Proposition 8 isn't just about civil rights, it's about love and commitment

Hi there,

I don’t tend to post much about politics in this blog, especially nowadays.  But I have something I want to talk to you about that’s more than “just politics.”  It’s about my friends.  It’s about—with semi-apologies to Princess Bride—True Love.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Proposition 8, I’ll quickly fill you in:  It’s a ballot initiative in California that aims to modify the state constitution to eliminate the right of people to marry the one they love if they’re gay or lesbian.

And let me tell you, it has warmed my heart to see gay and lesbian people I know tie the knot… people who are committed, monogamous, dedicated to their communities.  People who care about schools, who care about our country and the world. 

They just want to live out their lives in peace with their loved one.  Pay taxes jointly.  Have full visitation rights if one of them ends up in a hospital.  And, for those whose partner is from outside the U.S., they want to stay in the house they’ve bought together in this very state.

They’re not out to “convert” anyone for goodness sake, despite what some people are trying to scare you into believing.  In fact, I doubt they wish on anyone the challenges and hatred and sometimes even violence they suffered growing up.  I haven’t met a single gay or lesbian person who sees this as “making a statement” or “forcing change” or anything like that.  They just want to be able to love the one they’re with, and have their commitment be recognized fully by both the state and our country.

Perhaps you’re reading this and thinking to yourself, well sure, Adam.  I agree with you.  You’re preaching to the choir!  We used to not let blacks marry whites.  We used to not let people originally from Ireland (and elsewhere) hold jobs amongst us.  Our country has been through so many dark times… the burning of “witches” and the baseless ruining of lives of suspected communists and so on. 

Of course, we’re better now, right?  More and more people, especially young people, know people who are “different” than themselves… work with them, laugh with them, love them.

But I fear that the Yes on Prop 8 people have created uncertainty where there should be clarity and resoluteness.  So let me set the record straight (no pun intended):

• This proposition will not change what kids are taught in school.
• It won’t cost you any money.  If anything, it’ll keep more jobs here and maintain / build more revenues via taxes.
• Churches won’t lose their tax-exempt status.  The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

*** Learn more about Proposition 8 ***

If you’re straight, voting NO on Prop 8 won’t change your marriage (or for you fellow single folks, your lack of marriage).  Churches can still marry whomever they want.  Parents can still take their kids out of school classes that go against their beliefs.

The only real thing voting NO on Prop 8 will do:
Let two consenting adults marry each other.

*  *  *

Please, let love prevail.  Those of you who are eligible (and haven’t already voted), PLEASE VOTE, and vote No on Prop 8.

Thank you :-).

Provincial half-wits okay, but no Goddamned atheists!

In the marvelous The Week magazine (March 2007 edition quoting a USA Today / Gallup poll), it was disclosed that 53% of Americans wouldn’t vote for an atheist for U.S. President (and, unsurprisingly but just as sadly, 43% said they wouldn’t vote for a homosexual, either).  Barring a horribly worded poll question—which, I concede, isn’t out of the question—I’m guessing the real percentage of Americans who are prejudiced against atheists is even higher; assuming the poll was done by phone or in person, I can imagine some people thinking to themselves “Well, darned if I’d ever support one of them goin’-to-hell types, but I gotta sound enlightened here and not admit it!”

You know, I don’t care what people believe in: the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogie Man, or—my personal favorite and Savior—The Flying Spaghetti Monster... nor do I care whom they sleep with (men, women, or even The Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself, though I admit that could get messy), as long as no one gets hurt.  For instance, a pediatrician saying, “I’m sorry, son, I can’t see you today unless you pledge allegiance to Harvey, my invisible rabbit”... that would be wrong.  And weird… though (IMACANSHO) not a jot weirder than lots of other belief systems out there. 

Personally, I’d actually be happy to elect anyone as President—regardless of his or her religion or sexual habits—if he or she would fulfill just some very basic criteria:
- Has visited at least four countries in three continents.  And not just on business.
- Can read—and speak—at higher than a sixth grade level.
- Is respected by more than half a dozen world leaders.  And not the machete-wielding ones, either!
- Has publicly admitted to being wrong… and apologized!
- Has an innate sense of curiosity about the world… including people, science, the arts, etc.

And, most importantly…

- Views the world LOGICALLY.  Doesn’t make decisions to appease some invisible being or out of “faith” or whatever… because all of us, dammit, are likely to see *different* invisible beings depending upon what we’ve ingested recently… and frankly, it makes a hell of a lot more long term sense to have faith in science and scientists (who haven’t been muzzled by bureaucrats, but that’s another story).  A candidate who avoids run-on sentences would be even a better man than I! :-P

And, a helpful example:
WRONG:  “I’m signing this bill because the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that it’s the right thing to do.”
RIGHT:  “I’m signing this bill because all independent research consistently shows it’s the logical choice based upon a thorough assessment of risks, opportunities, and benefits.”

*  *  *

So, zigging back to the original issue, I really don’t get why people would care about the belief system of their President.  Then again, I also don’t get why many people elected our last one because—and, as Dave Barry would say, I swear I am not making this up—they could really themselves see chuggin’ a beer with him.  Look, I know lots of guys who are amiable and often quite entertaining (and frequent) bar dwellers.  However, I sure as hell wouldn’t want them as my neurosurgeon.  Or life advisor.  Or Leader of the Free World.

No, I’d like to have someone who is insanely smart and sober and thoughtful.  Even a total nerd.  Sure, it’d be nice if he were social enough to not bungle through pleasantries with other heads of state, but I bet even the most socially awkward nerd wouldn’t be runnin’ around giving unsolicited shoulder massages.  Honest.  And wouldn’t that be a delightful improvement right there? :-D

*  *  *

In the meantime, it really saddens me that so many folks harbor such a prejudice against atheists, homosexuals, and, indeed, probably anyone who “threatens” their intellect, sexuality, or overall belief structure.  How is it that so many people—especially (I’m also sad to say) Americans—are so damn insecure? 

Look, I think ABBA wrote delightful music.  I get teary-eyed at many Sondheim musicals.  If you don’t feel the same way, 

you have lousy taste 

 hey that’s hunky dory.  As long as you don’t get elected as President and say… okay, due to my undying love for ABBA and Sondheim, I am going to put 42% of our budget into ABBA and Sondheim museums in every city.  In the world!  We’re going to take over Funkistan and put museums there for the ABBA- and Sondheim-less heathens!

Fine, fine, I’m getting a bit silly.  Belief in invisible beings is, I suppose, more profound than my tastes in music and theatre.  And, you might argue, someone’s belief system might guide them in their executive decisions.  Wars in the name of spaghetti sauces.  Tax policies to favor yellow marshmallow peep production.  And that, my friend, would be wrong.  Very wrong.

Logic transcends all of this.  If only so many folks weren’t quite so busy forcing beliefs on others.  Maybe if we had just had better logic and statistics teachers in school?  Hmm….

Two resource recommendations for getting a thoughtful, unbiased understanding of the world around us

Like many of you, I read a lot of news and opinion pieces on the Internet and am therefore bombarded by a mixture of dry and rabid facts and opinions.  It can be exausting and frustrating!

That’s why I’m particularly pleased to have found these two useful resources:

The Week Magazine
The Week expertly summarizes information and opinions from leading newspapers and journals around the world into a 30-40 page concise and fascinating overview.  From political news to information about current scientific issues to aggregated theatre and art reviews, this magazine offers a superb opportunity to become familiar with key global debates and concerns.

While you can read many of the articles online, I do recommend that you subscribe to the paper edition.  If you have airline frequent flyer miles, you’ll find that you can get this magazine for just a few hundred milepoints a year—a significant savings over the equivalent monetary subscription charges.  Search for [{your airline} miles magazines].

FactCheck.org
This outstanding FactCheck.org Web site—maintained by the Annenberg School of Communication—and its accompanying e-mail newsletter do a fabulous job delving into the truth of political campaign ads.  Beyond just calling specific claims flatly “true” or “false”, FactCheck evaluates the claims in context and leans neither to the right nor left.  Campaign claims by Democrats, Republicans, and Liberatarians are all scrutinized dispassionately and thoroughly.  It’s a wonderful antidote to the frothing right-wing and left-wing blogs out there which’ll seemingly twist anything to fit their particular agenda.

*  *  *

Know of any other unbiased and thoughtful resources for understanding world events, politics, and the arts?  I’d love to hear from you!

Intuition confirmed: Homophobia, SUV purchases linked to wee willies

In research that shouldn't be a great surprise to anyone, a recent Cornell University study has shown that men who felt more insecure about their masculinity were "more likely to support the war in Iraq, more likely to oppose gay marriage and denounce gays, and more likely to express a desire to buy an SUV." [Source: The Week magazine, August 26, 2005, page 21; see related articles]

Clearly, the converse must be true, too: we men who are gay-friendly, against the war, and unlikely to buy SUVs must have really big... uh... IQs :-)

Interestingly, no theories were offered as to why so many women buy SUVs, but I'm guessing it's the typically "I feel big and safe!" crap playing a role in those purchases.

With that said, sincere apologies to my friend E and others reading this who actually have purchased SUVs due to the car's functional qualifications (e.g., people who are actually avid campers and other folks who genuinely use the carrying capacity of SUVs).

And, though it should go without saying, I hope everyone realizes that Anti-War does not (or, at least IMNSHO, SHOULD not) ever imply animosity towards the brave military men and women who serve and have served our country. They're not the ones who got us into this mess in Iraq; the blame for that squarely rests on selfish, deluded old white men who never served and whose kids will never serve.

No apologies to anyone who is anti-gay or opposed to gay marriage, however. While we're all entitled to our opinions, I don't have to respect yours in this context :-).

...and Cheney is just *SO* lovable!

Okay, I've shied away from politics for a while, but I just can't let this one slide.

I think Howard Dean's over the top. I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does

- U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to that bastion of balance, Fox News

Hey, Dick... there's a difference between speaking bluntly and directly (Howard's modus operandi) and just making a total ass out of yourself. Before you become even more of a laughingstock than you already are, it'd behoove you to learn the difference.

Reeker madness and our society's lenience towards drunk drivers

So, apparently this rather dumb fella went to bail out his brother-in-law using money that reeked of marijuana.

Long story short... the dispatcher suspected the guy was a-foul (smelling) of the law, the guy's car was searched (with his consent), "a pipe and a small amount of marijuana was found" and now "he could face six months to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine."

Brilliant!

So here we have a guy who may be a bit dull around the edges, but is basically harmless, and he's quite possibly about to be dinged as much as much as a quarter or more of his yearly salary or locked for a quarter of a year in prison, where we taxpayers will foot the bill for his food and medical care and such and he can learn how to become a hardened criminal.

When on earth are we going to reform our completely assinine drug laws in this country?

When are we actually going to seriously attack problems that matter, like homelessness, poverty, educational inequality, alcoholism, and drunk driving?

* * *

It's the latter issue in particular that gets me. First, let me note up front that I'm relatively a prude: I've never tried drugs (including tobacco), and I rarely drink alcohol. But drugs and alcohol have touched my life deeply.

A wonderful cousin of mine was ravage by drugs and -- thankfully -- was forcibly placed into rehab and is now doing great.

Back in high school, when I ran a goofy and popular singing telegram business and charged a whopping $2.50 per in-school telegram, I remember this charming girl coming up to me, handing me cash and a note to give to her friend when my group sang, looking me in the eyes with a warm smile and asking, "So it's a deal, right?"

That Saturday, two days later, she was dead... broadsided by a speeding drunk driver. And I was asked by her parents to play piano for her funeral. Thursday was the first and last time I had ever talked with her, and only briefly at that, but she left a strong impression with me nonetheless. I truly believe that -- combined with my own parents' strong and smart guidance -- this experience has caused me to be both immensely wary about driving after drinking and to feel very strongly about the issue of drunk driving in general.

* * *

I don't know what punishment her killer received. But I do know, from many other reports I've read since and from what I've seen personally, that our country hardly takes drunk driving seriously. Instead, we choose to lock up people who smoke a bowl with friends or take away tens of thousands of dollars of their college scholarship money.

How many people have been killed as a result of drinking alcohol?
How many people (especially children exposed to second hand smoke) have been killed by cigarette smoking?

And just how many people have been killed a result of marijuana smoking? I don't know about you, but I sure haven't seen any headlines. "Three teens killed by stoned driver." Um, nope. "Stoned man goes on a shooting rampage." Uh, no. "Eight Kentucky residents tragically die from a marijuana overdose." No? Didn't think so.

For crissake, when is this country going to wise up? When will we start addressing real problems instead of chasing boogeyman and harming innocent people and their families? I just hope I live to see the day...

Canada: "Show us your tits!" (and naughty bits)

Oh Canada!
A fleshy tribute written by yours truly

---

Canada has a shortage of boobs
The inflatable kind, like inner tubes
They've auditioned hot strippers from far off lands
Inspectors coo-coo'ing "Oh, you're in good hands!"


"So! You want a green card, eh.
Take off hose or just dance away!"
Now this is "research" I'd like to do.
Deciding which gals I'd allow to come through.

Alas, in a fit of puritanical zeal
Some Canucks have cried out a moral appeal
"Our staffs shouldn't be in these womens' affairs!
For Lord, it's a sin what must go on downstairs!"

The program's been halted, political landscape: shaken
"Gentleman" now faced with more *Canadian* bacon
Spurned in the quest for a naked melting pot
Politicians and strip clubs have at least learned a lot.

-- Source material: Canada Invites Strippers and Gets Scrutiny

What Democrats need to do

A fellow blogger offered an interesting prompt:

Oddly enough, the recent election has me disappointed but not as angry as the last one. At least I don't feel like the election was blatantly stolen like last time, with bush losing majority and winning electoral solely riding the supreme court. While there are concerns about voting machine accuracy, I do feel that Americans (by a sliver majority) want what we got on Nov 2nd. Now to figure out how to get across that rift of understanding.
- RahRahFeminista

Here's how I responded:

Here's a radical idea: a book or article swap. We all have at least one intelligent, respectful (albeit obviously misguided) Republican friend, right? How 'bout every week, we send them three thoughtful, non-rabid articles on interesting issues (global warming, healthcare reform), and they agree to do the same... likely from our respective liberal/conservative perspectives.

That way... perhaps we can convert over some Republicans and/or at least understand their point of view :-)

Most importantly, though, we gotta get out of our coccoon, stop preaching to the choir (sorry for the mixed metaphors here!) One of the things I've been most disappointed by with my fellow Democrats is our seeming inability to communicate and persuade effectively overall. We hold protests that aggrevate and piss off our neighbors instead of winning them over. We chant stupid slogans instead of writing thoughtful, balanced letters to the editor. We preach tolerance, but shout down conservative speakers on campus.

I'm proud to be a liberal, but I'm not proud of the behavior of liberal anarchists, the rabble rousers. There's a difference between the elegant civil disobedience of Rosa Parks, and the crass harrassment and insulting of those who disagree with us.

We can't and shouldn't roll over and play dead to the religious right or the dangerous hawks. But we need to communicate with our neighbors in a more thoughtful and less confrontational way. We need to act like adults, and not spoiled college kids. We can be hippies, but we've gotta be hippies in business suits who quote economic statistics instead of chanting anti-Starbucks slogans.

Dear rest of world

I'm really sorry, and I have no rational explanation for the opinions and choices of so many of my fellow American citizens.

Please view the glass as half full instead of half empty. That's what I'm trying to do right now.

And be assured that many millions of us aren't xenophobic, homophobic, or "Old World" Europe-hating folks.

Lipless lesbians (there's Something About Mary!)

Living in San Francisco and having gay and lesbian friends, you'd think that I'd be pretty savvy about this demographic. But this week, I learned something fascinating:

Some lesbians have no lips.

You think I'm crazy, eh? But how else can we explain the freaky fact that -- with all the brouhaha over comments about Mary Cheney -- we've not heard a single peep from... Mary Cheney.

This, folks, is not a cringing wallflower. She's been openly lesbian for more than a decade, and she's been campaigning actively for her dad and his assistant, er, co-president, whatever-you-wanna-call-him. As most folks with a pulse and an IQ higher than the diameter of Bush's bulge know, her dad's even spoken of his daughter's sexuality at various public functions... apparently without shame or indignation from Mary or anyone else.

So why hasn't Mary opened up her mouth? Why hasn't she blurted out "Kerry, you're a jerk-off" or "Mom, Dad, would you just shut up already, I can speak for myself, thank-you-very-much."

From henceforth, then, I'll call her (and those like her) a "Lipless Lesbian." A perfect counterpart to unapologetic Republican homosexuals, whom I'll dub "Guileless Gays."

And if she's got a problem with that, well, she can act like an adult and let me know herself.

Let's kill, er, tax all the lawyers!

Governor Rick Perry and the Legislature can't agree on a school finance plan, but Michael Boone has an idea he thinks can't fail. Here's how he would sell it in a TV ad campaign. 

The ad would show pictures of schoolchildren in desks and seniors in their gardens. A soothing but concerned voice talks of underfunded schools and overtaxed homeowners. 

Then comes the punch line: "If you want to lower your property taxes 50 cents and put a tax on lawyers, vote YES on Saturday." [Emphasis mine] 

That idea, Boone said, would be so popular that "they won't have enough voting booths."
Boone has standing to propose such an idea. He's a lawyer. 

- from "A lawyer's case for lawyer tax" in the Houston Chronicle, May 16, 2004

The article gets even wackier from there.

Boone is a staunchly pro-Bush Republican. A Republican, favoring increased taxes? For improving schools? What next, a Liberal war-hawk? Oh wait, there's Lieberman... :D

On a serious note, I don't quite get the supposed attraction of this tax. Saving a whopping 50 cents on one's property taxes doesn't seem like the sort of thing that's bound to excite folks to the degree suggested in the article, even if it is coupled with a tax on what many perceive to be an odious and overpaid profession (DISCLAIMER: I'm a law school graduate myself).

Of course, increased money for schools is -- at least in theory -- a good thing, so I can't argue with that. But this opportunistic Robin-Hood'ing doesn't quite seem like a very logical way to go about it. Why not a tax on overpaid sports crybabies, er, athletes... say, .1% of their income? That should be enough to pay for a few thousand extra teachers each year in Texas. Or how about a tax on crappy actors/actresses? Wait, that might corrupt schools with too much money.

My point is... why a specific tax on lawyers, other than to satisfy the typical "Lawyers are scum" pandering? Sure, lawyers are sometimes obscenely compensated, IMHO, or at least obnoxiously greedy. But all of that isn't really limited to lawyers, is it?

* * *

In summary, I usually would applaud pretty much anything that helps schools. But a 'lawyer tax' -- no matter how quirkily appealing -- just doesn't seem to be an appropriate option.

Celebrating Love

Many folks asked me how my Valentine's Day was. As a single-but-not-angsty guy, I noted that the following made my Valentine's Day a happy one:
- My roommate is dating a really nice guy.
- I'm blessed with great friends and family.
- Hundreds of people in my city of San Francisco -- who happen to love someone of the same sex -- have gotten married.

In particular, these pictures warm my heart.

How anyone can deny the goodness and rightfulness and wonderfulness of all of this is far beyond my comprehension.

Of course, not too many years ago, the majority of Americans were against those damn coloreds mingling with -- and merciful heavens, marrying -- "our kind."

Times have changed. And so, too, will this unchristian, immoral, and simply wrong-headed discrimination against gays and lesbians thankfully go the way of slavery.

In the meantime, I am doing my best to look beyond the sad resistance of those who misguidedly cling to the 'sanctity of marriage' in the face of heterosexual divorce and adultery and instead celebrate the current triumphs in this war on intolerance.

And of course, a big Mazel Tov to all the new married couples! :-) May their union be long and joyful.

Here's why Lieberman (thankfully) lost

Lieberman and those close to him have defiantly insisted that it's his support for the Iraq war that sunk his candidacy.

No, Joe, you lost because you're a sanctimonious twit, and little better than the holier-than-thou and hypocritical Christian Conservatives that tut-tut at regular folk.

I still remember my disgust when the first words out of your mouth after Saddam's capture were berating your Democratic opponents instead of simply voicing hope and support for Iraq's people. I remember how you crusaded against 'filthy' entertainment instead of spending your time discussing core issues that lead to poverty and hopelessness. And I remember, too, how you so frequently invoked the concept of Faith and God instead of offering thoughtful and viable solutions to our earthly problems.

Joe, I'm happy to see you go. Good riddance.

State of the Union? No, a campaign speech

I simply couldn't stomach listening to Bush live, so I skimmed the transcript of his speech and read commentary from others.

This is supposed to be a non-partisan and informational speech to the citizens of the U.S. about how our country is doing, right?

Yeah, right.

Two conspicuous absences, in my mind:
- No mention of the Palestine / Israel conflict.
- No mention of the environment.

Guess those aren't really important issues.

What a jerk.

Why Democrats are such losers

Out of the millions of bright and eager Democrats around, this is the best way we can spend out time and advertising budget?!

Don't misunderstand me. I agree that Bush and his cronies are dangerous and -- through their actions and inactions -- have harmed far more people than the Big T has ever harmed in our country.

But apparently, a good half of the country or so has a huge blindspot and/or a warped sense of relative morality.

Bush could be killing little boys and girls in the White House basement and his supporters would either cover up the story or retort that Clinton had S-E-X in the White House, you know!

In other words, we Democrats can highlight Bush's glaring deficiencies until our faces or fingers turn blue, and it's not gonna make a damn bit of difference. Why? Because Bush is so durn likeable, idiotic remarks, asinine policies, obnoxious smirk and all.

Here's a radical idea that seems to have escaped most of our Democratic candidates and those who write ads on their behalf: Death and destruction may sell papers, but people actually do want to hear something positive once in a while. No, really!

So I must ask (admittedly a bit hypocritically after the lead-in on this blog entry): Why are we Democrats so good at being miserable and defiant and pissed off (though justifiably so) and so pathetically lousy at actually mass-articulating a message that's inspiring, uplifting, and positive?

Despite Bush's best efforts, America is a great place and has potential for much more greatness. We have the potential to erase homelessness, to have fabulous schools, to actually take care of our wilderness, and to build a future we can all be proud of.

When will the Democrats wise up and start talking more about creating a positive future instead of ranting about the lousy mess we now find ourselves in?

Ironically (and in stark contrast with sanctimonious twits like Lieberman), I've actually heard The "Angry" Candidate (a.k.a. Howard Dean) speak about how we can move forward and accomplish wonderful goals by working together. But unfortunately all that gets covered is his more controversial comments, including some labeled as gaffes that I don't think are gaffes at all (do YOU really feel safer with some two-bit tyrant in custody halfway around the world?)

---

So apparently, we're now getting the Bushin30seconds "winning" ad shown during the Superbowl. Great. Does anyone actually believe in their heart that this strategy of fearmongering and negativity is going to sway anyone to vote Democratic? "Wow, this ad suggests that Bush has mortgaged our children's future. Well, golly gee, I used to like Bush, but now I don't anymore!"

Then again, I'm one of those obnoxious hyper-rational folks who never understood why people are persuaded by commercials and staged imagery on the whole anyway. But I guess there are enough people who fall for the idea that beer gets you sex, cars are who YOU are, and a guy in a flight suit MUST be decisive and manly.

The problem here is that the anti-Bush ad at issue offers no positive alternatives. There's no contrast between the Bush status quo and the potential for smaller deficits, for instance. Therefore, the message is relegated to the realm of the academic rather than the persuasively emotional. And unless the Democrat marketers wise up and get on some Prozac, any hopes of a Democrat in the White House will be in the realm of Fantasy.

At least he didn't offer to call up his astrologer

International law? I better call my lawyer ... I don't know what you're talking about, about international law. Better consult my lawyer.

- Confusion from President G.W. Bush, when asked to clarify an issue about the Pentagon's recent branding of Canadian and other country's companies as "Security threats" in the context of Iraq reconstruction bids.

And people criticize Howard Dean for his lack of foreign policy expertise? Pot, meet kettle...

Reflecting upon a wonderful man -- the late Paul Simon

It was with great sadness that I read about the death of Senator Paul Simon.

Though always a fan of his thoughtful politics and respectful demeanor, I particularly have fond memories of the time I met him in person one chance evening.

I was on a Northwestern University dorm-sponsored scavenger hunt back in the early 90's, and while traversing the cold streets of downtown Chicago, one fellow in our team of eight shouted out "That's Paul Simon! Senator Simon!" It was a joyous outburst one might hear upon a sighting of celebrity, or an old friend, or a school teacher one cheerfully remembered. Especially to residents of Illinois, I learned, Paul Simon seemed to be a bit of all of that wrapped into one.

Along with his wife, Senator Simon -- yes, wearing a bowtie, as was seemingly always the case -- graciously stopped for us on the sidewalk on this wintry night, signed autographs, and posed with his arms warmly around us for a picture.

Some people simply exude an aura of kindness and integrity, and that would clearly include the late Senator Simon.

May he rest in peace, and may his family and close friends find strength and happiness in the memories of his life.

I have faith in my country again

Over the last few weeks, I've been reading about U.S. presidential candidate Howard Dean, watching videos of his appearances, learning about his experience and beliefs... and having faith in my country again. While this may sound cliched and I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, Dean is the first politician I can remember learning about that got me truly excited about America and our country's potential.

[ Visit Dean's Web site now -- it's actually interesting and informative! ]

Here are some key aspects of Dean that get me excited:

- He's smart and logical
He knows what has worked -- and what hasn't -- in the past, and offers thoughtful, realistic solutions for our nation's problems.

- He's articulate and Presidential
Howard Dean speaks plainly, engagingly, convincingly. I can't imagine him dumbly goading folks with "Bring it on!" or using embarrassingly lame cowboy rhetoric. No, Dean is someone that commands respect. In contrast, I wince every time I hear the Shrub speak. I wince even more when I think about our Dunce-in-Chief meeting with foreign heads-of-state. Bush -- and by extension, our country -- is currently both feared and ridiculed by civilized people and leaders around the world, and understandably so. Bush and his minions have squandered decades of good will, and relegated America to a world pariah.

- He cares about people, especially those who aren't millionaires
What a refreshing change! Instead of giving wads of cash back to those who are already rich, Dean wants to do what he's already done in his home state as Governor -- endeavor to have EVERY man, woman, and child protected with health insurance. Keep people out of prison by providing social services ahead of time (saving lives, and saving millions of dollars!). Actually support education instead of just offering lip service.

- He's smarter about foreign policy than our poser-in-chief
Some folks have dinged Dean about his foreign policy, dumbly claiming that his lack of experience in this area makes him unfit to protect our country. What hogwash! Dean has clearly articulated realistic and reasonable foreign policy ideas, including the no-brainer that Bush has trampled: Maintain a strong military, and deploy our men and women ONLY with sound cause. In fact, Dean is the only presidential candidate who opposed the "gee, I KNOW those weapons are SOMEWHERE!" Iraq war, demonstrating that he's got balls AND smarts. Most importantly, as I suggested above, Dean would undoubtedly be taken more seriously by leaders around the world, and I firmly believe that such strong relationships are the backbone of successful foreign policies.

- He unites rather than divides
Dean consistently speaks of supporting the ties that bind -- or should bind -- our great nation... families, education, our environment... things that are dear to us every day of our lives. He believes in people, he believes that government can be good and do good, he is optimistic rather than cynical, and overall, he's an amazing breath of fresh air.

---

If you have broadband, you absolutely MUST check out www.HowardDeanTV.com. You'll be prompted to download a small (NOT spyware) program that downloads broadband, full-screen videos of Dean's speeches and interviews, and after letting that run in the background a while, you'll be able to watch literally hours of Dean footage. This is a great way to hear him speak in more-than-30-second-news-soundbites and really learn what he's about.

---

I hope you'll take a moment to learn about Dean and maybe print up one of the cool customizeable posters. I'm not exaggerating when I say from my heart that I think he's one of the few people around now that can help reverse the treacherous course of our country. I think once you learn what he's about, you'll agree.

The benefits (?) of e-voting

Nowadays, I see with increasing frequency stories about e-voting -- voting for regional or national elections via the Internet. The worries about fraud are stated clearly, emphatically, and meaningfully.

But where are the corresponding benefits?

Quicker tabulation? Perhaps. And I guess that's considered important with today's MTV'd-attention-span folks.

Cost savings? After all the anti-hacking, equipment procurement and maintenance, and verification costs are added in? I don't see it.

Smaller margin of error? Nothing that couldn't be accomplished by more user-friendly paper ballots, IMHO.

Convenience? Those who are mobile-impaired (the handicapped or elderly, for instance) can already request absentee ballots and vote from the comfort of their own home. Heck, nearly ALL of us (at least in California) can actually do so; I've voted absentee for the last two years, saving the hassle of fighting the crowds and limited hours at my local polling place.

---

So am I missing something, or is e-voting actually a "solution" in search of a problem?

Senator Hatch favors "booby traps" of all sorts

It's been noted pretty widely that U.S. Senator Orin Hatch recently suggested that copyright holders should have the right to implement booby traps to literally destroy the computers of those who illegally download MP3s.

Now it appears as though Senator Hatch has endorsed "booby traps" of a different sort.

Up until a day or two ago, his Web site was linking to a former-Utah-Tourist page that had been "porn-napped" to trumpet "Huge Natural" attractions of a different sort.

In fairness, it's pretty clear that the senator had no idea that the site he had linked to was suddenly displaying natural beauty of a type generally not welcomed in public amongst his uptight demographic. But IMHO, it's amusing nonetheless :-)