Sad Day In The Senate-Immigration Reform is Dead

Those of us expecting some action on the part of the Senate regarding Immigration are sure disappointed today. Not only our representatives have shown lack of guts to tackle this issue but also there are some who don’t deserve our vote next time around. Among others, John Ensign of Nevada who among other 16 changed his vote at the last minute, helping defeat the proposal.
Another bit of bad news comes from the Democrat’s side. 16 of them voted against showing very little in what party support may mean.

In short, this Senate is doing basically nothing, not only on this issue but others like Iraq, having bent their will - or so we believe - to the President’s desire to keep going on that front.
A shameful spectacle for those who really want something done in the matter of immigration, border security and employment verification.
Now they can go home and feel patriotic in their own feeble minds, but voters, especially Hispanics, should remember these actions at the time to cast their ballots.

Now the future is the same as yesterday, nothing will change, we will continue to have illegal immigration, we will continue to have employers hiring those illegal immigrants. And we will enlarge the pool of illegal immigrants beyond the estimated 12 million here.

A lot of talk and lukewarm debates on the floor on the part of the respective Senators just to show their districts that they are doing “something”. What, I don’t know, because in fact “nothing” has been accomplished to date.

When they go back home, if you were expecting some results of this entire charade, tell those who voted No that that’s exactly what they’ll get when asking for your support next time around.




Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Alaska: Yes
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: No
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado: No
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming: No
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana: No
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana: No
Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah: Yes
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware: Yes
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: No
Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Missouri: No
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California: Yes
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: No
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: No
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky: No
Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina: No
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia: No
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: Yes
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland: Yes
Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: Yes
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pennsylvania: Yes
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia: No
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York: Yes
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma: No
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Mississippi: No
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota: No
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine: No
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota: Yes
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee: No
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: No
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho: Yes
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho: No
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina: No
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut: Yes
Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-North Carolina: No
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico: No
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota: No
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois: Yes
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada: No
Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming: No
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin: Yes
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California: Yes
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina: Yes
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: No
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: Yes
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: Yes
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa: No
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: No
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas: No
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: No
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii: Yes
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia: No
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota: Not Voting, Recuperating from stroke)
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: Yes
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: Yes
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota: Yes
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: Yes
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona: Yes
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: No
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey: Yes
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont: Yes
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan: Yes
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut: Yes
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Arizona: Yes
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi: Yes
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana: Yes
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida: Yes
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona: Yes
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri: No
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: No
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey: Yes
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland: Yes
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: No
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington: Yes
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: No
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida: Yes
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: Yes
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas: No
Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island: Yes
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada: Yes
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas: No
Sen. John Rockefeller, D-West Virginia: No
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colorado: Yes
Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vermont: No
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York: Yes
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama: No
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: No
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: No
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: Yes
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: Yes
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan: No
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: No
Sen. John Sununu, R-New Hampshire: No
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana: No
Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota: No
Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana: No
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio: No
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia: No
Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia: No
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island: Yes
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon: Yes

SENATORS SWITCHING (12 Republicans, 6 Dems)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico
Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Misouri
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas
Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia
Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia

Gays and Children

In a recent CNN poll, public opinion seemed to have changed from the views people held twenty or thirty years ago regarding gays. The numbers reflect a more accepting society in general and while there is still controversy in matters relating to marriage and the adoption of children, there is no doubt that public opinion is less resistant to consider those issues.

I don’t know if that is good or bad because, from my perspective we are getting into a situation where one side (Gays) are gaining ground and the other (Straight) are being defeated. In my view it shouldn’t have to come to this - one group against the other - because divisions can only hurt in the long run.

Socially, the way I’ve always considered this was rather simple. If someone was gay and didn’t affect my life with his/her choice, I never bothered about it. I could be friends with someone gay and still have my own life because there was no confrontation.

Today things have changed and we are more or less forced to take sides. I believe this has happened because of the newfound openness and the political pro-gay movements coming into play. When this movement started it was supposed to promote “acceptance”. Acceptance of a life-style and acceptance of a sexuality that goes against the grain. It also involved stopping discrimination in the workplace and other public circumstances. That was fine I guess because not everyone in this world thinks like me and there are individuals who’d do harm to others just because they are different.

However, after all this was accomplished, I perceive a more pernicious agenda taken place, where other areas of our common beliefs are under attack. The most important ones perhaps are marriage and children.
Apparently the political gay train has no brakes and wants to keep going for a very long run. And that, I resent a bit. We can argue about marriage and the significance of it in our society and whether the union of gay people should carry the same name. I believe it shouldn’t and perhaps a civil union would be more appropriate, but then who cares, it’s just my opinion.

But when it’s time to allow gay couples to adopt children I have a huge problem. Not a big problem, but a huge one! To begin with, when same sex people decide to unite they know that having children is not possible - or I hope they know that - and they took the decision to live happily ever after as a couple knowing that they cannot procreate. It was their choice and I can only wish they’ll be happy.
However, and here’s an incongruent situation, while they cannot have children of their own, they still want somebody else’s children. Not to be confused with women who unfortunately can’t procreate because of a medical condition and decide to adopt.

The huge problem I’m referring to is the fact that gay couples by adopting children are forcing those innocent lives into a situation that has many troubling ramifications. And, here comes the legal part of my question: How can two adults decide to take a child, legally unable to make his/her own decision and forced into a make believe family where there‘s no real mother (or father), and how our system in some cases allows that? These children are not pets, or furniture, they are people. People who will have to live with the consequences of somebody else’s actions for the rest of their lives.

In an effort to mimic a conventional marriage, gay couples have introduced this as a new tool for acceptance and in the process they hope we should consider their union as equal as a marriage between a man and a woman. Well, as open minded as I think I am, their union is not a marriage - as we know it - and they knew full well they couldn’t have children. Adopting perhaps gives them some sense of family, but they are doing that at the expense of innocent people who can’t decide for themselves. And the most incongruent scene is that of a social worker and the states approving this type of adoption.

Just in case some pro-gay will scream at this thoughts of mine claiming that even gay couples are able to offer a good environment to the child my anticipated answer is a resounding no. Yes, they may have the money to offer food and shelter and also a great education, but still, all of those things will be done under the pretend family they have created. For that matter a well to do mafia family can offer the same thing, but what’ll happen to that little brain in the process?

Is This Why I Bought a $2000 LCD-TV?

Once in awhile I tackle light subjects just to get a break from the nasty political scene and all the wrongs people do in this world. This time I’ve decided to look at the “new” television schedule and find out if there’s something really worth watching.
To begin with it’s hard to find “new” programming. As always television serves up more of the dishes that made it during the last season, with copycat themes and different faces, but basically the same story line or ploy. So here we have, given the success of so many cooking shows, the launching or re-launching of yet more cooking shows. “Top Chef” on Bravo, where in the first cooking challenge they included working with rattlesnake, eel, alligator and kangaroo. “Hell’s Kitchen” on Fox where chef Gordon Ramsay, a Scottish with bad temper, screams and pushes the limits of the participants. Sort of an intervention on future cooks. “The Next Food Network Star” on Food Network with a different chef every week searching for yet another “star” of the kitchen. But the trend seems to be: Do anything that involves some sort of reality. From William Shatner’s racing thing to Shaquille O’Neal’s challenge to get fat kids down in size. And of course, there is “the other” programming, which is stuff like “CSI“, “Law and Order Part 1M”, etc. So, in reviewing the new season I don’t see much of an improvement on the last one. Just more of the same with other faces in some instances. More food, more blood, intense faces looking down on microscopes and always wearing gloves and probably more racy encounters with as much skin as the ratings will allow.
Since there will be so much of the same, I guess this is a good time to go out and enjoy more of the real life instead of watching fake situations disguised as reality and food that I‘ll never prepare myself.

Gray is the Color - Gray Will be the Result

If there was ever a “Gray Zone”, politics is by far the grayest of them all. With the official start of campaigning and the New Hampshire show from the Democrats, which will be followed tomorrow Tuesday by Republicans, the race for the White House is on and the potential candidates are warming-up their mouth in order to convince us that “they” are ones who should be elected.

You know, the unfortunate thing is that whether we like it or not, we will have to elect “somebody” for the darn job. There is no escape. Given the fact that we are stuck in an ever revolving circle of a two party system, our brains have grown accustomed to choose either A or B and most Americans are too busy earning a living or spending more than they should to worry much about changing all of that.
Instead of electing an individual we must elect the whole enchilada, the Democratic platform or their counterpart, the Republican one.

Personality matters, like how they communicate and impress the audience, or not, or appeal to our senses, don’t go beyond the superficial stage. Candidates nowadays are nothing but a depiction of larger interests grouped into one big package. In the process, all those seeking the presidency must accommodate everyone who could possibly cast a vote in Election Day. There is very little commitment and principles are compromised.

As an example, some who voted for the war in Iraq then, are now changing their tune and criticizing the move. Others, who were totally opposed to immigration reform, are at this point considering options unthinkable to them just a couple of years ago. Same in regard to issues like Social Security, the budget, education and taxes.

Luckily, my Blog is dedicated to gray areas and this couldn’t be grayer, so whatever they do, say and propose, falls neatly in this modest place of personal expression.

I believe most people will vote, not because they are really convinced of the quality of a candidate, but instead as a reaction to vent their anger toward an opposing individual. And that my friends, is the beauty of this two party system. No matter who wins, politicians will profit from it one way or the other by either attaching themselves to the victor or making a living opposing the ones in power.

In the meantime, we all loose because very little will change to make our lives better, except perhaps that, by living in a free society, we can voice our opinions loudly and even write in places like this one…which is good therapy.