I know everyone here has said it until they're blue in the face, but why is this simple fact not repeated over and over again:

The Bush tax cuts were not fiscally responsible.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were not fiscally responsible

The Medicare Prescription Drug plan was not fiscally responsible.

And these things have done and will continue doing more to spin this nation into inescapable debt than anything else the Dems have proposed in the past year.

Yet, all the people who promoted these events and voted for them are now able to stand up and block real help for millions of Americans by claiming it's not fiscally responsible. Am I losing my mind? Why isn't this an issue for the left?

I am currently an active duty female officer in the Navy, and here are some thoughts I have about DADT (and McPeak's column). The flaw in his thinking is that male bonding can only occur among straight men, when, in fact, people bond through shared experience. Women and men can bond as a team, and I have experienced this in my line of work.

There already are gays in the military, everyone in the military knows someone who is gay, and yet, we continue to form tightly knit groups.

Just as with the racial and gender integration of the military, the burden is with the majority to accept the minority. The problem is not gays (or blacks or women). The problem is with the people who are in a position to accept the changes, but refuse to do so.

And, let's be honest. This whole debate about "unit cohesion" is just a euphimism for homophobia. If it weren't, what, exactly, could a homosexual do to undermine said unit cohesion? This is all about straight men who are afraid of being on the receiving end of some wayward homosexual advance. It's absurd. Especially when you consider how many of these men have acted inappropriately with straight women.

As for whether or not we're "sissifying" our military, I think the point has been demonstrated repeatedly that heroism and bravery are not exclusive to hyper-masculine men. Women continue to serve in very trying roles and have not detracted from our ability to wage warfare.

I have to ask honestly, are these people afraid that we're going to start wearing rainbow camouflage? That the military is going to become fabulous and fierce?? It's ridiculous. And, if they're going to stereotype gay men as sissies, what about the other stereotype of lesbians as masculine? Wouldn't that, in theory, be better for the military? The military attracts certain types of people, gay or straight. I find it hard to believe that this would change if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.

Finally, McPeak wrongly equates homosexuality with disability in his discussion of civil rights. Again, just as with racial and gender integration, if a homosexual meets the physical and educational guidelines set forth, there is no reason to exclude them.

If we are to continue to operate as a volunteer-based force, we must be open to accepting the best and the brightest. Period. Gay or straight, man or woman, black, white or brown, these should not be the deciding factors. The mililtary does not need to be a place of caveman-like behavior. The more professionalism we show, the better our fighting force is. Through the racial and gender integration process, our military has only increased in the levels of professionalism expected and demanded. This is another test of our commitment to equality and justice for all, and the only way we can succeed as a nation is to live the values that we preach and repeal DADT.

In case you haven't noticed, Dick Cheney has been touring the conservative media, engaging in a hate-fueled circle jerk as they fantasize about what the Bush era wasn't. And the media, even the mainstream media is just eating this up. But no one is talking about the obvious: Cheney is so fucking wrong, there's almost no words to describe. Seriously, I looked up "wrong" in a thesaurus and I think we have to use all of them just to get close to his level.

The thing that's really bothering me is that Cheney even has any credibility to discuss anything. Let's check it out:

1) Saddam Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Wrong.

2) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Wrong.

3) We will be greeted as liberators. Wrong.

4) The insurgency is in its last throes. Wrong.


And that's just some of the stuff dealing with Iraq. We won't even get into the rest of his "policies." The point is, not only was he wrong, he lied. He knew the facts didn't support his point of view, so he pressured analysts, waged a media war, and lied to the American people. We know this now.

The question remains, what credibility does he have left? Why would we listen when we know he had a "detainees" file in his office? When we know he purposely obscured and delayed the information provided to Congress? What legs does a man who started an unnecessary war for profit, while abandoning a legitimate mission directly related to 9/11, causing it to devolve and spread into neighboring countries, even stand on?

The answer: None. Dick Cheney is nothing but a crazy old man who's scared shitless about being prosecuted. For someone who was so wrong about so many things, it's shocking that people would even give any of his delusions credence. As if he knows what policies make and keep a country safe. More Americans have died in Iraq than they did in 9/11 and what does America have to show for it? A war in Pakistan, too? Super.

No, we don't want his opinion on what the Obama administration is doing wrong, considering his track record. We don't care if he doesn't like the closing of Guantanamo. Frankly, if he doesn't like it, we do. In fact, 63% of people still have an unfavorable view of Cheney. Compare that to the fact that 66% of people approve of Obama.

Seriously, I've had my fill of Dick, so stop trying to cram more down my throat.

And, Dick, I have a news flash for you, 9/11 happened in 2001. You don't get a pass for that. You were in office for eight years, so stop talking about the last seven and a half.

check out my website for more

and, I realized that I am now terrified to buy non-local eggs. I guess I never really thought about where my eggs came from until last week. I didn't buy eggs at the grocery store because I wanted to buy them from the farmer's market instead. The thought of financing that animal torture operation is too much!