Why I don’t give to the DCCC and DNC

So voted Joe Manchin (D), the freshly sworn-in Senator from West Virginia, thus helping ensure that ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in this Congress is extremely difficult, at best.

Asholes like Joe Manchin are the reason I don’t give to umbrella Democratic organizations like the DCCC or the DNC; I don’t want backwater bigots to get one dime of my money. Instead, I give money directly to candidates I support, like this one:

Which is more?

I wonder which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations?


Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’ I yield back the balance of my time.

anti prop-19 email from pot doctor

CHO_Banner_2 3
         Dark_Green_Button_appt_1 2              Dark_Green_Button_loc_1 2              Dark_Green_Button_refer_1 2                  September 2010
Dear [Patient Name],

As many of you may know Proposition 19 – The "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act" – will be on the November 2nd ballot and we feel that it is our responsibility to provide you, our patients, with relevant information about the proposition.  Below are a number of excellent resources that summarize and comment on the legal and economic ramifications of Proposition 19.  We urge you to educate yourself so that we all retain the rights afforded to us for the past 15 years under Prop 215.

1) A recent review of expected legal effects was published in the October issue of The Connection Magazine, "Marijuana Patients & Lawyers Say No on 19".  Download the October issue as a PDF and scroll to Page 15.

2) Many cannabis patients and users are against Prop 19. The content below has been extracted from the following website –

How will Prop 19 affect you?

. Are you age 18-20? You will not be allowed to consume cannabis legally under Prop 19. You will still need a medical recommendation to do so.

. Do you live in the same "space" as a minor? (Space could mean anything from the same house to an entire apartment complex.) You will not be allowed to consume cannabis.

. Do you rent your home? Prop 19 will only allow you to grow cannabis if you have permission from your landlord. Due to the risks involved, many (if not most) California landlords do not allow it.

. Do you grow cannabis with a doctor recommendation? Prop 19 may be interpreted by law enforcement and judges to limit your grow space to 5'x5'.

. Do you provide your extra medical cannabis to dispensaries? It may be a crime to do so if Prop 19 passes. In addition, large Oakland growers and tobacco companies will take control of the market and push you out.

. Do you currently have to use your medical cannabis anywhere but home? Prop 19 may prevent patients from using their medicine anywhere in public. Which for many people with illnesses is not always possible.

. Do you sell your extra medical cannabis to other medical patients? Prop 19 may make this practice illegal. Even if you are only selling it to cover your growing cost.

. Do you currently enjoy the use of cannabis free from Government interference? Not only will the Government impose excessive taxes under Prop 19, but the federal government will likely respond with unprecedented action against California cannabis users. "The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can't legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes."

3) Please find a comprehensive summary and review of positions both FOR and AGAINST Proposition 19 on this website:,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29


We hope that this information is helpful in your decision-making regarding Prop 19.


In Health and Happiness,


Hanya Barth, M.D.

Compassionate Health Options


             DkGrn_Btn_White_Loc                    DkGrn_Btn_White_Appts

Our professional, friendly physicians offer medical marijuana evaluations to provide patients with the ability to use marijuana as a part of their medical treatment under California Proposition 215, also known as the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, and under SB420, section 11362.7. This promotion may not be combined with any other promotions, discounts or offers.

Special Offers! 

handshake_2 2
Refer 5 of your
friends with our referral cards and get your next renewal visit for FREE!

Call us at 1 (877) PROP 215

Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line or simply click on the following link:


Compassionate Health Options

1200 Howard

San Francisco, CA 94103

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

Carl Curtis Wayne

Carl Curtis Wayne, age 65, passed away on May 19, 2002 after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease. He was born the only son of Virginia Mae Curry and Carl Leonard Wayne, on October 23, 1936 in San Diego CA.

A 1955 Sweetwater High School graduate, he was well known throughout National City, California for his accomplishments, both social and athletic. Carl played almost every sport in high school, and despite his height of just 5’6″, he excelled in football as a running back and in baseball as a leftfielder. He also lettered in track his sophomore year. He was a member of the Hi-Y and the Block S Society and served in the class legislature both his junior and senior year at Sweetwater.

In 1959 he was drafted into the United States Army and was stationed in Verona, Italy. In the summer, he coached the swim team on Lake Garda and in the winter he skied the alps while leading the Army Ski Team.

Upon his return to National city in 1963, he attended Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California and served as the school’s first ASB president. He returned to playing football, and was known as the “Old Guy” to his college teammates. He supported himself by coaching the National City Swim Team from the mid 1960’s through 1969. This was a job he loved and was known to have his young students prove their skills by diving off “The Clam” in La Jolla, California. [[ His new career in the restaurant business would take him to the California Bay Area]], a region he fell in love with, and then later Utah, where he ran the lodge at Snow Basin Ski Resort. In 1984 he moved back to California and in 1989, he came home again to live in National City. By this time, his disease had already begun to take hold, though he fought it off with good humor and courage.

He was an avid runner who ran several marathons, his last at the age of 52. His proudest running accomplishment was running in the Bay to Breakers race in San Francisco, California. Fittingly, this year’s event was held on the day he passed away.

When he wasn’t running, he was reading. He owned and read thousands of books. He was a walking encyclopedia. When on long road trips with his family, he would tell them about every mountain range, river and national monument they would encounter as if he were reading from a guide book. This amazing quality was also apparent, much to his family’s chagrin, in their inability to ever beat him in a game of Trivial Pursuit.

He loved the outdoors and hiked all over the world. Camping and hiking were among his favorite activities. He was a firm believer in environmental conservation, which he practiced in his own life.

He was an uncommon man with enormous complexity. He was extremely charming and warm and loved by everyone he met. He was an athlete, an intellectual, and an outdoorsman. Although Alzheimer’s slowly robbed him of all of these things, until it took his life, the man and everything he was, will live forever in the hearts of all who knew him.

One should have insight into
this world of dreams that passes
in the twinkling of an eye.

Carl is survived by his wife of 16 years, Shay Wayne of National City. His children, Timothy Curtis Wayne of San Francisco, Mitchell Frost Wayne of National City, Jennifer Lynne Wayne-Schaeffer (Joe) of San Diego, Hattie Shay Wayne of National City. Three Grandchildren, Joey John, Jacob Jamus and Clara Lynne Schaeffer. Stepson Eric Bishop (Jennifer) of Preston, Minnesota. Private services were held June 8, 2002.


(Keywords for article:  Carl Wayne obituary. Carl Curtis Wayne obituary.  San Diego. Sandy, Utah. Layton, Utah. Ogden Utah. Snowbasin Ski Resort. Wendys. Carl “Buck” Wayne. Cogel’s of Redding. Sweat Pea.)

Facebook + Safari FAIL

My damn Safari browser is supposed to stay logged in to Facebook, right?

8:30 AM. I follow a link in Gmail to a facebook comment. I am greeted by this:

And then a couple hours later, when I am checking my email, I see another link to another Facebook comment. So I follow it. I get this screen instead:

and then again at 2:30, following another link in my email to FB:

….and again at 5:00 PM:

Obviously, it’s easy to put in my password. But I’d rather the damn browser save it. Like Firefox does.

Stupid Safari.

A Democratic Strategy on Gay Marriage

A Democratic Strategy on Gay Marriage
by Eric Jaye

Last year the Democrats had numerous opportunities to stand on principle — and in doing so show they had the courage to stand for something. No opportunity was greater than the raging debate over gay marriage.

Facing an evenly divided electorate, Republican strategists surmised that victory in 2004 lay in driving turnout among their base voters. That’s why they placed attacks on gay marriage on state ballots in swing states. They believed that such a debate would drive turnout, particularly among low-turnout Christian evangelical voters.

What did the Democrats do? By and large they ducked, with poll-crafted drivel that made them seem like typical politicians, not courageous leaders.

Most voters do not yet support gay marriage – although support for equal matrimonial rights has risen dramatically in the past decade. Polls show a sharp generational divide, with the majority of voters under 40 in support of gay marriage and the majority of voters over 60 strongly opposed.

But in this day and age, most swing voters reserve more venom for vacillating politicians than they do for two gay people deciding to adopt the bourgeois convention of lifetime commitment and matrimony.

It is this disdain for vacillating politicians that allows President George Bush to take so many controversial stands yet still win elections for himself and his party. It’s called leadership and voters reward it.

On a woman’s right to choice, Iraq, environmental protection, outsourcing and Social Security – Bush is ‘wrong’ from a pollsters’ perspective. Yet, why does he still seem so right to so many voters?

Bush wins by being “wrong” because his controversial positions resonate as authentic. American voters don’t agree with him on key issues — but they tend to believe he “stands up for what he believes.” In a political landscape in which character matters more than ideology, Bush wins by seeming “real” to voters.

So while Bush seems authentic at the very moment he is pursuing a political ploy to excite his right-wing base – Democrats seem weak and untrustworthy – not just to their base supporters, but to the broad mass of swing voters.

With a few exceptions, most Democrats simply lack credibility when they say they oppose gay marriage. We have the honor of belonging to a party that has been on the forefront of the civil rights movement for more than 50 years. Most voters, in most states, expect us to stand for civil rights – even when these very same voters are taking a go-slow approach.

So who do we think we are fooling when we mumble finely nuanced positions on gay marriage? The truth is we are only fooling ourselves.

We have now survived an entire generation of poll-tested politicians and incremental politics. Finely crafted “agreement” messages, once an innovation, are now an invitation to ridicule. Not just late at night on television, but at almost any hour, we can all enjoy a good laugh at the expense of a politician who is merely reading from a poll-tested script.

So what’s the right answer when Democrats are asked, “Do you support gay marriage?” The right answer, in almost every case, is the truth. And in most cases, the truth is “Yes.”

First and foremost – by saying “Yes” we are standing for something, even when the majority of voters don’t yet support our position. And telling the truth makes us sound like real people, not like robo politicians. But more than this – by saying “Yes” we can seize political terrain that allows us to drive the debate, not duck it.

And we are finding that when we take the offensive on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage, we can make real progress. At the very least, we have a fighting chance when we stop ducking the issue of gay rights and start debating it with clear and concise language.

Along with a team of top-notch consultants, we worked on the successful campaign in 2004 to repeal Article 12 of the Cincinnati City Charter, which allowed discrimination against lesbian and gays. Just this month we helped defeat the Topeka City Question in Topeka, Kansas that would have allowed discrimination against gays. Both campaigns were played out in the context over the debate on gay marriage.

Last year, as former consultants to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, we were closely involved in presenting the “winter of love” gay marriages to the public. We were also part of the unsuccessful effort in Oregon in 2004 to defeat the attack on gay marriage.

We took away from those successes, and that failure, the belief that when it comes to gay marriage the simple truth is better than a complicated lie.

But more than that – in the long run we can’t win if we don’t debate. And let’s not fool ourselves, this debate is not going away. The Republicans put it on the agenda, and they will keep it there, particularly so long as we refuse to even articulate our own position.

Cautious Democrats should face the fact that no position on gay marriage is the weakest possible stance. Silence is read as support for gay marriage. And your silence is seen as political at best, cowardice at worst. As a party, we might not have chosen this fight. But it is here. Unilateral surrender is not a workable strategy.

And to my fellow consultants I would offer this hard-learned lesson. Anti-gay marriage amendments are being fought on the basis of gay marriage — not some “hidden flaw” or “costly consequence.” These measures are not analogous to some down-ballot initiative that we can define. Voters know what they are about — gay marriage.

In California, we found during the San Francisco gay marriage insurrection that support for gay marriage increased slightly across the state, and support for civil unions increased dramatically, after we captured the airwaves with images of couples who were absolutely unremarkable in any way other than in their desire to profess life-long love and responsibility for each other.

First in Cincinnati, and then in Topeka, we won campaigns against discrimination in part by seizing the language of morality, rather than ceding it to our opponents.

We crafted mail pieces entitled “Not Just on Sunday,” and “Daily Bread,” that took up the language of the Lord’s Prayer in defense of tolerance and equal rights every day.

We didn’t hide from the issue. We didn’t run from the moral debate. We embraced it – and won. Democrats around the country have nothing to lose, and so much to gain, from doing likewise.