I want to start off by saying I really have grown to hate candidate diaries and I'm not thrilled to have penned this one, but I feel the need to get this off of my chest.

Much has been made around these parts about Barack Obama and whether or not he truly supports LGBT equality. There have been claims about how he sponsored legislation in Illinois that was supportive of LGBT equality, however that claim has been thoroughly debunked.

During his short single term in the Senate as the Freshman Senator from Illinois, he managed to equal rival Hillary Clinton's record as far as the Human Rights Campaign is concerned - both scored 89%. Not bad, but there is at least one candidate running for President who scores higher.

That's the headline I read today that sent shivers down my spine. Apparently there's a Silicon Valley startup that thinks people will be willing to view ads that pop up in their web browsers that are contextualized based on their conversations. Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this?

I subscribe to the AFA (American Family Association) Action alert because it's part of my "know thine enemy" strategy. They spend no small amount of bandwidth spewing about how successful their Ford Motor Company boycott is despite the fact evidence shows the reason why Ford isn't doing so well has nothing to do with their boycott. Talk about delusional and megalomaniacal. Today I received their latest laugh fest...

I've realized I'm not the only undecided here who wants to see more from our field of primary candidates before making a decision who will earn my support. Because I'm uninspired maybe all our slate of candidates need are some suggestions as to what may inspire me.

Yesterday I wrote a diary on this bill and it was changing as I wrote the diary. Normally I pride myself on being detached and objective, but I am not above an emotional response when I feel threatened. Many of the objections I had to the bill were covered by the time the diary scrolled off.

This diary is an attempt to set aside my emotional investment, look at the provisions, and attempt to figure out what the law actually means.

This bill is otherwise known as the California Healthy Pets Act. It has at its core some very good intentions in that it aims to reduce the number of animals in the state's animal shelters. It's a very worthy issue I support. However this bill goes about it in the wrong way and I have to oppose it.

This is something over which I've been mulling for the past couple of weeks. It's something hardly mentioned in the MSM. While it has been touched upon in the blogosphere by reference to the US playing into Osama bin Laden's hands by invading and staying in Iraq, especially around here, I think it could use a little more cowbell.

Your justification for keeping our troops in Iraq and adding more troops is because they're being shot at. Well gee whiz Mr. President, ya think? And why are Iraqis shooting at our troops? Because you put them there!

This started out as a comment to this Diary by Major Danby.

If you were the Secretary of Defense or the Pretender Commander in Chief. Your troops are being killed and injuried every day by RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grendades) while fighting in a war on the other side of the planet but you recently learn about a defense system that is 98% effective in staving off RPGs and could save hundreds of lives...

The question is, Would you equip your troops with it?

If you're the Bush administration, Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or Robert Gates, or the US Army, the answer is no. Why? Because it's not manufactured by your friends in the US Defense industry, but by the government of Israel.

Oh the inhumanity of the Democrats!

"The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says." - Jack Kingston (R-GA)

What is this apparent new salvo in the new Democratic push against the family?

I was inspired to write this from a discussion on Bush being a lying disingenuous dolt.

Ever since 9/11 there has been talk of Bush being a wartime president. It's so pervasive many who oppose Bush seem to accept it as fact.

Only it isn't...