against God.  But in all cases, it has made our society better.  It has made us stronger because we have protected the rights of minorities in this country.

And let me be clear - not every Christian believed the things above.  Not every Christian believed that blacks were inferior to whites.  Not every Christian believed in slavery, or was against interracial marriage.  In those fights, along with the fights for Marriage Equality for the LGBT community, we have Christians partners looking to make it better for everyone despite what their religious canon says.  The fact of that matter is, this whole Chick-Fil-A fight has allowed the extremes of both groups to overshadow what the rest of us, in the middle, who are much more moderate and open to working together, truly believe.  The extremes on the Christian side - the religious zealots - are getting more worked up believing they are helping to keep some sacred cause from being taken down by those "queers."  While the extremes on the LGBT community look to all Christians and mock them, calling them hypocrites, and hate-mongers, and less-educated.  Well in both cases my friend, I know both Christians who love me for me and accept me for me and who are wonderful people, and I know people in the LGBT community, like myself, who are also Christians, and believe the tenants of Christ.  It's time for those of us in the middle, those of us who are moderate and can see that working together is the only solution, to rise up and carry the narrative from here on out.  Let us drown out the extremes  on both sides - because on both sides, their voices are carried with hate and intolerance for one another.

There is a reason that the rights of minorities in this country are not given to the majority to decide.  If we would have had some national vote on the rights of African Americans in the 1950's, that vote would have denied them the same rights protected with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling.  When the rights of the minority or left to the whims of the majority of opinion, those rights are never fully realized.  Our founding fathers knew this.  In their wisdom, they ensured that the rights of the common person were protected.  They ensured that the rights of all people were protected under the constitution.  And though there were flaws in our fathers, especially in the area of slavery, they knew enough in advance that the idea of slavery was going to come to a head, and provided a way out - a way for us to modify our tenants as a nation through amendments to our constitution.  I firmly believe that a vote in the favor of the LGBT community is coming soon, and I firmly believe that our rights will be fully realized despite the extreme voices of the religious community.

So, to bring this to a close - let me say this.  I'm tired of the extreme voices on either side taking the narrative and running with it, with the audacity of speaking for all in their community.  For those friends of mine on the LGBT side who feel the need to mock Christians and their beliefs and to stereotype all Christians as less-educated, hate-mongers, let this be fair warning, I will not tolerate it.  I will choose to no longer associate myself with you.  Just because we are brothers and sisters in the LGBT fight for equality, I do not support your method for getting there.

And let this be fair warning to my Christian friends.  If you truly find hate in the fact that I am a member of the LGBT community, and you truly do not support my right to marry, I too will not tolerate that.  I will choose to no longer associate myself with you.  Just because we are brothers and sisters in Christ, does not mean that I will support your choice to deny me my federal and state rights under the constitution we all live.

To those of  you on both sides, both Christian and LGBT alike (and allies too), who want to work together to ensure all members of our country have the same rights and freedoms regardless of religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, sect, sexual orientation, sex (or sexual identity), socio-economic status, or any other difference, I want to be your friend.  I want you in my life because we can drown out the extreme voices and  make the narrative about being positive and changing things for the better.

As always, comments welcome.  However, heed my warnings - if your comments are filled with hate towards the other side, or somehow show me that you do not support my rights, I will not tolerate it.  Please remove me from your friend's list now - because if you don't support marriage equality, then you don't support who I am.  Thank you for reading.

"True" Freedom? It's a Myth

This particular post is going to be short and sweet, but after the conversation I had yesterday with a coworker, I felt it necessary to flesh out my ideas in writing.

So here's the setup:  yesterday a coworker and I were having a conversation regarding the Federal Reserve and how it is set up.  And we were talking about the former national banking systems we had in place, and how at one time we had a free market banking system (in the late 1800's).  Now, I'm not a good study on the federal reserve or the gold standard, or any banking system for that matter, but I read a little about it in order to have somewhat of an educated conversation.

To summarize the conversation, his point was that a free market system, or any system in any context that is "free" is better than any types of boundaries or rules imposed upon those in the system, because if there are boundaries, one is not truly free to make the best decisions that are best for him or her.  Definitely a valid argument.

I, of course, took the conversation from the free market banking system and applied it to a much broader context to try to make my point.  Is freedom truly something we all want?  I mean when you consider absolute freedom where there are no boundaries saying yes or no to the decisions we make - what do you have?  At first glance, this freedom sounds amazing, but the more you dig into it, the more you realize that the entire concept of a never-ending and purely boundary-less freedom is flawed.

And here is what spurred that thought.  My coworker made this statement:  "if we were in a true free market system, I would be able to make any and all decisions that were best for me."  That seemingly is an innocent statement, something that we may all want to enjoy - a freedom that doesn't have a third party (i.e. the government), imposing rules, regulations, or unnecessary burdens on us, right?

Well, then I asked him to consider whether that was a system that he truly wanted.  A system in place in our society that would allow for no regulation, no rules, no laws, whatsoever.  Within his own statement defending what he seemingly wanted was the flaw - if everybody made decisions based upon what was best for them, then who looks out for the other person?  Because a decision that is right for me, may very well not be right for you.

I mean in theory, if everybody looked out for themselves, societal chaos would ensue.  There has to be some merit, looking into the history of all of our societies, that no society, big or small, successfully was able to adapt to such a system where everybody took care of their own affairs, and there was no third party helping to ensure it was kept fair among all in society.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think all great societies in history have had some type of governing structure - a third party if you will?  True freedom would not have such a structure - government would not exist.  And every individual would be "free" to exercise all choices over their own lives.

I think the problem here is that people get caught up in thinking that government in our society is this big evil entity that tells people what to do and it has no right to do so.  Yet, government is merely a way for us to keep a society from destroying its citizens.  If everybody took care of their own, and only worried about what was best for themselves - what do you think would happen?  Do you think that if everybody had the ability to do whatever they wanted, that would make us a more peaceful and prosperous society, simply because everybody got what they wanted?  Do you think if everybody had a chance to make choices that were best for "them," that society as a whole would benefit?

No, I don't believe so.

If I look out for my family, I want to be able to be as successful as I can set my mind to.  This means given the chance to take a little more when it is offered, even though it may rob from Paul over there, in theory I would do it.  Right?  I'm taking care of me - making the best decisions for me.  And Paul, in the same vein is going to be looking out for him - making the best decisions for him.  So, if I accumulate some wealth in property, for example, what's to stop Paul from taking some of my property to make him more successful?  In this true utopian environment that we have built up in our mind where somebody doesn't come along and tell me what I can and cannot do, there is nobody there to tell Paul he can't do that.

That's what government does - it is a third party entity that helps settle disputes when situations arise.  In this particular case, if Paul steals from me, I want my government to tell Paul, he can't do that.  If we were truly in a free society, there would be no government to tell Paul that.  Yes we'd be free, but there would be no rule.  There would be no law to govern the decisions everybody made.  And hence, societal chaos would ensue.  At first it may just be a person attempting to protect himself or herself, but soon, with no rule of law or rule of regulation, societal chaos would grow into all out distrust for one another, and the freedom we all want would come at the expense of bonding with other human beings.  That's why no society has been able to prosper without forming rules of some kind to help govern the way it lives.

I think people want "freedom" when they feel as though a law, or a regulation is somehow encroaching upon them and therefore making it inconvenient to live their lives the way they want to live them.  And sometimes people view this "encroachment" with blinders on - completely oblivious to the fact that there are millions of other people living in our country who have different motivations, different agendas, different ways of living their lives.  No one way is better than the next, though we like to think that the way we live our life is always the best way.  If there isn't some structure, some way to control all of those different agendas, different paths to live one life, then, as I stated above, societal chaos would ensue.  Our current government is the way that we as a society have determined to control that chaos.  And the great social contract by having this thing called government is that it should be fair, it should be impartial, and it should look out for the best interest of the majority of people.  The framers designed it in such a way that the majority should have power over the majority of the decisions in this country - only a select few are guaranteed (rights of individuals being one of them).

I really don't know if I have a concluding point to this particular blog other than to say that people don't necessarily know what it is they want when they talk about "getting government out of my personal business."  If government was completely removed from everybody's personal business, many of the things that we take for granted that government does to help us would also be eliminated.  If a form of government in some context was eliminated completely from our society - societal madness would swarm almost immediately.  Things that we want our government to do, such as enforcing laws against theft, murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping would disappear.  We couldn't drink the water from our tap because there would be no regulations to ensure it was safe to drink.  We couldn't eat meat or even vegetables from the local market, because there is no governmental force ensuring that they are safe to eat.  Hell, we may not even be able to breathe the air because corporations, acting in their own self interest (remember that's freedom after all), wouldn't have to worry about air quality because if they did so, it would negatively effect their bottom line.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is before you complain that we have "too much government" in our lives - really take a step back and look at the idea behind government.  Every regulation, every rule, was put their for some reason.  Somewhere, somebody had an agenda - in some cases for the will of the society, and sometimes to fulfill some personal goal or agenda of an individual, corporation or lobbying group.  But the law was put their nonetheless.  So perhaps it's not government in and of itself that is this big bad evil entity.  Criticize the various rules and regulations all you want, one by one, on the merit of whether they serve the greater good.  But to define government as this big bad evil entity that shouldn't exist is to tear down the very thing that keeps us safe, healthy, and protected from all the ills in the world.

I for one never want "true" freedom.  Because I feel that "true" freedom would not make us free at all.  "True" freedom would in fact make us prisoners to protecting everything we own and love in this world - many things that we take for granted now.

Thanks for reading, comments welcome.

A Detailed List of Why I Intend to Vote for President Obama for a Second Term

As promised, a very detailed list of the reasons I plan to vote for President Barack Obama for a second term of Presidency. Where necessary I have included sources to my information. So facts below are presented as just that facts, while others are opinon-based with sources to back them up. I hope anybody out there who may not know who they're voting for finds this list helpful:

Reason #1 – Pay Equity for Men and Women

1/29/2009 – President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that:

• requires employers to review their practices in regards to compensation for both men and women to ensure they are fair.
• Removes the statute of limitations for employers who recognize they are being paid unfairly to be able to file suit.
• Pay discrimination based upon gender, race, color, national origin, age, and disability is now prohibited.

Mitt Romney's take on the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - “Mitt Romney supports pay equity and is not looking to change the current law.” However, Romney has not set whether or not he would have signed the law into effect in the first place.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/11/mitt_romney_and_lilly_ledbetter_equal_pay_act_we_ll_have_to_get_back_to_you_on_that_.html

Reason #2 – 4 More Million Children Insured Under SCHIP

2/4/2009 – President Obama signs the SCHIP Legislation that:

• Insures 4 more children with health insurance in addition to the 6 million already insured.
• Two attempts under the George W. Bush administration were made to expand the program, but were vetoed by President Bush.

Mitt Romney stated during 1 of George W. Bush's veto that he in fact would do the same thing – veto the legislation that would expand the program.

Source:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dnc-romney-an-schip-off-the-bush-republican-block-58465222.html

Reason #3 – The 2009 Stimulus Package

2/17/2009 – President Obama signs into Law the 2009 Stimulus package that does the following:

• GDP in 2010 raises by 3.8% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth)
• All workers receive a $400 tax credit in their paychecks ($800 per couple).
• $82.2 billion in aid for low income workers, unemployed, and retirees (including job training).
• $70 billion in tax relief for middle income workers by patching the alternative minimum tax for one year.
• $155 billion for health care assistance for the poor and unemployed primarily for Medicaid, health information technology, and insurance premium subsidies.
• $100 billion in education aid to prevent lay-offs, modernize schools, award Pell grants and help low income children & special education programs.
• $48.1 billion in investments for highway, bridge, high-speed rail & other transportation projects
• 1.45 million jobs were saved as a direct or indirect result of the 2009 $80 billion bailout to the automotive companies, GM and Chrysler according to the Center for Automotive Research. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/a-million-jobs.html)

It's hard to tell what Mitt Romney feels on the stimulus package. He has indicated two different things in two different versions of his book “No Apologies.” He has been on record for the stimulus, and he has been on record against the stimulus.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/30/has-mitt-romney-flipflopped-on-obamas-stimulus/

We can look into Romney's past, however, and see that Mitt Romney was against the auto bailout that President Obama helped push through for General Motors and Chrysler. He penned an op/ed during the debate that we should “let Detroit go bankrupt,” but has as recently as May taken credit for the auto bailout.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/

Reason #4 – The Credit Card Act

5/22/2009 – President Obama signs into law the Credit Card Act which does the following:

• Credit cardholders protected against arbitrary interest rate increases, hidden and excessive fees, and due date gimmicks

Mitt Romney indicates that he would repeal the Credit Card Act if elected, and that it “produced federal restrictions on credit card companies that have already led to higher interest rates, higher annual fees, and lower credit limits, especially for middle class borrowers.” According to the source below, independent studies have shown the opposite.

Source: http://www.credit.com/blog/2012/02/the-2012-election-your-credit-cards/

Reason # 5 – LGBT Related Issues

Detouring from the time line, here is everything President Obama has done for the LGBT community:

• 6/22/2009 – ended discrimination and hosted the first ever reception at the White House honoring Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, and Bisexual Pride Month which was hosted by the President and the First Lady.
• 10/28/2009 – federal hate crime law expanded to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. People with HIV/Aids are no longer prevented from entering the United States.
• 1/1/2010 – Discrimination based upon gender identity is now banned in the Federal Work place.
• 6/2/2010 – Federal benefits extended to same sex partners of workers through memo of the Obama administration.
• 12/22/2010 – Gay and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military because the President signs into law the repeal of the decades only Don't Ask Don't Tell Clinton-era policy.
• 12/22/2010 – Obama Administration sponsors a measure to include “sexual orientation” in the definition of human rights adopted by the UN General Assembly.
• 2/23/2011 – The Defense of Marriage Act is is declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the Obama Administration.
• 5/9/2012 – President Barack Obama becomes the first President in United States history to publicly support the legalization of Marriage Equality, specifically same-sex marriage.

Mitt Romney publicly opposes gay marriage. Mitt Romney supports a constitutional amendment defining gay marriage as one man and one woman. Mitt Romney believes that the Defense of Marriage Act should be enforced.

Source: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Mitt Romney does not support same-sex civil unions.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-gay-marriage-civil-unions-obama_n_1503597.html

Mitt Romney does not support non-discrimination for gays and lesbians on the federal level. He also opposes sexual orientation and transgender hate crime legislation. He vetoed a bill in 2003 as Governor that would fund hate crimes prevention.

Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/MittRomney.htm

Reason #6 – Tough on Foreign Policy

Again, straying from the time-line, President Obama has a tough record on foreign policy. He has accomplished the following:

• Since taking office, President Obama has overseen the killings of at least 34 Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other middle-Eastern countries, either by drone, CIA operatives, or other means.
• 5/2/2011 – A directive issued by President Barack Obama orders a CIA task force to enter a Pakistani compound and kill the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bin Laden evaded capture by the Bush administration for 7 years after the initial attack, and at one point, George W. Bush indicated he wasn't concerned with where Osama Bin Laden was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related)
• Immediately upon taking office, President Barack Obama prohibits the use of torture (water boarding) by the CIA and military to interrogate prisoners.
• President Barack Obama has successfully removed all American forces from Iraq, as promised. He has a plan to remove all forces out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014, with draw-down beginning in December of 2012.

In general, Mitt Romney didn't form an opinion publicly on getting into Iraq as Governor. He is on record in 2011, during the draw-down, as saying it would be looked back on as a mistake.

Source: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Reason #7 – The Health Care Reform Act of 2010

Instead of listing every benefit of the health care reform act, I'm going to just give the link of all the benefits the act will have once fully in effect:

• http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

Mitt Romney does not support the health care act and has vowed to repeal it on day one of his presidency. Though, when governor, he implemented what is referred to as the “godfather” of the Healthcare Reform Act in his state. And because of that act, a little over 98% of the state's residents now have health insurance.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Various other reasons why I support Barack Obama for a second term:

• President Obama believes in the Buffet Rule (the rule that a person's secretary shouldn't pay more in taxes than the head of a large company who makes their money through investments of stock). President Obama believes in keeping taxes low for the middle class. He believes those making more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes (in that he means go back to the Clinton-era tax rates). http://www.barackobama.com/record/taxes?source=primary-nav
• Governor Romney believes in the theory of trickle-down economics. He believes that we should cut taxes for all Americans, including those already paying lower tax rates because of tax loopholes on how they earn their money. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
• President Obama is relying more on donations from small donors in the amounts of $200 or less. In fact, in 2011, his reelection campaign raised nearly half of their donations by people contributing $200 or less. In comparison, Mitt Romney in his 2011 fund raising, only raised 9% of his donations from contributions of $200 or less. Both of these figures say nothing for the super-PACS contributing to both campaigns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.html
• Mitt Romney is being bank-rolled by conservative business men. $10 million has been raised by the Super-PAC “Restore our Future,” by one billionaire alone, casino titan Sheldon Adelson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/mitt-romney-super-pac_n_1691051.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
• Barack Obama is opposed to the Citizen's United Ruling that, among other things, gave corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech in elections, along with the ability to raise an unlimited amount of money for any one particular issue or support one particular agenda. Mitt Romney supports the Citizen's United Ruling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html

Okay that about covers it, or at least the major stuff. For a very detailed date by date time-line of events of the accomplishments of President Obama, you can check out: http://www.democratichub.com/obama-administration-accomplishments.aspx?o=ps&t=lc. I know it has taken me a long time to get this up, but I feel it's important to research exactly why you feel a particular way about a candidate and this exercise helped me even further than I thought. President Obama is the candidate for me. He may not be the candidate for you, but at least take some time to research Mitt Romney first before voting for him simply because he isn't President Obama. The biggest enemy our country will have this election, and any election, is the voters who vote simply because they weren't informed on a particular issue. People in today's world have a wealth of information at their fingertips. But with so much information, it is possible to get misinformation as well.

My Take on "Acceptable Racism"

Okay, let's begin.

Getting the itch to write anything sometimes is difficult, especially in my busy, no-time like the present life, where getting things done yesterday is the norm. But the following writing is something that I'm seeking to write because it seems to creep up in conversation and rear its ugly head from time to time, even amongst the closest people in my life – friends, family, people I trust, coworkers, etc.

Have you ever given thought to the idea of “acceptable” racism around you? I mean, seriously. Think about what I'm talking about. In college, this was something that we as resident advisers attempted to slow the pace of and even eliminate, but it never seemed to work, because the world around us was just too caught up in the “realities” of life not to get caught up in the life we all hope for. For those of us lucky enough to go to college and experience the chance to eliminate such “acceptable” racism, the unfortunate part of this idea is that eventually, well, for lack of a better term, we “grow up.” The habits for calling it for what it is go away because we ourselves awaken to the “reality” of life, or at least some do. For some of us, we carry the noble ability to call it out when we see it into our everyday lives, in the hopes that someday we'll help erase it from the world around us.

Ah, to dream...

But what “it” am I referring to? Well, for those of you who may not have experienced the university push to eliminate such “acceptable” racism, let me give some examples. I'm sure everybody and anybody will know what I'm referring to.

For example, everybody has that Uncle who we all love. He's worked on the line for 30 years at a car plant, starting when the mix of whites to blacks was 90% to 10%. He's the one, who now is looking at retirement, is willing to say that “life on the line isn't the same as it used to be.” He's the one who says, “well now that all the black people are coming on board, it isn't the same.” He may even use a more colorful word as an adjective to describe those black people, but nonetheless, without being overtly racist, he is being racist enough that you know what he's trying to say. But, he's your favorite Uncle. You chalk such a statement up to the fact that he has thirty years of experience, and you really don't want to argue with him. You figure he's just of an older generation, and that's his mindset – no sense arguing with him because after all, you can't “change the spots on a leopard,” right?

Or a better one for you, and the truth behind the reason I write such a blog. Somebody close to you decides to blame the ills of the economy, perhaps the personal ills that he or she is experiencing on a particular sect of our society. Partly to blame are the politicians in Washington whose oldest political game in the book is to say “the world is this worse off because of this particular group of people. Blame them!” And so, without knowing it, suddenly a person close to you falls on hard times, and listens to such radical hate-filled speech and before you know it, is spewing the same hate-filled speech out for all to hear. “America has lost its values because more than half this country is filled with minorities now.” Such a statement while seemingly an opinion, is a racist-filled statement of hate. To blame a particular group of people for the ills of the society as a whole, instead of choosing to accept any part of the responsibility, or truly throw the responsibility where it lies. It's easier to blame the “outsiders” who do things differently than we do. It's easier to say “they're the reason why we don't live the way we 'used to.'” When we have somebody, a scapegoat, to place the blame on, it's easier to accept that this reality of which we live may not be permanent, and the only thing we have to do to get back the “perfect harmony” of the yesteryear is to eliminate the threat that is there from these outsiders. I have a feeling that a certain group of people may object to this take, this thought process, that in many ways, began as something as innocent as “they don't belong here.” It is a dangerous line of thinking that can lead to a very tragic ending. It's already happened once in history on a very large scale, and has been attempted on a much smaller scale as well.

Other “acceptable” forms of racism may not be as overt. Working a construction job with a bunch of buddies as each tells a racist stereotypical joke about the local Jewish man; the employer who looks at a name on a resume and actually tosses it in the trash simply because he cannot pronounce it; referring to a particular group of people as “all doing something.” For example, “all Arabic people who shop, shop dirty and leave the store a mess.” At one point or another, you have probably heard somebody around you say something to that effect. Heck, you very well may have said something to that effect yourself. And when you think about the why behind such a statement, it is easy to arrive back to the same conclusion. You are able to say such a statement because it is an “acceptable” form of racism to do so.

Okay, so I've pointed out the obvious that such “acceptable” forms of racism exist, right? I've made everybody feel horrible about the state of their friendships, and you're going “why would you say such things Casey?” Well the answer to that question is simply this: “why are these forms of 'acceptable' racism truly that – acceptable?” Why? Why, in our society, do we let such forms of racism exist in our lives? Why do we let such horrible stereotypes that seek to hurt rather than mend our lives permeate as an acceptable form of practice in those around us?

Take the situation with the Uncle – everybody's favorite Uncle. It is not acceptable for a man, such as he, to talk about how the “black man” is ruining the work environment he so cherished for thirty years. And you should not be afraid to call him on it. Yet, for whatever reason – the unwillingness to start a riff in the family, the fear that he will have good reasoning to say what he said, or in many cases, simple laziness – you are not willing to step up and say something about the inappropriateness of the comment.

The second comment is even worse. As I alluded to as I brought it up – such thoughts are dangerous. Not at first, they don't seem that way, but if you let such thoughts of “these are the people to blame,” permeate your consciousness, eventually you'll start to think of ways to eliminate them from the equation, or find some radical who promises a way to do just that. Think about it – Hurricane Irene struck because our country allowed the repeal of don't ask don't tell – those gays are to blame for the loss of life on the East Coast. Oh my, those Arabics, they're all terrorists after all, and that's why we can't have our simple freedoms as we wait to board an airplane. Blame them – if they would all just leave our country, we'd be better off. Sound familiar?

I've got an even better one, “if you're going to live in our country, you need to speak our language.” This particular “acceptable” form of racism truly gets my blood boiling, because the people who say it truly don't think it all the way through. I mean, even if you take the passion out of such a statement, and the opinions on such matters away from the statement – you arrive at the simple logic of such a statement truly doesn't add up. Think about it – how long does it take to learn a new language? If you think of just toddlers, at the height of their ability to learn from things all around them – it can take at least 3 years to begin to learn the language, and even longer to grasp the details within. But if you take an adult – somebody who has been immersed in their native language for years and ask them to fluently learn another language – how long would that take? 5 years? 10 years? Let's say 5 and be conservative.

Okay – so we have a person, let's say 21 years old. They only know Spanish. They were born in Texas, so they are an American citizen, but because their family speaks Spanish, that is what they were raised on, and therefore only speak Spanish. Now, let's use the racist's idea for a second – the United States passes a law that says “if you're going to live in the United States of America you need to speak our official language of English.” Now the fallacy of such a statement is another matter indeed as the United States doesn't have an official language. But let's just say we were able to make such a statement true.

Now Joe, our Spanish-speaking American citizen, needs to learn how to speak English at the age of 21 and fluently in order to conduct business inside the United States. By the logic of the person who has ordered such a concept – Joe should not be able to go out to restaurants, to stores, hang out at a bar, talk on the phone, or conduct conversations with his family because he doesn't know how to speak English. Logically, does that make sense? Logically, can you truly tell somebody that they need to be an outcast to society for five years until they can learn to speak “correctly?”

This example points to the issue I'm trying to make today. People who make statements like the ones above do so out of ignorance of the society of which they live. They are afraid, they don't know how to respond, or in many cases, know what it will take to change it but choose not to, and rather unproductively criticize the status quo without providing any substantive response on how to fix the ills of which they criticize. They believe something is wrong, but they provide no solution on how to fix it, and then react negatively to any form of change presented by somebody else.

It's not just true for racism – this is a common theme in our society. We live in a land where we can freely speak out mind on anything we want, as long as it doesn't threaten or hurt anybody else and impede their rights. But just because one has the ability to speak their mind, doesn't mean that they should always do so. Sometimes saying something just for the sake of saying something creates more of a problem instead of fixing it. Sometimes, it's just simple bitching, and simple bitching doesn't solve anything. It may very well announce to the world that there is a problem here, but what it doesn't do is give solutions on how to fix that problem.

Take the idea of illegal immigration. We all recognize that it is a problem, for sure. We all recognize that people living in our country illegally needs to be dealt with, but what the general public doesn't think through when they make such statements as “deport them all” is the complexity of how such a process would work. You're dealing with people who have sometimes been in this country for 20 years, who have families established, who work jobs that our typical Americans wouldn't dream of taking, and by exercising such a practice as deporting all illegals, we'd be navigating through a complex host of issues that a person who makes such a three-word statement with passion, wouldn't even think to figure out how to handle.

The point of this blog is that I get frustrated just as anybody else does on the state of things in our culture. Truthfully I do. But my frustration does not grant me the free reign to express an ignorant and naïve opinion on a group of people in this country simply because I think they may or may not be the reasons for our ills. Frustration is an excuse for nobody. And even if I do express such an opinion, I should not get more upset when somebody around me calls me out on it. That's their, and everybody's job to call racism and hate for what it is. Because if we don't, if we're so quick to take away the rights of everybody that we don't like, and nobody is there to stand up for them when it happens, what will happen when somebody else comes around to take away your rights because you've pissed them off in some way?

Racism and hate should never be acceptable, no matter who uses it. Racism and hate are evil, and they have no purpose in our society because all they do is divide. Stand up to those around you today and here on out who seek to use such words to put somebody down, and maybe unknowing to them, begin something that could wind up as tragedy in the end.

Comments welcomed. Be respectful please.

What Obama has to do on Thursday to win my vote in the next election

Okay, so in case most of you don't already know, the President is scheduled to give a huge speech this Thursday regarding the jobless rate and job creation in the country.  It's to a joint session of congress, which is typically reserved for an emergency situation like going to war, a terrorist attack, etc.

Before I get any critics starting to scream at me, let me set the record straight.  I absolutely think the joint session of Congress forum is absolutely appropriate to have such a speech.  We ARE in an emergency situation that needed to be addressed two years ago, and most definitely needed to be addressed all this year.  So for all you critics out there going "he should have just submitted it in writing to the Congress," I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you.  This is a dire situation we are in, and it's time that President Obama actually used his bully pulpit to push some stuff through.

Now, with that said, a lot of controversy is in the political punditry about what he should or should not say and do.  This blog is basically to sum up my feelings on the entire situation, and what Mr. Obama needs to do to win my vote next year.  Yes, it's that serious.  I'm fed up.

Mr. Obama needs to quit being such a spineless pushover to the Speaker of the House and the House of Republicans.  I'm serious!  I voted for a man with such a vision of how America could be, and was hoping to see that man throughout the last three years.  He appears every once in a while - usually when answering questions off the cuff at town hall meetings or local events.  But I NEVER see that man at a prepared speech to the nation, or to lawmakers.  It's very frustrating.

Mr. Obama needs to ditch the teleprompter, use old fashion note cards, and not be afraid to ad-lib if necessary.  He needs to respond to the room, the feeling, the temperature, the responses and not place applause lines in expecting the members of Congress to agree or not agree simply because he wants them to.  He needs to speak like Michael Douglas does in "The American President," with heart, with conviction, and finally, like a true democrat.

For those of you who know me, you know that I advocate working in the middle, avoiding bi-partisan bickering in order to compromise.  The problem, however, is that the rules of the game were switched on Mr. Obama from the moment he took office, and everybody but Mr. Obama himself has realized it.  There is no compromising with this republican party, because this republican party has made it THEIR PRIORITY to ensure that Mr. Obama is a one-term president.  Even Senator Mitch McConnel has said in not so many words that it is his mission to see the President fail.

So I ask you Mr. President, if the rules of the game have been changed, and there is no compromise with the republican party, why do you keep talking in rhetoric like you're going to see a compromise form John Boehner and his house republicans?  What in the world makes you think that you're going to see him move even an inch closer to the center where you currently stand and wait?  No Mr. President, he has slowly and surely pulled your politics to the right and has titled you so far away from where you once stood, it's not even funny.

Do you want to know why your approval rating is so low Mr. President?  It's not because you passed health care, or because you want to raise taxes on corporations.  No, it's because you have bowed to the republicans every step of the way.  Most Americans want to see a universal health care system, and MOST Americans wanted to see a public option.  But when that option was no longer a possibility you pissed off the liberals.  And now, after the Debt Ceiling debate finally passed, we find that yet again, you gave up a little bit more yardage and unfortunately you sit on the republicans side of the field as we move into one of the worst jobless situations we've seen in decades.  Your approval rating isn't low because people don't agree with your original policies.  Your approval rating is low because you've given too much back to the republicans and your base is PISSED.  I am, and many of the people who voted for you in 2008 are as well.

You need to walk into the House on Thursday night with an agenda.  You need to walk in with a "my way or the highway mentality."  Yes, you do.  More partisanship is exactly what the country DOES need FROM YOU.  It's not counter-intuitive, it's the fact that the country needs to see a man take charge of his convictions and not sway with the wind.  Because, it's there, whether you like it or not.  The republicans know your game and they will continue to take and take and take from you and will never give anything up to you.  So why in the world would you walk into the House Thursday and start in the middle with things you THINK the republicans would be willing to compromise on?  Whether or not they are anything the republicans agreed about before or not, their #1 priority is to get rid of you.  The easiest way to do that is to block anything you have to propose.  So if you start in the middle with things you THINK the republicans would agree to, and they end up saying no to even those then you lose anyway.  You look like a coward to the left, and still are hated on the right.

You need to walk into that House on Thursday and you need to go big with leftist ideas.  RAISE taxes on corporations, and those Americans making $250,000 or more a year, even more so on those Americans making $1 million or more a year, and even more on those Americans making $10 million or more a year.  You know the facts just as I do - we pay less and taxes than we have in the last fifty years.  Make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.  Next, FUND another stimulus.  You have to spend more money.  The deficit is NOT the problem right now and unfortunately the debt ceiling fight was merely a distraction to the problem in front of us - we need to spend our way out first, and then deal with the deficit.  Construction projects, high-speed railways, green-project initiatives, more fuel efficient cars, more government jobs all need to be proposed WITH SPECIFICS AND DEADLINES.  Don't just get up there and spew the same old rhetoric out there.  Tell me where and when you want to see these done - get those local communities excited.  Oh yeah, make it fair for us to send products overseas at a fair tariff and tax overseas companies that ship products over here the same they tax us.  Tax companies that ship American jobs overseas more than you tax companies that don't.  These are all things that will grow our economy.

Once you've proposed them - force the Republicans into a deadline.  Say it right on stage, "Mr. Boehner, I expect a vote on this by October 1st; Mr. Boehner I expect to see a bill on my desk by November 30th."  Make them be the bad guys, make them make the choice.  If they go along with you GREAT!  Then we get jobs back in America.  If they don't go along with you, then the American people will see that you did your part but the Republican party didn't do theirs.  Don't pass it as some omnibus legislation; each bill should be its own, and each bill should be voted on.  If the republicans are truly obstructionists and want America to fail, put them on the record, because in 2012 the American people can see when a republican has voted not to lower taxes, or to put America back to work, and in 2012, they will choose the true party of the people - the democrats.  And then you can finally have your way, the American way and get us moving again.

YOU NEED TO PLAY HARDBALL MR. PRESIDENT and quit being spineless.  You need to quit being the adult in the room.  The American People are the adults in the room and you need to take what is rightfully yours.  If you don't start acting like the liberal democratic president that I elected, you will not get re-elected Mr. President.  I am upset, I'm pissed that I have a president that won't act like a president.  Quit getting pushed around by Boehner the bully!  Please!

The old phrase of "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything," seems to be applying to you and it's truly disturbing.  You haven't stood up for anything that you want to pass and because of that, you're falling for everything the republicans SAY they'll compromise on, only to yank it away and pull you even more right.  America will stand behind you if you stand up for the true progressive agenda, because, at heart, most Americans are progressive.  Mr. President, it's time to start acting like the President.

Sincerely,

Casey Wooley

COMMENTS WELCOMED.

A Politically Incorrect President is what we need now...

I've been itching to write something new for a while, but have held off because there is so much out there to write about. Truthfully, it seems a lot of my statuses and/or blogs seem to divide more than spawn productive dialogue, though the dialogue I do get out of them seems to be useful for the times of which they are written.

But today's blog, I think is something that both my conservative and liberal friends can get behind - or at least I hope they can. It's a mere observation on the type of leader our country needs right now. Let me preface, as I always seem to do, with the fact that I do like President Obama, and I like the things that he is attempting to do. But I also feel that he's not the leader I voted for in one large capacity - he's too afraid to tell it as it is.

What our country needs right now is a person (man or woman, black or white, or whomever else things they can get the job done) who can talk to the American people on their level, without dumbing it down, and who is also willing to take a political risk in what he says.

I feel as though President Obama is too dreamy in his speeches - he talks too much of what America should be. While there is a time and a place for this, he also is missing the most important part - we're not that America right now. We have got some major problems! We have a debt that just won't stop, wars in three different countries now, major natural disasters around every corner, a huge homeless problem, a jobless problem, the potential for a terrorist attack at any moment, and our President worries about his wording and how it will affect him at the polls.

Now, granted, this isn't just his problem - it's a growing problem with our presidents, and it gets worse every term. The president literally has a team of people telling him how a choice of just one word could affect his poll numbers. To me, this just seems as though this would affect the actual communication that President Obama is trying to have with the American public.

We need a leader who can step into office and get up to the podium and tell it how it is. "To my fellow Americans, we've got a problem. If we, and I mean all of us don't share in some form of sacrifice, our debt is going to grow way out of control. We have to not only cut from discretionary spending, but as a country, we have to cut from the defensive budget, and we have to cut from social security, and from medicare. All around, we have to to cut our spending. And, there is potential, that taxes might have to be raised. We have dug ourselves into a situation that we cannot easily get ourselves out of..."

I mean that right there is truth...that right there is honest. The president knows he has to cut social security, but he is afraid to say it. Our republican friends know they have to cut the defense budget, but they're afraid to say it because of fear that it will cost them numbers at the polls and therefore their job. But until we actually get not only a President who is willing to say such things, but also Congress is willing to say such things, I'm afraid we're never going to get anywhere.

Both parties are at fault here...both parties have unleashed out of control spending. I just wish that the people we elected would stop passing the blame. I mean, it's just downright ridiculous how much both sides blame the other for misfortunes of the past! We need a leader who can step forward and who can say enough is enough and get things done.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir. I just can't understand why it is so simple for us normal, every day Americans, to recognize the ridiculousness of our politicians and they cannot see it themselves. It truly makes me wonder if I should eventually get into politics and throw my thoughts into the ring.

The point of this blog is simply to say we need somebody who isn't afraid to stand against the people in his own party, the other party, and even the lobbyists and "politically correct" groups that got him or her there and say "enough is enough, this is what we're going to do."

What are your thoughts?

The New TSA screenings and my thoughts

Okay, I've been itching to write a new blog about something and stretching my mind to figure out what that something should be. Then, as I opened my homepage today, I found yet another article regarding the recent changing to the TSA screening procedures at airports across the country. And, well, there it is. I'm going to give my thoughts on such a hot topic. So here we go.

OH MY GOD! Seriously!? I cannot believe that such criticism is popping up regarding the TSA's rules and changes in how they will keep our airlines safe. For those of you who don't even know what I'm talking about, here's a recap from my perspective.

From my understanding, the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA) recently reviewed its policies in regards to how it screens passengers entering airport security. The head of the TSA has laid out two options as it begins to implement these procedures: either a full body scan, or if a passenger chooses not to get the scan, they will get a full body pat-down, one that will potentially go into all of the pockets and folds of your body.

Since this announcement was made, I have seen non-stop on television, the internet, blog posts, and the like, people's "outrage" that they would have to be subjected to something that would strip them from their "rights."

Before I begin, I need to preface this with a couple of things. First, I don't have reports on "Does it really keep us safe?" And I really can't speak for anybody else, but myself in regards to my feeling on the matter, but I hope to voice what seems to be the minority opinion here and see if anybody else out there could potentially agree with me.

With that said, let's get back to this "right" issue. Where in the United States Constitution does it give anybody the "right" to ride as a passenger on an airplane? This is what is frustrating me. People feel that their "rights" are being taken away because some security personnel is going to look at their full body scan, or potentially pat them down before they board an aircraft carrying 200 other people on board. I've got a newsflash for you, this isn't a right. It isn't your right to ride on an airplane, to fly across the country. You pay for the ability to use the technology we have developed to do so. But, in paying for such ability, you also give up a couple of freedoms that you would have on the ground otherwise. You give up the "assumption" of others on that flight, that you are going to do no harm to anybody else on board.

Like it, love it, or hate it, that is the state of the world we live in. We can no longer assume that the person next to us has our best intentions in mind. No, whether white, black, gray, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buhdist, gay, straight, young or old, the people around us could potentially be a threat. Is it fair? No! Again, is it fair? I say HELL NO, it's not fair. But the same scrutiny I'm going to afford the person who sits next to me on a crowded bus, or who I assist at the store on a regular basis, is the same scrutiny being applied to me by others. I know I'm the safest person in the world, but he doesn't know that about me. Just as you know you're the safest person in the world, the least likely to do no harm to anybody else, but do I know that? No.

Look at the circumstances of an aircraft flying in the air. There are two big reasons why people don't like to fly. The first, well, is obvious: they don't like heights. The second reason, the one I'm going to focus on: they don't like to give up control. This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't enjoy flying for so long. It's a big reason a lot of people get scared before take off. When that plane leaves the ground, you are no longer in control. You are no longer calling the shots. You have willfully left your life in the hands of others--other people whom you have never met, and who you are trusting in to get you to your destination safely. And, so is everybody else on that flight. Everybody else places their lives in the hands of the pilots, of the staff on board, in the hands of the staff on the ground ensuring that everybody who enters that flight has nothing on them that could potentially harm the others on board. Again, this is a decision everybody on that flight voluntarily makes. There are alternatives to getting around in the world, flying is only one of them.

What I don't understand is why people have an issue with this? I for one am fully comfortable being patted down, screened, touched, searched, whatever, if it means that everybody else on board is getting the same thing done to them to ensure that when I get on that plane, it is a controlled situation. You'll hear many arguments out there, and one in particular really fries my chicken. They say "don't search everybody, target people who could potentially hurt us, or do something."

Well, you know what, there's a problem with that argument. We don't know somebody's intentions. We don't know if somebody has planned to do something in the air to hijack an airplane, or blow up a bomb. We don't know somebody's thoughts, or motivations, and because of this, how are you going to target specific people? Are you going to use race? So all middle-eastern people should be searched, but not white. So that white terrorist can get on board with a chemical bomb, no problem, because his intentions are not to harm us. Perhaps religion is a better way to determine what people to search and what people not to search. Muslims always get searched because their religion is violent. But Christians, no, leave them alone, they won't hurt anybody--especially that Pastor who wants to burn the Quaran, if he chooses to do it in the air, it's no big deal.

Doesn't anybody else see the dangers in profiling any individual? You run the risk of missing another individual who doesn't fit that profile. You run the risk of missing somebody who hasn't caused anybody any trouble, or raised any flags, but just one day decides to take a loaded gun pass the TSA officers who won't screen him because he's a former soldier, who happens to be white, and who has no reason to be suspected of anything. He brings that gun aboard an airplane and shoots a window out, bringing the plane down into a building full of people.

In my opinion, the real problem here is not that people are afraid of their rights, it's that they have become complacent. Somewhere in the nine years since September 11, 2001, people have forgotten that there are real people out there who want to kill us, there are real people out there who hate America. There are real people out there that at the first sign of weakness, at the first sign that we've let our guard down, will attempt to attack us. Those of us who live in Detroit almost realized that reality last December. There was a real person with a real bomb, who got aboard a real airplane, and that person attempted to set the bomb off. By some grace of God, that bomb malfunctioned and thankfully, tragedy was averted. I bet if you ask any one of those passengers on that airplane whether they think this new procedure by TSA agents should be as controversial as it has become, they'd say "hell no." They'd be thankful that something is happening from stopping such a situation from occurring in the future.

Let's say the TSA is tossed from major airports from around the country and instead a private security screening company is put back into place. Let's say, they have less invasive procedures at searching individuals who board planes. Maybe just metal detectors, like have been used in the past. Let's say that we return things to the way they were before 9/11. And let's say somebody slips by and an attack occurs. Somebody flies a big jumbo jet into a local shopping mall, maybe even Mall of America, murdering thousands. You know what would happen besides the wide-spread panic that we know would follow? No, the critics would get on their horns and start shouting "what more could we have done? Why weren't they properly searched? Why didn't the screening officers do more to prevent them from getting on the plane?"

The people screaming about their "rights" are hypocrites in my opinion. They have become complacent in the status quo, because the status quo has kept us safe for nine years. But, in reality, the status quo has only kept us as safe as malfunctioning bombs, and missed attacks have allowed us. We are only one major attack away from the cries for more to be done like immediately after 9/11. There was a reason why the "Patriot Act" was passed without much resistance. It's because people were scared. People wanted something more to be done, and they were willing to sacrifice a little of their freedom to ensure that collectively we were all safe. But, as time has gone by, and the little bit of danger has slowly faded, people are ready and willing to ask for that freedom back, and bring us back to the same dangers that got us into the predicament we were in back in 2001.

I'm not suggesting anything as extreme as the patriot act. Because, that went to far. But in my opinion, the screenings are a catch-all for the missed report on that one individual that some CIA agent inadvertently forgot to file, and therefore that individual didn't make it on the no-fly list. The ability for TSA agents to actually screen us, sacrificing a little bit of our privacy, gives anybody and everybody who either flies in the air, or decides to go shopping this holiday season, the security of knowing that for as best as we can control, nobody boarded a flight with the resources to fly it into a busy and crowded shopping mall. Nobody's "rights" are being violated here. No, instead, if you choose to fly on an airplane, then you are choosing to make the aircraft safe for everybody on board.

Thank you for reading. As always, comments, questions, and anything else are welcome. Be clear, be fair, and be willing to discuss. Hate-filled comments, or the like, will not be tolerated.

Thanks,

Casey