Various Direct Links

13 July 2012

Response to Anonymous Bigot

Yesterday I wrote a response to Eugene Delgaudio's lie-filled e-mail.  An anonymous user responded with a different pack of lies.  There are enough lies that I am responding in a new post.

All he is saying and informing others is that the gay movement is very strong and lethal. 
Very strong and lethal?  Neither.

First, gay movement implies that one chooses to be gay.  Sorry.  If that were true, most of the gays of my generation would be straight.  They are not.  We'll look at some of the science of this a little later in this post.

The strength of the LGBTQ Community is that we are second class citizens who are begging for equality.  If we were "strong" we would already be equal.  We are not.  If we were so strong, it would not be legal to fire a person for being gay, as is the case in most states.  As noted in the graphic, below, it is legal to fire someone based solely on their sexuality in twenty-nine states (thanks to GLAAD).  This is why ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is so important.

What is lethal about being gay is the environment that bullies and liars create.  Most gays and lesbians who are not confronted with unnecessary challenges would live normal lives.  The myth of short lifespans was published as a now discredited set of studies by Paul Cameron.  There was also a Canadian study exploring lifestyles in Vancouver thirty years ago which has its authors asking that it not be used to spread homophobia.

Bottom line, is that the LGBTQ Community exists in a struggle for political and legal equality, not strength.  Our lifestyles are varied, but not inherently lethal.

It has, in many states, inforced homosexual lifestyle education to be taught as an alternate way of life "and should be tried and experienced by everyone to truely see if this is something that could be a way of life for you or not". They teach this from grade 1 and up. Are you kidding me. We don't teach normal sexual activity between male and female until jr high and you want to get to the kids at a younger age to twist and confuse their thinking. 
Not at all true.  First, the goal of the LGBTQ Community is acceptance, not coercion.  Even if we wanted to sway people to a different sexual orientation, it is unlikely that we would often succeed.  This is not hyperbole.  This is the belief of our major medical and psychological organization.

On Tuesday of this week the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytical Association, and several of the California chapters filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

II.  Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality, Is
Generally Not Chosen, And Is Highly Resistant To Change.

That is the title from a section that starts on page 17 of the pdf.  A little more from that section:

Current scientific and professional understanding is that the core feelings that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence, without any necessary prior sexual experience.

The Brief goes on to refute claims of reparative therapy.

Wake up. Homosexual activity is as sick and twisted and pedophillia. 
I am wide awake.  Unlike pedophilia, homosexuality is about sex between consenting adults.  Children cannot give legal consent.  Even if children appear to be consensual, one cannot assume that they understand sexuality and its benefits and consequences.  Sex with children is wrong.  Correlating adult homosexuals with pedophiles is wrong.

The most famous pedophile so far this year is Jerry Sandusky, with all of the information not yet in.  Please note that Mr. Sandusky appeared to be a heterosexual.  In fact, buried in the FBI statistics, most pedophiles are male and most of their victims are female (not that any sexual abuse of a child should be seen as heterosexual or homosexual, it is child abuse period.)

No.  Making this all caps does not make it more true, only more annoying.  Our sexuality is inherent.  Yelling that it is chosen does not change the medical and psychological facts.

I am not condeming those into those live styles, it's like a drunk.... a person who needs help. 
In fact, you are condemning me and all other gays.  What I need is not help but to be left alone to live my life without your harassment.

Dont' tell me it's natural if all the gay lobbiest do is to force it down the publics throats and try to make it legal to be force and taught to school children of all ages. 
No one is teaching children to be homosexual or heterosexual in our schools.  That is among the big lies of those who have been challenging California's SB-48 legislation, the The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act.  What is being taught is that we should tolerate and accept each other, both in what we have in common and in how we differ.

I will be damned if I would let my 4 boys be taught life and told that, that is an alternative way of life. If you want to live that lifestyle keep it to yourself. 
I don't know what you mean by "taught life".  Schools are expected to teach children to become adults and handle the variety of situations that life will throw at them.  To prepare students, we teach them about math and language, physical exercise and sports, and the complexities of society.  We don't teach children how to be sexual.  We teach life skills, not life styles.

I can only assume that you want schools to ignore parts of society that you don't like.  So, you want your sons to be taught lies.  Homosexuality is real and there are homosexuals in every culture and have been for all of recorded history.  Pretending otherwise is a lie.

There is no single "homosexual lifestyle".  Just as for heterosexuals, some attend more parties than others; some do more community service and give to charity more than others; some work to save the world while others waste the resources we have.  Stereotyping of either homosexuals or heterosexuals is not useful.

Don't pay off government officials to pass and enforce all kinds of laws that will force the 97% of the public that want nothing to do with this lifestyle for themselves or their families to be a manditory taught practice in school.
We agree that bribery is awful.  It is awful no matter who is doing so.  When the National Organization for Marriage is offering two million dollars to New York State Senators that is wrong.

Using phrases like "this lifestyle" and "a manditory taught practice in school" is lying.  Not useful for any meaningful dialogue.

Rather than continue the hyperbole, let's look at the real information about LGBTQ people and their relationships.  The following is from section III of the Amicus Brief we talked about previously.

III. Sexual Orientation and Relationships.

Like heterosexuals, gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships, and many of them do: numerous studies of gay and lesbian people show that the vast majority of participants have been in a committed relationship at some point in their lives, that large proportions are currently in such a relationship (40-70% of gay men and 45-80% of lesbian women), and that many of those couples have been together 10 or more years. Recent surveys based on probability samples support these findings. Data from the 2010 US Census shows that same-sex couples headed more than 600,000 US households and more than 90,000 in California, including more than 18,000 married couples in California and more than 130,000 married couples in the United States.

Empirical research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

Perhaps I should have simply deleted the hate and lies of "Anonymous".  I was tempted to do so.  But, it is sometimes important to respond to lies with truth instead of ignoring the hate and just moving on.

12 July 2012

FollowUp 6: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Advocate Banner
Dear Some,
So begins the latest lie from Eugene Delgaudio.  This time it is a lie regarding potential litigation.
Another attack came sooner than even I feared.
I have just found out the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is launching another attack on myself and Public Advocate as a whole.
No.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is not launching an attack.  They are responding, yesterday in the linked blog post, to Mr. Delgaudio's appropriation and modification of copyright materials without attribution or payment.  They are responding to Mr. Delgaudio taking that material, an engagement photograph, a shot of love, and turning it into a tool for hate.  It is Mr. Delgaudio who launched the attack.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is the defender of what is right.  The following in bold is from the linked site.

It was supposed to be a reminder of one of the most special days shared by Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere – their engagement photo.

The black-and-white photograph shows the two men kissing with the New York City skyline in the background. The picture was one of several that Edwards posted on his blog to allow friends and family unable to attend the couple’s wedding to share their joy. But what was supposed to be a symbol of the life-long commitment between two people in love was hijacked by an anti-gay hate group.

Recently, the men discovered their photo had been taken from the Internet and used in an anti-gay mailer to attack a political candidate in Colorado. The city skyline had been removed from the background and replaced with snow-covered trees one might find in Colorado. Bold words, on a red background, were added: “State Senator Jean White’s idea of ‘Family Values?’” White supported Colorado’s civil union legislation.

“This photo represented our love and commitment and the many challenges we have overcome in order to share our lives together,” Edwards said. “When I first saw how our photo had been publicly destroyed and used against gay and lesbian families, I was shocked, heartbroken and livid. I don’t want this to happen to another gay or lesbian couple.”

Neither the couple, nor the photographer, knew about the doctored photo until a friend of the couple informed them. The mailer was the work of Public Advocate of the United States, a Falls Church, Va., organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as an anti-gay hate group.

Today, the SPLC sent a cease-and-desist letter to the group and Eugene Delgaudio, its president. The letter, sent on behalf of the couple and photographer Kristina Hill, warns that the SPLC is investigating the unauthorized use of the copyrighted photo and demands that Delgaudio, Public Advocate and anyone acting on their behalf immediately stop using the photo. It asks Delgaudio to confirm within 10 days that he and Public Advocate have stopped using the photo.

The rest of the article, including the original and the doctored photographs, can be seen at the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Mr. Delgaudio's e-mail continues.
Last week I sent you several emails warning that the SPLC was determined to destroy our organization and our cause.
Together, you helped me raise a decent amount of money for the coming fight, but I must admit that we fell short of my goal...
And with the enemy so suddenly upon us, I am very worried.
So, again, Mr. Delgaudio is after money.  He enriches himself at the expense of the happiness of others.  Evil.
This attack is forming quickly -- I have not even received anything in writing, but they have already leaked it to the press.
Leaked it?  No.  Released it.  A leak implies that there is something to keep secret.
They again claim that Public Advocate is a “hate group” simply because you and I refuse to embrace the Homosexual Agenda.
No.  You don't need to embrace anything and you will not be labelled a hate group.  Mr. Delgaudio makes money by encouraging hate and working actively against equality.
And they are demanding I “cease all operations” in this fight.
Almost.  This is close to true.  The Southern Poverty Law Center's cease and desist letter calls on Mr. Delgaudio to "immediately cease and desist any further unauthorized use of Brian and Tom’s images and likenesses, and any further unauthorized use of Kristina’s copyrighted photos or other intellectual property."  It would be good if they could call upon Mr. Delgaudio to cease all operations, but that's not what's happening in this particular case.  Mr. Delgaudio chose to start this fight and the Southern Poverty Law Center is attempting to end it.  That is what a cease and desist letter is all about.
Public Advocate could soon be facing a serious legal battle for supposed “hate crimes” against the Homosexual Lobby.
The particular cease and desist letter is about intellectual property rights, not hate crimes.  Mr. Delgaudio is, again, imagining future scenarios.  (He is a liar).
My lawyers have warned me not to go into anymore details, but I can assure you this:
As long as I am able, I will continue to fight for the Family.
That is to say, he is going to continue to fight against my family, against the family of Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere, and against all other LGBTQ families.  The supposed warning from his attorneys does not make sense.  Any reasonable attorney would simply tell him to stop using the copyrighted material.
I will send you more information once I receive their letter and my legal team has a chance to review it.
He received it by e-mail before he sent his letter to everyone on his mailing list, begging for more money.
Your public advocate,
Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States
P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.
Sorry to remove the link where he begs for money.  That is Mr. Delgaudio's obvious goal.
Because Public Advocate of the U.S. is a non-profit, charitable organization that fights the radical agenda of the homosexual Lobby, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. This email was not produced or emailed at taxpayer expense. Public Advocate's phone number is (703) 845-1808, its address is 5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17 Falls Church, VA 22041, and its website is
It is obnoxious that his hate is not taxed.

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.
13 June 2012, FollowUp 5.

08 July 2012

Pondering Healthcare

There have been lots of articles in the news and blogosphere lately about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as ObamaCare.  It has been controversial for some time, but I would like to take a different type of look at some of the history leading up to the ACA and then at what I consider to be significant flaws.

A Little of the History of Health Care

The idea for something like the ACA is neither new nor the product of just one political party.  One President who called for healthcare reform in a similar format to the ACA was Richard Milhouse Nixon in his budget address to the Congress in 1974:
I am once again proposing a comprehensive plan for national health insurance that would make adequate insurance against the costs of health care available to all Americans. This far-reaching reform is long overdue. I urge early congressional action on it. The budget proposes measures to prepare for this program.
President Nixon included a few more details in that address.
The national health insurance plan I am proposing represents another major step toward improving the lives of individual Americans. My proposal calls for basic reform in the financing of medical care. It would bring comprehensive insurance protection against medical expenses within reach of all Americans, including millions of people who cannot now obtain adequate insurance coverage. Costs of coverage for low-income families would be federally supported, with payments scaled according to family income.
It will take several years for this reform to become fully operational. In the interim, the 1975 budget provides $26.3 billion for existing health programs. Under this budget, the momentum of cancer, heart, and other research initiatives would be sustained, and total funding for biomedical research would exceed $2 billion in 1975, almost double the 1969 level. To support continued reform of our medical care system, the budget proposes a total of $125 million in 1974 and 1975 to demonstrate health maintenance organization concepts throughout the Nation. I am also proposing a Health Resources Planning Act to enhance State and regional capabilities and responsibilities for planning and regulating health services.
Congress did not act on Nixon's request.  Nor was there action under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, or Bush (43).  This is despite repeated calls for health care in their various messages to Congress.  (The following are examples and should not been seen as exhaustive or complete).

President Gerald Ford
America needs to improve the way it pays for medical care. We should begin plans for a comprehensive national health insurance system. However, in view of the economic developments and the measures I have proposed to combat recession and inflation, I cannot now propose costly new programs. Once our current economic problems are behind us, the development of an adequate national medical insurance system should have high national priority. I urge the Congress to work with my Administration in order to devise a system that we will be able to afford.
President James Earl Carter
about a comprehensive national health insurance program, which can extend health care coverage to millions of needy Americans while controlling health care costs; and about the need for a human rights policy, which I believe is essential in the pursuit of our foreign policy.
President Ronald Wilson Reagan
I am asking Congress to help give Americans that last full measure of security, to provide a health insurance plan that fights the fear of catastrophic illness. My plan would provide acute care for those over 65 by restructuring the Medicare program. Under my proposal, the elderly would receive catastrophic health care coverage under Medicare, while limiting out-of-pocket expenses to $2,000. This coverage will be made available for an additional monthly Medicare premium of $4.92. The plan also aims to improve protection for the general population and for the long-term care of the elderly. For too long, many of our senior citizens have been faced with making an intolerable choice—a choice between bankruptcy and death. This proposed legislation would go a long way to help solve that dilemma.
President George Herbert Walker Bush
Infant and maternal health is an area where we must invest in the future. It is also an area where we must all be committed to improvement. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that the infant mortality rate for black infants is nearly twice that for whites.
This legislation does not do all that we want to do, but it does do what we can do at this time.
President William Jefferson Clinton
Today is an historic day. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has become the first full congressional committee to report out a health care reform bill. The action of Chairman Kennedy's committee gives me great confidence that Congress will pass legislation this year that meets the expectation of the American people: guaranteed private insurance for every American that can never be taken away. Once again, Chairman Kennedy has demonstrated the leadership that has made him a driving force in the fight for quality health care for the last three decades.
Under the leadership of Chairman Moynihan, the Senate Finance Committee is moving. Chairman Moynihan is committed to achieving universal coverage and bringing legislation to the American people this year.
For the first time in our history, committees in both the Senate and the House are seriously moving forward on health care reform. While much work remains, today's actions prove that the job will be done. The momentum demonstrated in the House and Senate this week is heartening to me and all Americans who want and deserve real health security.
President George Walker Bush
This bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights reflects the principles I laid out earlier this year. It provides strong patient protections for all Americans, ensures that doctors and patients make medical decisions, and holds health plans accountable by providing patients with meaningful remedies when they have been wrongly denied medical care. The bill also protects employers and their employees from unnecessary litigation that would increase health care premiums and force too many Americans to do without health insurance.
While the details vary, all of these Presidents of the United States attempted to get some form of additional healthcare for average Americans.  They all failed.  President Obama is the first to get legislation passed, but it doesn't quite make sense.

My complaint is not with the individual mandate which the GOP and Fox News have inaccurately called the largest tax ever.  As a penalty or a tax, the concept is necessary if we are going to have private health insurers managing our health care.  That last bit is my personal biggest problem with the ACA and should be the second biggest problem for Republicans.

First Concern with the ACA

Despite the cries of fear that the government is taking over your healthcare.  Despite the silliness that the government is getting between your doctor and you.  The reality is that private companies are in charge of your healthcare and are getting between your doctor and you.  That might be reasonable, but those companies have a bottom line goal of spending as little as possible.  Their goal is not to keep you as healthy as possible.  Their goal is not to ease the hassles of getting the care you need to survive.  Their goal, as is the goal of every other private corporation, is to earn money.

The ACA is good in that someone with a preexisting condition can now get health insurance.  One cannot be thrown off of health insurance completely because one's care is starting to become expensive.  The insurers are now required to spend eighty percent of their income on health care (that part is dramatic reform).  Those are all good points.

But, that does not change the insurer's goal of making money.  Their only reason to take reasonable care of you is if there is competition and you might change insurers.  The state exchanges that have so many Republican governors concerned might help with this, but it is an idea that has not be tried yet.

Second Concern with the ACA

If a concern is cost to business, why are we perpetuating an employer based health insurance system?

Many who complain about the ACA are complaining that it will cost jobs because it will cost small businesses too much.  The reason it is costing businesses anything at all is because after World War II some businesses added health care as a benefit to attract employees.  This was not mandated by the government.  It was a business choice.

Since that time, we have gone from having a primarily domestic economy to having a global economy.  The businesses which are competition for American businesses are mostly in countries with single payer health care systems.  Businesses in Europe and Asia do not pay for health care at all (well, they do pay taxes which in turn fund the health care but that is generally in the form of income and value added taxes that are not based on the employees).  It is not a level playing field.

Before someone jumps on me for lauding single payer systems, I will note that not all single payer systems are created equally.  One of the best systems, that of Taiwan, is supposed to be in fiscal trouble.  It is not my purpose to present any panacea for health care in this blog, just to ponder what is happening.

Third Concern with the ACA

The gimmick of pushing most of the costs out ten years is as annoying when done by Democrats as when done by Republicans.  Partly because of this, the Republicans can claim that ObamaCare is a failed system when most of it has not been put into effect yet.  Both the Democratic gimmick and the Republican attacks are lies.  Disgusting politics.

Final Thoughts for This Post

Given the Republican rejection of Republican ideas, such as the individual mandate, it is likely that nothing better than the ACA could have been accomplished during President Obama's first term in office.  While political parties are always rooting for replacement of members of the other party, they usual put country first.  The Republicans stopped doing so with the goal of replacing President Obama.  Perhaps it is racism.  Perhaps it is continued fallout from the near-impeachment and resignation of President Nixon.  Whatever the reason, the loss of the GOP as a political party that places the United States first was a huge loss.  I don't know how this can be repaired.