Senator Stevens, I Apologize

An editorial opinion piece appeared in the Anchorage Daily News recently that declared that the entire state owed our senior Senator an apology. This is because we allowed two of Senator Stevens' Fairbanks friends to embezzle $450,000 from the 2.9 million of our tax dollars that he earmarked into their "social services nonprofit".

And we do. Because we are his enablers. Ted Stevens has been staggering around drunk on power for many years, and Alaska has done nothing but push its sunglasses over its two black eyes and make lame excuses for him. Well, no one else seems to want to step up to the plate, so here is my apology to our Senator:

I'm sorry we looked the other way when you used earmarks to privatize Alaska's fish resource and create a processor monopoly for the benefit of outside corporations. I'm sorry we did nothing when you created an industry of influence by delivering federal funds to entities that then enriched your friends and family through a thinly veiled system of real estate kickbacks and "consulting fees". I'm sorry we allowed you to corrupt your own son to the point that he took a half million dollars from the Special Olympics, millions of dollars worth of pollock that was intended for community development, and over a million of dollars from fisheries and oil industry corporations in return for his "consulting" prowess.

Most of all I apologize for electing you.

Sincerely, Terry Haines, Kodiak

Shifting to another subject, my purposely provocative piece "Is It OK If They Pay to Be Gay?" got me a wonderful pile of e-mail, mostly positive. Maybe the most interesting response came from an Alaskan who is opposed to same sex benefits. Here is our e-conversation:

He wrote:
"That those of us who choose a same sex partner deserve to be punished on Earth because we think they are going to Hell?"

This quote from your article begs the question; Are you homosexual?

I answered:
The "they" should indicate to the reader that I am in fact not "homosexual", but I can see how the reader who is looking for that kind of thing might find it there. What I was trying to ask is a question that is begged by your response. Do you consider "homosexuals" to be part of "us"?

I have met a few gay people but don't really know any, except for an in-law that I haven't seen in years. To tell the truth they seem a little strange and foreign to me. But are they any more a scourge on society than the Jews were in Germany in 1938?

He replied:
Terry
I don't see the "they" in the sentence of your article that I cut and pasted. I assumed, wrongly, that the use of the conjoining words "those of us" implied affiliation.

To answer your first question, I would say yes, because we are all human (and are all children of God). I would answer no if the "us" in your question asks if we are comparable. And perhaps I formed my opinion by their actions on how they want to be seen; as different.

On your second question, I believe that ethnicity and homosexuality are two completely separate issues. I was born Norwegian; there is no changing that fact. And time will tell if the homosexual movement has been a "scourge" on society. What I see is, is that the homosexual movement (and their cohorts) are responsible for the breakdown of the long-standing traditional family. This leads to the breakdown of society. Do you see the homosexual movement as a movement that is enriching society?

I find it very interesting that the homosexual movement has been trying to align themselves with blacks (as if their plight is equal to discrimination). This, of course, puts Jesse Jackson in quite a quandary. I am sure he supports the homosexual movement (being the first-rate liberal he is) up to a point. But for him to support homosexuals as equals, would take an act of God.

My reply:
The implied affiliation is that we are all human. Of course the "they" was in the sentence that you cut since it was in the sentence that you cut. But the real issue that we are both dancing around is whether or not we are willing to blame others for the "breakdown of the long standing traditional family" or to take the blame ourselves. "Homosexuals" may very well be a result of that breakdown, to a point. I have always wondered what makes a person "homosexual". I really think that the loss of what I think of as a family - a Dad, a Mom, and the extended aunts and uncles and Grandparents that give a person a context to define himself- this loss of family is what causes individuals to lose sight of themselves, and in some cases, turn wrongly to homosexual relationships. On the other hand some people are born with an indifference to the opposite sex. I don't care how many agents of the homosexual movement come to my door with pamphlets, it will never change the way I feel about Angelina Jolie. We are as God made us. Are you implying that homosexuals don't deserve family? Shouldn't families be inclusive? Also, technically Judaism is not an ethnicity, but the religion that Jesus observed.
-Terry

Also my wife says I'm definitely not gay

His answer:
Terry,
Now that's funny. I had pondered the idea of bringing your wife into the discussion (in a lighthearted way of course) but I thought I had better not.

I would find it very difficult for me, or any of my friends for that matter, to "take the blame" for the breakdown of the traditional family. Most all of us have been in or are in a stable, heterosexual marriage and support the same. And, I am pleased to say, all three of my children are attracted to the opposite sex. Is that a result of good parenting? Or did my wife and I just get lucky?

I recently read a letter to our Governor from a grade school student saying that she (or he) supported the courts judgment that the state must give benefits to same sex couples (partners, whatever). I believe it was her last sentence that caught my attention. She wrote, in part, that it was their "choice" (implying that homosexuals choose to be that way and you have no right to interfere). Now, of course, any homosexual worth his beans would have cringed when reading the word "choice". Having a "choice" suggests an opportunity for change; something the movement abhors.

When you say "We are as God made us" I trust you are not suggesting that God "makes" homosexuals. Heaven forbid Terry, I hope not, that would borderline blasphemy.

Do homosexuals deserve a family? A good, but a very difficult question. We both know that all homosexuals have a family; a father, mother, aunts and uncles etc. We also know that same sex couples cannot, by themselves, produce a family by procreation. So, why would I support something that is not natural (or cannot even take place for that matter)? I support the long-established definition of family, parents (persons of the opposite sex) and their children.

While my younger brother basks in the blistering sun of Mexico sipping margaritas and kicking sand on some scrawny kid, I sit here at my computer where the weather outside (similar to yours at last check) is chilly, rainy and windy, writing about, of all things, homosexuals. I sometimes wonder where I went wrong =).

Peace, -------

Oh, that they. I could not get past the "That those of us who choose a same sex partner . . ."

That was our conversation. I don't know what to add, except that it is obvious that like this reader, most opponents of same sex benefits are speaking from their hearts about what they consider to be a threat to our culture. But to me the reference to blasphemy shows that this reader's opposition is based on deeply held beliefs. Atheists, Buddhists, Pentecostals and Nudists all have beliefs. Whose beliefs should be imposed on the rest of us? That of who is in power now?

Sincerely, Terry Haines, Kodiak