The California senator who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving last week after leaving a gay club has publicly declared his homosexuality. Records show that he has voted against every gay rights measure in the state Senate since taking office, including the Harvey Milk memorial day, recognising marriages performed in other states and a measure to ban insurers discriminating against gays.
He justified this by saying he voted how he expected his constituents wanted him to.
Roy Ashburn said he was gay on a local radio show yesterday. “I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long", he said. Mr Ashburn, a Republican, was arrested last Wednesday morning when police saw him driving erratically. He was found to be over the alcohol limit and had another man in his car.
The divorced father of four told AM 1180 KERN Radio: “I felt my duty – and I still feel this way – is to represent my constituents, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict.” He added "I’ve always believed that I could keep my personal life personal and my public life public. But through my own actions, I have made my personal life public."
The 55-year-old would not state whether he would continue living out of the closet, saying: “I would ask people to pray for me. My faith is very clear and very firm. “I pray to God that I can find peace, and I want to go back to work in the Senate and work hard for the people who sent me to the legislature.”
Mr Ashburn is to appear in court next month to answer charges of driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08 per cent. He said months ago he would not seek re-election. Not sure if this is in relation to the senate or to heterosexuality!
Showing posts with label usa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label usa. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
US Health Care 2010
As the US continues to debate whether all citizens are entitled to free health care, here's two words of inspiration from north of the border - Tommy Douglas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
Read on....
The final version of the Senate bill, with all its concessions and deals, came together the way it did because of strategy from a few key states -- key states only because their Senators levied the power of their must-have votes to tweak the legislation to their own specifications. There is no reason to believe that the same won't hold true as the House and Senate bills are merged.
Individual states are already sending signals to Congress about their opposition to the Senate bill.
New York Governor David Paterson (D) and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) have voiced concerns that the health care reform bill passed by the Senate threatens to overload their states with added costs of Medicaid.
According to Politico.com, Gov. Paterson said "I am deeply troubled that the Senate version of the bill worsens what was already an inequitable situation for New York and I will continue to be an advocate on behalf of New Yorkers to ensure we are treated fairly by this critical federal legislation," and Gov. Schwarzenneger wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California or include new unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, under nearly every scenario we can predict, the federal health care reform legislation being debated would cost California’s General Fund an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually."
The New York Times reports that Florida, along with about a dozen other states, is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would attempt to block much of the federal government’s health care bill on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty. It should be noted that a study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan group based in Helena, Montana, shows that almost all of the 42 co-sponsors of the bill received large campaign contributions from health care interests, most heavily in the states with the proposed amendments.
Lobbyists for health care interests have taken it to the states. Last year pharmaceutical companies spent more than $20 million in political contributions in the states. $85 million more was spent on advertising to defeat a California ballot measure to lower drug prices.
As Congress works to merge the House and Senate bills, various opt-in and opt-out provisions for the regional health insurance exchanges will undoubtedly be a factor in negotiations.
In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson (D) was bombarded by pleas from Democrats and groups like the AFL-CIO to support health care reform and from opponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American's Health Insurance Plans, who used webcasts and petitions to sway him to vote against reform. Television in Nebraska has been filled with arguments pro and con and hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent.
Even if a bill passes, many of the changes will not take place for several years, leaving a wide berth for state battleground strategy before the legislation can be implemented. 50 states, 50 battlegrounds. Brace yourselves. 2010 is going to be bumpy.
Read on....
The final version of the Senate bill, with all its concessions and deals, came together the way it did because of strategy from a few key states -- key states only because their Senators levied the power of their must-have votes to tweak the legislation to their own specifications. There is no reason to believe that the same won't hold true as the House and Senate bills are merged.
Individual states are already sending signals to Congress about their opposition to the Senate bill.
New York Governor David Paterson (D) and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) have voiced concerns that the health care reform bill passed by the Senate threatens to overload their states with added costs of Medicaid.
According to Politico.com, Gov. Paterson said "I am deeply troubled that the Senate version of the bill worsens what was already an inequitable situation for New York and I will continue to be an advocate on behalf of New Yorkers to ensure we are treated fairly by this critical federal legislation," and Gov. Schwarzenneger wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California or include new unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, under nearly every scenario we can predict, the federal health care reform legislation being debated would cost California’s General Fund an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually."
The New York Times reports that Florida, along with about a dozen other states, is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would attempt to block much of the federal government’s health care bill on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty. It should be noted that a study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan group based in Helena, Montana, shows that almost all of the 42 co-sponsors of the bill received large campaign contributions from health care interests, most heavily in the states with the proposed amendments.
Lobbyists for health care interests have taken it to the states. Last year pharmaceutical companies spent more than $20 million in political contributions in the states. $85 million more was spent on advertising to defeat a California ballot measure to lower drug prices.
As Congress works to merge the House and Senate bills, various opt-in and opt-out provisions for the regional health insurance exchanges will undoubtedly be a factor in negotiations.
In Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson (D) was bombarded by pleas from Democrats and groups like the AFL-CIO to support health care reform and from opponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American's Health Insurance Plans, who used webcasts and petitions to sway him to vote against reform. Television in Nebraska has been filled with arguments pro and con and hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent.
Even if a bill passes, many of the changes will not take place for several years, leaving a wide berth for state battleground strategy before the legislation can be implemented. 50 states, 50 battlegrounds. Brace yourselves. 2010 is going to be bumpy.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What Percentage of Americans Are Willing Pay More For Green Travel?
U.S. travelers are more familiar with sustainable travel terminology than they were two years ago but remain unwilling to pay more for eco-friendly travel options according to the July travelhorizons ™, the quarterly consumer survey provided by the U.S. Travel Association and Ypartnership, the Orlando-based marketing and research firm headed up by Peter Yesawich. Items from the July report include the following.
• While he percentage of American travelers who consider themselves 'environmentally conscious' has not changed since 2007 (78 percent) there has been a large increase in the percentage who report familiarity with the term “carbon footprint” (from 12 percent in July 2007 to 54 percent in July 2009).
• Awareness of the term “green travel” also improved from 9 percent in July 2007 to 22 percent in July 2009.
• Despite these increases, only 9 percent of consumers say they are willing to pay more to use travel service suppliers that offer eco-friendly options for travelers, and only three percent have purchased a carbon offset when booking travel.
• While consumers believe travel service suppliers should be good stewards of their environment, over half (54 percent) also believe that individuals themselves have the greatest responsibility for preserving and protecting the environment.
• The majority (51 percent) of consumers will continue to patronize “green” travel service suppliers regardless of an economic downturn. In fact, nearly half (48 percent) of travelers say that continuing to support environmentally-responsible travel service suppliers is a necessity, even in an economic downturn.
• While he percentage of American travelers who consider themselves 'environmentally conscious' has not changed since 2007 (78 percent) there has been a large increase in the percentage who report familiarity with the term “carbon footprint” (from 12 percent in July 2007 to 54 percent in July 2009).
• Awareness of the term “green travel” also improved from 9 percent in July 2007 to 22 percent in July 2009.
• Despite these increases, only 9 percent of consumers say they are willing to pay more to use travel service suppliers that offer eco-friendly options for travelers, and only three percent have purchased a carbon offset when booking travel.
• While consumers believe travel service suppliers should be good stewards of their environment, over half (54 percent) also believe that individuals themselves have the greatest responsibility for preserving and protecting the environment.
• The majority (51 percent) of consumers will continue to patronize “green” travel service suppliers regardless of an economic downturn. In fact, nearly half (48 percent) of travelers say that continuing to support environmentally-responsible travel service suppliers is a necessity, even in an economic downturn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
