I've decided that I should be president. I'll be legally eligible in 2012.
I'm going to pick presidential questionnaires off of [Google] and answer them. I'll start with the first one that came up when I searched:

The Human Rights Campaign envisions an America where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work, and in the community."

All candidates running for President were asked to answer each of the following questions, and elaborate as much as they would like here, or on additional sheets.

1. In 36 states, no laws protect Americans from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, like the federal laws that exist on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that would prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation?

There are also no laws to protect Americans from employment discrimination based on hair color, poor fashion sense, dislike of chocolate, or even having never seen a Monty Python movie. At what point do we admit that we can't cover all bases if we spell out what you can't discriminate for? More laws aren't going to solve the problem. Nor can you legislate people smarter. If someone doesn't want to hire someone, they'll find a way to not hire them. I believe that it is not the federal government's responsibility to legislate this.

1a. As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression?

see above.

2. Currently federal hate crime laws do not cover sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Would you support the inclusion of protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity to the law passed in 1968 which covers the categories of race, religion and national origin?

I would support the repeal of any "Hate Crime" Laws. I think specifying that some crimes are worse based on motivation is ludicrous. I would prefer that all violent crime carry harsher punishment.

3. New treatments have improved the quality of life for those living with HIV/AIDS, but those treatments are expensive, and not available to everyone who needs them. As president, would you support:

3a. Increased funding for the Ryan White CARE Act?

Yes.

3b. Allowing low-income Americans better access to treatment through the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA)?

Yes.

3c. Increased funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and research?

I would support increased funding for prevention, treatment and research of all diseases, not just those that are currently High Profile.

3d. Comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education for America's students that includes science-based prevention methods?

Last time I checked, the only scientifically proven method of preventing both pregnancy and transimsion of STD's is to refrain from sex. Therefore this question seems to ask if I support teaching abstinance. To which I say yes. The rest of the question, pertaining to "Comprehensive and age-appropriate" is meaningless as the definition of age-approprite is different for every person. It is not the government's place to decide at what age a child is old enough to learn about sex. That's the parents' job. The government is not your baby sitter. As far as Comprehensive is concerned, does this mean we should teach using sausage casings as condoms? Oral sex as a way to reduce pregnancy risk? Maybe we should also bring those suffer from STD's to show the results of poor decision making. This question sucks.

4. Currently, no state recognizes any legal form of marriage for same sex couples. Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no requirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?

Again. I don't think the government has the right, the authority, or any reason to have a say in the personal decision of how people set up their household. This is a matter for the people involved to decide. There should be no legal benefits or penalties for marriage for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

5. If you do not believe that civil marriage for same-sex couples should be made available to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples, is there any legal construct you do embrace that would extend legal recognition to same sex couples?

See Above.

6. If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex couples (and their families) for purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities, should the federal government recognize the state's legal recognition of such couples and families for purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment?

See Question 4.

7. Gay and lesbian Americans pay federal taxes. According to a 1997 GAO study requested by Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, there are over 1000 benefits, rights and privileges provided to married couples and their families in federal law. Same-sex couples cannot access such benefits, rights and privileges because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in any state in the union. Do you support extending federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples (and their children) provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest?

See Question 4. Also, this question is leading and biased.

7a. Specifically, do you support the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners and their children?

I think the FMLA should cover all households, including non-romantically-involved roommates, and parents who are not married, regardless of marital status.

7b. Do you support modifying the Social Security System to pay survivor benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people?

Survivor Benefits should be provided to the person designated by the person for whom the benefits are paid.

7c. Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples?

See Question 4

7d. Many gay and lesbian people serve in the federal government but do not receive the same health insurance and other employee benefits of married couples. Do you support domestic partner coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal workforce?

The first sentence is not a question and is intended to bias the answer to the actual question.
In addition, the inclusion of the phrase "gay and lesbian" makes the question discriminitory. What about heterosexual domestic partners?
A domestic partner is a domestic partner in my opinion. Marriage should not be a legal definition.

8. While 47 states allow gay and lesbian people to adopt children, some legislators are pushing to prohibit capable, committed adults from adopting because of their sexual orientation. As president would you support giving appropriate judicial authorities the full authority to make decisions on adoption based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation?

47 states have already made this decision. The federal government does not have the authority to make this decision for the other 3. This is a matter for states to decide.

9. Would you support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?

Yes.

10. Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers the right to serve openly in the military as is currently the policy in nearly every NATO country?

This question is also written in a leading way. It should have ended after the word "military". I support the right of any American Citizen to serve in the armed forces. Sexual orientation should never enter into the question. I would support a "Don't Ask, Period." policy. If a person serves in the military and meets the expectations of the job, they may stay in the job.

Utah may revoke Santa's aviation exemption

The city's airport board recently proposed a change in the part of the aviation code that said small aircraft must maintain an altitude of more than 2,000 feet (610 metres) while flying over Salt Lake City. For years, Santa Claus and his reindeer were granted an exception -- but no more.

Have none of these people seen Miracle on 34th Street? Or any other Christmas movie? The issue isn't about if Santa exists, the issue is one learning what kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person that believes that the impossible isn't? Or are you the kind of person who, believes that being "modern and professional" means "joy-less and unimaginative."
Obviously, the Santa Exception was intended as a light-hearted gesture to bring some fun into the oh-so-exciting world of local laws. Maybe the people of Salt Lake City, in the interests of being "Modern and Professional" should look at taking this more seriously? Perhaps some provisions for enforcement? How much should Santa be fined if he violates the new rules? Will attempts be made to apprehend Santa should he violate the rule? Will those who leave out cookies and milk be charged with aiding and abetting? And will Superman also be subject to the altitude limits?
This is important people.

From: AOPA Online - Proof AOPA Airport Watch concept works

two men of Middle Eastern appearance walk into the FBO, pull out cash to pay for the flight, and present driver's licenses from two different states as ID. Office staff notices their car is registered in a third state.
...
Local police arrived shortly and hauled the suspects off to jail in handcuffs. Police discovered box cutters and other potential weapons hidden in the bags.

And now (with apologies to Paul Harvey), the rest of the story.

After a little time behind bars, the two "terrorists" confessed that they were NBC employees from New York. Their assignment: A story on how "easy" it was to get information and directions to a helicopter and then hijack it. St. Louis was their first attempt; the network reportedly planned similar tries to penetrate security at airports around the country.

It's good to know that the people at the airport were alert and quick thinking. I think that regardless of who they work for or the motivation behind their "assignment" these people should be tried as criminals and jailed for their actions, as should their bosses. They want to prove that the system doesn't work? They should pay the consequences when it does work. To me, this is (at the very least) akin to calling in a false fire alarm. The classic scenario of "What if there had been a real emergency while officers were dealing with these asshats?"
There was a big discussion on #wordpress about the bias of the media, and it was argued that "the other" news services don't slant their news as much as Fox does... that they stick more to the "facts." Apparently, it's making the news yourself is un-biased though.

Life goes on. For most of us. It may go on a little differently than before, but it does go on. The news coverage is no longer overwhelming, the celebrity concerts have begun. Flags have returned to full staff. The show is up. I'm getting ready to move. And all in all, life goes on. And yet...
I look at the planes in the sky a little more closely. I've always loved airplanes, and in a week and a half I'll be getting in one again to go visit the most beautiful woman in the world. (who, strange as it may seem, loves me too) I also look up a bit more when I go to work. The John Hancock building is right there and I can't help but wonder if its design would hold up any better. I look at the flags in people's windows and wonder how long they'll stay. Will I put mine back up in my new apartment? And I sit and watch the news and wonder, when the bombs start falling... will we be more careful about who they fall on then the people we're trying to get were? What makes America better than Afghanistan? Were the people who participated in the Boston Tea Party terrorists? When our own states wanted to split from our government, we went to war to stop them, but we cheered and helped when the states of the USSR did the same thing. Yeah, you say, but the reasons were different. But who are we to decide what's a better reason.
I've always believed that you cannot truly understand what you believe until you've questioned it and looked at it as if the belief is false. That is the only way you can be sure that what you believe, for you, must be true.
So, by that token, I ask these questions. And then I have to answer them as such. The world changes over time, and we refine what our criteria for supporting a movement is. But, it's always freedom. If people are trying to be more free, then we support them. If they are fighting to restrict freedom, we oppose them. And yes... what looks like freedom in one situation can look like repression in another, so sometimes we make the wrong choice. But we keep trying. And that, quite simply, is what we must do now. Keep trying... help people be free. Free from oppression, free from fear, free from danger, free to choose who leads them, free to choose what they believe, and free to let the person who believes differently from them have the same freedoms. So... keep trying.