Heather:

Wanna form a common sense party? You know...kind of split things down the middle? Get both of these characatures off the pot and return to a decent, common ground? Maybe then stuff would get done in a decent manner....

I am thinking--very hard--about leaving the Reps myself right now. But I am not at all sure that I trust the Dems any further, either. And, frankly, there hasn't been a seriously viable Independant candidate since Steve Forbes--if then.

So...I nominate you for Prez, and Stevie as your Vice Prez. Or vice-versa. (I will not run for office; I tend to run FROM public offices....)

You are partially right about the Southeastern States, but many of those have been wanting to reurn to 1948 for so long I don't even count them in anymore.

Here in Indiana, there are a lot of people who are pretty conservative...but vote Democrat anyway. It's an interesting view to watch, and has almost a Canadian Socialism flavor to it. (That, incidentally, is not meant as a slur at all. It IS simply an indicator of the local political flavor here.)

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I have to agree with you about the Democratic Party. Lately, I am rather angry with them; they seem to have no voice and no direction. A few years, I gave them some money (mainly for local reasons) but I got disgruntled rather quickly. They need to reform their ideals and their message and come up with some good leaders.

Heather H.

It is time to get this forum going again. Here is the latest essay from my website.

------------

It took the United States until 2003 to accomplish what Canada accomplished in 1969 - the right of consenting adults to privacy in the bedroom has finally been recognized. What took so long? The United States espouses freedom but seems reluctant to allow the basic right to control one's own body. When these rights are acknowledged, they are typically guaranteed not by our legislative branch which represents the people but by our strong and independent judiciary. We should be thankful to the founders of our country for setting up a judicial branch which is fiercely independent, for if we relied on legislators to protect our rights, we would have no rights.

The United States is in the midst of a culture war. This country is composed of a diverse and quarrelsome mix of people who are locked in a perpetual struggle. One side of this war sees itself as the keeper of tradition; these people see the culture of the United States as a Christian-dominated, family-dominated culture which claims to espouse individual freedom, but their idea of "freedom" seems to be the freedom to conform to their ideals. These people are hostile towards those who do not conform. Gay and transgendered people are, of course, immoral people who need to be taught the error of their ways. Non-Christians may be tolerated, but just barely. Women, of course, belong in the home and not in the workplace, and racial minorities are not deservant of equal status, because they may pollute the culture. Perhaps I am exaggerating, but I do not believe I am exaggerating a great deal. This side of the culture war is somewhat diverse, and not all would agree with every statement I have just made, but their general philosophy revolves around a sense of conformity to a particular traditional culture of the United States, and they see their definition of this culture as the correct one. These are the Traditionalists - the self-appointed guardians of a mythical American tradition.

The other side of the culture war consists of the people who do not conform to the narrow cultural ideals of the Traditionalists. These are the true Individualists, those who demand the freedoms that the United States is supposed to guarantee and who will not conform to paranoid, backward-thinking cultural values. The Individualists recognize the basic human rights and dignity of all people, not just those who conform to a particular ideal. The Traditionalists have the right to practice their religion and live up to their "family values", but gay people, non-Christians, racial minorities, and all others have the right to live their lives as they please without fear of being treated like second-class citizens. People's activities in their bedrooms are not the legitimate concern of government. How people live their lives is not the legitimate concern of government, provided that these people are not hurting others. If two gay men wish to commit "sodomy" (an outdated term if ever I heard one) in the privacy of their own home, the government has no right to interfere. These backward keepers of "tradition" (actually "oppression") need to learn to mind their own business and keep out of the lives of others. If the freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the United States are to be fully realized, then the Individualists must win the culture war.

These two factions have been squabbling for a long time. Unfortunately, the United States has a far larger contingent of backward-thinking, ill-tempered Traditionalists than most other industrialized countries. These nasty people will fight any moves to recognize the basic rights and dignity of all people, and they will fight vigorously. Those of us who do not wish to be controlled must be ever vigilant, and we must fight against the backward reactionaries on all fronts. They are very well-organized and well-funded, and they have largely taken over an entire political party (the Republicans).

The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws is a small victory for freedom, but the fight will rage on. Every defeat only energizes the self-appointed guardians of "tradition" and this ruling is certain to anger them. They thrive on anger and hatred. It is a shame that the United States, a country founded on the basic values of individual rights and liberties, is so far behind most of the rest of the industrialized world in recognizing these same rights. Why should a country such as Canada be so far ahead of us? The United States needs to be jolted out of its reactionary stupor and dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.

Heather H.

Let's hope your voice is heard. The hate being spread by the reactionary Neoconservatives is deadly. I had a call a few weeks ago from the DNC asking for money. I told them no money until they start doing something about the present administration.

Ladies:

Somebody stop this planet, I want to get off.

**Sighs and reminds herself that there is no gravity...Earth sucks...**

Let us start with one basic understanding: There are too many laws on the books that are just plain stupid and mean. Many of them were passed because some other stupid and mean people were not living up to a "Societal Norm". Norms can and do change, over time, as well they should. Hopefully, we are growing up a little bit, and we soon will not have to have stupid and mean laws to protect ourselves from ourselves.

A good deal of the time, I would count myself in the "traditional values" camp. There are some things that ought not be done. Just because we can do them does not mean we should. I am not going to go there now; it wasn't a crime when I left to be conservative.

(This is where I blow you all away...)

Having said that, however,I actually agree with the bulk of Heather's statement. I feel that the Feds have no business telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my own home, behind my closed bedroom doors, with a consenting adult.

I also see where there must be some propriety, though. Having sex with children is just plain wrong. So is having sex with animals. (See? I TOLD you I was a conservative!) The neoconservatives (goddess, I HATE that title) have a valid point in that we need to stop and ask "where does this end?" They fear change. Sometimes, that fear is a good thing. It hopefully keeps us from making too many mistakes.

But like it or not, change is where we are headed. In many cases we really do need to head there. As the 82.5% time girl I am, I worry about things that, in a country such as America, I shouldn't have to worry about. I applaud the work that Phyliis-Marie is doing on her home front, even though she won't be around here much anymore. I am doing some work to help other trannies...it has started to cost me more than money; ultimately it may well cost me my marriage, my job...or both (I won't get into that here, however).

So, while I may not disagree with Heather (or the ruling, by the way) on this point, I did want to shed a little light on the "conservative agenda"...for what it is worth.

By the way, Heather--religious conservatives haven't taken over the Republicans...yet. They hold a slight majority there. I'd be more concerned about the rise of the "Conservative Democrats", as that is where many, many people are staring to migrate in SW Indiana...!

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I fully agree on the concept of "consenting adults". Sex with those unable to grant consent (children and animals) is - to me - morally repugnant. In the interest of protecting children, I have no problem with laws prohibiting sex of any kind with a child - that is a totally legitimate state interest, and fortunately I don't see that changing any time soon. Activities which directly hurt others have always been and will always be a legitimate state interest.

A little balance can be a good thing, but the so-called "neo-conservatives" do not appear to desire balance themselves; they want to set the clock back to the 1950's or earlier.

At least on a local level, I have to disagree about religious conservatives taking over the Republican Party. In Utah, the Republican Party is practically owned by the Mormon Church and a few conservative allies. I suspect a similar situation can be found in the southeastern states. The battle is not over yet in the northeastern states and some other areas.

I used to be a Republican. The conservative ideal meant, to me, a respect for individualism, and therefore a respect for individual rights. Unfortunately, they never lived up to this and they finally drove me away.

Heather H.

OK, I'll writein our candidate in the next primary. Just give me a name in time. It'll have to be in the Democratic primary. I could never abide by any group that moves in lock-step. Also the opposition is now being called "neocons."