Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

Just for fun, let's begin with Geraldo Rivera deriding the quality of today's talk shows.  Mr. Potkettleblack goes on to say that he would have Jon & Kate on his show - if he still had one - but that he would sneer at them.   It's good to know that someone's out there fighting for journalistic integrity.

In other folly, remember that explosive new book that former Secretary of Defense Tom Ridge wrote in which he claims to have been pressured into raising the terror alert for political gain?  In it he writes, "Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld,  There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?"  Today, on the topic of raising the terror levels, he said, "I was never pressured."  Is he actually contradicting a book that he wrote?  I can't help but wonder if he was pressured into writing the book.  Or into denouncing the book.  Maybe he was pressured into putting his left foot in.  Only to have someone else suggest he take his left foot out.  This man was in charge of our national security!

Marriage equality goes into effect in Vermont tomorrow!!!  It is now another LGBT marital destination.  It's also a destination for anyone demanding inequality.

Texas appears to have killed an innocent man.  

In fantastic news, a pastor comes out to his congregation as a transsexual and receives...nothing but love!!!

The righteous defenders of segregation are gearing up as the marriage equality fight moves from a low Summer simmer to full Fall boil in the Garden State.  This time they're calling themselves Minutemen.  This is going to be a tough battle.  If I stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting married anytime soon, Corzine must win.  I plan on doing everything in my power to ensure that that happens.  

Under the heading What the Fuck, Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, lesbian, partnered for 17 years and mother of a two year old, contributed $1,000 to Ron Portman, a Republican candidate who has voted repeatedly to deny Ms. Cheney her rights.  According to Mr. Portman's votes, Ms. Cheney should neither be able to marry her longtime partner nor adopt a child with her.  

Dear Mary, in lieu of sending any more money to Ron Portman, please just send it to me.  I promise I won't use it to legislate anything that smacks of separate but equal.  I won't use it to fund my cross-country inequality campaign.  I won't use it to further my religious convictions.  I'll probably just put it towards my new kitchen.

And finally, for the first time scientists were able to get up close and personal with a single molecule.  Unbelievable!

More tomorrow.

R&R

I took a break this weekend and neither watched nor read anything regarding current events.  Well, that's not true.  I watched a little bit of Senator Kennedy's funeral.  But that was it.

Rick and I spent most of the weekend getting ready to have our kitchen gutted and remodeled.  Depending on when you catch me, I'm either uncontrollably excited or paralytically scared.

This weekend the freshmen moved into Seton Hall.  Every year I marvel at how they get younger and younger.  And I've gotten used to that.  But then this year it happened.  I noticed that the parents are now getting younger as well.  I wasn't prepared for that!!! 

In light of the discovery that I'm moving into that area where I could conceivably have an eighteen year old child, I'm going to go read my book, apply some night cream and get ready for bed.  No one likes an undereducated old man with leathery skin and bags under his eyes!

More tomorrow.

You Call Yourself a Newspaper?

See what happens when you're too busy at work to eat and then get home and have two glasses of wine with dinner?  You fall asleep before you get to write your daily post.

Yesterday the Washington Post wrote an article profiling Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the group that goes from state to state demanding inequality.  They were instrumental in upholding Prop 8 in California and they have been traveling the country ever since, spreading their message of discrimination in easy-to-swallow, factually distorted sound bytes.  They're very good at what they do.  On the surface, they preach love for all.  On the surface, they say they're simply protecting "traditional marriage."  On the surface, they are a lot of things.  I understand why people might listen to them.   If you don't question what they're saying and just allow them to manipulate whatever prejudices you might hold in your heart against gay people, then you'll be easily swayed.

I would expect the Washington Post to dig a little deeper.  I would expect the Washington Post not to simply print NOM's talking points without questioning one of them.  If the Washington Post of today were covering Watergate, we would think that petty thieves broke into the Democratic National Headquarters and that would be the end of it. 

Let's start at the very beginning.  Brown claims that they're just fighting to uphold "traditional marriage," which has pretty much been the same for thousands of years.  Any questions from the Washington Post?  Any curiosity regarding how it's possible that this institution, which is thousands of years old, hasn't changed one iota until just recently?  Nope.  Shame on you Washington Post.

Marriage has been constantly evolving.  Until recently you might not have been able to pick, or even know your spouse prior to the wedding.  Until recently marriage was largely about property rights - and by property I'm referring to the wife.  That is a very traditional idea.  It's certainly been around longer than the idea that the wife is equal to the husband.  Perhaps we need to go back to wife ownership.

Of his message, Brown says, "People already believe it...but the issue is so deep-seated that they've never had to create an argument for it."  And where is the Washington Post with the follow up question?  Why do people already believe it?  Could it be "deep-seated" because we live in a society that teaches day in and day out that being gay is shameful?  And that it's remarkably easy to awaken that prejudice in people?  Could it be that we should work to alter this "deep-seated" prejudice with education instead of strengthening it with the fear and lies like the one's NOM uses as talking points?   Could it be religion, which most Americans would say has no place in our government?  Shame on you Washington Post.

This brings up another point, Mr. Brown's religion.  Much in the same way he instructs his followers to avoid the phrase "ban gay marriage," because it turns people off, it seems that he and Maggie Gallagher and their band of righteousness have moved away from discussing their religion as a possible motivation for their inequality crusade.  Here are a few quotes I got from Pam's House Blend (a wonderful site, by the way) in which Brown discusses in more plain terms his feelings about marriage equality.

"Can you give $5, $50, or even $500 to protect God's truth about marriage?"

"The One who designed marriage knew what He was doing. And we will never sit back passively and permit our own government to teach our own children a lie. Same-sex unions are not marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong."

And it's back to protecting the children.  I often wish that these people be blessed with at least one gay child.  But then it occurs to me that my wish for Brian Brown's world to be confused and muddled by facts turns into a world of torture for that young gay person and I have to unwish it.

When marriage equality gets compared to the miscegenation laws (traditional laws that have been changed, by the way) Brown responds with: "The racial bigot comparison is the most troubling part of the argument.  It's horrible, offensive, deliberately incendiary."  And where is the Washington Post to ask why it's "troubling," "horrible" and "offensive"?  Nowhere to be found.  Why is this comparison troubling to Mr. Brown?  My guess would be, and I can't really know since the Washington Post didn't attempt to find out, is that black people don't choose to be black but gay people can choose to be straight.  Going down that path, by choosing to be gay, we're committing a sin.  And when one commits a sin, one doesn't get the "special right" to marry, one gets punished.  

Again and again and again, the underlying, unspoken but extremely powerful message in the opposition's arguments against marriage equality is that we choose to be gay.  Indeed, that is why it offends Mr. Brown to have his hate campaign compared to the hate of those who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s.  Whether spoken explicitly or implied, all arguments against equality grow from that premise.  Why the gay leaders never seem to mention it or deal with it, I'll never know.

Why the Washington Post didn't ask Brown about it, I'll never know either.  Shame on you Washington Post.

Towards the end of the article, Brown's wife, who, until she married him, thought that marriage equality wasn't a "big deal," weighs in on the issue.  "'I can only go by my own experience, and I believe there's a huge difference in gender.' The kids don't need Brian 'walking in the door because he's another person. They need him because he's a man.'" 

And where is the follow up question:  And what if you got a divorce - which certainly isn't ideal for kids and yet is perfectly legal?  The church doesn't like it, and yet it's perfectly legal.   

Because here's yet another unspoken but powerful message that has gone unchallenged - gay marriage will corrode this beautiful, perfect, God created union.  How is it possible for gays to get blamed for the destruction of an institution that they haven't been able to participate in until recently, and then only on a very limited basis?  The insinuation that we will destroy this sacred institution goes utterly unchallenged.  Which one of Newt Gingrich's marriages was sacred?  The one that was spawned from an affair he was having while his wife was in a hospital bed?  Yes, it certainly would be disturbing to dirty something that pure and beautiful.

And where was the Washington Post to challenge the idea that currently families are perfect and that the gays will ruin them?  Crickets.

But I have to say, the most shocking aspect of this article that goes utterly unquestioned is Brown's wife's hesitation in telling anyone what her husband does for a living.  When discussing her husband's work, she "starts off by telling people that he's the director of a nonprofit group. If they ask for more information, she tells them it's a nonprofit dedicated to preserving marriage. And then, of course, they ask her about his position on gay marriage. Whether he's for it or against it. "  Am I the only person who's curious as to why she wouldn't just tell people what he does for a living?  Apparently I am.

Shame on you Washington Post. 

Pray, Fast, Believe

12 followers!!!  Soon I'm going to need a Blog Mitzvah! (Alright, they can't all be winners.)

I'm still deeply depressed about the hole that has been left by the passing of Senator Kennedy.  I wonder where another voice like his will come from - if we'll ever hear another voice like his.  I doubt it.  

Just to get me out of the this horrible mood I'm in, I'll start with Governor Sanford.  Apparently he will not be going quietly.  I'm just going to say it:  I wish I had his balls.  I wish I could stand up - after disappearing for a week - after leaving my wife and kids as well as my job - after possibly stealing money in order to travel to another country where I would be meeting my soul mate who, not for nothing, isn't my wife - and declare that I would not be "railroaded" out of my job!  (There's a level of "fuck you" inherent in him that I just don't have.  I don't think he would have hemmed and hawed about starting a blog!)

"I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)... I come from the business side," he said. "If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."  I could not agree more.  And who is the "he" in this quote?  Who is this insightful man and what is he referring to?  It would be Governor Sanford, then Representative Sanford, discussing the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.  He voted to impeach. 

And for the love of all that is good and holy, let's not forget for one moment that this man, this paramour of virtue - wait - paragon - sorry - paragon - paragon of virtue has voted time and again to deny marriage equality to gays.  He does not think that we should be able to take part in the sacred institution of marriage.  I guess he doesn't want us sullying it.  Or maybe he's afraid we're going to show him how it's supposed to be done.  Or maybe he's just an asshole.

In other news, the NY Times reported that "The mayor of Anchorage...vetoed a ban against discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying it was unclear that such discrimination existed."  The veto does not have the votes for an override.  At this point I don't feel any great need to ever see that state.

The National Organization for Marriage seems to be heading to Iowa to spread the hate and make sure that only people they like have the rights that they feel like bequeathing.  Aren't they in Maine this week trying to drum up support for inequality there?  Who'da thunk that fighting for inequality while simultaneously attempting to make us a nation where the separation of church and state is a quaint anecdote in an eighth grade history textbook would be so exhausting and travel heavy?

Michael Steele.  A prime example of why I don't think people are smart just because they're lawyers.  

According to Utah Governor Gary Herbert, everyone "ought to just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and we don't have to have a law that punishes us if we don't."  This was his reasoning behind opposing anti-discrimination laws against the LGBT community.  One has to wonder what exactly Gov. Herbert's idea of "the right thing" is.  But since I don't know, and since he doesn't believe that there ought to be laws that spell it out, I'm just going to stay the hell away from Utah.

And finally tonight, I'm going to leave you with my favorite person, Michele Bachmann.  She's urging those who oppose health care reform to fast reform away.  “That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting,” she told the listeners. “Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act.”  Here's hoping that, should the fast go on for too long, they're all covered under a good plan.

And in the spirit of bipartisanship, the same spirit that the president is allowing to kill any hope of meaningful health care reform, I'm going to take some advice from Ms. Bachmann.  If it will help get a public option passed, I too will get on my knees.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy

So much happened today.  All of my favorite stories - Governor Sanford and Michele Bachmann.  You know how I love a good Michele Bachmann story.  And it's a doozy.  Also a few other tales of folly.  But I'm not in the mood to make fun of the inanity of ridiculous people tonight.

Tonight I'd just like to thank Senator Kennedy.  I'd like to thank him for his unwavering work on behalf of those who don't often have a voice in this country.  He did battle for the powerless.  He believed that all people in this country deserved to be treated equally.  He believed that the playing field needed to be a level one so that all Americans could have the opportunity to achieve.   He believed that all Americans should have access to health care.  He believed that we were in this together.

He had the strength to fight for what he believed in and the wisdom to understand how to get it.

I am going to go to bed tonight hoping that our president has been paying attention to the remarkable life and legacy of this great man.  He was strong.  And fearless.  And understood that when the Democrats hold the White House, the House and the Senate, it's not the Democrats that need to make all the concessions!  

He was unafraid to be a Democrat.  A liberal. 

That is rare.

His voice, strong and unapologetic, will be sorely missed.

Out In the World

Why is this day different from all other days?

Rather than complaining about all I see that is wrong in the world, I went out into the world and did my little part to try to fix it.

Today I volunteered for HRC's "No Excuses" campaign.  The idea behind the campaign is to meet with our representatives, face to face, while they're on their August break, and discuss the issues that are important to the LGBT community.

It was the first time I've ever done anything like this.  Until a few years ago, I couldn't have told you who my representatives were.  So meeting with them was truly out of the question.  

I've never felt as empowered as I felt today.

Our government is not something distant and untouchable.  The laws that govern our lives do not get shaped in a far off distant place.  You can make your voice heard.  They pay attention to your letters.  They pay attention to your phone calls and your emails.  But it takes a commitment.  A commitment on your part to do something.  To stop merely complaining to friends and neighbors.  To stop merely complaining to your carpool buddy on the way to work.  If you're unhappy with some of what's going on in your world, you can begin to affect change in that world.

For the first time today, I did just that.  And if I weren't so tired right now I'd be much more eloquent in describing it.

I would love nothing more than to go into the details of the meeting, but I've got to go to bed.  I will just say this:  today I volunteered my time and my energy and possibly made a very small dent in a very hard world.  

It is a feeling unlike any I've ever had before.  

And I want to have it again.

Bullet Points

Just a quickie tonight.  Papa's tired and it's getting late.  

Alright, 9:45pm isn't late.  But I'm tired nonetheless.

Let's begin -

According to Bloomberg, the Democrats might just push health care reform through on their own.  Of course that is greatly upsetting to the Republicans, who are against pushing a bill through without their support, against making concessions, and seemingly against health care reform of any kind.  

After claiming that there would be "death panels" if we instituted a government run health care program, Senator Grassley decided to actually read the bill.  He now acknowledges that nothing in the bill comes close to saying anything about "pull[ing] the plug on grandma."  Oops.  As the great Gilda Radner would say, "Never mind."

After leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church voted to remove a ban on gay clergy and to recognize gay marriages within the church - well, is seems the church might just splinter into a few pieces.  Some hateful.  Others not so much.

Arthur Frommer, of Frommer's, said he won't be going to Arizona anytime soon due to their current gun laws.  

As more and more allegations surface concerning the treatment of terror suspects in our custody, A.G. Holder will be appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the claims of abuse.  Does anyone else think that we did things far more horrific than what we're hearing about?  Or am I just paranoid?

And my favorite clip of the day.  In lieu of affordable health care, Senator Coburn thinks that we, as Americans, as neighbors, should pitch in to help.  If that's the case, then I for one am going to go to bed tonight praying as hard as I can that my neighbors are nurses and doctors and that they have equipment, medication and a lot of time on their hands.  I'm going to pray that they will selflessly take care of me should I become gravely ill. 

I get it - we don't need health care reform.  We need the entire country to get together to sing the theme from "The Golden Girls."

The husband of the woman in the clip has suffered a brain injury.  Here's hoping that one of her neighbors can help her feed him and has a degree in speech pathology.

A Sunday Shopping Expedition

I've needed new sneakers for the better part of the past month.  I've been to the same store twice and both times they have been out of my size.  Apparently 9s are very popular.  

Today was attempt #3.  

I walked in.  I asked for a few different shoes in my size.  One pair was available only in an 8.  One pair was available only in a 9 1/2.  And one pair was - well - it wasn't a pair.  If my right foot was a 9 and my left was an 11, I would have been golden.  Curses!!!  So close!!!

At this point, sensing my frustration, the salesgirl suggested that in order to make the 9 1/2s fit, I should try them with an insole.  

In desperation, I acquiesced.  I tried on the shoes with the insole.  

Perfect.  They fit.  

And then it happened.  

She told me that the insoles would cost me $20. 

Now, to this point, I'd been nice to her.  I've worked retail more recently than I care to admit (I actually accepted my first, and to date, only Broadway gig from a phone at a cash register at The Gap.  But that's a whole other post) and I understand that it's not her fault.  She's got no more control over the inventory than I do.  But now I get a little bitchy.  This is my third trip to this store.  I'm trying to give them my money.  They've yet to have any merchandise at the intersection of Want and Useable.  And now they're adding a surcharge for their incompetence. 

"So let me get this straight, just to make it clear in my head," I said.  "You want to charge me more for a pair of shoes that don't fit me?  Am I understanding this correctly?"

She smiled sheepishly and said, "Yes."

I suggested that maybe if they wanted to give me the stupid insoles...

But that wasn't meant to be.

And neither was my purchase.

A little while later, I got a snapshot of our not quite yet recovered economy.  It didn't come from the WSJ.   It came from an experience I had in another store.  Apparently prices are dropping faster than Jon & Kate's ratings.  

I just felt like treating myself to a little happy.  So I stopped into a store and found a shirt I liked - $44.50.  Perfect.  It was right smack dab in the middle of Cheap and Feel Good.

I took it to the register and casually asked if it was on sale, "Because I would buy it in another color but I don't want to spend $90."   The salesgirl instantly took a coupon from below the register and swiped it.  My shirt now rang up at $35.  

"Will I still get a discount if I buy two?"  She explained that there's another discount for spending $75 or more.  At this point, with the shirt reduced to $35, I hadn't spent that.

She looked at me and said, "I ain't gonna hold you to $5."

I get the other shirt.  They both rang up for $59.

The best part of the story?

When I told my mother this, she instantly replied, "I'd have gotten them for $50."

Temperanillo & Twix

I'm three glasses of Temperanillo and one peanut butter Twix into my weekend.

So let's start with Michele Bachmann.  

Apparently she hates the idea of a public option so much that she's stated, for the record, unequivocally, that "under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."  Interesting.  Apparently her reproductive organs don't fall under the heading of her "body" or her "health care decisions."  Because as we all know, Ms. Bachmann is vehemently pro-life.

I hate the name "pro-life."  By default, it implies that everyone who doesn't agree with them is pro-death.

What I find most fascinating about the pro-life movement is that most of them tend to be Republicans.  Aren't these the same people who want a smaller government?  A government that's not in your home, your small business or your wallet?  

But in your uterus is not only fine, apparently it's necessary.  

You might do something with it that they don't like.

And aren't they all about personal liberty and freedom and responsibility?  

Yes.  

Right up until they don't like one of your decisions.

In other news, predictably, the members of the W. administration have begun to speak out against Tom Ridge's claim that he was "pressured" to raise the terror alerts in order to gain political capital.  As more and more books are written, and as each person with their own ax to grind comes forward, we're going to learn more and more about all the things we've always suspected.  I may have to avert my eyes at some point.  I'm not sure I want confirmed all the things I suspected.  But for now I'll just enjoy watching them all point their fingers at one another.

And finally, props to the Evangelical Lutheran Church who voted today to "allow churches to hire gay pastors in relationships."  In the past, they were allowed only to hire celibate gay pastors.

Of the decision, Rev. Paul Spring of Pennsylvania said, “I am saddened that a Lutheran church that was founded on a firm commitment to the Bible has come to the point that the ELCA would vote to reject the Bible’s teaching on marriage and homosexual behavior. I breaks my heart.” 

As I go to bed on this rainy Friday night I'm going to hope for more and more broken hearts like the one Rev. Paul Spring has.

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM (National Organization for Marriage), was on Lou Dobbs the other night along with Tobias Wolff.  The topic was gay marriage.  One of the points that she, as well as all others who seek to deny gays and lesbians equality under the law, was making was that if we allow gay people to marry, it will have to be taught in schools.  Children, innocent, wide-eyed children will have homosexuality taught to them.  To be clear, no one is talking about this.  It's a tactic used to stir fear.  But it rarely gets examined.  Why is it such a potent assertion?  Why does the idea of teaching our children homosexuality create fear?  

There is a lot packed into this statement that lies just beneath the surface.  I want to dissect the statement and get to the core of that fear.  I also want to look at how destructive those ideas are; destructive that they are even presented as legitimate differences of opinion.

The first point I want to make is that fear of teaching our children about homosexuality is based on the notion that there are no homosexual children.  Somehow, when we talk about teaching our children in this debate, the gay ones get excluded.  They don't exist.  Following this logic, it's only reasonable to conclude that at some point we choose to become gay.  And continuing down that road, on the morality meter, the choice to be gay lies somewhere between destructive and downright evil.  In swoops Maggie and her ilk to protect protect protect - if we don't teach it, if we don't plant that seed in their heads, it will cease to exist.  And while the opponents of gay equality claim to be our friends and wish us well (albeit without all of the civil rights protections and responsibilities that they enjoy), it is a false claim.  Their goal is not simply to enshrine discrimination into our legal code, it is to eradicate homosexuality.

I'm here to say that gay children do exist.  I know this for a fact.  I was a gay child.  I knew I was gay as far back as I have memory.  I knew it before I had words for it.  I knew it before it was a particularly sexual thought.  I have been gay my entire life.  That includes childhood.  I might have found some comfort had someone taught me a little bit about it.  But in the 70's and 80's that was not an option.  I found myself very alone and very scared.

Why alone and scared?  I learned what Maggie Gallagher is teaching.  She spends sleepless nights worried about what these radical gay activists seeking equality in all civil matters are teaching our children.  I'm worried about what she and all of her peers who spew hate and call it love are teaching our children.

If I were a gay child today, these are a few things I might have learned this week alone.

I would have learned that to be gay, or even have to portray a gay person in a movie, is upsetting, disturbing and forces people to physically move away from you.  I assume for fear of catching it. 

I would have learned that homosexuality is akin to graffiti.  Funny, right?  Until you read the whole article which goes on to state that "both are warning signs that our society is very sick indeed, and may be entering its final crisis."  If you're a gay child, you've just been called sick and blamed for society's ills.  You're twelve.

Had I been in Steven Anderson's church in Tempe, AZ, I would have learned that homosexuals should be put to death.  TO DEATH.  But that's just one point in his sermon.  As you listen to him, keep in mind that his website describes his church as a "young, family-oriented church."

I might have learned that God sends tornados as punishment for homosexuality.

As the debate over whether gay people deserve the same set of rights as straight people rages on I want to make one more point.  The mere fact that the Maggie Gallaghers of the world are allowed to go to the news outlets and speak their opinion is destructive.  Her views incite hate and fear and have been repudiated by science over and over again.  I don't believe in censorship, but I also don't believe that all opinions are created equal.  I don't hear anyone on t.v. being given equal time to preach that the world is flat.  I also don't hear anyone on t.v. claiming that we should revert to slavery.  Using the same ideas that the opponents of marriage equality use, ideas of tradition and the bible, I could easily argue that slavery should be reinstated.  Indeed, the argument that the bible condones slavery was used by anti-abolitionists.  However, it has no place in our national discourse.

Neither does Maggie Gallagher.

The next time you see or hear untruths and hate; the next time see or hear someone "protecting our children," imagine that you are 6 or 7 or 13 or 17.  And imagine that you're watching CNN, listening to that debate with your parents.  And you know that you're gay.  And you know that you can't change it.  

What exactly have you been taught?

The Rundown

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Just the Facts, Ma'am

Alright, I'm tired.  I've had a long day which was then followed by a long evening.  

Just some bullet points:

Barney Frank came face to face with a woman who probably thought that her ignorance and abuse of history would be met with more respect.

An Israeli Jew, while discussing Israel's health care system, inexplicably had a woman scream "Heil Hitler" at him.  

At some point the Holocaust and health care became intertwined.  I'm not sure when it happened, but that's likely because I don't watch Fox.

Justice Scalia claimed it was legal to kill innocent people.

A dyed in the wool conservative will be trying a Prop 8 case - in favor of marriage equality.

And after a raid on a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas (on the night of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots) which resulted in one man falling into a coma, the Fort Worth police will be revising their bar inspection policies.

Alas, I did not come across anything about Michele Bachmann today.  

There's always tomorrow.

Michele Bachmann Update

According to World Net Daily (don't go there on a full stomach - I'm not kidding) Michele will only run for the highest office in the land "if I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do."

Let's all hope that the Lord doesn't have her number.

Just Do It

Would someone please explain to me why the Republicans, who are almost universally wrong on almost every issue, never care if they're liked or if they're popular.  They do what they want and that's the end of that.  Can you imagine the Republicans holding majorities in both the House and the Senate while having a Republican in the White House (you can, I know you can) and giving a rat's ass about getting some Democrats on board?  I think we've seen this happen.  And I think the answer is a resounding, "No."

The Republicans are never afraid to be evil.  Why are the Democrats afraid to be not evil?  Who exactly are they catering to by getting rid of the public option?  The Republicans?  They aren't going to sign any - ANY - health care reform put forward by Obama.  And frankly, health care reform without a public option is not health care reform. 

Thankfully, the unions have stepped up and said no public option, no support for the Democrats.  There are also a few Democrats who have stressed the importance of the public option.  In The Washington Post "Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said that 'without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.'"

Thank God!!!  Obama seems incapable of being disliked too much by any one group for too long.  It seems whoever voices their disapproval the loudest gets his attention.  Today I hope big labor drowned out the voices of the birthers or deathers or whatever they're calling themselves this week.  In the meantime, by seeming to want to be liked by everyone, he has angered everyone.  

Who knows.  Maybe he's more brilliant than anyone can conceive and he's plotting all of this out.  Maybe we've just moved our first pawn and he's thinking Check Mate.  

Time will tell, but I don't think so.  To quote Bill Maher:  "The audacity of hope part is over.  Right now, I'm hoping for a little more audacity."

Breathtaking

More guns.  More guns are better.

I saw two stories today about guns.  And both of them made me sick to my stomach.

The first one I saw had this headline:  "Line-Cutting Dispute At Roadside Food Stand Leads To Fatal Shooting."  "A dispute over line-cutting at a roadside food stand led to the shooting death of a bystander and the serious injury of another man, Tampa police said."

Then I saw a story - yet another one - about the carrying of semi-automatic weapons.  To Town Hall meetings.  Where the President was going to be speaking.  

This particular story centers around a Town Hall meeting in Arizona.  Apparently Arizona has an open carry gun law.  What does that mean?  Well, after doing about a half hour of research on Arizona's gun laws, I'm not entirely sure.  There are a lot of laws, most of which seem to say - Hey, it's fine.  Don't worry about.  You can have one.  Loaded.  Pretty much anywhere.  If Wikipedia is to be trusted, in Arizona, "on foot, no permit is required to openly carry a firearm in a belt holster, gun case or scabbard. Generally, a person must be at least 18 years of age to openly carry a firearm."  That's just one quote.  There are many, many more.

Have we, as a nation, completely lost our fucking minds?  When did gun rights translate into any gun, any time, any where?  Public parks.  Bars.  An event where the President of the United States will be speaking.  I just don't get it.

In other remarkable news today, the Department of Justice issued a brief which seeks "to throw out a lawsuit brought by a gay couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA."  Obama's administration is playing both ends against the middle (politically speaking, that is) by saying that they must file the brief because it is their duty to follow the law (ummm....they didn't have to file any brief) but then went on to say that the discriminatory practices involved in the law would be looked into and that the President "plans to work with Congress to repeal the law."  

Joe Solmonese, President of HRC had this to say:  "Now the President must take a leadership role in repealing DOMA. It is not enough to disavow this discriminatory law, and then wait for Congress or the courts to act. While they contend that it is the DOJ’s duty to defend an act of Congress, we contend that it is the Administration’s duty to defend every citizen from discrimination."

One of two things is happening with Obama and his treatment of gay people, and neither one of them is very pretty.  Either his prejudices are such that he thinks that we, as gay Americans, don't deserve the same freedoms, liberties, responsibilities and rights as straight people - in which case we truly were had.  And cheaply, I might add.  Or, and perhaps this is actually worse, he does believe that we deserve equality under the law but doesn't have the balls to stand up and say so due to political fear.  Time will tell if he will be the "fierce advocate" he claimed he would be.  So far, with "fierce advocates" like him...

And finally, a little Michele Bachmann fun.  It seems that she has proudly cast herself as the original, and next, Sarah Palin.  

Minnesota State Senator Tarryl Clark, Bachmann's Democratic challenger, said this to The Huffington Post:  "For many in Minnesota, when Sarah Palin came on the scene it seemed like she was Alaska's Michelle Bachmann...They seem to share some similarities."  Clearly, Clark meant it as a dig.

For her part, Bachmann seems to love the idea.  ""With Gov. Palin taking a well-deserved step out of the spotlight, it appears that I may be absorbing even more of the liberals' scorn," she said.

After many, many signs that Michele Bachmann lives on another planet, this statement seems to be the clearest.  Does she really think that EX-Governor Palin is going to stepping out of the spotlight?

Change

I've been blogging now for seven days.  My first full week of writing.  I have to say that it's been a short yet remarkable journey.

It's a strange feeling, blogging.  Blogging is the digital equivalent of standing in Times Square with a megaphone.  But there's a strange disconnect that goes with it.  Because you can't tell if anyone is hearing you.  If I were to stand in Times Square with a megaphone, which I suppose would be more courageous, I would see people try to scurry by or give me dirty looks or toss money.  Something.  I would physically be there.  There would be some sort of exchange.  I would witness.  

But here, sitting in my office, hammering away, trying to empty out my head and grant my husband the gift of peace, I'm alone.  It feels a little bit like shouting into a cave.

For this reason, your comments are greatly appreciated. 

But then an odd thing happened at a party I was at last night.  Twice my blog was mentioned.  And twice I found myself staring at the ground, embarrassed.  At first it struck me as an odd reaction.  But being honest with myself, I realized that it wasn't odd.  It's not odd at all. 

I've talked before about the voices that hold me back.  I know about them.  I live with them.  That they exist isn't news to me.  What I didn't know, until I put myself in this slightly uncomfortable, highly vulnerable position, is just how frequently they speak.  And how consistent they are.  

I'm currently working in a branding/design firm.  I knew nothing of the business when I first walked in the door.  After nearly two years there I haven't learned nearly as much about the world of branding/design as I would like.  But I have picked up a few things, one of them being the vital importance of repetition.  It is comfortable and reassuring.  If real estate is about location location location, then, in my very humble opinion, a great deal of marketing is about repetition repetition repetition.

The apologies, the not good enoughs, the don't moves - they are consistent and comfortable.  They repeat and repeat.  And they are not voices.  They are me.

So I guess that doing this, even if I am shouting into an empty cave, is a makeover of sorts.  A redefining.    

In Tony Kushner's play Angels in America, one character asks another how we change.  This is the response:

"God splits the skin with a jagged thumbnail from throat to belly and then plunges a huge filthy hand in, he grabs hold of your bloody tubes and they slip to evade his grasp but he squeezes hard, he insists, he pulls and pulls till all your innards are yanked out and the pain! We can't even talk about that. And then he stuffs them back, dirty, tangled and torn. It's up to you to do the stitching."

More tomorrow.