Sinning with a Mouse Click

My mom sent me an e-mail forward today and asked if it was true. She does this often. On one hand, I think it's kind of cute that she thinks I'm the expert on everything. On the other hand, I wish she'd spend a few minutes on Google and figure out that a handful of her friends are mildly retarded and shouldn't be allowed within 15 feet of a computer.

Below is the forward she sent me, followed by my response. The original forward was drafted in multiple colors, multiple font sizes, random CAPITAL letters, and--of course--in that dreadful curvy font that you'd use on your five year-old's birthday invitation. You know--the same way scholarly journals are drafted, right? :-/ I won't attempt to recreate the crappy font choices, as I do not want to assault your senses.

----------------

Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

--Snip--

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...!

--------------------

My response to mom:

Mom,

Admittedly I don't know enough about Sharia law to answer this completely definitively, but whenever someone makes such sweeping accusations, it should cause you to raise an eyebrow. Here is a website purporting to debunk most of that forward's claims: http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2009/08/nonie-darwish-hate-monger.html.

If you Google the author, the first hit you receive is the Wikipedia page about her. (Remember, Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than encyclopedias in print form because it is edited by the world and then fact-checked by the rest of the world.) Here is the Wikipedia page on Nonie Darwish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish. You can see that Nonie used to be a Muslim and converted to Christianity. She also founded "Arabs for Israel." She is not a religious scholar. She clearly has a bit of an axe to grind, which doesn't discredit her outright, but let's just keep that in mind.

So let's pick apart the email a bit, shall we?

1. First, forwards that are drafted in curvy fonts, different colors, different text sizes, which conclude in CAPS, and which issue a warning about the ACLU repressing your speech are never true. Never. Such forwards are about as useless as tits on a nun.

2. Islam is not uniform... nor is Christianity. There are radicals in every group. That's not to say that some sects of Islam don't have some serious, serious problems. A sizable chunk of Muslim men in places like Saudi Arabia still beat the crap out of their wives. But on the flip side, you wouldn't want your church associated with the lunatics who bomb abortion clinics, would you? It's fair to criticize another's religion--and we should be pointing out human rights abuses and never excusing them under the guise of religion--but it's always important to separate what really is "the religion" from what is some radical sect that is using a religious text to do things that rational people would never consider holy.

3. The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. They protect people from religion just as they protect people's right to practice religion. When a town tries to put a cross on public land--such as the courthouse lawn--the ACLU sues because that's a government endorsement of religion. (I know some people won't like that, but that's what living in a country that respects the separation of Church and State is all about: it doesn't mean we suppress your Christianity, it just means you don't get to force your Christianity upon anyone else. Live and let live.) But the ACLU also sticks up for people when their religious rights are trampled. Check out this long list of pro-religious court cases the ACLU has recently brought on behalf of religious people and groups: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression.

Recall that Rush Limbaugh hates the ACLU. But when Rush got in trouble for illegally "doctor shopping" and getting multiple prescriptions for pain killers, who came to his defense? The ACLU. Why? Because the prosecutor was trying to illegally publish parts of Limbaugh's medical records, and the ACLU knew this violated his right to medical privacy.

4. The number of U.S. Muslims is impossible to pin down, but reputable organizations put the estimates between 2.5 million and 7 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States). The current U.S. population is over 307 million people. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). Assuming that different groups of people vote in roughly the same percentages, we'll even take the high number and divide: so 7 million Muslims divided by 307 million people in America is 2.28% of the population.

Will someone please, please explain to me how in just twenty years' time, 2.28% of the population (and that's using the high estimate) will produce enough children to elect a president that will impose Sharia law upon the U.S.? Are all Muslim women going to start having 100 babies a piece starting today? Because, remember, the kids can't vote until they're 18, and it takes 9 months for a baby to gestate, so that's almost 19 years right there. Are all non-Muslim women in the U.S. going to stop having children? The whole thing idea that Muslims will be a majority soon and will be able to elect a president is retarded--even with immigration and converts. Not gonna happen. Period.

Furthermore, the idea that a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia law could even do so without overturning the constitution we've had for over 200 years is even more retarded and shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding how our government really works. (Are two-thirds of Congress going to go along with this? Are three-fourths of all the state legislatures, as is required for amendments? Would the Supreme Court even allow the First Amendment to be stricken, as would have to happen for Sharia law to replace freedom of religion? Is the author of this forward smoking crack, and, if so, where can I get some?) Anyone who forwards such numerical nonsense should be ashamed of their math skills, their U.S. history skills, and their inability to spend two minutes on Google.

5. Finally, remember that your son worked at Target in college. There is an old e-mail forward that still circulates asking people to protest Target because it's allegedly anti-veteran and French-owned. Aunt Jackie even forwarded it to you, as I recall. In truth, Target is neither anti-veteran nor foreign-owned. The truth may be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp.

Think about the consequences of sending the Target forward. I only got to work when Target needed me. Target needed me when the store sold enough merchandise to justify giving me more hours. So for each idiot that sends that forward and stops coming to Target, Target loses business, and I don't work. My life is therefore harmed not by anything bad that Target actually did, but by the harmful, childish, unintelligent lies that some half-wit has spread from the comfort of his or her computer chair.

And make no mistake about it: it's a lie. A lie is something that is not the truth; we all know this, but somehow when it's just something we shuffle along with a few mouse clicks it seems less offensive. But it isn't less of a lie because you sent the e-mail along not knowing if it was true or not. Gossiping--if untrue--is still lying.

If your religion holds that all sins are equal (or at least all sins besides blaspheming God), then lying is as bad as rape. If lying is as bad as rape, then the person who sent you this ridiculous e-mail is as bad as the Muslim man who just brutally raped his wife. Think about that: by clicking "send," your friend just committed the sinful equivalent of rape. Gee, all the sudden sending this crap over the Internet doesn't seem so Christian, does it?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your friend should think of whom she is hurting when she sends out lies. Think of the poor, peaceful Muslim immigrant who moves into her neighborhood. If all her other neighbors got this e-mail, how do you think they would treat that immigrant? (Again, this isn't to say that some Muslims aren't violent. That's a national conversation we need to have: how to allow religious freedom while at the same time protecting against terrorists and extremists. But there is a difference between Islamic terrorists and the little old lady named Fatima who moved here so she and her family could have a better life.) Better yet, turn the tables: if you suddenly had to relocate to Indonesia and were the only Christian in the neighborhood, how would you feel about someone who was spreading lies about Christianity in your new village?

Sending forwards like this without fact checking is cruel, it's immature, and it's woefully un-Christian.

But if you remember nothing else, remember this: whenever you see forwards written in crazy colors, different sized fonts, and with the word "ACLU" thrown in... it's gonna be bullshit. Every time.

Love - your liberally educated devil child,

Paul

Prostitution... It's All About the Timing

Prostitution should be legalized. Why? Because in most situations, it's already legal... it's just overlooked. (I'll leave others to debate the moral consequences and the subjugation of women issue, which are perfectly valid points. Personally, I think prostitution is a tad creepy for the same reason I find selling one's organs creepy: it's just horrible to think that this is the only way some people think they can make a living.) For my purposes, though, I think a good argument for legalization can be made just for the sake of consistency in the law. Let's be honest about what makes a prostitute a prostitute: it's when you hand over the dough.

If you pick up a hooker on the street, take her back to a hotel, bang her, and give her a few benjamins, she is a prostitute. If you pick her up in a strip club while she's working, take her out to dinner, buy her jewelry, bang her, and marry her, she is Anna Nicole Smith. (Note that just because you're married doesn't mean you're not still a hooker.)

Gay men are no different. If you're a hot, young 20-something and your boyfriend is much older, wealthier, and saggy, spare me the crap about liking older men because they're "mature." Watch the elder's stock options evaporate and see how long Junior sticks around. Junior, you're a prostitute.

So the next time you see the brightly painted women or "women" on Halsted in Chicago or Jarvis in Toronto or wherever hos may be found, before you cast a stone, remember this: just because your "payment" comes in the form of a BMW or a Tiffany's diamond band or even five free drinks at the bar, if you wouldn't have hooked up with the guy without that extra sumthin sumthin, you're doing it for the money. In short, you're a ho.

If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem

Yesterday Maine's citizens prevented their gay neighbors from getting married by blocking the enactment of a law that their representatives had passed which would have provided marriage equality. Also yesterday, Virginia elected a virulently anti-gay governor, and New Jersey chose not to re-elect Democrat Jon Corzine which, had it done so, New Jersey was all but assured marriage equality.

The predictable scenes unfolded: members of black churches high fiving one another like they had just scored a touchdown, cruel Christians grinning from ear to ear at the joy of having shattered their fellow man's dreams. But there was something more disturbing: gay Republicans on Facebook simultaneously reacting with sadness to the Maine results but reacting with utter glee to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial results.

It's easy to lash out at such people as self-loathing homosexuals, but that's both oversimplistic and often wrong. To the extent I hurt anyone's feelings by mocking your god or your conservative credentials (yes, I'm mostly talking to you, Kyle), I apologize. Well, sort of. Because the flip side of the coin is this: if you're attacking my rights with your support of a particular candidate, you are, in no uncertain terms, attacking me personally. The personal is political.

But wait, doesn't that make you a 'single issue voter,' Paul? Not at all. But I struggle to think of anything more important than upholding the basic equality if your fellow man. Why do some of you gays vote Republican? Smaller government? Lower taxes? A more strong-arm (though not necessarily "stronger") national defense? A belief that the stimulus was a tax on our grandkids? (P.S. You're not Paul Krugman. Win a Nobel Prize in Economics then start complaining about government spending in a recession.) Really, what's your reason? And just to anticipate the objection: Yes, I know lately Democrats aren't much better, especially with Obama's slow movement on gay rights. But at least he's done something, and he appointed Justice Sotomayor who is assuredly more of an ally than anyone McCain would have appointed. I, like many attorneys, think this will ultimately be decided by the courts, so we need the best judiciary money can buy!

But again: Why vote for an anti-gay Republican? The issue gets even more perplexing if you claim to be a religious person. Can you really stand before God on Judgment Day and explain to the Almighty that you thought having a few more bucks in your wallet was more important than someone's right to equality, to being allowed to have kids, to being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital? Perhaps you're staunchly anti-abortion. If that's the case, I can begin to see your point, but even still, how does one elevate a potential life above the lives of those people who are living, breathing, and suffering here and now? (More thoughts on abortion and the multitude of ways of looking at it are here.)

I know, I know. Just because you vote for the Republican candidate doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. And abstaining is no cop out either: those who don't vote are the ones who allow the victor to win. Which is why it really does come down to that 60s catch phrase: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you voted for a Republican, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. If you put money in the collection plate at the Catholic Church, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. There's no way around that. None. No mental leaps, twists and turns escapes that conclusion. You voted against your fellow man.

What's the big deal about marriage?

I did a speech on gay marriage in college. During my research I uncovered countless heart breaking stories. Due to the time limitations, I only shared two. One involved a lesbian couple who had two children. The children were the biological children of one of the mothers. When the biological mother died, the state took the kids from their other mother and gave them back to their biological father, even though there was evidence that he had been abusive. As they were ripped away from the only family they knew, they cried and screamed for their "mommy." Without marriage rights, the theft of those poor children was perfectly legal. The second story involved a gay couple from Hawaii who had been together over 25 years. One night one of the men had a heart attack. The ambulance whisked him away, his partner not far behind. When the man's partner got to the hospital, he was told he would not be allowed into the room. He wasn't "family," said the hospital. For three (yes, three) days, he and his lawyers fought with the hospital. On the third day, the hospital informed him that he could finally see his partner of 25 years. His beloved partner was--they informed him--in the morgue.

This crap happens. Every. Single. Day.

A conservative friend told me that we don't need marriage to fix this. He worked at a Christian hospital and even they respected the advance directives of gay couples. Well golly gee willikers, how Christian of them! If you're rich enough (or wise enough) to draft advance directives and have them handy when you rush to the hospital in an emergency, you just might be allowed to see your dying partner in the hospital. Are you listening, faggots? For a price, you might get what Britney Spears can get after drunkenly marrying her high school sweetheart in a ultra-brief Vegas wedding. Who needs equality when the alternatives are so, um, appealing?

But why "marriage"? Why not civil unions?

Some argue that civil unions are the way to go, and polls certainly suggest that. Perhaps for now, it is. But ultimately, the fight must be for marriage for two reasons: (1) for clear equal rights and (2) to allow gays to be seen as human. That which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.

First, for clear equal rights. New Jersey had civil unions. Marriage under a different name. All the same rights and responsibilities, or so its residents thought. Then a lesbian UPS employee tried to get benefits for her partner. UPS denied her. Why? It wasn't a "real" marriage. Their contract only covered real marriages. Sorry, dyke. The employee had to get an attorney and sue for what was rightfully hers. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if a straight couple in Jersey had to hire an attorney to prove their marriage was real? Guido would send the mob after you! You see, law is a tricky thing. You change one word and judges get confused. There have been entire Supreme Court cases over the placement of a comma. Words matter. Indeed, in states that have civil unions, state commissions have researched the issue and found civil unions to be lacking the full force of marriage. It's not the same thing.

Second, because we are human. Before you think that's touchy-feely humanist bullcrap, follow me for a second. When African-Americans marched in the 60s, some of them wore giant signs. They read: I Am A Man. Think about that. Think of how profound that four-word sentence is in the context of their battle. Their fight for equality was more than just a fight for legal rights; it was their fight to be seen as men--nothing more, nothing less. Full humans.

When the American military wanted to make it easier for its servicemen to kill Japanese soldiers, what did they do? They produced posters showing the Japanese as animals--as something sub-human. If it's not a person, it's easier to kill him, isn't it? Likewise, Hitler convinced his followers that everyone else was inferior to his Aryan race. It's a tactic as old as time itself: strip someone of their humanity and justify your actions with ease.

There is a reason some thugs feel no remorse for beating and killing gays and lesbians. There is a reason the delinquency rates and runaway rates of gay teenagers are far higher than for straight kids. There is a reason suicide rates are higher among gay people (particularly gay youth). There is a reason people feel justified in firing gays just because they were gay. Because to many people, we aren't seen as real humans... humans who deserve rights... or humans who deserve "real" marriages.

Passing equal rights legislation or enforcing it via the courts isn't a magic bullet. Changing the law won't change millennia of religious-based hatred. And allowing gays to marry won't suddenly make all gay kids into healthy, well-adjusted youths. But it will help. A lot. And it's time we start seeing the connections between the hatred we encounter and the institutionalized discrimination that permits such ways of thinking to flourish.

There's (At Least) Two Sides to Everything

A nice, liberal friend of mine told me yesterday that he didn't think now was a good time to extend marriage benefits to gays because it would be too big of a drain on society, even if it were the right thing to do. My first reaction was to bash my head into a brick wall in frustration. But then I remembered Target Lady.

In college, I worked the Guest Service desk at Target. One day, a very angry woman rolled up to my desk with a problem. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. Visibly furious, she spat at me, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" for full effect. I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman did not have a computer (and apparently didn't know anyone else who had one either or know where her local library was located); therefore, a program that gives customers a 10% online coupon discriminated... against her.

To Target Lady and to my friend, I guess I understand that it's a matter of perception: One man's "right" is another man's "privilege." To my friend, gays were apparently wanting something new, extra, and exotic: equal rights. Equal rights might cost the government some money once preferential tax treatment was extended to same-sex couples. And I get that: the status quo is comfortable; change is unsettling.

But the flip side of the coin makes an awful lot of sense too. And that's simply this: withholding equal rights from gays and lesbians has been, is, and always will be wrong. Changing the law isn't providing anything "extra," it's correcting a deficiency that's always been there. So when we make our case to others, we must always remember that, to some, we homos are just the angry woman at Target without a computer. It's our job to make others see it in--dare I say--the "right" light.

So I circle back, dear Republican friends. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What issue persuades you so forcefully to vote against the health, happiness, and equal rights of your fellow man such that you would cheer the election of an anti-gay governor? It's a serious question. What do you find more important? Because I want to understand your position. And right now, I just don't. (And I like guns, low taxes, and small government too.)

You've Come a Long Way, Baby

So I turn 30 on Sunday. I'd by lying if I said it wasn't a tad depressing. When you're in school until 27, you sort of feel like you've wasted half your life. Walking away with four degrees including a doctorate is swell and all, but the debt it produces makes you wonder if it's all worth it. And to date I've been unsuccessful in getting people to call attorneys "Dr. ____," though I really think they ought.

Anyway, such a big milestone got me thinking about how things have changed in 30 years--usually to reflect the Information Age's now now now mentality. And it made me appreciate when life was a little slower, a little simplier. And it made me feel a little bad for my younger friends who scarcely remember a time before 24-hour news and instantly downloadable music.

So here, in no particular order, is a little list of things that I remember about the good ole' days. (God, I feel old saying that.)

1. I remember when there was no such thing as "body wash." People used soap. And soap worked just fine. And, ya know what, it still works just fine and is cheaper than silly body wash. Oh, and you can take it on a plane.

2. I remember before the miraculous Internet. And while it's obviously the coolest thing since the invention of the telephone, there was a certain mystery to life in the days when you had to ask another person a question or go to the library to look something up. Well, and it was nice to know that you didn't have to log into Facebook at least a few times a day so you wouldn't get withdrawal symptoms.

3. I remember those glorious days before cell phones. Back in high school I had one friend who had a cell phone. One. When we wanted to meet up at the football game on Friday night, we set a time to meet at the flagpole, and we showed up. There was no being late. There was, after all, no way to get in touch with someone if you were late. People didn't say, "Oh, I'll just call you when I get there." I truly think this is one reason kids today have no sense of time management. When you can always be contacted, plans can always be altered. I'd like to see all cell phone companies shut down for a week and watch the world melt... and children adapt.

4. I remember jogging with my bright yellow Sony Walkman. And it sounded like crap. And then my Discman. And then my Discman with 10-second skip protection, which never really worked. Kids with iPods today have no idea how lucky they are. Especially in the days before burnable CDs, I had to pick one disc and listen to that my entire six mile run! The horror!

5. I remember when TV went off the air. Oh, the glorious days of turning on the tube at 2 am and seeing snow. And then sometime--around 5:00 or 6:00 am--the network came back on the air, with a visual of an American flag and a band playing The Star Spangled Banner. It was a neat way to start the day.

6. I remember when you had to develop film. There was no way to check a photo to see if it sucked after you took it. I remember gleefully picking up the photos at the grocery store and standing in the parking lot laughing at the bad ones. Sometimes you threw them away; sometimes you kept them. But at least you didn't delete them instantly from your digital camera--funny memories forever banished moments after becoming pixels just because John had his eyes closed.

7. I remember the days before Caller ID. Someone called, you picked up. If it was Aunt Middy, you slouched in your chair, 'cause you know you'd be listening for a while. Yes, annoying callers sucked, but a ringing phone was always a crapshoot--a fun little mystery. Maybe it was Ed McMahon calling about that one-million dollar prize!!! But... usually it was just Aunt Middy.

8. I remember the days before DVR or even VCR+. The days when you had to be home or had to laboriously program your VCR to record a show if you weren't going to be home. (And had to guesstimate if you had enough room on the tape to hold your show.)

9. I remember ATARI, which in some ways will forever be cooler than Nintendo, Sega, Wii or any of that other crap. ATARI was simple... and it was awesome. I was sitting on the El a few days ago and saw a little girl playing a modern-day version of Pong on her dad's Blackberry. And I smiled. I'm sure if we could have played Pong on a mobile device in the 80s, we would have gone apeshit. But it's adorable to think that that little girl is playing the same game her dad did in 1985.

10. I remember when you had to look up books in a card catalog. Subject. Author. Title. And it worked just fine.

11. I remember with a certain amount of fondness the nuclear drills we used to do in grade school. Get down under your desks and cover your heads! The Russians are coming! Because, you know, when the Russians attack us with a nuclear bomb, our crappy little desks will surely protect us from the giant fireball that will rip through the school.

12. And I remember a time before 24-hour cable news. On the East Coast, the news was at 6:00 pm. It lasted an hour. If it was important, you heard about it in that hour. I'm ashamed to mention how many times I've been watching CNN and suddenly realized, "I've just watched this f*cking story three times!" When you're limited to an hour, you stick to the important stuff; when you have all day, you just repeat shit. One day I'd love to own a news channel, and on slow days if there wasn't anything particularly newsworthy going on, I'd show cartoons instead. Don't you think viewers would appreciate that?

Those older than I, of course, have slightly different memories. I, for example, have always known ATMs. I'm told there was a time before the 80s that if you didn't have cash by the time banks closed on Fridays, you didn't go to the bars that weekend. There simply was no other alternative.

While the availability of everything in 2009 and the instant gratification we get with quick downloads, 24-hour news, credit accepted even at fast food restaurants, etc., is wonderful, I do occasionally long for the days when things could wait. When people had to plan to meet at the flagpole. When there was some mystery behind a ringing telephone. When our worst enemy was a country with definitive borders instead of a radical religious sect with no boundaries.

Finally, I remember the first time I discovered what I would consider "club music." I was 11-ish. And sometimes at night, we could faintly receive radio stations from Cleveland. Some Cleveland station was playing this sweet ass remix of Janet Jackson's State of the World. I recorded it... on a cassette of course. There was something both frustrating and amazing about the fact that I didn't know who remixed it. I didn't know where on earth I could buy it (and probably couldn't buy it anywhere in rural PA anyway). It was just... there. For a few minutes it was on the airwaves, and then it was gone. Today, I'd Shazam the unknown song with my iPhone; Shazam would immediately tell me the artist, song title, and remixer; and then I'd find the song online with relatively no effort. No more mystery. Everything is here. Everything is now.

On a whim, I just YouTubed "Janet Jackson State of the World." The very first hit was this. It took 19 years, but I now know the answer. It's the United Nations mix. And, yes, it's still a sweet ass remix.

Dissecting Kanye

Last night at the MTV VMAs, after the winner was announced for Best Female Video, Kanye West jumped on stage, stole the microphone from teenager and first-time VMA winner Taylor Swift, and pronounced that Beyonce should have won. Beyonce looked stunned, the crowd booed, Taylor tried to finish her speech but by then her mic had been cut, and then the producers rather hastily moved on to something else. Beyonce won the last award--Video of the Year--and graciously gave the mic to Taylor so she could finish her speech.

If you're keeping score at home: Beyonce +100; Kanye -1,000,000.

But, of course, as a lawyer, it's always fun to parse not only what was done but also what was said. Let's look at what Kanye Douchenozzle West had to say, shall we?

As he leaped on stage, he uttered these charming sentences: "Taylor, I’m really happy for you. Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!"

I'm going to let you finish? Well, how gracious of you! I mean, after all, MTV should have cleared all winners through Kanye first, so really this is their fault. But what a gentleman, he's going to let her finish her speech--you know, the one for the award she just won and for which he wasn't even nominated. As my friend Paul put it, even if he had jumped on stage to congratulate Taylor and to say she produced the best video ever made, he'd still be a douche for stealing her spotlight.

Then, in true Kanye fashion, he took to his blog shortly thereafter. In all caps, of course. He has since taken the following down... probably because his publicist told him that if he didn't he/she would quit and/or kill him.

After a half-assed apology, he writes, "BEYONCE'S VIDEO WAS THE BEST OF THIS DECADE!!!!" You see, Kayne, when you apologize, you're supposed to acknowledge that it's not all about you and your opinions. That's great that you liked Beyonce's video. Gee, so did I. But when you're apologizing for stealing a teenager's microphone you should, like, stick to the apology instead of trying to score points with Beyonce so you can pork her.

But he didn't stop there. "WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!!!! EVERYONE WANNA BOOOO ME BUT I'M A REAL FAN OF POP CULTURE!!!" Real world? Well, I guess when the sun revolves around you in the "real" world, that statement makes perfect sense. Or does he really think that in the "real" world it's perfectly OK to jump on stage and yank the mic out of someone's hand? He is, after all, from the South Side of Chicago.

"I GAVE MY AWARDS TO OUTKAST WHEN THEY DESERVED IT OVER ME." Ah, I love this one. It's like saying, "I pay my taxes, so I can beat my wife." So you handed an award to Outkast at a prior award show when you thought they deserved it more than you (and they handed it back, might I add). Big deal. It's not called "humility" when you're Kanye and you do that; it's called grandstanding. And, in any event, doesn't this just reinforce your point that you think you're The One in charge of dispensing the Moonmen?

Finally, Kanye reminds us, "I'M JUST REAL. SORRY FOR THAT!!!" Well, at least I agree with you here, Mr. West. To be "real" is to be true to oneself. You are indeed real. A real asshole. Congratulations. Now can we stop inviting this asshat to award shows?

Fortunately for us, Perez Hilton (who is almost as contemptible but at least he's a decent journalist) found a quotation from Kanye in 2007 explaining everything. "I'm a glitch in this matrix. Man, this music for me is like a sport. And the only thing we got for championships is, like, award shows. So if something goes wrong, I'm gonna scream at the ref." So there you have it, kids. Music is a game. The votes of the Academy--or whoever--don't matter. Kanye is like an indignant student who got a bad grade. "The teacher gave me a D." No, honey, in all likelihood, you earned a D. MTV chose a winner. It wasn't Beyonce. This isn't the U.S. Open. You're not Serena. Shut up. (But can we still assign a penalty point, please?)

(On a side note, my friend Josh had a keen observation. Janet Jackson shows a little nipple at the Super Bowl and MTV throws her under the bus, her career tanks, she loses her record contract, and some radio stations stop playing her. But Chris Brown beats up his young girlfriend and Kanye throws temper tantrums worthy of a five year-old on crack, and radio does next to nothing? I'm usually the last person to say something is "sexist," but, hel-LO.)

Frizzle fazzle

In ninth grade geometry, my teacher suggested we memorize some obscure geometric formula for finding the surface area of a cone. "One day, you could be in a meeting, and your boss will want to know how much it would cost per square foot to cover this cone in frizzle fazzle, and you'll know. You'll be the one to get promoted!"

Yes, it was a stupid statement then. And it's even stupider now.

But the teacher's larger point recently got me thinking: just how much memorization is necessary anymore? When I was in high school, the Internets was just coming into existence. Back then, knowledge was, indeed, power. But back then, we didn't have Google.

To old people like my grandparents, the Internet is a scary, unwieldy place. They wouldn't even know where to begin. But for my generation, you just "know" where to find a lot of things. Google for almost anything. LexisNexis or Westlaw for law. Switchboard for a landline phone number. Fandango for movies. It's simple. Or at least it is to us.

One wonders if the focus of education will eventually move away from "knowing" so much (like the surface area of a cone) and toward knowing where to look. Honestly, could a geometry teacher even get away with such a statement like that today without his students laughing in his face? They could probably pull the formula up on their cell phones before he could flip to it in his book.

(P.S. http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/surfareas.htm if you care. Found it in 20 seconds using The Google.)

We Are Less Important Than Oxi Clean

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, generally considered to be the beginning of the modern gay rights movement in the U.S.

None of the three major networks reported on this major event. (And it's not like it would have been hard with Pride parades going on in many major cities.)

Billy Mays also died this weekend. You know, the Oxi Clean guy who shouts at you. His death was mentioned on all three major networks yesterday.

Thanks, mainstream media, for once again proving why you suck so hard and why I get all my news from blogs.

Can Zealously Protecting Copyrights Be Bad For Business?

Lately I've been noticing that a lot of YouTube clips that friends or bloggers post on their webpages have been showing up "Embedding disabled by request," when you click on them. Some people will then proceed to YouTube to watch the clip on their page. Many, like me, will shrug and move on.

This phenomenon is second only to the more annoying problem we've all encountered at some point: videos yanked from YouTube entirely due to copyright infringement. Now, I know some intellectual property law, so, yes, I "get it." The owner wants royalties, advertisers can lose revenue, yadda yadda... But, in the case of fresh talent, keeping the fans from the goods can be a serious hindrance.

We are an impatient generation. If we click on a link once and the video is gone, not a lot of people are going to expend much more effort looking for that video. Think about that: that's one more potential fan lost, one more potential record unsold, one more potential concert attendee shunned. YouTube is saturated, after all. Seconds later that lost potential fan will be searching for snuggly Italian Greyhounds.

Exposure is important for all artists but especially emerging ones. Methinks sometimes the record companies are too busy thinking about royalties when they should be focusing on casting a wider net by actually allowing their artists to be promoted.

You Can Cheat on Your Wife if I Can Have a Husband

It seems like a fair trade, right?

This week, Gov. Sanford of South Carolina (R) admitted to an affair with an Argentinean woman. Last week, U.S. Sen. Ensign of Nevada (R) admitted he had cheated on his wife. Last year, U.S. Sen. Vitter of Louisiana (R) was linked to a prostitution ring. Also last year, U.S. Sen. Larry "Foot Tappin" Craig of Idaho (R) was caught soliciting sex from a man in the Twin Cities airport bathroom. And of course around that time, megachurch pastor Ted Haggard decided to one-up everyone by admitting to an affair with a male prostitute while doing crystal meth. (Merry Crystal Meth-mas!, as one of the best YouTube clips ever says.)

And let's not forget Newt Gingrich going through several wives and leaving his last one while she was dying of cancer. Or Rush Limbaugh's three wives and drug addiction. Yawn... repetition is boring. I'll get to my point.

Some people were quick to point out that democrats cheat too. "Look at Sen. John Edwards, Pres. Bill Clinton, Gov. Elliot Spitzer, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick..." a friend said to me. True, true, true, and true. But the difference between the two groups is simple: the democratic slimeballs didn't build their careers by preaching to others how to live their lives. The democratic slimeballs didn't vow to destroy any legal recognition of gay couples because committed gay couples are an affront to the "sanctity of marriage." We have a simple, English word for people who do precisely that which they condemn in others: hypocrites. In a pinch, "asshat" works too.

There's a reason that when Pres. Clinton admitted to an affair his popularity actually went up in the polls: because democrats largely didn't care. Live and let live. Frankly, I don't care how many hummers the President is getting in the Oval Office... as long as he's effectively running the country.

But while Clinton's popularity went up after the Lewinsky scandal, Craig and Ensign's poll numbers have dropped and soon Sanford's poll numbers will have dropped as well. Why? Well, because people give a damn when you're a hypocritical son of a bitch. And because some of those Republican voters who put them into office actually, like, expected them to be as pure as the driven snow.

Last night Rachel Maddow put it more eloquently than I possibly could: "Moral superiority isn't a prerequisite for public office. But it is a prerequisite for those public servants who claim that they are morally superior." Amen, brother.

Maybe the bigger point is that political men and religious bigots--like all men--are just manwhores at heart. They're kids in a candy store. Except the candy is pussy and there's generally no charge (unless your Sen. Vitter and then you have to pay the hooker... or you're Sen. Craig and you're not down with the va-jay-jay). Accordingly, they should stop telling us whom we are allowed to love, whom we are allowed to have sex with, and whom we are allowed to marry if they themselves cannot even decide between their wives, their altar boys, their airport bathroom hook-up, their female hooker, their crystal meth-addicted male hooker, or their Argentinean mistress.

Make the Dumb People Go Away

There's a reason teenagers and 20-somethings are snotty, cunty, little worthless sacks of human excrement these days. Well, there's a lot of reasons, but I'm going to focus on one: horrible examples on TV.

I don't watch The Hills. Thus, I didn't know who Heidi and Spencer were until recently. They're doing a media blitz right now after appearing on some retarded show called I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and have turned up on The Today Show and The View (watch the clips, if you dare).

These two are painfully stupid, ridiculously self-obsessed, unabashed mediawhores. And yet... people watch their shows? Why?! Does their incredibly rude, self-centered behavior resonate with kids? And if so, maybe this should be a time when we realize that art is reflecting poorly on life and maybe responsible people should change the art.

I'm not suggesting we all turn on our transistor radios and listen to some nice Beethoven. But can we at least, as a society, stop paying attention to pathetic, evil creatures like this so that they'll go away (and, as a consequence, stop polluting the minds of kids who think they're hella-cool)? When did fame become an end rather than a means to a meaningful career in film, art, or music?

But, Daddy, I Want An Oompa Loompa NOW!

Oh, sweet justice.

Miss Fake-Titties California, Carrie Prejean, is being fired by The Donald. It seems she wasn't showing up for appearances that she was contractually bound to attend under her Miss California contract. Donald Trump reportedly said, "To me she was the sweetest thing. Everyone else -- she treated like s**t." What? A sweet little Christian girl treating people like excrement? Say it ain't so!

Carrie cannot spell, think, or even understand why she's wrong when she says it's great that we live in America where people can choose regular marriage or "opposite marriage," because guess what, sugartits? People in 44 states cannot choose. She pricelessly had this to say in recent e-mail messages to pageant officials, you know, her bosses:

"You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose [sic] the the [sic] things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice." And, "Also I was asked to fill in for a dj on a local radio show.. I'll be reading from a show biz script Monday. I am doing this."

Oh, dear sweet peroxide bimbo. It's called a contract. You signed it. They don't need your cooperation. They get to "pick and chose [sic]." They say, "Jump!" You ask, "How high?" Sit. Shake. Stay. Good dog!

I'm thrilled that the Christian Right has this wonderful example of a follower of Jesus to speak out against gay marriage. Our blonde prophet has fake tits (the Bible says: the body is a temple), cruel personality (the Bible says: do unto others as you'd have done unto you), and a wretched sense of entitlement (the Bible says: pride goeth before the fall) that would make Baby Jesus weep. Sounds like the perfect poster child for their asinine movement.

You Don't Know Your Bible!

"You don't know your Bible!" That's what my great-uncle hurled at my sister this week. I think some accusations about not being "Christian enough," oh, and "tearing the family apart" were sprinkled in.

You see, my family is a bit like something you'd see on Maury Povich--except that we throw Bibles at each other instead of chairs. Actually, come to think of it, it's a little more like that nutjob on Wife Swap.

What prompted this recent breakdown in "do unto others," you ask? Well, you see, my sister is getting married this month. And like most brides, she wants to invite people to her wedding that aren't, you know, as*holes. My one cousin's wife is, to put it mildly, a liar and a sh*t starter. She's been cruel to my sister, she's been cruel to my mom, she's been cruel to me, and she's spread lies about my dad. In a family of relatively nice people, she stands out like a black lesbian at a Republican convention. So, naturally, my sister didn't invite her to the wedding.

But that's not how an uber-Christian, puritan, sweep-it-all-under-the-rug-and-smile-for-the-camera kind of family rolls, you know. And so it begins.

Last Sunday, the cousin's wife accosted my mom in the church parking lot, which is kind of funny to begin with since there are about 10 people remaining in the "church" and they're all my family members. (Some might say this fits the definition of a "cult," but I digress.) She asked my mother why she wasn't invited to the wedding. So my mom told her. In detail. And one of the reasons cited was that she had insulted her son (that would be me) by calling him "Aunt Paul" behind his back. Now, personally, I could care less. You don't get out of Small Town America without developing a thick skin. But from the perspective of a mother who has fought long and hard for an understanding of her gay son and his place in the mess that is fundamental Christianity, it's just a shi*ty thing to say.

Then my cousin came up to defend his wife. He claimed she never said it. (She did. There were witnesses.) And then, he said the words. The. Words. "Well, you know, it's pretty clear what the Bible says about homosexuality." Whoa there, biblical scholar. Is it now? You just went from respected medical doctor to a homemade sign-wielding lunatic at a "Yes on Prop 8" rally. It's clear? Clear as mud, perhaps. That, of course, set off my mother. Because, let's face it, what kind of jerk off says that to the deeply religious mother of a gay son?

And then the phone calls began. Like a great wave of faux Christian concern rolling across the plains, the family started calling me. I'm not sure what fake pleasantries they wanted to extend because I haven't been picking up the phone. More importantly, they began calling each other. My sister isn't "Christian enough," "doesn't know her Bible," and is "tearing the family apart." (Funny, I always thought it was the jerks in a family who tore it apart, not the polite bride who just wanted nice people at her wedding. Oh, but we couldn't point out the evil lurking among us. That wouldn't be--wouldn't be--wouldn't be--well, it just wouldn't be Christian, for Pete's sake!)

So I started writing. You see, nobody talks to my mama like that. And since I've never discussed the gay issue with the family, I figured there was no time like the present. I'm now up to about page 20 in my manifesto. Single-spaced. With footnotes. I cover the psychological approaches toward homosexuality, some of the scientific research (genetic/twin research/birth order research/hormonal), I do my best to dissect their religious problems with homosexuality with a ton of help from Dr. Daniel Helminiak's What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, and then I write about some of the effects of treating gay people like Satan spawn: higher suicide rates, lack of the most basic civil rights, children torn from loving families because they're not legal "families"... and then add one of my favorite quotations, "Let us be a little humble; let us think that the truth may not perhaps be entirely with us," from Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.

Out of respect for my sister, I promised not to send the letter until after the wedding. It's probably better that way. I mean, I wouldn't want them to actually have to think and pretend to be nice at the same time.

In the end, I doubt much will change. They'll continue to be distant, disapproving, crocodile-smiling relatives. Objectively, I realize this is better than burning me alive, as would happen in some cultures. But sometimes I crave sheer honesty: if you're going to hate someone, at least do it up all proper-like with rage and fire and public hangings. I suspect they'll want to talk about the letter, but I won't. That's one reason I'm trying to make it so comprehensive. I spent 18 years begin terrified of their God. I won't entertain another minute of their lunacy. They can have 20-some pages of well-crafted arguments, facts, and scholarly research. If they reject it, well, there's always the literal interpretation of the Good Book to fall back upon... right after they tend to their weekly witch burning.

Dr. Tiller the Babykiller

This weekend, Dr. Tiller, a man who performs abortions, including late-term abortions, was murdered while attending church.

The alleged shooter, who is now in custody, had this to say: "To call this a crime [in other words, killing the guy] is too simplistic. There is Christian scripture that would support this." In other words: it's OK to kill him because God said to.

Operation Rescue had this to say: "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that. He was an evil man -- his hands were covered with blood." In their minds, abortion is always wrong; therefore, this man deserved to die.

I don't know the answer to the question of when life begins. And it frightens me that people who probably aren't too terribly bright think it's OK to take the law into their own hands because they do unequivocally know. So maybe it's time to pose a few theories.

Some people think that life begins at conception: when sperm meets egg. Seems awfully early to call that a baby--especially since it couldn't possibly exist outside the womb, but it's not an invalid conclusion on its face.

Before modern technology, Catholics and old legal scholars used to think a fetus became a child when quickening occurred. Quickening is when the mother first feels the baby stir. With the advent of ultrasound and such, Catholics apparently moved up their idea of when life begins.

My mom takes a unique biblical take on the topic. She points to Genesis where God breathes "the breath of life into Adam." Under her take, abortion isn't murder because the baby hasn't exited the birth canal and breathed yet. Pretty interesting logic, if you ask me!

Then there is the Ramsey Theory. The Ramsey Theory of Death holds that you are not dead until your heart stop functioning, your lungs stop functioning, and your brain stops functioning. Thus, if the absence of these three characteristics signifies death, the presence of one of them could mean life. When does the embryo's heart start to beat? As early as two weeks. Under this theory, birth control and "the morning after pill" are always morally OK. But terminating the pregnancy after two weeks could be murdering a child.

Finally, there's what the U.S. courts currently say. The basic holding of Roe v. Wade is that a mother has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in terminating a pregnancy up until the point of viability. 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973). Viability is defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Id. at 160. Roe was decided in 1973. Since then, the point of viability will now come more quickly due to better technology. Why chose viability at the cut off point? Well, according to the Court, at that point the mother's right to choose becomes outweighed by the fetus's potential right to life. Id. at 164-65. Some legal thinkers have extrapolated the "point of viability" argument to conclude that arguments for abortion could also frighteningly be used for infanticide. After all, a baby isn't really viable until s/he is several years old. Before then, the baby depends on the care of an adult or s/he will die.

Needless to say, when life begins is not clear.

Even if you settle on a definition, once you get beyond the legal and moral questions, you may want to look at the social questions. Many women who seek abortions are young. They cannot afford a child. They cannot properly raise a child and give him or her even the most basic things a child needs and deserves.

It may seem crass to weigh what very well may be a potential human life in such economic terms, but... is it completely wrong to think that maybe some lives aren't worth living? Maybe terminating the pregnancy is better for all involved: impoverished mother and almost-certainly-doomed-to-failure child? Indeed, famed economist Steven Levitt argues in Freakonomics quite persuasively that the drop in crime in the 90s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. The very children who would have grown up impoverished, without fathers, without proper guidance, who likely would have turned to drugs and violence were the ones who were often aborted instead.

It's dangerous to start weighing potential human lives in terms of social results. After all, it's not much different than the man who murdered Dr. Tiller: to him, the ends justified the means. But it's instructive, at least, to see how legal and moral policy can produce profound social results.

Finally there is the whole issue of "don't tell me what to do with my body." The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court shows a march toward greater freedom to do what one wants with one's body. First, the Court struck down a law which had prohibited married people from using contraceptives. Then, unmarried people. Over time, these decisions would be used to invalidate laws that prohibited consenting gay adults from having sex in the privacy of their own home under penalty of imprisonment (in 2003, no less)! At some point, do you not have to balance not only a woman's right to choose with the fetus's potential right to life but also a woman's right to do what she wants with her body without government interference with the government's vague right to protect the life of a fetus that may--or may not--be a person?

The point is simply this: No one can definitively say when life begins. Definitions have shifted over the centuries and even today we have answers that range from the precise moment of conception to the precise moment the baby takes his or her first breath of oxygen after birth.

Because we do not--and cannot--know, we should be respectful of others' opinions. Oh, and we shouldn't kill abortion doctors.

I'm old

I remember asking Mr. Deramo, my ninth grade American History teacher, how you know when you're old. He laughed, said that was an excellent question (which is probably why I remember this--stroke the ego! stroke the ego!), and told me that when he had daughters, he realized he didn't like their music. Hence: old. The world had changed and he was left in the dust.

I'm 29. If I had shacked up and spawned at 20, I'd have a 9 year-old girl by now. She'd probably be into the Jonas Brothers, which, let's be honest here, is really just a less talented New Kids On the Block.

But it's not just music. It's technology and fashion. I remember a time when I noticed all the nifty little trends. I may not have followed them, but I at least was aware they were around me. Yesterday, I got off the train and saw a bunch of kids with these technicolor sneakers. I looked in a store window: more technicolor sneakers. I kept looking as I walked down the street: more technicolor! Did this change overnight? Or was I asleep at the wheel?

And then there's Twitter. Dear God, for the life of me, I don't get Twitter. A friend of mine described it as "micro-blogging." But it's limited to 140 characters. Can anything important really be analyzed in 140 characters? Anything? I suppose I "get it" for little news snippets. But most people using it use it to update you on their mundane events: "I'm on the bus. Lady next 2 me smells like fish. Tee hee." Really? Is this what we've come to? Does anyone care? And if they do, shouldn't they find something better to spend their precious seconds of life caring about?

Twitter to me is sort of like the pretty blond girl with fake titties you all know--we'll call this hypothetical one "Miss California." She's dumb, she's fake, she's new cool kid on the block (aka Fox News guest host), but eventually people are going to realize she's as useless as the saline in her chest cavity. Of course, I could be entirely wrong and Twitter could be the new internal combustion engine. What would I know? I'm old. Oh, and get off my damn lawn, you kids!

I Want You To Like Me When I Lose Too!

This is just precious: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/18/harrison-obama/index.html?cnn=yes

Oh, silly little football player. It's like Marilyn Manson sings, "They love you when you're on all the covers. When you're not, then they love another."

Hypocrisy

I had a sociology professor in college who wanted to take a novel approach to teaching us about homosexuality. He said, essentially, if you want to take verses out of context in the Bible and believe what you think they mean about gay people, fine. But you have to do it for everything. So right after you get to those good ole "abomination" verses, you had to read the other verses nearby. (Ignoring the fact that the Greek word for "abomination" that was used actually meant a ritual impurity that offended the Jewish Holiness Code--not a moral sin, which had its own Greek word if the Bible's original authors had intended for it to be a sin.) So... what else can't you do if you read those charming verses from Leviticus? Curse your mom or dad, screw a girl on her period, cut your hair on the sides (or your beard), eat pork, eat shellfish, and wear cotton/poly blend clothes. What can you do? Oh, that's right, buy slaves! The Bible is full of great ideas for 2009!

Besides Biblical cherry picking, several other things got me thinking about hypocrisy lately: Miss California, DC Councilman Marion Barry, and the new documentary outing gay politicians: Outrage.

Miss California is, as Perez Hilton put it, a dumb bitch. But she's not a dumb bitch because she's against gay marriage, nor is she a dumb bitch for telling a gay judge her beliefs and thereby possibly losing first place. She's a dumb bitch because she's a liar and a hypocrite. You see, Miss California had some professionally taken naughty pictures when she was a teen. Nothing wrong with that. Well, unless you lie and tell the Miss California officials that no such pictures exist. And when one trickles out, you lie again and say that it's "the only one," only for more to keep trickling out. Hmmmm. You see, that sort of violates your contract. I know you're blond, honey, so that's a big word, but what it means is this: you could lose your pretty little sash. You see, lying in a legal context can have consequences. That's one reason your God warns against it.

But Miss California didn't just lie, she also displayed one of the Bible's least favorite traits: hypocrisy. Even if you're not going to buy my schtick on what the Bible really says about homosexuality, you can sleep well at night knowing that the Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage. Nothing. Yet Miss California took it upon herself to become a crusader for keeping loving, consenting adults in legal limbo. Not very Christian, you see, especially when she violated the Bible's clear commandment about dressing like a hobag: "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments." 1 Tim. 2:9. (Wonder if all those Southern Baptist ladies with their gaudy Sunday dresses have ever bothered to put down their mint juleps and read 1 Tim 2:9?)

To paraphrase the Book of Matthew: Those who throw Bibles at others should first pull the Bible out of their own ass... and read it. In Greek, preferably.

Then there's Marion Barry. Oh, Marion. You're too precious for words. Marion Barry is the former mayor of D.C. He is now the councilmember from the poorest district of D.C.: the Eighth Ward. Out of twelve D.C. city councilmembers, he was the only one to vote against an ordinance that would require the District to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions where they were legal. Then he gave a speech about how this is a moral issue and he was a "moral leader." However, as Jon Stewart rightly reminded us, this is the same Marion Barry who was caught in a hotel room--when he was the mayor--smoking crack with a prostitute. He famously said afterward, "Bitch set me up!"

I may not know much, but I do think that crackheads who cheat on their wives don't get to lecture the rest of us on what's moral or not. Oh well. Maybe he was high.

Finally, there's a new documentary coming out about those who do not... come out. It's about closeted gay politicians, but not just any closeted gay politicians. It's about the ones who vote against gay rights and then go back to their condos (or airport restrooms) and let it all hang out.

Since at least the dawn of the gay rights movement, there's been an ongoing debate about when--if ever--someone should be shoved out of the closet. On one hand, you have a right to personal privacy, and this is America, after all: the Land of Rugged Individualism. On the other hand, you have a duty to your community, to those like you, and perhaps most importantly to those who come after you, so that they do not have to endure the struggles you have endured.

There was a time when I thought people should be forcibly outed for "the good of the cause." But then I had friends in college who had lost everything when they came out: family, friends, and financial support. I know people who have lost inheritances. I know people who have been ex-communicated from their churches. Personally, I've suffered family fallout from fundamentalist family members who have forgotten the second greatest commandment is "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt 22:37-40. Coming out is a highly personal decision when you're a private figure. But when you're a public figure, things change.

Thus, it is with much thought that I subscribed to the Barney Frank theory of outing a few months ago: "I think there's a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy. And people who want to demonize other people, shouldn't then be able to close the door and go home and do it themselves."

Miss California, Marion Barry, and all the gay closeted Republican politicians out there: chew on that for a bit. (Pssst... and Miss Cali, put some clothes on, you trashy tart! Jesus is watching!)

Burundi Outlaws Homosexuality. You Can Do That?

Joining such geniuses as "President" Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe in his condemnation of gays, the President of the lovely lil' African nation of Burundi said that he will sign new legislation outlawing homosexuality. The punishment will be up to three years in jail and heavy fines.

Our friend Wikipedia notes that Burundi is one of the poorest nations on the planet. Over 80% of its people live in poverty. I'm so glad this country's leaders are focusing on the things that are really important. Screw food and shelter; imprison them gays!

I wonder if anyone took the time to explain to Burundi's elected leaders that you cannot choose to be gay. Recent scholarship uncovered that the oft cited "gay conversion" studies of the 1970s may have been faked. It's like one man interviewed for a psychological study once answered in response to the question of whether he chose to be gay: "Who wakes up one morning and decides to be society's definition of a deviant?" And, really, anyone who "chooses" to limit his dating pool to 10% or less of the population would just be stupid... or really bad at math.

While no one would mistake American conservatives for Burundi nutjobs--I mean, I'm sure no Republican politician would advocate putting gays in jail just for being gay... well, unless he was from a solidly red district--the two groups do share something in common: focusing on something retarded when there are real problems in the world. Burundi's people would probably like some, oh, I don't know, food? And Americans would like jobs and their 401(k)s to recover.

I'm not a religious person like I used to be. But having grown up very religious, I've been blessed to be able to look at the world through the eyes of a person of extreme faith. And the question I so often want to pose to those foaming at the mouth at anti-abortion rallies or spewing hatred and outright ridiculous lies at anti-gay marriage rallies (or even villifying those unAmurican illegal immigrants who are takin' our jewbs!) is this: When you're standing before God on the Day of Judgment, don't you think He might be a little disappointed with the fact that you spent so much time and energy trying to control His children rather than... donating to the poor (as Jesus instructed), visiting those in prison (as Jesus instructed), healing the sick (as Jesus instructed)...?

Wouldn't it be funny if the real factor that ended up driving gay equality in the U.S. was just sheer fatigue combined with a sense that maybe there are bigger problems in the world than letting Adam & Steve get married? Perhaps they can honeymoon in Burundi. Oh wait... it still sucks. Nevermind.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T Your Reader

Someone recently relayed this message to me. It was sent to him by someone on the Internets:

"hey sxc , wat u doin do u hve msn or anotha chat? :)try chat sometim.hve a webcam i use thats instead of a pic and least u no its me so is thats ok so i cn at least shw u wat i look lyk so u no who u r chating to lol"

Grammar and spelling seem to be dying a rapid death. I pity my sister, a college English professor, when I read what her students are passing off as papers. I had a class in undergrad in which we had to write a fake résumé. The professor told us that if we had two grammatical errors, we'd receive an "F" on the assignment. The class groaned. And I immediately thought, "If it were a real résumé, and it had two grammatical errors, you idiots wouldn't be getting the job. You should be thanking the professor for being a hardass."

The best advice I ever learned about writing came from law school. It's a shame that teachers do not stress it at younger ages. The advice is simple: The purpose of good writing is to make your point as clearly as possible to your reader.

If your words require a lengthy description, be liberal with your words. If a paragraph will do, use a paragraph. Someone once asked Abe Lincoln--a rather tall guy--how long a man's legs should be. Lincoln replied that they should be long enough to reach the ground. Touché, Mr. President.

But length isn't the worst problem today. That would be the inability to hold down the shift key, inability to properly punctuate, and this incessant abbreviation. OMG, englsh nvr usd 2 b this silly be4! LOLz.

When you get right down to it, it's a problem of disrespect. Selfishness. It's an arrogant/careless writer who cares more about himself than about the person for whom he is writing. I have no proof to back up this claim, but I suspect people who write craptastic blurbs like the one above are the same type of people who hit little old ladies with their cars, steal from the collection plate, and fail to use deodorant.

Guns for all Law Abiding Citizens!

HuffPo reports that robberies on the CTA (Chicago's trains and buses) are up 77%. Can I now legally have a gun to protect myself, Mayor Daley? Or are you still going to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't apply in Chicago?

I still haven't heard the mayor's explanation for why gun violence has increased since the total ban on handguns (minus those grandfathered in) went into effect in Chicago in 1982. Sounds like keeping guns out of the hands of people who want to protect themselves is working swimmingly there, eh, mayor? After all, we all know criminals always stop to ponder the legality of their actions before they buy a stolen gun for $10 on a street corner, right?

In a perfect world, there would be no guns. In America in 2009, I think the only reasonable approach is the following: the criminals have guns. Lots of guns. So how on earth are you going to tell a law abiding person he cannot have one to protect himself?

Droopy Drawers and Stoopid Citizens

The city of Riviera Beach didn't like those pesky kids with their saggy pants. So they passed a law outlawing droopy drawers. $150 for the first violation; $300 for the second.

A referendum endorsing the ban was supported by a whopping 72 percent of city voters. Wow. Letting the people decide things is a great idea! I love democracy!

Except, well, when the stupid laws that people pass are unconstitutional. Which is exactly what a Palm Beach County judge ruled yesterday with respect to the saggy pants law. Yes, much like the black arms bands worn in public schools to protest the Vietnam War, clothing can be a form of free speech. Damn that pesky First Amendment!

Remember Riviera Beach the next time someone starts whining about gay marriage and letting "the people" decide. If 72% of the voters wanted to tell kids how to wear their pants, just imagine how many of them would tell you what you're allowed to do in the bedroom if courts didn't put a stop to such stupidity. Remember, it wasn't until 1972--1972!--that the Supreme Court struck down laws which prohibited unmarried people from possessing contraception.

People aren't experts in constitutional law. And, more often than not, they're just a bunch of old farts waving canes and shouting, "Get the hell off my lawn, you damn kids!

Thank you, beloved judiciary.

Miss California is not a law professor. So don't treat her like one.

Must have been a slow news day. Yesterday, the networks were all blabbing about how Miss California came in second place in the Miss USA pageant. When she was asked whether she supported gay marriage by gay blogger Perez Hilton, she said she did not. Fox News claimed she was robbed because of her answer... Miss California issued a statement standing up for her beliefs... Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" in a video blog following the telecast and later apologized... And in the midst of all of this nonsense, the whole point was lost by everyone who covered the story. In my humble opinion, that point is as follows: She's a beauty queen. Don't ask her hard questions. Don't expect good responses.

In other words, the focus shouldn't be on Miss Cali and her piss poor answer (piss poor if for no other reason than she was being asked a gay rights question by a gay judge--someone who would determine her fate--and she gave an undesirable answer). The focus should be on Perez for asking her--a bleach blonde Barbie--such a politically charged question to begin with.

This reminds me of the time some network asked Britney Spears if she supported President Bush. She said, "I just think we should trust our President in whatever decision he makes and we should just support that." Britney caught flak for that statement in the media. And the minute I saw this retarded little soundbite, I got angry. Not a Brit Brit, though, but at the retarded reporter who decided to ask her such a politically charged question. For Christ's sake, she's Britney Spears! She gets married and unmarried in Vegas in the span of two days, then she marries her backup dancer and divorces him, then she goes into rehab, then she shaves her head, then she hits paparazzi with an umbrella, and then she lip syncs her way through life. Who cares what she thinks about the President?! I don't even care what she thinks about soap!

Maybe it's the "America" in us. The rugged individualism. The professed egalitarianism. In other words, this silly notion that each one of us has an opinion that's just as equal and valid as everyone else's. It's the reason people get so riled up about these "unelec'tud judges legislatin' from the bench and takin away mah rights." They're judges for a reason, Wilbur; they're smarter than you. Hush up now, the adults are talking.

Miss California and Britney are most certainly entitled to their opinions. This is America, after all. And if nothing else, the beloved First Amendment protects the right to make a fool of yourself with your uneducated fly trap. But good pageantry (and good journalism) recognizes that we just want to see how well Miss California's silicone holds up when she struts across the stage in heels, and we just want to see how well Britney lip syncs through "Oops, I did don' done it again." They are there to entertain us, not educate us. Ready? Good. Now, dance, monkey, dance.

Let's direct our annoyance not at those purdy little interviewees responding politely to the questions posed; let's direct our annoyance toward the interviewers who thought that any of us gave a damn what people like Miss California and Britney had to say about important issues.

(On the other hand, if all beauty queens answered questions as poorly as Miss South Carolina did a year ago, I'd Tivo every single pageant and play it on repeat when I had a bad day.)

One Man's Discriminatin' is a Another Man's Common Sense

Back in college when I worked the guest service desk at Target, I once had an angry, rotund woman roll up to my desk to pick a bone. She was spitting nails. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. From her angry, fat mouth she ejected these remarkable words, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" as though she was being--oh, I don't know--denied a promotion, denied a marriage license, tortured at Buchenwald?

I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman in central Pennsylvania did not have a computer; therefore, a 10% online coupon discriminated against her. And, boy, was she was angry! I wanted to gently place her chubby little hands in mine and say, "What a sad, dark place it must be inside that mind of yours." To this day, I wish I had.

I thought of this angry little creature this week when I read that United--like many other airlines already do--will now begin charging overweight people for two seats if they spill into the seat next to them. The policy was instituted after United received over 700 complaints about obese passengers intruding on the space of the person next to them--sometimes to the point of physical pain. A non-scientific poll shows 67% in favor of the policy and 33% against. I suspect the 33% think there's some discriminatin' going on. As my Target lady might have surmised, "If I don't have a computer, no one can have an online coupon! Likewise, if I'm so large that I take up more space than is reasonably allotted, it must be discrimination! Must be!"

But, of course, the other side of the coin that these me-me-me types are missing is that the person whose seat is half taken over by the large passenger isn't getting the full seat that he or she paid for. You buy one, you get one. You need more? You pay more. Seems pretty simple to me.

Obesity, per se, is not a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes in the United States. If you have a valid medical condition that results in your being overweight, then that's a different story. In a perfect world, perhaps we could charge only the lazy fat people for two seats, and allow a doctor's note from medically fat people to serve as proof that the person need only pay for one.

The overweight airline passenger saga is just another variation of the age old problem the world's alleged first children asked: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Should we pay for Octomom's eight babies? What about the 16 year-old girl who needs an abortion? (Or do we force her to have the kid and then spend 18 years' worth of taxpayer dollars to raise it?) Do we help people refinance their mortgages? All people? Just the ones who didn't "buy more house than they could reasonably afford"? Is letting gay people get married (and therefore getting tax breaks only married couples can claim) a way of jacking up the national debt due to decreased tax revenues or is it a matter of equality to give them what other couples already have?

Do religion and morality shed light on the answers to these questions? Should they? And perhaps most importantly, is morality the same thing as a perceived sense of fairness?

It's hard to draw lines in these questions. Your answer probably depends on your level of compassion, socio-economic status, political affiliation, and whether you think a person "deserves" their life circumstances. It also depends on how strongly you believe people can change and whether you think you've gotten what you deserve thus far in life.

How many people are opposed to the idea of government-sponsored needle exchange programs for junkies? "They shouldn't have done drugs in the first place!" Right? But what if the program helped keep those people from dying, from contracting HIV, or even helped them get into treatment so they could become productive, taxpaying members of society?

Personally, when I pay for one full seat, I want one full seat. Maybe I don't feel too compassionate for large people. When I hear tax dollars are being spent for needle exchange programs or to give some reckless girl her fifth abortion, I cringe, but I wonder if it's better than the alternative. When I hear that gay couples pay a ton more in taxes because of their inability to get married, I get angry at the inconsistency of the tax code.

What's fair? What do I owe you? What do you owe me? There are--and perhaps never have been--any easy answers. Only questions. Jesus said, "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor." Luke 18:22. Once we recognize that that's absolutely nuts, the next question must be: "Well, just have much should I give? What do I really owe to the junkie, the homo down the street, the fat airline passenger taking up half my seat?"

Cain asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The only real answer we have for him is the same answer we've always had: sometimes. But not when you're in my damn seat. Buy two seats. And put down the Twinkie.

Note to Protesters

Note to protesters: Stop looking so pathetically emo and maybe someone will take you seriously. Shave. Bathe. Your appearance doesn't help your cause.

But I guess basic hygiene would be, like, conforming, right? Doing what "The Man" wants?

Down with capitalism! Down with--ummmm... soap!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/g20-protesters-jam-downto_n_181665.html

"When do you get to that point of 'enough is enough?'"

There is a scene toward the end of the movie The Mexican where Julia Roberts turns to Brad Pitt and asks, "If two people love each other, but they just can't seem to get it together, when do you get to that point of enough is enough?"

Brad responds, "Never."

It makes for good cinema. But it doesn't make for good advice. Love is patient; love is kind. But unlike a diamond, love isn't forever.

Ten years ago, I broke up with a boyfriend by saying the most horrible words that can escape a boyfriend's lips, "You don't love me." A year or two later, I called him--in tears--apologizing. How on Earth could I accuse him of something he did or did not feel? I'm not him. I cannot possibly know that. What I meant to say--and what I have learned to say--is that he didn't love me the way I needed to be loved. That's not only the "right" thing to say, it also has the benefit of being non-accusatory.

We all need certain things in a relationship. On some things, we cannot compromise. Those are the bedrock qualities that makes us who we are. Indeed, they're the very things we cannot change even for the sake of another's affection. It's the "you" you'll cease to be if you budge. And then on other things, we can compromise. This the beautiful gray area where we grow by loving another.

When a relationship must end is when you look at your bedrock and realize it's been chipped away or that you're being asked for it to be chipped away. Because when you lose yourself, what else have you got? What do you really need? Are you getting it? Will you get it?

Julia asks Brad, ""If two people love each other, but they just can't seem to get it together, when do you get to that point of enough is enough?"

Brad should have responded, "When one person realizes that the other is not loving him the way he needs to be loved."

Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients? Hells yes!

The AP is reporting today that lawmakers in at least eight states are pushing for drug testing for welfare recipients. Amen, says I.

It's not that I'm in favor of drug testing per se or even that I think most drugs should be illegal in the first place. But given the current statutory situation, drug testing for welfare recipients only makes good sense.

I think back to several of my college jobs, including the most loathed of all: telemarketing. I had to be drug tested for that job and others. Because, you know, one couldn't possibly smoke pot on a Friday and then read off a script to sell MBNA credit cards on a Monday. (Not that I would do that, of course. Pot makes you hungry and then you eat whole bags of chips. And that's not pleasant looking on the thighs.) Anyway, every two weeks I'd get my paycheck from MBNA, and, oh, look: deductions.

Some of those deductions, of course, were for taxes that end up in the hands of welfare recipients as their benefits. Therefore, it's only fair that if I have to be drug tested in order to make money, they should have to be drug tested in order to take money.