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.