disoriented

Green as Gore

The dis-oriented author is as green as Al Gore. I am not an environmental crusader like the former vice president. Unlike Gore I have not won the Nobel Peace prize for my environmental activism. But I am greener than Gore.

Living in a modest house in the suburbs, even with my family of ten, I have a smaller carbon footprint than Gore.

It's kind of cool, I am black as Barack and greener than Gore. For all his talk of carbon footprints and sustainability, Gore is a hypocrite.

I don't know how many people live in Gore's house but my household of ten manages in a 2300 square foot ranch home. Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot 20 room 8 bath mansion.

According to the Tenessee Center for Policy Research:

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

...

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

...

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Of course Gore's publicist responds that his energy use is consistent with the square footage of his house. True, if all of us had 10,000 square foot homes we would all have a carbon footprint like Gore's. The problem is we don't. In fact based on real energy usage I am greener than Gore. On a square footage basis our usage may be comparable (actually my usage is less because Mrs Dis-Oriented Author keeps the thermostat high in summer and low in winter.) But I manage to support 10 people on that footprint. Of course these numbers do not take into account Gore's two other homes.

BTW, the last time I went to the grocery store, I rode my bicycle.

The Larry Craig Memorial Men's Room

The dis-oriented author is a business traveler. I fly between 75,000 and 100,000 miles a year and because I live in the upper midwest most of those miles are on Northwest Airlines. As it turns out most of those flights connect in Minneapolis.

This week when I flew through MSP, I took a photo of the Larry Craig Memorial Men's Room.

I couldn't resist.

Senator Larry Craig & Gay Marriage

The dis-oriented author is not a homophobe. I prefer to think of my self as anti-gay. The juxtaposition of Senator Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis airport restroom and a judge throwing out Iowa's law banning gay marriage was to much to resist. Several other bloggers have suggested that if gay marriage were legal that Senator Craig would not have been cruising for sex in the men's room.

Somehow I fail to see the connection.

I guess the logic goes like this. If gay marriage were legal, Craig could settle down into a happy monogamous  gay relationship and enjoy gay sex with his partner in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Somehow I do not see it. If this were true, there should be no cruising culture in San Francisco. In San Francisco, and many other large cities, there is little or no stigma attached to being gay. There are, so we are told, many committed long-term gay relationships. Yet San Francisco remains a hotbed of anonymous gay sex.

Likewise if cruising is the result of a lack of legal recognition for gay unions — why is lesbian cruising not as prevalent as gay male cruising? In fact, I am certain that if heterosexual men could go cruising to have anonymous sex with women they would — every chance they could.

It seems to me that cruising is a simply the  result of males seeking anonymous sex with no emotional attachment. To suggest that allowing gay marriage would eliminate cruising is like suggesting that  heterosexual eliminates prostitution and strip clubs.

In short men, even gay men are pigs.

Senator Larry Craig and the Minneapolis Airport

The dis-oriented is a conservative Republican. I could not help but notice the story about Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig being arrested for disorderly conduct in an Minneapolis Airport (MSP) men's room.

Craig was arrested for soliciting an undercover male officer for sex. Craig pleaded guilty this week to a misdemeanor charge in the case. After Craig's plea, his home state newspaper, The Idaho Statesman, broke a story about a man who claims to have had sex with Craig in a restroom in Washington DC's Union Station.

Craig is a Republican who has always stood for family values. He has been a vocal opponent of gay rights legislation. I believe that Craig should resign. Not because he is gay but because he is a hypocrite.

I am also a business traveler who travels through MSP almost 40 times a year and I had no idea that it was a gay crusing hotspot.

Reading coverage of the Craig arrest, I learned that he was arrested in a men's room stall by an undercover officer. Craig did not actually perform any lewd acts but according to the arresting officer, Craig used standard signals indicating that he was interested in sex.

Hmm... I wonder what those signals are? Apparently Craig xxx things:

1. tapped his foot
2. touched the officer's foot with his foot
3. reached under the stall with his hand — palm up
4. rubbed the bottom of the divider with his hand
5. blocked the door with his luggage

I guess I'll have to be careful next time I am in MSP. I have been known to tap my feet in the men's room while listening to my MP3 player. I also always block the door to the stall with my luggage. I am a big guy and there is no other place to put luggage in those tiny stalls.

So while I may tap my foot or block the door with  my luggage, I have never reached under the stall or rubbed the bottom of it palm up or palm down. And I have never even accidentally touched someone else's foot in the next stall. Apparently these signals are well known on gay cruising sites.

As an MSP traveler, I was curious, which men's room did the arrest take place in. The Minnesota Monitor pinpointed the location. It is the men's room in the main 'mall' area, from the description, I think it is near where the shoeshine stand is (or was).

I'll have to make sure I don't send the wrong signals, next time I am in MSP.

I Support the Troops but Oppose the War

The dis-oriented author has been a reluctant supporter of the so-called war in Iraq. Almost three years ago, I began posting on the topic (see my2004 post: The so-called War in Iraq) though my misgivings go back to the days before the invasion.

Let me clarify what I mean by my opposition to the war. I mean that I think it was ill-advised to go into Iraq. I also believe that if we were going to overthrow a sovereign government, we should have had a real declaration of war.

But, that was then, this is now. We are in Iraq and to pull out now would be a disaster.

Many of my Republican friends would say that it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the was. I beg to differ. I have already indicated my opposition to the war — what about my support for troops?

I am writing this post from Columbia, South Carolina. I am here to celebrate my son Jonathan's graduation from Army Basic Training at Fort Jackson. In the past two years, my oldest two sons have both joined the armed forces. My oldest son Jedidiah is currently at his Advanced Individual Training (AIT) as a US Navy Sailor. Jonathan will leave this weekend for his AIT. Both of my boys volunteered for military service in the midst of the current conflict.

Despite my feelings about the initial decision to go to war, I support the troops.

 

Jedidiah

Jonathan

Full Circle on Race

The dis-oriented author comes from a mixed race background. I am both Asian as this blog title suggests and Black as Barack. I have lived in cultures where I was part of the racial majority and others where I was part of a racial minority. Therefore I have been very keenly aware of racial politics in America throughout my adult life.

This week the Supreme Court ruled in two similar cases on racial preferences in K-12 educaiton: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. of Education. In these cases the court ruled that race may not be used as a factor in assigning children to K-12 schools.

The court votes against discrimination on the basis of race and the Democrats are up in arms! It is a great day to be an Republican.

It is interesting to see the history of some of the Supreme Courts rulings on race.

In 1954 the court decided the landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the court ruled that states could not provide separate schools for blacks and whites. After Brown we became accustomed to hearing, separate but equal is not equal. Brown was a victory for civil rights.

In the summer of 1978  the Supreme Court rule in landmark race case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke decreed that race could be one factor among many in considering college admissions but it was largely a victory because it also declared that racial quotas by themselves were unconstitutional. It was Bakke that added the phrase reverse discrimination to the language. Bakke was mostly a victory for civil rights.

In 2003 the Supreme Court decided Grutter v. Bollingeret al. Like Bakke, Grutter was an admissions case at the University of Michigan. Unlike Bakke, Grutter was a defeat because the decision unambiguously declared:

The Court endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions.

Grutter was a defeat for civil rights.

The most recent ruling is definitely a victory for civil rights. How is it that those who fought for so long to be equal — not separate now want to be treated separately but not equally? It was interesting to hear all the Democrat candidates blasting the ruling.

What is wrong with color blind equality.

Polygamy and Freedom of Religion

The dis-oriented author has been watching the Warren Jeffs story with interest. I knew that Jeffs was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. In the Jeffs case the issue was arranging marriages of underage girls rather than his own polygamy. I am glad that Jeffs is behind bars as I write these words.

But on the issue of polygamy at large, I find my views more conflicted.

I heard a radio talk show host asking people whether they could name the Five Freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The host was discouraged because most listeners could not name more than one. Only one? I rattled them off to myself quickly:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. Freedom of Assembly
5. Freedom to petition the government for redress of a grievance

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supporters of polygamy, like those who held a rally in Utah last week, claim that it is a freedom of religion issue. While I think polygamy is wrong, I have trouble disagreeing with their point of view. The Mormon (LDS) Church disavowed polygamy in 1890 as a requirement for statehood. Many in the church saw this as giving up the true faith and selling out to the government.

Warren Jeff's Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) were born because the main LDS church changed their position on polygamy or plural marriage. Clearly I am opposed to forced marriages as performed by Jeffs, especially involving unwilling minors. But from a religious freedom point of view I have some trouble saying that the government has a vested interest in preventing consenting adults from entering into plural marriage.

I guess I see it in about the same light as gay marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction homosexuals marriage but like President I am not opposed to civil unions. If two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil relation and grant each other certain property rights and end of life decision making power — so be it. I still believe that homosexual behavior is sinful but I would not make it illegal.

I have the same view of plural marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction it but consenting adults, even more so because of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment, should have the right to enter into such a sinful relationship.

Some may say, "Wait a minute, I thought you were a Christian political activist!"

Indeed I am but I have no desire to live in a theocracy. In fact historically when Christianity has been the state religion — the results have almost always been bad.

Now, I do not believe that the government should treat freedom of religion as absolute. At the extreme few would argue that human sacrifices should be allowed even if they are a deeply held religious belief.

But in those areas that are not critical to public health and safety — I think the government should be very reluctant to place limits on our freedoms. Catholics may exclude women from the priesthood. I still feel that Bob Jones University should not have been forced to admit blacks. And consenting Mormon adults should probably be allowed plural civil unions.

Now, personally I disagree with the Catholic Church on the whole institution of the priesthood, I think Bob Jones University was completely mis-interpreting scripture in excluding blacks form campus and I think Mormons (LDS, FLDS or whatever) are a cult.

I believe these things because as an American I support the Constitution of the United States.

Kofi Annan Unhinged

The dis-oriented author believes it is a tragedy that Israeli shelling killed two United Nations observers in southern Lebanon. Tragedy yes, but the fortunes of war. War zones are dangerous. The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is bad enough without UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan butting in.

This time Annan crossed the line of irresponsibility when he suggested that Israel deliberately targeted The UN observers.

This is Kofi Annan's statement from Rome today:

I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead.

This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire.  Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the United Nations Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular United Nations position from attack.

I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demand that any further attack on United Nations positions and personnel must stop.

It's bad enough that the United Nations has become irrelevant — now it is counter-productive.

Doing a Job that Americans Won't Do

The dis-oriented author has been closely following the debate on immigration. I am a US Citizen, my mother is from Guam and was made a US Citizen by the Organic Act of 1950. My father was a British subject (Jamaican citizen in 1962), he lived in the US for almost 55 years and held a green card as a permanent resident alien. Myself, I was born and raised in the United States.

This week the Associated Press quoted President Bush saying:

If you are doing a job that Americans won't do, you're welcome here for a period of time to do that job.

Perhaps we should have illegal aliens control our borders — that's the real job that Americans won't do.

I keep hearing that phrase — a job that Americans won't do. I assume that means things like washing dishes, working in the fields or janitorial work.

Hey, wait a minute, I've done all of those jobs. It must have been downright un-American of me to take those jobs. Now in my case, those jobs were transitional and none of them were meant to be a full-time career for me or my family would be at the poverty level.

Hmm... if illegal aliens take those jobs under some sort of amnesty, they would become guest workers. Then their families can live at or below the poverty level. Sound like a plan. But wait, under amnesty, these illegals would not have to work under the table in the secret economy. They would have an opportunity to be productive members of society themselves.

But then who would do the jobs that guest workers won't do? I guess we'd have to import more illegal aliens.

UNC Jihad

The dis-oriented author is confused. I don't get it, an Islamic terrorist attacks students at an American university and the press refuses to call it an act of terrorism. On March 4th, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar an Iranian graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill drove his SUV into a crowd of students.

Taheri-azar said that he carried out the attack to:

avenge the treatment of Muslims ... thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

Part of the problem is that while the United States is not at war with Islam — Muslim rhetoric says otherwise. Taheri-azar apparently believed himself to be a soldier in that war. When I first heard of this incident, I did a double-take. UNC? Chapel Hill?

I thought I remembered that shortly after 9/11 UNC required incoming freshmen to read the Koran. I looked it up and according to CNN, incoming freshmen and transfer students were required to read Approaching the Qur'an: The Early  Revelations a book which contains numerous Koran passages. These students would then write a one page paper on the book and could expect professors to discuss it in many of their first-year classes.

Of course, this was controversial in the summer after 9/11. Less than a year after 9/11 the forces of political correctness were hard at work making UNC a more enlightened campus. Many students, Christian and Jewish groups protested. The UNC program however survived all of the court challenges. Fast forward four years.

Apparently the program didn't work too well. Perhaps if students had read the entire Koran and converted to Islam then Taheri-azar would have attacked students on another campus.

Here we have an Islamic foreign national performing a terrorist act against civilians on US soil. Why can't the press call a spade a spade.