You are like so many from the liberal side of Judaism and Christianity. If you find something in the Bible that makes you uncomfortable you go to all manner of theological contortions to prove the opposite of what it says. Your Faith & Values column on homosexuality and same sex marriage in the January 21, 2012 Seattle Times demonstrates this point.

First you claim, “very few people have thought to look carefully at what the Bible actually says.” I refer you to http://clearfogblog.wordpress.com/category/religion/where you will find writings on homosexuality from two mainstream protestant pastors that make the case for including homosexuality in the long list of sins. Also included are my own humble concerns about the consequences of acceptance of the viewpoint you hold. I am quite sure a simple web search would turn up numerous other “careful looks” by theologians with a position opposite yours.

You stated that homosexual behavior is only mentioned twice in the Jewish Bible. So how many times does a sin have to be mentioned to qualify as a sin? The New Testament has several references, is that enough? You noted that your “Bible only discusses sexual contact between two men” and then leap to the conclusion that there is “no prohibition whatsoever of lesbianism.” Surely you know that the status of women in biblical times often precluded mention of them at all.

The most laughable assertions followed your translation of the Hebrew word “mishk’vei-ishah” as “woman-laying” as possibly referring to “…the Bible.. prohibiting certain sexual positions”, men conquering women or my favorite, “Maybe the Bible just wants homosexual activity to be different from heterosexual activity.” Yes it does and that’s why it is called out as sin.

Earl Palmer, former Senior Pastor of the University Presbyterian Church in Seattle cautioned that in interpreting the Scriptures, “Lean is best.” Biblical verses need to be read in context. The history and overall message of the Bible as well as the surrounding verses need to be considered but not twisted to fit the desires on the day. In this light, the Bible honors the male/female relationship from Adam and Eve (Genesis 2: 18-24) through Solomon’s “Song of Songs”, Proverbs 31: 10-31 and even Hosea who stayed faithful to his prostitute wife. The New Testament continues in the same vein. No where does either the Old or New Testament exalt, honor or approve explicitly, or any but the most contorted interpretation, same sex marriage or the practice of homosexuality.

I do agree, “it would be (a) good thing for us to be nice and get along.” However, one sometimes has to take a stand on moral ground. I just think you stand on liberal shifting sand rather than the rock of Scripture, old or new.

A fellow believer,

Warren Peterson

As to the rest of the debate, Ron Paul was Ron Paul, at his best when warning about a coming economic tsunami but not when offering his isolationist libertarian solutions. Gingrich displayed his knowledge and considerable debating skills. Romney was off his usual controlled game. He excelled at times but fumbled the “Will you release your income tax forms?” question and he still has not formulated a clear distinction between Obamacare and Romneycare. Santorum had his best performance yet. He offer solutions such as his support for manufacturing, challenged Romney and expressed concern about candidate Gingrich’s ego. Too bad Rick never served as a governor or even House Speaker or Senate Majority Leader.

Regardless of what happens Saturday when South Carolina voters make their choice, Romney still will have the edge. Money, organization and favorable states just ahead – Florida, Arizona and Nevada – make a rocky road for Newt or Rick and certainly for a new “great conservative hope” entrant in the race. Romney is not my first choice or even my second choice but if he can beat Obama, he’s a great choice.

Click Here: Students must take responsibility for education as budget cuts loom

Who wins the Republican nomination is important. Picking one who can defeat Obama in November 2012 is vital. Gingrich may yet join Bachmann, Cain and Perry in the flame out group leaving the number one second choice, Romney, in first place, unless of course there is a conservative who can win still in the hunt. Keep an open mind.

All the GOP candidates, except Ron Paul (he was not invited), spoke at a recent meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. You can hear them by clicking on C-span Video, then on GOP Presidential Forum – Morning Session for Huntsman and Romney and Afternoon Session for Gingrich. Hold down the left button on your mouse and drag the arrow under the video to the candidate speeches you want to hear.

Cross posted on Sound Politics

“After a health-department inspection of the Occupy Seattle encampment found overcrowded living conditions, unsanitary food preparation and no access to bathrooms during the day, Seattle Central Community College officials are looking at ways to evict the protesters from campus.”

How about the Seattle Police SWAT squad, bring in the horse patrol, unleash the canine unit. Oh I know, shades of Bull Connor, cries of police brutality but coddling of these anarchists has threatened the publics’ right to health and safety. “Students and neighbors have complained of open drug use and harassment.” But the college Chancellor, Jill Wakefield, said, “Nothing has been decided at this point.” Obviously, she is not a rocket scientist.

“In a letter to the college, the health department said it found no hand-washing facility near the food-preparation area, no approved water supply, no mechanical refrigeration for food, no sanitary facilities during the daytime, overcrowded living conditions, dogs defecating and urinating, debris and litter between tents and evidence of rodents.”

How quickly would the Health Department close a restaurant or coffee stand if they found these violations?

“An Occupy Seattle spokesman said many of the college’s allegations were unfounded. He said the Capitol Hill neighborhood where the college is located is known for drug use and transients and that college day-care workers routinely checked the children’s play area for needles and syringes even before the political activists moved in.”

Well isn’t that nice. It’s okay to trash a public college campus if it’s located in a place unsafe for children. The city tossed the “Occupiers” out of Westlake Park but then that’s where the Christmas, sorry, Holiday tree will be located, lots of kids there and we all know Seattle is a place for kids. Mayor Apologize, Mike McGinn, “offered City Hall Plaza” as a new location but the mangy mass chose to encamp at the college.

“The group moved to the college Oct. 29. The group is part of the larger Occupy Wall Street protests organized to send a message that the growing gulf between rich and poor threatens the nation’s democracy.”

The “growing gulf” is really between the law abiding, long-suffering taxpayers of Seattle and the occupy types with their codependent public officials.

I know the Occupy Wall Street crowd would love an incident they could use to further inflame the Left so enforcement of the law needs to be done with care but it needs to be done. After reading the front page article in Saturday’s Seattle Times, tell me you are not incensed. It should make even liberal Seattle long for the Tea Party protests.

Cross posted on Sound Politics

The Hallelujah Chorus “done like you’ve never seen before. This video from the small Yupiq Eskimo Village of Quinhagak, Alaska, was a school computer project intended for the other Yupiq villages in the area” but it has gone viral. Enjoy.

Click on the blue: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=LyviyF-N23A

Many observers expect the Super Committee to punt by proposing phantom cuts and tax revisions all pushed out into the latter part of the decade. For example, they could count the money not spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and expiration of the Bush tax cuts toward the $1.5 trillion goal, anything to push the hard choices past the November 2012 elections.

Here are two suggestions on how the Super Committee could declare victory without firing a shot, have its cake and eat it too, wash their hands of the matter, pass the buck, kick the can down the road and still accomplish their assigned goal to cut at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.

Suggestion Number 1 – Propose three alternative bills, one designed by the six Republican members of the Super Committee, one offered by the six Democrat members and one implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform better known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Congress would vote on each alternative. Republicans and Democrats could appeal to their base by Democrats killing the Republican proposal in the Democrat controlled Senate and the Republicans doing likewise to the Democrats in the GOP controlled House. For the Simpson-Bowles bill, leadership of both parties could identify members from safe seats and pressure them to vote aye.

Suggestion Number 2 – Assign each department of the government at the Cabinet level a percentage reduction that, all totaled, would generate at least $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Require the Secretary of each department to implement the spending cuts needed to reach its assigned percentage. This would be no different than the standard sentence Congress frequently includes in legislation, “The Secretary will publish rules and regulations to implement this act.” A promise to address the tax system after the November election could also be included. With this proposal, Congress makes the cuts without any congressional fingerprints on any specific spending reduction. Pass it by voice vote, even better.

I’m not being cynical, well maybe a little, but only recognizing that a deeply divided Congress, especially with the total absence of presidential leadership and a critical election looming, will never agree on meaningful spending and tax reform. They need help, any suggestions?

Sound Politics

Huntsman is following Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 Florida only strategy and putting all his chips on New Hampshire. If he scores an upset win or even comes in a close second or third, his below the radar campaign will become a force to be reckoned with in follow-on primaries. Such an upset is unlikely but none of the Republican field yet inspires anything close to majority support so a surprise could happen,

Elected twice Governor of Utah, Huntsman produced a conservative record, is consistently pro life and pro second amendment rights, earned his foreign policy stripes as ambassador both to Singapore and China and projects a scandal free aura of competence. Criticism is mild at best and comes mainly from those demanding 100% ideological purity. Among the charges: 1) He’s a Mormon. Hopefully we are beyond that. Remember Jimmy Carter? He was a born again Christian and look at how he turned out. 2) He graduated from an Ivy League school. At least it was Penn, where his father also attended, and not Harvard or Yale. 3) He worked for Obama as Ambassador to China. He was also Ambassador to Singapore in the George H. W. Bush administration. After all, if the President of the United States asks the Mandarin speaking Governor of Utah to serve the nation by taking on one of the most challenging diplomatic posts in the world, one can hardly expect him to say “No, I won’t work for a Democrat.” 4) He believes in global warming. All he really said was we need to respect science. But unlike Obama, he is not willing to wreck our economy by over regulation of carbon-based fuels. 5) He once considered health insurance mandates. However, in Utah he passed a market based health plan and has stated his firm opposition to Obama Care.

Another plus for Huntsman is his wife. If he is elected President, Mary Kaye Huntsman will take the crown as the worlds most beautiful first lady from France’s Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. In one election, get rid of Obama and stick it to the French. Priceless.

For more information, check his web site Jon2012 especially the Issues section and watch his performance on the November 6th Meet the Press. Also a transcript of ABC’s Sharyn Alfonsi’s interview of Jon Huntsman can be found HERE. Interviews of all the GOP candidates are on ABC Politics.

Huntsman is a conservative who also attracts independents, which means he can beat Obama. After all, that is the number one requirement. The conservative alternative to Romney may already in the field and his name is Jon Huntsman.

Cross posted on Sound Politics

1. For men: Have you ever used your eyes, voice, body, body language or written communication in a way that could be interpreted by a woman as sexually inappropriate and made her feel threatened or uncomfortable?

2. For women: Have you ever been subjected to a male using his eyes, voice, body, body language or written communication in a way you considered sexually inappropriate and made you feel threatened or uncomfortable?

3. For women: If you answered yes to question #2, what did you do about it?

4. For all: On the single issue of sexually inappropriate behavior, do the accusations of the four women (to date) disqualify Herman Cain as a presidential candidate?

Initiative 1125 – Limits use of tolling, use of toll revenue, bans variable pricing and requires the Legislature to set rates.

Tolls are here to stay. They make sense in that users of toll roads pay. This Tim Eyman measure sees them as a form of a tax or fee that needs to be limited in scope and cost. I lived the future for Washington on a recent trip to the East Coast. Driving the length of New Jersey into New York and beyond, numerous tollbooths gobbled coins or electronic charges all along the way including a $12 toll to cross a bridge from New Jersey to the New York City Borough of Staten Island. On the plus side, Initiative 1125 may stop light rail from crossing the Mercer Island I-90 bridge but it may also make toll backed bonds more expensive. Investors shy away from bonds backed by tolls if a legislature sets the toll rates; too exposed to politics. Legal wrangles can also be expected if 1125 passes. A good discussion on 1125 can be found on Washington Policy Center review of Initiative 1125

A close call but VOTE NO.

Initiative 1163 – Affects training and adds other requirements for long-term care workers.

This initiative has many “sounds good” “feel good” provisions but a red flag goes up when one learns that it is heavily supported by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), an aggressive union primarily of government workers. It would raise costs just when the Legislature and Governor are struggling to balance the state budget. See Seattle Times editorial on Init 1163.

VOTE NO

Initiative 1183 – Privatizes beer, wine and liquor sales

Big Booze distributors vs Costco. On principle the state should not be in a private business. This initiative would require the state to sell its distribution warehouses and stores to private competition. The state would retain its regulation and enforcement responsibilities. It is estimated that the state would gain $267 million over the next six years if the measure passes. A good discussion on 1183 can be found on Washington Policy Center review of Initiative 1183

VOTE YES

Senate Joint Resolution 8205 – Removes an inoperative provision in the State Constitution regarding length of residence in Washington required to vote in a presidential election.

House keeping action with no known opposition.

VOTE YES

Senate Joint Resolution 8206 – Requires “extraordinary” revenue to the state be deposited in the “rainy day” fund.

This initiative requires the state to deposit a portion of extraordinary revenue, defined as growth of general state revenue that is more than one third greater than a baseline average over the previous ten years, into the rainy day fund. If passed, it will provide a restraint on the Legislature from ramping up expenditure in the good economic years as if those years will continue forever. Part of our current budget problems comes from increased pending when revenue was high but now can’t be sustained as revenue falls due to the recession. See Spokesman-Review Editorial on SJR 8206

VOTE YES

King County Contested Races:

Director of Elections – Incumbent Sherril Huff is clearly more qualified than her opponent, Mark Greene, who seems to have an axe to grind regarding his run for Congress in 2004.

VOTE FOR HUFF

Council District 6 – Incumbent Jane Hague vs Richard Mitchell. In its endorsement of Hague, the Seattle Times noted that “Mitchell would make a fine representative in a Seattle district that votes 80% Democrat.” Disregarding Hague’s four-year-old DUI, she still fits her moderate Republican district better than Mitchell.

VOTE FOR HAGUE

Council District 8 – Incumbent Joe McDermott was originally appointed to this seat when Dow Constantine was elected King County Executive. His opponent, Diana Toledo, has little chance of winning in this heavily Democrat district (sssh, don’t tell anyone but she’s a Republican). For a “show the flag” vote -

VOTE FOR TOLEDO

Port of Seattle:

Position 1 – Incumbent Gael Tarleton vs perennial candidate Richard Pope. Should you be tempted to vote for Pope, see July 2010 article in the Seattle Weekly.

VOTE FOR TARLETON

Position 5 – Incumbent Bill Bryant is a class act among our regions elected officials. The candidate statements in the King County Voters’ Pamphlet make the choice clear.

VOTE FOR BRYANT

City of Seattle:

Choices in the City Council races are the usual between left and left or in some cases farther left. I don’t expect any of my non-incumbent recommended candidates will win but the dearth of meaningful (read conservative or even moderate Republican) opposition calls out for a protest vote; for what its worth:

Position 1 – Incumbent, 80 year old Jean Godden vs. Bobby Forch. Age aside, Forch gets the edge by supporting a roll back of the extended parking hours. The Council approved extending parking meter use from 6 PM to 8 PM in selected parts of the city.

VOTE FOR FORCH

Position 3 – Incumbent Bruce Harrell vs. Brad Meacham – While Meacham’s endorsements say he’s just another Seattle liberal, he may be a tad more centered than Harrell.

VOTE FOR MEACHAM

Position 5 – Incumbent Tom Rasmussen vs. Dale L. Pusey. Obama proved you don’t need experience to be elected to public office. Pusey is on the same track but he is asking some questions the Council needs to hear.

VOTE FOR PUSEY

Position 7 – Incumbent Tim Burgess vs. David Schraer – Burgess is an ex police officer and rumored to be a candidate for Mayor in 2013. Still left of center but like I say, given the choices -

VOTE FOR BURGESS

Position 9 – Incumbent Sally Clark vs. Dian Ferguson – Ferguson opposes the $60 car tab fee (see ballot issues) and Clark voted for increased parking times and fees and the sick leave requirement for businesses in Seattle. Technically these votes did not increase taxes but they sure cost the public and small business money. Clark will win but a protest vote may be in order.

VOTE FOR FERGUSON

Seattle Ballot Issues:

Proposition 1 – Families and Education Levy – I generally support school levies and have voted for this one in past years but not this time. The City Council and the Mayor, apparently oblivious to the economy, have submitted a levy for double the amount of the expiring levy. The promised benefits are similar to previous levies but little is said about accomplishments. A good discussion on this levy can be found on Washington Policy Center review of Seattle’s Families and Education levy.

VOTE NO

Seattle Transportation Benefit District:

Proposition 1 – Increases vehicle license fee by $60 and spends revenue on loosely defined projects from roads to transit to bike lanes to pie in the sky; another gift from our clueless City Council. See Municipal League Opposes Prop 1

VOTE NO

Seattle School District #1:

A little history – In 2003, the Seattle School Board took a hit for a district finance employee’s error that double spent about $9 million in expenditures. The employee tried to cover up the mistake and before it was discovered the problem had ballooned another $9 million or so and set in motion a major budget shortfall. A “reform” group composed of two Green Party members and two city employees won seats on the board. Their performance was so dysfunctional that a slate of business-backed candidates replaced them in 2007. Now the incumbents, on the heels of a scandal surrounding minority contractor outreach and the firing of the Superintendent, raise the possibility of another wholesale change of board membership. The challengers generally appear qualified but their election will like 2003 cause the learning curve to start all over again. A part-time board with limited staff (one auditor and a couple of support people) is at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the superintendent, her staff and numerous pressure groups. It is hard to see how the education, occupations and experience of the challengers trumps that of the incumbents – a lawyer, two Boeing managers and a former Russell Investments director all with four years experience in the trenches of the School District. Don’t expect any real change in education until the governor and legislature break the hold of the education unions and that won’t happen while the Democrats are in charge.

VOTE FOR PETER MAIER, SHERRY CARR, HARIUM MARTIN-MORRIS AND STEVE SUNDQUIST

Cross posted on Sound Politics