How About a Cup of Coffee?

It's no mystery that I am not a fan of the Tea Party. Their loud, extremist voice has dominated the media and sent the country into a spiral of lies and misdirection that states this small, although incredibly noisy, minority is the voice of the majority of Americans and will dominate the landscape of the 2010 and 2012 election cycles (nevermind the failure of the "Conservative Independent" Tea Party-backed candidate Doug Hoffman that lost a special election Congress seat to a Democrat, Bill Owens, in a district that had been Republican controlled since 1873.)

But now, I have my own extremist group to take a part in. It's called "The Coffee Party" and it bills itself as a reasonable alternative to the Tea Party. It, like the Tea Party, believes that the national government is indeed not representing the needs and views of the American people. But it believes that, given activism on the part of the people, the federal government can be molded to reflect the actual views of the people instead of the views of the corporations that buy and sell opinions on Capital Hill. Additionally, on an idealogical level, it tends to swing toward liberal views, such as recognizing the need for the government to reform the health care system. So, you're probably wondering, what's the extremist part of this? Well, instead of running around with signs with a Hitler mustache pasted on President Obama's face and flying airplanes into IRS buildings, this groups believes it can accomplish its goals by conducting civilized discourse (as in forums and idealogical conferences) on United States policy and taking part in peaceful demonstrations such as mass letter writings, phone calls, and marches to express liberal ideas. What the fuck, an intellectual political movement?

Because this is what talking to your government should involve. It's not about rallying hate-based riots and refusing to pay your taxes. No, the best way to get across to your government is to speak above their level, to maintain a level of civility and resolve that is not seen in the schizophrenic circus that is the American government today. And I think I'd like to be a part of that.

Thought of the Day: Wild Dreams of Clean Energy

A glorious day for the wonderful world of energy! Bloom Energy, an upstart energy company from Sunnyvale, California, unveiled it's new energy production unit on CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday. The unit is a refrigerator sized "power plant in a box", which itself is filled with hundreds of cubes called "Bloom Boxes". The boxes are each equipped with a fuel cell that, when fed a variety of separate fuels on one side and oxygen on the other, produces a chemical reaction that produces electricity, but a fraction of the carbon emissions when fossil fuels are burned. And it is said that one to two of these smaller boxes could power an American home.

This sounds absolutely fantastic and Bloom Energy has been testing their initial models at big name corporations with locations in California, including Wal-Mart, Google, and eBay. eBay has stated that 15% of the power needed to run their computer intensive campus in San Jose is produced by five of the refrigerator sized boxes and has saved the company hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy costs. Google has also ordered several of the refrigerator sized units and has stated that their few boxes produces considerably more energy than their hundreds of solar panel units in a much smaller area. There have been a few problems with keeping the oxygen vacuum clean and a few bumps in the power process, but that is what the testing phase is for.

But leave it to conservative blogosphere to pick at an invention that has the potential to change our very society and the world. The clip from 60 Minutes is also included on this page.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/02/22/the-bloom-box-energy-breakthrough-or-silicon-valley-hype/

Is the author of this article seriously considering the weight of the fuel cell to be a determining factor of whether or not the Bloom Box is a legitimate breakthrough? The reason the weight of the energy cell is integral in automobile production is because the car has to move and car that weight, a power generator does not. The fact that the product hasn't been tested by a utility group, but has by business campuses doesn't prove anything about the effectiveness of the device, if anything it proves how applicable it is to modern business. And then the article cites the interviews lack of facts on how much natural gas the terminal would require. The thing is, most educated bloggers of the Wall Street Journal, the fuels that can be used for causing the chemical reaction in the fuel cells are not restricted to just natural gas. The only reason that Google used natural gas was because they had a pre-existing gas line, if the blogger had watched the full presentation, then they would have realized that biomass fuel, as used by eBay, solar power, and wind power can also be used to power. Granted, wind power might not be in the league of the household consumer, but biomass fuel and solar energy certainly is, especially as solar cells become cheaper and more efficient and as biomass fuel production becomes more efficient over the next five to ten years.

But don't just consider the nit picking problems that are potentially part of the device. What about the possibilities the device has to change our world. When they become cheaper, two refrigerator sized units could probably be installed in African and remote Asian villages and power the entire village with little need for a complex nation-wide infrastructure as seen in American. With an energy plan that requires only local infrastructure, the African continent can grow and develop with energy to provide modern medical facilities and food markets with power. In the western world on the other hand, next to automobile emissions, energy production is the highest contributor of greenhouse gases in the world. If all of the homes and businesses can be powered in the developed world at even half of the emissions as present today, imagine that impact it would have on humanity's carbon footprint and our ability as a species to curb global climate change. And if Bloom Energy is able to optimize this device in the future for vehicles, or even just cargo trains, ships, and tractor-trailers if the energy cell is to heavy for individual cars, the effect would be incredible.

Why does Bloom Energy have to be condemned for their project before it is even truly unveiled to the public? They will have enough problems navigating the bureaucracy of the nations energy politics and the interests of Big Energy; can't we just accept that they have something with real potential on their hands, support them, and hope that it achieves the goals they are capable of, instead of battering them down to appease our cynical spirits? For the sake of our planet, the human race, and the future of civilized society, can't we just hope, for once?

From Peaceful Demonstrations to Domestic Terrorism

In just over a year, the conservative voice has seen a dramatic shift.

What began as protests in Boston, with men and women in tri-point hats dumping tea into the Boston Harbor, against the Democratic stimulus package has culminated into what can only be described as the most destructive domestic terrorist attack since the attacks of the DC sniper.

If you watched the news last Thursday, you would have noted that an anti-government software engineer flew his single engine private plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. You would have also noted that he posted a 3000 word manifesto, exclaiming that the government had no right to tax the citizens of the United States and that the IRS had controlled his life.

Or maybe you didn't note that. Because the mainstream media has paid this event with little to no attention. Even my beloved Huffington Post has posted very few articles on the subject. I have seen no O'Reilly Factors or Crossfires concerning the dangers of conservative extremists. But when the son of a Nigerian bank fails to blow his underwear up on a plane headed to Detroit, it's a cause for weeks of analysis of Obama's national security policy and the extended searching of plane passengers en route from key "countries of interest", now including Niger, why aren't similar actions being taken against extremist in our own borders? When does the right to free-speech end and flying your airplane into a government building begin? How is Joe Stack any different from the nameless, faceless suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

When the Whiskey Rebellion broke out in 1794 (an outburst against taxes, coincidentally), George Washington did not stand for it and broke the insurrection. When the South seceded from the Union, Abraham Lincoln fought for the preservation of the Union. When the Seattle Race Riots broke out in 1886, Grover Cleveland declared martial law and sent U.S. military personnel into the city to break it up. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not stand for the Detroit Race Riot of 1943, he sent in military officers to end the conflict. When Anti-Vietnam War extremists started bombing buildings in protest of the ongoing war, Lyndon Johnson suppressed them. Obama must do something now to subdue these conservative extremists of today or there will be more to come.

And it is up to Obama to do something. Scott Brown said it best. In response to the attack in Austin, Sen. Brown simply stated, "No one likes paying taxes..." His non-chalante attitude says everything. And he's right. I mean, as long as the extremists are on your side, that's okay. I'm sure Osama bin Laden said the same thing. And Kim Jong-il. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And Saddam Hussein. And Idi Amin. And Joseph Stalin. And Mao Zedong. And Benito Mussolini. And Adolf Hitler. And Maximilian Robespierre. And...

Thought of the Day: When A Conservative Speaks

An angel gets its wings? I presume so, why else would they say the most obnoxious remarks on a regular basis, if not to provide angels with wings? Why would they say whatever comes to mind with no regard for the words they say, if not because every time they spoke, an angel is able to fly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/cpac-speaker-mocks-obama_n_467299.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/idaho-tea-party-speaker-h_n_466261.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/tom-tancredo-obama-electe_n_450849.html

Here are just a few examples of Conservative jackassery. I just have one question: How do they get away with comments like these? I understand that people have a freedom of speech, however, there should be consequences given certain things being said. Comments made by the extreme right, from the big names of Fox News to the random old lady on McCain's campaign trail that claimed Obama "is an Arab", are so strewn with hate and racism and violence, I don't understand how they can be made on such a regular basis with no reprecusions. How can somebody get away with saying a Senator from Washington should be hanged for her political beliefs? I don't understand where our country's sense of civility went to. What happened to the proper debate and civilized governmental conversation that defined our country in 1776? It seems like the country that was founded then, on the principles of debate and reason, has been replaced by maniacs in the last half century, lunacy is the definition of our political conversation today, madness the tone of choice for the loudest speakers. And it's so out of control, I don't know of any way to fix it.

Only the Young Die Good

Only the good die young.

A phrase immortalized as reverant folk knowledge and convenient song lyrics. But is this true? Or is it the other way around?

In my humble opinion, only the young can die good. Consider, if you will, some characters to which this adage would apply to. Look at the spectrum of modern music: Kurt Cobain, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Moon, and Dimebag Darrell. Did they die young because they were good, talented muscians? Or were they only good because they died young? Consider their peers, Perry Farrell, Mick Jagger, any member of Jefferson Airplane, Pete Townshend, and Lars Ulrich. Today, they may be alive, but they are just not the men they used to be, losing their talent and spirit with age. They will die old and a shadow of their former selves, where their counterparts have died and will never be remembered beyond their days of glory.

And political and cultural figures: Ghandi, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, Franz Ferdinand, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk. If these people had not died before their time, would they still be such treasured, fabled leaders? Would John F. Kennedy been tarnished by the quagmire of Vietnam? Would Abraham Lincoln been able to Reconstruct the Union after the devastating civil war? Would Frank Ferdinand been able to repair relations between the Serbs and Austria and avoided World War?

The simple answer is, somebody that dies young, remains young forever. They never grow old and lose their spirit, or their influence. They never lose their athletic ability, never lose their symbolism of the people they represent. They are worth more dead than alive because dieing in a blaze of glory is more memorable and meaningful than withering away and disappearing in the throughs of time.

Consider the countless men and women that die old, but because they faded into obscurity, their deaths aren't as meaningful. Charlie Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Walter Matthau, J.D. Salinger, countless upon countless others. And one day, everyone makes it there. With age, they lose their image, their shine, one day, every person falls from grace and fades in obscurity and dies. Or in death, they lose their life, but leave their memory in their place. Because only the young can die good.

Thought of the Day: Dick Cheney is a Wily One

Shocking turn of events: Dick Cheney refused to endorse a 2012 presidential run for Sarah Palin!

GASP!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/14/dick-cheney-on-sarah-pali_n_461870.html

Now why would such a kind, loving old man like Dick Cheney refuse to help out poor little Sarah Palin? Well duh, A.) Despite my personal feelings about his politics, he's not stupid and B.) He's got something up his sleeve.

Dick Cheney is a skilled politician. He holds an intrinsic understanding of the American body politic. Many people believed that Cheney did not run for president in 2008 because he was too old or lacked the will to hold the office. How naive. Good old Dick knew no matter what Republican got into the election, they were never going to win. Any Democrat, whether it be Clinton, or Edwards, or Biden, or Obama, was going to beat any Republican that ran against them. He understands the American political winds and how regularly they shift. So why in the world would he waste his time, his money, and his reputation on a doomed presidential campaign? Why wouldn't he hang back in the shadows for a while, let the bad feelings associated with his administration fade a little bit, build up his war chest, and try later when there's a greater opportunity and he has more resources at his disposal?

All of the politicians lining up to run in 2012 won't be saying nice things about each other any time soon. It's the same reason Newt Gingrich condemned Rudy Giuliani on the Daily Show last week for dragging his feet on restoring Ground Zero during his mayorship of New York City. Because they're planning on making a run for it in 2012.

And even if Cheney doesn't run in 2012, understanding that Obama has a substantial advantage over any Republican that would run against him, why would he want to associate himself with Sarah Palin and the unstable political movement she lords over? She is a nut, most Americans don't feel she is fit to sit in the Oval Office. Why would Dick Cheney align herself with a radical right-winged lunatic at the risk of losing independent votes in the long-run?

Indeed, Dick Cheney is a wily one. He's one of the few Republicans that can look past short term political advantage, and that, along with some moderate social views, will one day make him a formidable opponent for the Democratic Party.

The Importance of Love

Valentine's Day.

The holiday highlights the most essential traits that define people as "human". Love, above all other traits, is what makes a human a human. The ability to develop emotional ties with other people, to form relationships that last for lifetimes, to spiritually become one with another person is what define humanity.

But there is a much greater force that the word love defines that just a standard emotional connection to one other person. The great compassion for people that a person does not even know, that's what makes people human. The ability to see a homeless person, feel empathy toward their situation, and offer them a few dollars. The ability to see a completely foreign country demolished by natural disaster and desire to reach out and pick them up. The ability to recognize the needs of another and want to help them, this is what defines the human connection.

But the humans that make up America have become surprisingly jaded from this essential definition of humanity. The "I've got mine, jack" syndrome has seemingly dominated American philosophy since the inception of our country. Americans have always seemed to be able to look the other way as long as it wasn't directly harming them. The enslavement of African natives. The forced marching of Native Americans from their homeland. The exhaustive labor of children. The extermination of the Jews in Europe. The internment of Japanese Americans. The segregation of African Americans. The manipulation of the poor. The suppression of homosexuals. The needs of everyday Americans. As long as your well-being is secured, Americans have no interest in the plights of other people.

And it's disgusting.

But we can change. There are already glimmers of hope. The citizen's response to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 and the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 have shown that Americans can reach out and help people of completely foreign nationalities in need. The public support for public health insurance and freedom of expression for gay military members shows Americans can care about the needs of people domestically. There have been enough people pulled from crashed vehicles, pushed out of the way of moving cars, and led out of burning buildings to show that Americans do have the capacity to care, to feel, to love.

But we need to be louder. The voices of hate, the voices that say the people don't want the government to provide health care for everyone, that say we should have literacy and civics testing at election polls again, that Barrack Obama is the "affirmative action president", they are loud and proud. The voices that care and love their fellow Americans need to be out there and let our leaders, our peers, and the voices of hate know that we will not stand for their intolerance, that we will be heard and that will not let them take our country again.

Americans, let your love be heard.

Thought of the Day: Utah Hates Its Children

Okay, I just wanted to point out further evidence of the United States' disregard of the importance of education. In an effort to assuage the state deficit while not increasing taxes on citizens, Utah State Senator Chris Buttars proposed the elimination of the 12th grade from the Utah public education system.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-utah-school15-2010feb15,0,906102.story

This is one of the most absolute culminations of the Bible Belt idiocracy that I have ever seen. How can the state government even consider incentivizing students to shun the importance of their education? It's disgusting. It's dispicable. It's a crime against the future of our society, Utah, and the children that this directly affects. Do we really live in a country where the people are so dead set against raising their taxes that they would be willing to sacrifice the potential of their children's future? Is that really what our society has become? Americans, you sicken me.

Death and Taxes: Or Why Anyone That Says Otherwise Is A Fool

Death to the idealogues! Those Marxist, terrorist demons of the Democratic party! They wish to destroy the democracy our forefathers had envisioned with pipe-dreamed socialist programs, like socialized health care and strict business regulation.

But there are far worse pipe-dreams that have a voice far louder than those of liberal Democrats: the idea of small government and the elimination of taxes.

There is nothing more unrealistic that a people could ask of their government than to completely eliminate taxes. But that is just the mantra of the Tea Party movement. An ideal world where nobody has to pay taxes. But consider, for a minute, what this world would actually look like.

Consider the services that our government provides us, on a local, state, and national level. Our local governments plow our streets when it snows, collects our garbage, provides emergency service in the form of police, fire departments, and medical assistance, and provides and runs our public education systems. Our state governments maintain our roads and highways, establish higher learning facilities, welfare for our poor, and develop transportation and information infrastructure. Our national government provides single payer health care for our elderly and poor, assistance during times of natural disaster, a military force to protect us, and regulates our businesses to ensure the protection of consumers. And the American people expect these services from their government.

But in this world the Tea Party envisions where nobody pays taxes, how are these services that the people expect and demand to be paid for? How, in this land of small government and corporate oligarchies, will these basic services be covered? Well, obviously, the hard-working American people don't have time to just do these things, so they would have to hire somebody to do it. They would need consultants to develop school curriculum and private military companies to police our streets and laborers to plow our streets and so on and so forth. The corporate oligarchies that rule the land would provide all these services... at a price.

So, for a nominal fee, employees of private companies will come and take care of all of the services that our government currently takes care of. One would pay these fees monthly or perhaps on a yearly basis I suppose. Maybe one could I hire an accountant to help pay these bills and pay them all once a year by a given date.

That sounds an awful lot like taxes. Except without any hope for a "break", save for maybe a coupon.

When you consider the effects of eliminating taxes outside of the initial idea of, "Hey, I won't have to pay taxes anymore", it doesn't sound appealing. Anyone that takes the time to consider the math behind the consequences of eliminating taxes would realize the harsh reality of such a government. But isn't that the essence of what an idealogue is? One that is given to fanciful ideas or theories? There's no room for truth or rational thought for these demented idealists. Because if there was, they would know that as long as people rightfully expect their government to take care of these most basic services (and maybe more), taxes will be an unavoidable part of civilized society.

Because nothing in this world is certain but death and taxes. And anyone that says otherwise is the worst kind of idealogue. One with tea bags stapled to their hat.

The Crime of Intelligence

When did being intelligent become a crime in American politics?

A very loud part of the electorate today believes that intelligent people have no place in the office of the United States government. That they want somebody they can relate to, somebody that "you can sit down and drink a beer with." That somebody that is intelligent is an elitist and out of touch with the American people.

And the media panders to this idea. But it's not just the likes of Fox News with their "everyday man" news commentary in figures like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Consider all of the television you watch. How many programs are on television that don't have an explicit laugh track or a down and dirty super serious cop that takes his crime drama too seriously? How many television shows are out there with a plump host teaching how to cook or with somebody that has way too many children but has an extraordinary faith in Christianity? There are so few programs on television that promote intellectual thought and discourse and the one's that do make it on the air, they're not around for very long. And yes, I used the word discourse, it means to talk or converse.

But I think there's a deeper problem than just television. While listening to my 10 minutes of 98 Rock talk radio this morning, one of the hosts, Mickey, stated, "If you live within 200 miles of a coastline, then you are out of touch with the average American." And as ridiculous as that sounds, American politics sure seem to reflect that. The way politicians act, especially Republicans, you would think the Bible Belt's opinion is the only opinion that matters. The only opinion that matters comes from a group of people that value religious servitude and family ties more than intelligence? A group that rejects intelligent thought so thoroughly that intelligent design is included in the curriculum of some science classes?

This is truly a problem, the "dumbness" of American culture. The majority of Americans are so gullible and group-minded that the political process has become this short term swing back and forth in power on the whims of television ads to the point where the legislative process is at a stalemate because the American people have no idea what they want from their government. They want no taxes, yet they want social programs and people to come plow their snow and take their trash. They want a strong president, but not one that will put too much strength in the government. They want corporations to have unlimited freedom to conduct business as they please, but want the corporate heads on a platter if they screw over the American people. If Americans were remotely logical in their thinking, they would know that these are contradictory ideas.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." FDR knows the problem with America today, because it was the same problem with America in 1932 and it's always been America's problem. Americans do not value education, therefore our education system is one of the worst in the developed world and therefore, instead of intelligent conversation, you have a bunch of people spilling tea bags into the water in Boston and saying, "Take that President Obama, I don't like your stimulus package. This will show you."

And here's the funny part of the joke. The very politicians that would bring about education reform are too elitist and out of touch with "real America" to get elected. The guy that stands up and speaks eloquent, cohesive thoughts will always lose to the guy that stands up and says, "I drive a truck." It's an endless, self-destructive spiral that is far more difficult to stop than an economic downturn pushed forward by politicians and corporate enthusiasm.

Because, ultimately, stupid people are easier to manipulate into buying a product and re-electing politicians that work against their interest.

The Marching of the Whores

Let the corruption of politicians begin!

Over the past year, Comcast has been attempting to purchase NBC from General Electric, a move that would place Comcast in the possession of the third biggest name in public broadcasting. Such a move, under normal circumstances, would be shot down immediately. Such a purchase would limit consumers and force an unwanted television provider upon them if they wished to still get NBC. That's a move towards monopolization.

But these are not normal circumstances. Thanks to that lovely Supreme Court ruling a few weeks back, Comcast and NBC are fighting back with their most valuable and abundant resource: cold, hard cash. More than $474,000 in cash. All to members of the Congressional board members that will be determining whether or not the proposed merger falls within anti-trust law.

And I know. Just because $474,000 gets thrown a dozen congressional representatives' way for campaign contributions, that doesn't necessarily mean that these funds will corrupt those politicians into a decision that is not in the interest of the American people. But really. Anyone who does not believe $474,000 in bribery, or the knowledge that those funds can swing right over to their opponents in the event of opposition, is being naive.

The first steps of action are being taken by the politicians most concerned with the interests of the American people. Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts has already started the preliminary steps toward the only action broad enough to counter the measures taken by the Supreme Court: a constitutional amendment.

But a constitutional amendment is no small matter. Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the constitutional amendment, and three-fourths of the states (a.k.a. 38 states) must ratify the amendment through either state legislative bodies or specially elected amendment conventions. So, in other words, this shit will not be happening any time soon.

My expressions haven't changed since last week about the corporate freedom to spend exorbitant amounts of money on campaign contributions. I just wanted to point out the first instance of corporate political prostitution. Better get used to it, we'll get to see so much more of it in the future.

Just pop some popcorn and watch the whores march.

Microscopic Politics: Why I Love Grassroots Action

Because I can take part in it.

Today, I mustered up the courage to call my congressional representative, Dutch Ruppersberger, and ask him to sign the Polis/Pingree letter demanding Harry Reid to pass the public health insurance option through the reconciliation legislation method.

I was nervous as all hell. I took the time to type out what I was going to say when I called his office and mentally prepared myself for several minutes before pushing the send button on my phone. The phone only rang one and a half times; that wasn't enough time.

"Good evening, Representative Ruppersberger's office, how can I help you?"

For a moment, I thought I'd dropped my script and panicked. Breathless, I quickly looked down and saw the sheet of 8 and a half by 11 still lazing over in my hand. I forced out a syllable and when I started I couldn't stop.

"Good evening, my name is Christopher Warman and I am a resident of Essex, MD. Last week, Representatives Jared Polis and Chellie Pingree announced a letter to Senator Harry Reid, asking him to pass the public option through reconciliation. Over 80 other representatives co-signed it.

"I'm calling today as a resident of Essex, a citizen of Maryland, and a proud American looking to push our country forward and achieve an important social milestone. I want our country to become the America its citizens need. I'm calling to ask Representative Ruppersberger to sign the Polis/Pingree letter asking Harry Reid to pass the public option through reconciliation."

She allowed me to speak completely and answered shortly after my short speech.

"Thank you very much for your call today Mr. Warman. Representative Ruppersberger will receive a transcript of this conversation tomorrow morning. Thank you for sharing your opinion directly today and we'll be glad to hear from you again in the future on issues that matter to you."

And that was it.

It doesn't seem like much now that I've written it.

But I feel so empowered! For months I have been continuously bitching about the actions of Senator Joe Lieberman and the Republican minority in the Senate. I've been enraged about the feet-dragging on the Congressional Legislative process and the ridiculous lengths our leaders have been going to try and get any resemblance of health care reform passed. And when people stood up and shouted at public officials at the health care town halls over the past summer, I stood up and yelled at my television.

I realized, though, that I was taking very little action to push political leaders my direction. Maybe it was time if I got out there and got somethine done.

And now I've done it, and it's fantastic and I want to do more. Why not write a letter to Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, asking them to support the passing of a public option through reconciliation? Why not participate in an Organization for America handout of information pamphlets on financial regulation reform? Why not join a protest outside of the Capitol Building if repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell hits a congressional bump?

There's no reason why not. Let my voice be heard!