Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

TIME FOR TODAY'S LIGHTNING ROD

A Federal Judge today overturned California's ban on same sex marriage. My first response to that is why should anyone even care about same sex marriage. And before all the liberals, and other sane people also, start commenting, I mean that in a positive way.

All the groups that claim that same-sex marriage is destroying the moral fiber of our nation seem to be looking at the issue with blinders on. I have yet to hear any logical arguments as to exactly how the destruction of "traditional" marriage is being accomplished by same gender couples.

Maybe some of the "family values" purveyors may want to look at taking a different approach. From what I can see, it isn't same sex marriages that are destroying the institution of marriage, it is divorce that is destroying the institution of marriage. Some of the loudest voices for "traditional" marriage are actually on their second or third marriages themselves.

The Larry Kings, Donald Trumps and Elizabeth Taylor's of the world have done more to destroy the institution of marriage than any same gender couple could ever do. It has become far too easy to just dissolve a union entered into by two adults when the going gets tough. In many cases, children resulting from the marriage become the pawns in the divorce and we wonder why the kids grow up having issues.

I still look at the institution of marriage as a union that means something. I know, that's easy for me to say because I'm single. But I had the luxury of watching my parents who were married for 53 years when my father passed away. I'm sure it wasn't always easy for them, but I think they remembered those vows they took, "for better or worse, til death do us part". I know that sounds corny to some, but as in a marriage or even an agreement between friends, your word is all you have and should mean something.

Even after 53 years my parents were like newlyweds, holding hands whenever they could and being there for each other, right until the last breath was taken by my dad. Who are we to decide who has the right to have a relationship like that?

I'm not going to even get into the rights issues because most likely that battle will go on for years, but in the mean time,the zealots who consistently quote religious reasons for their opposition may want to look at the "good book" a little closer.

I am in no way a biblical scholar, not even close, but it seems that if people are going to use a document to defend a position whether it is the Bible or the US Constitution or even State Statutes, they need to be reviewed in their totality. Using select portions and ignoring the big picture is misleading and wrong.

I found the following letter on the Internet and it was apparently sent to radio crank, I mean personality, Dr. Laura Schlesinger after one of her radio rants. At first I thought it was amusing, but then it proves a very serious point. The Bible, as is also true with our Constitution and Bill of Rights, is a "living" and ever changing document and must be interpreted with intelligence and common sense as our society continues to change.

Here's the letter to Dr. Laura: (please keep the comments civil, this could be the point where I start moderating posts, hopefully not)

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Monday, August 2, 2010

WHO ARE WE TO BELIEVE ?


Pictured above, New Haven Representative Juan Candelaria, Connecticut Democratic Hispanic Caucus Chairperson Tomas Reyes, 4th District Candidate Angel Morales and former Hartford Deputy Mayor Eugenio Caro on the steps of the Capitol as they announce the "unanimous" endorsement of Morales last Friday


Kelvin Roldan apparently is entering the "battle of the endorsements".

Last week it was announced that Angel Morales was chosen as the "unanimous" choice of the Connecticut Democratic Hispanic Caucus for State Representative Candidate in the 4th District.

Now today Cityline is reporting that Roldan has received key endorsements also. My first instinct is to respond "who cares?" about the endorsements. No offense to anyone, the Courant, the CDHC or anyone else who throws their support into the ring behind a candidate.

The only endorsements that matter on election day are the endorsements of the voters who cast ballots. That the Speaker of the House endorses Kelvin Roldan, or the Courant endorses Rob Simmons or the CDHC endorses Angel Morales doesn't really play into my decision making. As explained by one speaker at the press conference announcing Angel Morales endorsement last week, Angel was endorsed because he took the time and the courtesy to attend their interview session.

Kelvin Roldan did not attend or respond and that was considered a "kick in the teeth" to the Caucus according to former Hartford Deputy Mayor Eugenio Caro, a member of the Caucus, who spoke at the press conference. Even more interesting though is the question of who is actually telling the truth.

The announcement by the CDHC of the choice of Morales was called "unanimous" according to their release. A member of the Connecticut Democratic Hispanic Caucus, New Haven Representative Juan Candelaria apparently voted for Morales. Now Kelvin Roldan is also claiming Candelaria's backing.

We have Candelaria's support in writing, where is the Roldan camps announcement. As is typical of the "Row A" candidates, hopefully Roldan just "misspoke" when he made his announcement.

But if I recall correctly, Torres, Robles and Roldan all supported, and were beholding to, Hartford's former Mayor, now convicted felon, Eddie A. Perez.

So much for endorsements.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

ANOTHER BLACK EYE FOR THE HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

Hartford Police sources are confirming for me that one of their own officers was involved in an off duty domestic incident last night in Enfield. The incident involved Officer Chris White and apparently his ex-wife at their home in Enfield. Sources are telling me that White also brandished his HPD service weapon and assaulted another male individual in the home at the time, "pistol whipping" the male with the weapon.

Enfield Police have also confirmed White's arrest on numerous charges, including Possession of a firearm under the influence,2 counts of Reckless endangerment, 2 counts of breach of peace, 2 counts of Assault 3rd, and 2 counts of Threatening.

This is apparently not the first time Officer White has been arrested on anger related issues. In a press release issued in December 2004, it states that White was arrested by the Connecticut State Police after a road rage incident. Read the full press release by clicking here here

Police officers are human also, but this is not a proud moment for the good work the Hartford Police Department is doing.

Friday, July 30, 2010

CITYLINE: "NOT A GOOD SIGN FOR KELVIN ROLDAN"


As I have stated before, to be upfront, I am the campaign manager for Angel Morales who is running against Kelvin Roldan for the 4th District legislative seat.

This article speaks for itself, so I'll just post the link and let you check it out. Click here to go to CITYLINE,

The photo of Kelvin Roldan is from "the 40 year plan" which is on summer vacation as its author Ken Krayeske studies for the Connecticut Bar exam

AS PROMISED, THE FONFARA RIBBON CUTTING VIDEO



In yesterday's posting I wrote about the new Kimberly-Clark power plant that opened and the ribbon cutting held in Milford. To view the WFSB video of the event, click here.

Notice at the end of the video, the lone public official cutting the ribbon. That is Hartford's own Senator John Fonfara.

Among the many out of state donors contributing to Fonfara's campaign was the Director of Government Affairs for Kimberly-Clark, who apparently lives in Wisconsin.

Kimberly-Clark's facility was helped by a $19 million grant from the State of Connecticut. I'll let you connect the dots and make your own call.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

CONNECTICUT HISPANIC DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ENDORSES ANGEL MORALES FOR 4TH DISTRICT SEAT


Yes, I am Angel Morales campaign manager, but I think this is worthy of posting here.

Pursuant to our conversation of Tuesday, July 27th. I am sending you this message to confirm CHDC`s unanimous endorsement of Mr. Angel Morales` candidacy to the Fourth State Representative District in Hartford. On Saturday, July 10th. the Connecticut Hispanic Democratic Caucus held interviews with candidates campaigning for various offices with the general assembly. Mr. Angel Morales of Hartford was one of these candidates. The following Tuesday, July 13th., CHDC met, deliberated, and unanimously endorsed Mr. Angel Morales to be the next state representative from the Fourth District. Based on the interview and information provided by the Hartford members of the CHDC, it was decided that Mr. Morales is an excellent and proven community leader and will make a fine legislator.
We are proud to formally endorse Angel Morales and look forward to working with him both in his campaign and once he becomes the next Fourth District State Representative.

Tomas Reyes Jr. Chair,
Connecticut Hispanic Democratic Caucus



Congratulations Angel. This endorsement speaks highly of Angel's capabilities over the incumbent legislator Angel intends to replace.