The Scientist's View

Good politics

2008-12-21T08:48:00.005-05:00

I though about my post yesterday last night. I wasn't sure that I hadn't been too cynical in my view that Obama was just being politically savvy by have Pastor Warren do the invocation for the inaguration.

Personally, I do agree with Homer's comment:

Obama fell off his pedastal with this shitty decision.

I also wondered if this was a good step for gays or was I being too glib. I have to reverse my verdict. I think Obama has been consistant in his belief that dialogue is a good thing - whether it is with those whose country prays for your destruction (Iran), has expanionistic tendencies (Russia), a wary ally (France), an enthusiastic ally (Britain), or internally those who are on the Right. Rick Warren might be the first of these complex dialogues. And (time for more cynicism) - it is the inaguration of the President of these United States, not the Democratic winner. So it should (in all fairness) involve as wide a swath of representatives from the large voting blocs in our country as possible. But I being way to optimistic that those conversations between the Obama Administration and the conservative/religious right would change any minds.

To sum up Rick Warren, I think the following excerpt from the mailer his church sent out before the 2004 election is quite telling:

What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?
What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting?
What does each candidate believe about homosexual marriage?
What does each candidate believe about human cloning?
What does each candidate believe about euthanasia—the killing of elderly and invalids?

Well, I for one wouldn't fit in that church. Also, another chance for the church to get involved in the election but technically not violate any laws. He did not endorse anyone in 2004 and this was just a mailer to get people to consider some very important points when going to the voting booth.

Reading his website, his Wiki entry, the Saddleback church website - everything looks very agreeable (if you answer the questions above in the "correct" manner). The web content is very uplifting and positive - and Christ is sprinkled throughout but not too heavily. There is no eternal damnation, no mention of Hell, no overt mention of donations (HRC take note), none of the old school Southern Baptist dogma. This softened version of Christianity along with some clever focus group work and marketing has generated exactly what suburbanites need. Clear direction, warm & fuzzy approach, and the ability to "belong" to something.

One important reality to keep in mind is that Obama is president of the 52% that voted Yes on 8 as much as he is president to the 48% who voted No on 8. I think I was being overly optimistic yesterday - any benefit of a long term conversation with Republicans via Rick Warren is just a pipe dream for finding a ray of light in what is essentially politics.

Some randomly sampled opinions:

Daily Kos:

Great comments, overall. I do want to clarify something: I'm not suggesting that fighting for the right to marry isn't worthwhile. Rather, it's the fight over Rick Warren's role in the inauguration that I believe is the comparatively smaller issue that threatens to derail more important matters. Some folks have suggested this one issue is worth ignoring all others. Just as the lawyer in "Ragtime" wanted to focus his energy on fighting real hardships rather than insults, so I want to suggest we do the same.

From Dave at AOL's political blog:

Oh for pete's sake. The selection of Rick Warren is one of those easy ways for Obama to appear to bridge the culture divide without actually doing anything hard. A prayer is not legislation, or anything remotely resembling such. The fact that Obama says he supports traditional marriage while opposing prop 8 should have clued you in on the fact that he really is on your side, but politically he can't afford to associate with the gay mafia too much.

Probably because of hysterical overreactions like this.

The real fun begins with don't ask, don't tell. Save your ammo for that one. Also Obama needs to keep reminding everyone that he isn't a Muslim. Rick Warren could help there.

Andrew Sullivan:

Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.

Good politics and oddly enough, good news for gays

2008-12-20T11:19:00.004-05:00

Interestingly, Obama decided that the press was not giving him enough attention. So he makes it unavoidable for them to cover him. He does so by picking the right-ish slanting Christiam Rick Warren to lead the invocation at the inaguration. Pretty sly piece of politics and good press to boot.

(Chris Crain has a lengthy entry regarding Rick Warren; the posting has some interesting opinions from Chris' readers as well as Chris.)

Some thoughts.

1) People can get angry about Rick Warren's positions and stances - but he is a popular minister to many Americans. He is not of the hate-monger mold of Jerry Fallwell et al. It is pretty clear from his work over the past few years, Rick Warren represents, embodies, and regurgitates a lot of the suburban views. Those who live in their little suburban cocoons don't do well with extremes - they need their religion to be doled out in tender little morsels, essentially pablum, that are vaguely Christian-esque.

2) Obama is in a bit of a bind at the moment. Bush pushed the entire auto mess onto Obama starting March 31st. At which point, some very very very hard decisions are going to have to be made. Best to keep the press off that reality this week, next two weeks are Christmas and then January will be the inaguration (and the car companies will be digesting their allowance in the first quarter). This clever press deflection is Clintonian to the Nth degree.

3) Obama's players are just about all named and there is a gap before Christmas - time to fill it with something that has the appearance of content - but is really not that meaningful.

I, for one, don't see this as anything more interesting than press manipulation. Rick Warren doesn't want to burn gays at the stake. He doesn't want to put them on trains. He's just a garden variety homophobe that preaches in that Campbell's Soup for the Soul sort of tone. Christian Republicans, like gays, are an unavoidable reality. But there are alot more of them than us. Hence our rights get repressed and not theirs.

But what Rick Warren represents is pretty interesting from the gay angle. The hard right and the previous culture wars, whipped up most recently by Darth Rove, had a very sinister element to it. There were terms like "agenda", "activist", "sanctity", etc when talking about anything gay. The hard right's views in the W era are not the same as Rick Warren's views. That is something to mull over. If the moderates/indepedents rejected all things old school Republican in 2006 and more so in 2008 (I mean John McCain effectively ran as the anti-W) - it is something of a phase shift to wonder who/what will lead them in the short term. Is it someone like Rick Warren whose moderate tone and moderate Republican stance reflect a swining of the pendulum back towards the center? It doesn't mean that the moderate right supports gay marriage - but gay marriage is no longer being promoted as one of the key signals illustrating the deterioration of our culture/heritage/tradition (whatever term the hard right likes to use).

The gay media should put this event in perspective. Rick Warren is being asked to pray - and that is about it. He is not being given a cabinet position or being asked to be an advisor. People aligned with him represent a very key demographic in this country that POLITICALLY cannot be ignored, that being the right-slanting suburbanites. People like those that I grew up with. For Obama to ignore them would be somewhat expected - but politically, no including them is pretty short-sighted.

As I stated above - this should be, to a limited extent, considered a net positive for gay rights. I know that sounds weird - but when looking at the big picture - it is encouraging to see that Rick Warren is tacking left in being a part of the new Administration's goal to bring together the secular and the religious to continue and expand an on-going dialogue. He's not pro-gays, but he is also not using gays as chum in the on-going culture wars.

My man Dallas

2008-12-20T10:46:00.009-05:00

Dallas Clark, plays for the Colts. A Sunday afternoon highlight!

Christmas tree fun

2008-12-16T06:35:00.003-05:00

We bought our Christmas tree last weekend from Kidman Tree Farm which is north of town up by the lake. Bubba, H.M. and I all agreed on a 7-8 foot tree that looked like it had a great shape (the branches had not yet fallen). So we ordered it up, brought it home and set it up. It drank water for a week and then we decorated it on Sunday.

Bubba had a red and white theme in mind and he wanted to keep it simple - picture below.

Unfortunately, the tree appears to have scoliosis. We have been adjusting it all week. Compounding that, the stump isn't even so it develops a lean every few days. I try to ignore it, but it drives Bubba nuts.

We even decided to let the palms in on the action.

Gay question on the census???

2008-12-16T05:43:00.002-05:00

Mike Petrelis has an interesting post today about the need for a gay census.

His blog entry has a longish statement of support for the idea from Larry Kramer (LOVE HIM!) as well as plans for Britain to do a census that includes questions about sexual orientation/identity/preference (whatever they want to call it now).

It would be an interesting experiment to try - have an official statistic to account for how many "non-straight" people there are in the country (and by geography/state/locality). I do wonder how people would react to a question on a census form that asks about your identity?

Here are the two forms and their questions for the 2000 census:

What are the U. S. Census Questions?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are two types of forms, and only one will be mailed to your residence. The mailing is done by random computer selection. The first form is called the short form. This is mailed to 83% of all United States households. This form is very basic and has seven questions for the head of the household: name, age, date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, homeowner or renter. The rest of the individuals in the house receive six questions: name, age, date of birth, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.

The second form is called the “long form.” This is the form that people could have a problem with as a more intrusive invasion of privacy since it has 53 questions. This form is mailed out to 17% of the population. The computer selection sends this to one out of every six households.

Generally, the U.S. Census long form covers the following subjects as allowed by federal law (Title 13 of the USCS):

Social characteristics of Population: marital status, place of birth, citizenship, year of entry, education-school enrollment, educational attainment, ancestry, residence 5 years ago (migration), language spoken at home, veteran status, disability, grandparents as care givers.

Economic characteristics of Population: labor force status (current), place of work and journey to work, work status last year, industry, occupation, class of worker, income (previous year).

Physical characteristics of Housing: units in structure, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, plumbing and kitchen facilities, year structure built, year moved into unit, house heating fuel, telephone, vehicles available, farm residence.

Financial characteristics of Housing: value of home, monthly rent, shelter costs, (selected monthly owner costs)

So it is pretty clear from the 2000 census template that there is easily room in the census long questionnaire under "Social Characteristics of the Population" to slide in a question about sexual oreintation/identity/preference.

I thought about the questions asked and one really stuck out in my mind - the one called "Grandparents as Care Givers". Now this must be a socially engineered question because it evokes one of two thoughts in my mind: 1) poor kids, mom and dad died in some accident and the kids had to be raised by grandma/grandpa and/or 2) poor kids, mom and dad vanished for some reason (drugs, escaping the law, abandonment, etc) and the kids had to be raised by grandma/grandpa.

Now I don't intend to be non-sympathetic, but who really cares from a census standpoint how many grandparents are primarily the child's care-giver? If that statistic is of sufficient concern to the general populace to make it onto the long form questionnaire then it seems of sufficient merit in some social engineering way to be calculated.

Given that we are seeing a pretty "active" discussion about gays and gay rights in our country and we have NO idea how many "non-straight" folks are out there, it is a pretty reasonable idea to include a question about sexual orientation. Now if this were to make it onto the census form, how many multiple choice questions are provided and in what order?

Example:

Please describe your sexual orientation/identity (Reminder: All census form information is for statistical use only and individual identities will not be revealed).
a) male homosexual
b) female homosexual
c) male bisexual
d) female bisexual
e) asexual
f) transgendered
g) intersex
h) queer

Now I have always like queer as a "non straight" bin because even the most sincere of our activists will make some joke about how unwieldy the "non-straight" acronym is and what it is. It is always like GLBTIQ, LGBTI, GLBT, etc. Its like the word scramble that doesn't make a real word. So lets say that we pick the letters G (gay), L (lesbian), B (bisexual), A (asexual), T (transgender), I (intersex), Q (queer) - best I can come up with is GLABTIQ (pronounced glab TIK') which isn't exactly charming.

Acronyms are a pretty interesting part of the whole equation - I have sat in on meetings and read about many more meetings where the question of the order of the letters in the acronym is somehow important and it seems that G or L always starts the acronym. However, if we are to believe Kinsey, wouldn't B start the acronym? And do we really know how many asexual people there are out there? Lots of men married for >10 years would claim their wives are asexual. How many men are asexual? Are there more people who are asexual than gay/lesbian?

My point, and there is one in here somewhere, is that if we don't know the basic stats of our community beyond the oft cited (and suspiciously rounded off ratio) of 1:10 are gay(-ish), then we don't have the ability to be considered (or recognized legitimately) as a minority. Liberal mayors and mayoral candidates in big cities always appear at gay pride parades, there are alot of votes there. Similarly, if we had gay numbers from the census, it might make politicians (and policy makers) think about how to approach their communities. If you have 5%-10% of your community that is "non-straight", that is a pretty decent chunk. And the converse is also true, if only 0.1% of your community is "non-straight", then there is little incentive from politicians or policy makers to consider gay rights in a voter context.

It is a pretty compelling idea to get some hard statistics on the number of "non-straights" in America.

PS: Who would play Larry Kramer in a biopic of his life??? Ben Kingsley could easily handle the older Larry.

Bubba's Tacky Christmas Tree Farm

2008-12-14T14:53:00.001-05:00

Naseuatingly Cute Pix of Linus

2008-12-14T14:52:00.001-05:00

Weather is going to get cold

2008-12-14T08:56:00.004-05:00

My handy-dandy Weather Bug shows some cold weather is coming this week- Kevin's bestest Christmas present ever.

Note that in the upper left in big numbers is the current temp - that is 48 degrees on Sunday morning at 8am. Tonight's low will be 3 - with 20-30 mph winds and some mixed precipitates. Tomorrow's high will be 5. It warms up Tuesday in order to dump

And here it is at 2pm. 18 degrees. Wind is blowing at 20mph sustained now. Some snow flurries to boot.

Foiled at every turn

2008-12-13T08:34:00.007-05:00

I had a super-duper busy week full of just tons of great things. My plans for a mental health day this past Monday were foiled at 8:30am when I was told that some equipment of mine caught on fire over the weekend. So I trudged into work to inspect the charred remains.

I was OK with working Monday because I had a backup plan. A killer blizzard was supposed to hit Des Moines Tuesday. I told everyone to stay home and planned to skip the gym and sleep late. Plus Tuesday was the day that the Iowa Supreme Court heard the gay marriage case (I wanted to watch the simulcast of the court presentation in the late morning followed by trashy daytime TV all afternoon). Well, the killer blizzard was, in fact, warm rain. Dammit! Therefore I could not avoid my only meeting of the day at 8am. And once at work - there is no way to get out before 5:30pm. It just doesn't happen.

So I seriously put my foot down. I was committed to take the day off on Wednesday (I mean, how hard can it be to get a day off?). I'd enjoy the Day without a Gay. Well, it being "one of those weeks", half my lab was sick and we have very firm deadlines to meet before X-mas. So I had to work in lab all day to help out. It was actually fun (so I did it again on Thursday and Friday). Actually, I'm pretty cute in goggles and a lab coat. So for the past 3 days, I tortured the lab with super-fierce cha-cha remixes, bumbled experiments, and tried to figure out where to put the disco ball. By Friday afternoon - they were seriously questioning how I had made it through grad school and hoping that I would go back to doing whatever it is that I do in my office.

Some good stuff happened this week though:

1. Manuscript is headed out for review - only took 9 months to write. It is always like getting a weight off of your shoulders to get a manuscript out.

2. Went to a new restaurant called Proof in Downtown - great ambiance, wonderful downtown view from huge plate glass windows, and the food was pretty good. Last night was a trip to Italy! First course: Yummy seafood salad. Second course: Ravioli in a tres tasty sauce. Third course: Duck lasagne. Fourth course: Spiced gelato and a small cakish thing (the cake did not work). 40 bucks per person for the prix fixe. Carly (the owner) came over and visited for a bit - she and Bubba swapped Africa stories.

3. Went to film viewing on Monday sponsored by OneIowa. There was a mixer at the art house cinema's lobby. The short movie that was produced by OneIowa and concerned gay marriage. It was a collage of people talking about their views of why gay marriage should be legal. Overall, it was pretty good and local media was there.
There was a request for donations which was tactfully put at the end of the presentation.

4. Tuesday night was another mixer - this one was to thank Lambda Legal for their role in arguing the case before the Iowa Supreme Court. The mixer was held at the Pappajohn Center - a poured concrete architectural disaster. Lambda Legal folks chatted with the crowd and did some quick thanks to OneIowa and Iowa in general for all the support on the case. Local media was there and overall it was a nice event. and request for donations was tactfully at the end. Proof (See item 1) did the catering - I overheard several queens chattering about how good the food was. Carly, corner the gay market and you will do quite well!

5. HRC did cover the Iowa marriage case - in their blog.

Overall - I thought that OneIowa did a great job this week of highlighting the Iowa Gay Marriage case and creating some opportunities for people to be involved.

HRC went into full crisis mode this week over Pat Boone.

Pat's quote:

"...there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists."
- Pat Boone, December 6, 2008

I actually think that Queer Nation (does it still exist?) should change their name to Sexual Jihad. It has a certain snap to it. So HRC sends out an e-mail with a very clever donations strategy:

Boone and his buddies continue to stir up fear, even if they have to lie. It's exactly how they passed the California marriage ban.
We need your help to stop the radical right from painting a movement about love and dignity as violent and radical. We need your support to stay strong, smart, and nimble, to combat these growing attacks with the simple truth: all we want is equality.
Make a donation to HRC on behalf of Pat Boone. Your gift helps HRC combat these lies – and sends the message that our call for equality cannot be silenced.
We'll even send Mr. Boone a note with your first name and gift amount to let him know you've donated in his name.

Ummm - are you actually serious? I'm not donating ANYTHING in Pat Boone's name. And who cares about Pat Boone anyways? Why not send out an e-mail about the Iowa Supreme Court Case instead??? Whatever.

Jimbo sent me a funny e-mail about the HRC/Pat Boone drama.

'sigh'

HRC: "OMG PAT BOONE IS SO MEAN!!! BUT YOU CAN HELP!

1. DONATE TO US!
2. SIGN UP ON OUR MEMBERSHIP LIST!
3. DONATE TO US!

OMG PAT BOONE IS SO MEAN!"

Day without a gay made it onto Drudge!

2008-12-09T07:21:00.002-05:00

Now this is what I am talking about. A relatively balanced article about "Day without a Gay" and the article even has links at the end.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress.

Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" - scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants - also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.

The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.

"We are all for a boycott if that is what brings about a sense of community for people," said Hetherington, 30, who plans to spend Wednesday volunteering at an inner-city school. "You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways."

Hetherington said he's been getting 100 e-mails an hour from people looking for volunteer opportunities, and that his "Day Without a Gay" Web site has gotten 100,000 hits since mid-November.

Despite Hartzler and Hetherington's attempt to fashion a positive approach, some organizers of the street demonstrations that drew massive crowds in many cities last month have been reluctant to embrace the concept, saying that it could be at best impractical and at worst counterproductive to "call in gay."

"It's extra-challenging for people to think about taking off work as a form of protest, given that we are talking about people who may not be out (as gay) at work, and given the current economic situation and job market," said Jules Graves, 38, coordinator of the Colorado Queer Straight Alliance. "There is really not any assurance employers would appreciate it for what it is."

Graves' group nonetheless is arranging for interested participants to volunteer at the local African Community Center in Denver. The agency said it could find projects to keep 20 people busy, but so far only 10 have pledged to show up, said Graves.

Scott Craig, a fifth-grade teacher at Independence Charter School in Philadelphia, had no problem requesting and being granted the day off. So many of the school's 60 teachers were eager to show support for gay rights they had to make sure enough stayed behind to staff classrooms.

About 25 teachers plan to take Wednesday off and to have their work covered by substitutes while they discuss ways to introduce gay issues to their students and volunteer at the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Craig said. A letter telling parents why so many teachers would be out went home Monday.

"We want to get the conversation going in the community that gay is not bad," Craig said. "For kids to hear that in a positive light can be life-changing."

Join The Impact, the online community that launched protests last month over the passage of gay marriage bans in California, Florida and Arizona, has urged people to withdraw $80 from their bank accounts Wednesday to demonstrate gays' spending power, and to devote the time they might otherwise spend watching TV or surfing the Internet to volunteer work.

Witeck-Combs Communications, a public relations firm in Washington that specializes in the gay and lesbian market, published a study this year that estimated that gay and lesbian consumers spend $700 billion annually.

Bob Witeck, the firm's chief executive officer, said it would be difficult to measure the success of Wednesday's strike since gay employees occupy so many fields. And rather than suspending all consumer spending for the day, gay rights supporters would have a bigger impact if they devoted their dollars to gay-friendly businesses year-round, Witeck said.

"Our community leaders who are running book stores, newspapers, flower shops, coffee houses, bars and many, many other things are hurting right now, so paying attention to their needs during this hard time is an effective form of activism," he said.

Hetherington said he has been careful to design A Day Without a Gay - he came up with the name after the film "A Day Without a Mexican" and liked it because it rhymed - so no one feels excluded or threatened.

He has specifically urged high school students not to walk out of their classes and assured college students they won't be disloyal to the cause if they go ahead and take their final exams. He also has listed opportunities - ranging from writing letters to members of Congress about federal gay rights legislation to spreading the word about Wednesday on social networking sites - for gay marriage backers who cannot miss work.

---

On the Net:

http://www.daywithoutagay.org/

http://jointheimpact.com/

From the Atlanta Bucks RFC Miss Ruck and Maul Benefit

2008-12-08T21:47:00.001-05:00

Love the pic.

Vote totals on Prop 8 shows clearly that black voters are not the cause of the loss...

2008-12-08T08:35:00.009-05:00

It is very useful to look at the totals county by county when discussion matters of race and Prop 8. The full totals are conveniently reproduced on Jim's 2.0 blog.

Note that the difference in votes was 500K out of over 11 million votes. Most interesting statistic is the counties that had the largest margin of Yes votes.

I'm not the world's expert on California - but I can tell you right now that Orange County and San Bernadino counties are the problem. And they are not demographically packed with religious black folks.

It took me <5 minutes to find this data and about 2 seconds to interpret it - what magical force has prevented the author's of the article Pam is referencing to do the same?

Oh, that is right - they need to sell paper and why not race bait? In these troubled times, with papers going out of business left and right - shouldn't the Times be a little bit concerned about producing meaningful and useful content? Is it really worthwhile for anyone to support a paper that is so obviously distorting a picture of reality (the data below is freely available with a quick Google search).

Largest Margin of Victory Yes Votes

San Bernardino County (185,874)

Orange County (168,269)

Riverside County (118,241)

Kern County (97,957)

Fresno County (85,820)

Largest Margin of Victory No Votes

San Francisco County (177,148)

Alameda County (111,377)

Sonoma County (62,568)

Santa Clara (62,073)

San Mateo (59,606)

Highest Yes Percentage

Tulare County (75.40%)

Kern County (75.30%)

Modoc County (74.20%)

Kings County (73.70%)

Madera County (73.40%)

Highest No Percentage

San Francisco County (75.20%)

Marin County (75.00%)

Santa Cruz County (71.40%)

Sonoma County (66.10%)

Mendocino County (62.20%)

Narrowest Yes Victory (<5%)

Los Angeles County (0.56%)

Nevada County (1.70%)

San Luis Obispo County (2.41%)

Narrowest No Victory (<5%)

Monterey County (3.5%)

EQCA shenanigans

2008-12-07T09:35:00.004-05:00

Michael Petrelis highlights the typical antics of the HRC types whose "leadership" did absolutely nothing to help Prop 8.

Another item from Petrelis' posts this weekend was an article from Boston gay rag written by one Jeff Epperly (who Michael is friendly with):

Longtime San Francisco political gadfly and blogger Michael Petrelis, who hates the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) almost as reflexively as Andrew Sullivan hates the Clintons, is up in arms because he got an invitation recently for a night of "pampering and relaxation" at a local spa to benefit HRC. "What’s next?" Petrelis asks. "Get a face-lift and HRC gets 10 percent from the plastic surgeon, to fight the next ballot proposition? Purchase a Mercedes and the dealer gives a percentage of the sale to HRC?"

I like Petrelis, but his anti-HRC crusade veers off into the comical a bit too often these days. I wouldn’t go to a silly spa night to benefit any group, and I certainly don’t enjoy putting on a tux and dining on chicken with the LGBT glitterati at posh events. I point this out because of the tendency of those who’ve decided to pile onto the Human Rights Campaign vis-à-vis the California Proposition 8 loss to paint anyone who chooses not to join the anti-HRC feeding frenzy as being beholden to HRC’s glam aura as "professional" Washington insiders -- as if being professional LGBT lobbyists in a capital full of professional right-wing lobbyists is a bad thing on its face ...

The torch-and-pitchforks mob currently hounding HRC around the Prop. 8 loss either have very short memories or a shallow frame of reference for their anger. HRC gave $3.4 million to the anti-8 campaign, which is exactly the kind of role one would expect them to take in a fight in which local organizations rightfully took the lead and HRC provided support ...

Prop. 8 was a California loss that should be laid at the feet of a local campaign that had too little money too late and a disjointed message that failed to speak to the constituencies -- moderate religious voters and voters of color, in particular -- who put Prop. 8 over the top ...

For those same people to now claim to know what’s best for all of us is worse than revisionist history. It’s a recipe for disaster in a world where Prop. 8 has taught us that, as much as we might disagree, opportunistic political cannibalism only drives apart a community that should know that we need everyone to do his or her part in myriad ways that by themselves cannot possibly capture the complexity needed to move us forward.

The problem with this analogy is that cannabalism implies some sort of desire to consume another for a reason that might be nutritional (i.e. you are on a desert island) or it might be religious in nature (i.e. tribal consumption of their members in the pacific, as one example). I doubt that anyone criticizing HRC wants anything to do with the metaphorical consumption of that organization.

Jeff's point in this article is pretty clear. It is a nice thought too - why should we spend out time fighting within when the enemy is on the outside. We can handle our internal problems ourselves and no need to air our dirty laundry. We really should all get along.

But then there are these nagging problems with this column.

1) Use of the term cannabalism - If Michael's criticims gets a bit over the top then how does one describe the use of the term cannabalism? That word is over the top. And grossly inaccurate.
2)Use of the term shallow ("a shallow frame of reference for their anger") - In the vein of my post yesterday, if you are giving 3.4 million bucks - ought you not control how it is spent? I'm wondering why HRC justifies it efforts in CA with some dollar amount? It is silly for HRC to expect one organization to do all the work. If you are a big political organization (e.g. HRC) - you can give money to local organization AND run a parallel effort that overlaps but does not usurp the CA effort. Has anyone paid any attention to Karl Rove's tactics? Take a page from his book and BE AGGRESSIVE, BE BE AGGRESSIVE. Funny how Jeff's article heaps the blame on the EQCA group and absolves HRC ("Prop. 8 was a California loss that should be laid at the feet of a local campaign that had too little money too late and a disjointed message that failed to speak to the constituencies"). Isn't it HRC's role to educate local organizations for this very reason?
3. I just love that Prop 8 suddenly has become a wedge issue. Really, has it? Did Jeff just conveniently forget that 1 million people went to the streets Nov 15th. No on 8 rallies should have shown the leadership that IN SPITE of losses, the gay community is moving forward. The rallies were not about bitterness and in-fighting - by all accounts, they were mostly about hope and a time to reflect how far we have come and how far we have to go.

I would like to support the HRC -and I think many of the cranky bloggers out there would too - if they just pulled their head out of their ass and knocked off the top-down bullshit.

If one needs yet another example - 6 couples are going before the Iowa Supreme Court on Tuesday in an attempt to legalize gay marriage. Now I just went to the HRC home page and copied the lead page. Mind you that gay marriage is one of HRC's lead issues and this court case is being held in the Midwest. Kind of a big deal as this would offer a case for Minnesota and Wisconsin to do the same.

Can anyone find the Iowa case on the webpage? Oh perhaps I need to look behind the ad for the HRC store.

Q.E.D.

Chris Johnson, director of interactive communications for the HRC

2008-12-06T09:34:00.004-05:00

Jon Aravosis linked into a Washingtonian article regarding Chris Johnson.

Mr. Johnson is a director of interactive communications for HRC. The HRC-sponsored blog that he oversees is called the HRC Back Story. It is pretty much a diluted version of very established aggregator-type blogs with varying authors, Pam's House Blend is the most interesting in this style that I happen to visit. But there are many blogs of this style out there and they are great places to check out what is hot.

In any case, Chris Johnson was interviewed for the "Interesting" persons column in the Washingtonian magazine. Below is some excepts from the Q&A.

Q: The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial pointing out some of the weaknesses of the “No on Proposition 8” movement. How is HRC working to address some of these problems?
CJ: In all honesty, I wish that HRC had been allowed to take a greater role in the day-to-day operations of the “No on Prop 8” campaign. Without question, I think there should be a full accounting of the way that campaign was waged.

OK - this answer is really really really infuriating. HRC has to ask for permission or wait for an invitation? Am I actually to believe that this organization gave its money to No on 8 and DID NOT DEMAND A ROLE IN HOW THE MONEY WAS SPENT. You have got to be kidding me. You know HRC understands the fucking concept of how money can be used and controlled - hell they just published a buyer's guide for the holidays. If they can help gay consumers use their money to effect change - should we expect the same of HRC when they are deploying their cash????

This response is so passive (particularly for the interactive communications director) when you look at what Join the Impact managed to do in 10 days. Umm, Join the Impact had no money, no established network of donors, no friendly outlets to disperse their message - and they managed to get 1 million queers and allies out on the street. But Mr. Johnson's organization, the HRC, cannot seem to place demands on how their contributions were used in No on 8.

It is just insulting.

Q: How important do you think it is for the gay community to find a leader or spokesperson to whom people from both within and outside the movement can relate to?
CJ: I’ve never really thought about that question. I feel that people’s experiences and priorities within the LGBT community are so varied that it may be nearly impossible to find a single leader to corral such an unruly cast of characters. (Mary Poppins, where are you?).

You have got to be fucking joking. The director of interactive communications has never considered whether the gay community could possibly have a national leader/spokesperson? Do most queer people like being called unruly? So who is "ruly"? Straight people? Mr. Johnson is clearly being flip - but think about the underlying bias in his answer.

I, for one, do not appreciate being reduced to something that needs to be lassoed by an umbrella-toting ray of sunlight. Mary Poppins, I mean really. Seriously. You cannot say that you work for the HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN and spout this sort of gibberish. Gay rights are human rights. Trans right are human rights. etc etc etc.

I'd suggest that Chris talk with a professional about how to give a humorous answer. Jimbo could probably offer some pearls of wisdom.

Q: Comparisons between the gay-rights movement and the civil-rights movement have been drawn, both at protests and in the press. Is gay really the new black, or just how worrisome is this comparison?
CJ: I’m not really into comparing battle scars to determine who has suffered the most in our country, but I can certainly identify with the sense of a despised minority using everything it has to fight for its place and respect in our society. I think that’s what makes talking about the LGBT equality movement using the 1960s civil-rights movement imagery so appealing. For many LGBT people who have perhaps always felt oppressed or struggled with feeling inferior, I think the civil-rights language speaks to that sense of unjustified loss deep within them. They want to convey their pain in the most powerful way possible.

I personally think the political danger lies in that for many black people, referring to the civil-rights movement conjures up centuries of brutal racial struggle stemming from their ancestors being brought from Africa in chains and enslaved, followed by years of Jim Crow laws and legal racial intimidation that restricted every aspect of one’s life, etc. It makes them immediately suspicious or even opposed to your argument—especially when they consider religious teachings against homosexuality. There are some black people who promote talking about the gay-rights movement in civil rights terms, but I suspect there are even more voters who are put off by the comparison.

And yes, I know some civil-rights leaders such as Congressman John Lewis, Julian Bond, the late Coretta Scott King, and Bayard Rustin endorsed the comparison, but I just don’t think their position on the issue resonates with the majority of black people today.

Oh now we get an answer with some sort of cerebral activity. How kind. Too bad the answer is saturated in identity politics bias.

CJ reminds all of you gay folks - you don't get to use identity politics like blacks do because you belong to a minority that is too "new" in terms of its recognition. And that Mr. Johnson has just informed you what many in Prop on 8 debate were wondering - what is the view in the black community about gay marriage. Now interestingly, it turns out that black voters in California were not in any way the deciding factor - and in fact is appears that a majority of blacks appeared to favor supporting the existing law to allow gay marriage based upon polling. So are black folks in California different from the ominous silent majority he mentions?? Just a question.

NOTE: This article appeared to be published in the Washingtonian on Dec. 4th so his answer is not due to a publication date.

It actually bothers me quite a bit to see the HRC playing slice and dice with identity politics. No one wins when we do this - I mean do blacks get the trump card or Jews? Or average Russians during the Stalin years? Or average Chinese under Mao? Aborigines in Australia? Native Americans? And so on.

CJ starts with the smart answer - there is no need to compare battle scars. But then he goes and does just that. The answer, if anyone at HRC was paying attention to the supposed message they are distributing, should be thus: All minorities need protection from the majority and we stand ready to assist in this fight so all are given the respect that a human life deserves.

No need for images of chains and brutality of slave holders. But Chris couldn't stomach the idea that gay rights and black rights are human rights. He has to remind all of us not to even try that "Gay is the new black" shit. And he'll remind us of the silent black majority of the voting block that goes to church. Its a ATL sort of answer. And you can tell that CJ clearly believes that gay rights sit on a lower stratum of the civil rights totem pole than black rights. Very very sad to see this coming from a director in the HRC. Bias is bias. When CJ supports the mentality that black rights trump gay rights - how can we have equality. I'd suggest the HRC vet this kid's communications and send him to Camp Equality for a refresher course about how to stay on message.

Q: How do you respond to Andrew Sullivan's criticism accusing HRC of not taking enough of a role during the Prop 8 campaign? Do you agree with the idea that the organization is in need of reform?
I honestly don’t read or pay much attention to that guy. The only time I think about him is when his name pops up in my “Human Rights Campaign” Google alert—and that usually means he’s in a tizzy about something. I’d agree that there are always things HRC could do better, but how a group can send staff, mobilize volunteers, and give millions of dollars to a campaign and be considered “passive” just really bakes my noodle. I guess there are a few folks out there who are entertained by him grinding his axe, but I don’t think he really speaks to, or for, people like me.

Now this is rich. Just two seconds ago CJ was complaining that the HRC did not get enough input to be effective in No on 8. Now CJ is protraying HRC in some sort of dramatic light of leaving no stone unturned in the fight for No on 8.

Now many folks, including myself, have at least one beef with Andrew Sullivan. But I would NEVER think of reducing him to "entertainment" - particularly from some 30 year old kid who clearly thinks very highly of his position. I'd just throw in a reality check here - how many hits does Andrew get and how many hits does CJ get. And let's look at the resume - Andrew has published how many books? He was editor of the New Republic for how long? How often is he quoted in the mainstream media?
And CJ, where are you books, editorships, links to the mainstream (crickets chirp).

I would also suspect that the interactive communications director for HRC to look past Andrew's presentation and think about the content of what he (and many like him) are saying. Andrew's comments on HRC have alot of resonance in the blogosphere (this is not to say that he speaks for the whole community - rather that his posts often are reflections or direct contributions of ideas ripping about the gay activist/political/information aggregator blogs). I would expect for Chris Johnson to think of Andrew (and he has a really big straight liberal audience) as a bellwether.

A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.

If I were Chris, I would stop thinking of Andrew as the problem and start thinking of Andrew as part of the solution. HRC is taking tons of licks right now in the blogosphere. The actual damage really comes from the protests re: No on 8. The popular response startled everyone - but it is clear that there is something of a Stonewall 2.0 brewing out there. HRC, always the target for being monolithic and money hungry, actually appears to have become irrelevant - the relevance of the organization ended on November 15,2008. Join the Impact better win the HRC visibility award for showing why HRC when from ineffective to irrelevant in the month of November. Wouldn't that be great!

The role of interactive communications should be something more than gathering content and reposting it - no, this person's role should be to see what and where HRC can improve its role and efficacy through the collective voices on the web. It does not mean that each and every comment should be acted upon or even considered - but this person should act as an editor of the web for the HRC and provide grass-roots input. HRC had a wonderful chance to help out Join the Impact. It could have boomeranged itself back into relevancy by collaborating with Join the Impact. Instead the HRC ignored it. It would rather provide seaweed wraps at spa nights to console its members about the No on 8 loss.

Many people in the blogosphere, including Andrew Sullivan, have gone from complaining about HRC as an organiztion to basically discussing as if it were already dead. If you think of Andrew as a potential bellwether - the repeated HRC obits that happened after Nov 15 protest should scare the shit out of HRC. But as the blogosphere continually has shown - the navel gazers and Congressional asskissers at the HRC hive on Rhode Island Ave only do top-down.

Hint to HRC: The hard right did bottom up in the 80s and they dominated the Congress in the 90s with the Contract with America starting in 1994 and cornering Clinton into his "triangulation" strategy. Obama did ground up in Iowa caucuses and won decisively - remember HIllary was actually THIRD in Iowa. Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy as head of the DNC using a bottom up approach to lay the groundwork for victory in 2008. And of course Join the Impact.

Grass roots is where it is at - in terms of money, viralcy of information distribution, and ability to reach those of us out in the hinterlands.

Concluding comment:
I'm also going to use a direct quote from CJ:

I can only hope that the setback in California will inspire real, sustained efforts to earnestly understand the complex ways that race, religion, and sexuality intersect in the struggle for equal rights. We need to go back to the drawing board on how we talk about these things. There’s a lot of mutual distrust to overcome.

Does this "mutual distrust" really exist? A million people went to the streets and proteste on November 15thd. We have a renewed sense of pride as a gay community that binds us together - this is the Stonewall 2.0. Did CJ read all the blogs on Nov 15, 16th and 17th showing all the marches and protests. Gay flags everywhere. Signs promoting equality carried by gays and straights. There is a path forward like there never has been before. The gays are taking on the hate of the Mormons and Catholics and showing their hypocrisy. We are turning the corner. Talk of mutual distrust misses the entire point of Stonewall 2.0.

Boycott HRC. Until their coffers run dry - they will not change.

Perfect example of HRC at its least effective

2008-12-06T09:24:00.003-05:00

JumptheSnark has a great entry on an HRC-sponsored inaugural-ish sort of party. I seriously hope that the drink of choice "Equaltinis" is a joke - because I can actually see those HRC boobs coming up with some 20 dollar top shelf concoction to bring some verve to the party.

The money line:

$350 or $375 for tickets -- is it a fundraiser? Or just an expensive party?

Imagine how many servers HRC could buy for Join the Impact?

Join the Impact co-founder and some interesting links

2008-12-06T09:00:00.002-05:00

Nice posting here from JoeMyGod regarding an article about Amy Balliett.

Her entry in Wiki.

From Daily Kos on Nov 12th.

NY Times blog entry on idea of making Milk a box-office success by direct action (i.e. every gay person goes to make it a box-office smash). New Yorker review was fantastic of Milk (which helps the cause)

A pretty interesting timeline of Join the Impact evolution over two weeks in the Industry Standard.

Rex Wockner has the latest direct action activities for December and January from Join the Impact.

OMG - The Christmas decorations will soon appear (shudder).

2008-12-05T06:55:00.005-05:00

Well it appears that winter has now descended upon Des Moines. It has snowed twice already this week and we are getting a round of light snow tonight and then another round of snow/ice Sunday night into Monday. At least it is not too cold - no below zero weather yet.

All this white stuff means only one thing - Christmas is upon us!

Bubba will be hauling out his trashy Christmas displays this weekend and we'll go buy a tree. )Note: we were just too lazy last weekend to tackle the boxes and it snowed and was windy all weekend so we vegetated on the couch). Now, I've always argued for being tasteful in one's excess regarding Christmas. A moderate sized tree, a few lights, some simple ornaments, a wreath for the door. Boring, but tasteful. Not Bubba. If it is shiny, sparkles or rotates - he will buy it. He loves the sheer vulgarity of the holidays. The house will soon be drenched in knick-knacky Christmas kitsch. I keep telling myself, "it is only one month of the year and you do love him".

I'll post pics and let them speak their 1000 words.

Detriot's game of chicken is officially on

2008-12-03T21:40:00.003-05:00

I watch the spectacle of Detroit alternating between a spanked child and a past-his-prime quarterback with some amusement. The last installment before Congress saw the CEOs of the Big 3 sent home with their tail between their legs for demanding 25 billion when riding corporate jets with their hat not exactly in their hand begging for some cash from the Federal trough.

After regrouping, the "atmospherics" (such a great term) of the demands changed. The CEOs did a road trip in a hybrid and then demanded a total of 9 billion more bucks. Geez, what would the total have been had they ridden a bike to DC?

To bring this charade into perspective, it is interesting to parse some of the talking points.

1. GM and Chrysler are now saying that they will be insolvent by New Years Day without a cash infusion from the Federal Government. Interesting development given that they were giving timelines in Quarter 1 or 2 next year just a few weeks back. False urgency? I think we are starting to see the makings of full disclosure this time around.
2. GM and Chrysler have drawn a very clear line in the sand this week. Bankruptcy is "not an option". More succinctly, one CEO stated that Plan A is for a cash infusion and there is no plan B. Interesting how the CEOs have decided to play offense vis a vis bankruptcy. They hold, at this moment, no trump cards but are playing as if they have a full house. Bluffs only work when no one really knows what the table is holding - but in this case (point 1) everyone knows that GM and Chrysler are not viable.
3. Fun fact seen on the Lehrer Hour tonight - if any of the Big 3 go under, the recession will morph into a full on depression. This little nugget goes to the GM CEO.
4. Ford, "healthiest" of the three, is asking only for a line of credit that need not be accessed immediately. Well, I'd imagine they are still churning through the $26 billion they got for mortgaging the entire business in 2006 - right down to the inherent value of the blue oval.
5. None of the Big 3 can seem to sell a car in Quarter 3. Sales which started their descent in 2007 are nearing a fatal nadir as 2008 winds down.
6. There is lots of talk about fuel economy and hybrids and re-engineering platforms for the small chassis platform. Umm, you guys kind of missed the boat there. Gas is now $1.54 per gallon in Des Moines. People currently are not buying in response to the economy, not gas prices. You could have put fuel efficient cars on the platform years ago - but, oops, SUVs and trucks were the cash cow.

There is alot more here to divine from the tea leaves - but what it boils down to is just this. The Big 3 have no real desire to change anything. This is the metaphorical drunk wanting one more swig of hooch, and then he'll quit.

The car companies (by Ford's own admission today) have lots of fuel efficient models that sell quite well in overseas markets. And, now, they are moving quickly to adapt their platforms to build these cars. Interesting - CAFE was always blamed for the car companies woes but oddly enough, these very companies can make fuel efficient cars that people buy in the rest of the world. Just not here.

These are just theatrics before the final showdown. The game of chicken has started - but the end is many miles down the road. Are hybrids the key - not if anyone hates the car. The Prius by Toyota is hideous but they sell. Are electric cars the key? Well if you make it look like the EV1, only the most hardened of liberals can stomach that gravy boat of a car. Is ethanol the key? Well, now that they are all going under because of the precipitous drop in gas prices - don't look for domestic improvements here (let's just ignore that Brazil has a thriving car market where drivers can titrate between ethanol and gas depending upon the price - either works in their flex fuel cars).

The point of the showdown is that these companies need focus - bankruptcy can bring this. Government money will not. The most interesting thing I have read on the topic recently came from the WSJ - just slice and dice the factories up to Honda, Toyota, BMW or whomever else. We already have a domestic car market that works and those companies can use the existing facilities much more efficiently than the Detroit dinosaurs. Politically, it will never happen. But it is intersting to think about.

The politicians, and this is now outside of Obama's hands (he is breathing a temporary sigh of relief until Jan 20th, no doubt), are going to have to sort out the fate of Detroit in December. If the companies won't make it past New Year's - well, someone has to blink.

Make a wish

2008-12-03T05:11:00.003-05:00

I got my 11,111th visit this morning!

Glad I was kicked out of bed at 3:53 am for being too congested. Bubba can't stand my congestion brought on by being allergic to just about everything in the house (i.e. cat, dog, dust mites, dust (that provides the mites their sustenance) which in turn is being exacerbated by the super dry air of the upper Midwest.

ANYWAYS, supposedly, one is to make a wish if one sees 11:11 on the clock. Well I am buying a lottery ticket today - as Mary Chapin Carpenter sang on her album Come On, Come On "I feel lucky!"

Gay marriage goes before the Iowa Supreme Court Dec 9th!

2008-12-02T20:36:00.003-05:00

Iowa may be the next state to grant full marriage rights to all couples! Dec 8th and 9th have several festivities associated with this historic event. Brought to you via OneIowa.

One week from today, Iowa will take the national spotlight as the case for marriage equality goes before the Iowa Supreme Court. Join One Iowa across the state to celebrate and learn more about this historic opportunity for equality.

Oral Argument Watch Parties!

Given the interest in the case and limited capacity, we anticipate that there will not be enough seating for everyone in the Supreme Court chamber. To accommodate growing interest from our supporters, One Iowa has planned several “watch parties” across the state!

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 9:45 – 11:30 AM
Des Moines Watch Party - Des Moines Public Library, 1000 Grand Avenue
Ames Watch Party - ISU Memorial Union, Gallery Room (3rd Floor), 2229 Lincoln Way
Iowa City Watch Party - Iowa City Public Library, 123 South Linn

We are making every effort to ensure a live-feed at each of these locations; but due to technology limitations and previous experiences in other states, we cannot make any guarantees on the quality of the live-feed. Regardless, this will be a great way for our supporters to gather for a truly historic event!

Due to extremely limited seating we strongly encourage you to join your closest watch party, but if you prefer to attend oral arguments in person, click here for more information from the Iowa Supreme Court.

"Our Story" Movie Premiere -- RSVP

Monday, December 8, 2008 - 6:30-8:00 PM
Fleur Cinema and Cafe, 4545 Fleur Dr., Des Moines

Join us for the public premiere of "Our Story", One Iowa's short film featuring Iowans speaking out in favor of marriage for gays and lesbians. Come celebrate with us and don't miss your chance to mingle with the stars! Light appetizers will be provided with a cash bar.
Remarks by Senator Matt McCoy and Des Moines Register Columnist Rekha Basu.

"Making the Case" Des Moines Reception -- RSVP

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 6:30-8:00 PM
Pappajohn Center, 1200 Grand Ave., Des Moines

Oral arguments in the landmark Varnum v. Brien case take place before the Iowa Supreme Court on the morning of December 9. Join us in the evening for a reception to discuss this historic event with remarks by Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal's senior attorney on the case. If the district court ruling is upheld, it will provide gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry; full marriage equality in Iowa. Wine and hors d'oeuvres provided.

Day without a gay

2008-11-30T10:24:00.003-05:00

Join the Impact - fresh off a great debut on November 15th, now has a new initiative.

Day without a Gay.

The effort encourages you to call into work as "gay" and then take that day (i.e. Dec 10, 2008) to volunteer or do service for your community. I feel a mean case of "gay" coming on!

HRC Buyer's Guide

2008-11-30T10:07:00.003-05:00

Wow, something tangible and useful from the HRC! And I am not being sarcastic.

The buying guide is pretty useful for those of us who want to support gay rights/human rights when shopping (the ultimate vote in this country really is with your pocketbook).

Download the buyer's guide.

Quick note: The guide will pop up pretty large (reduce the zoom to <100%).

Snowy days in Des Moines

2008-11-30T09:53:00.003-05:00

The weather guys kind of screwed up this forecast. All week we were supposed to have a little precip, nothing big. However, some energy came together and the system slowed down and voila, we have snow!

Wet flakes and relatively warm temps make for that fluffy, fairytale-like snow that sticks to everything. The picture is of our humble little abode on a snowy Sunday morning.

Linus and kitty are getting quite cozy now that it is cooling down. Cute pic of them snuggling.

Leadership failure?

2008-11-29T10:00:00.001-05:00

Michael Petrelis has a very interesting link today to SF Bay Times.

Ridiculous

2008-11-28T10:12:00.001-05:00

From Bloomberg:

Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., criticized by U.S. lawmakers for its use of corporate jets, asked aviation regulators to block the public’s ability to track a plane it uses.

“We availed ourselves of the option as others do to have the aircraft removed” from a Federal Aviation Administration tracking service, a GM spokesman, Greg Martin, said yesterday in an interview. He declined to discuss why GM made the request.

Flight data show that the leased Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV jet flew Nov. 18 from Detroit to Washington, where Chief Executive Officer Richard Wagoner Jr. spoke to a Senate committee that day and a House panel the next day on behalf of a $25 billion auto-industry rescue plan.

Representatives at the Nov. 19 House hearing including Democrat Gary Ackerman of New York faulted Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally and Chrysler LLC CEO Robert Nardelli for taking private jets to Washington to plead their case.

“Couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class?” Ackerman said.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-28T09:00:00.008-05:00

We had a delightful Thanksgiving at home with H.M as our guest.

How could one give thanks without Champers and bacon?

A Thanksgiving still life by morning's light - Mimosas with orange and grapefruit juices.

H.M. was here for Thanksgiving and she made biscuits - her first time ever. They turned out great!

I made an apple pie (and crust). Turned out pretty good - I have not made crust in awhile so the dough ended being a bit overworked - but the pie looks good and tastes super yummy! I think Rome apples make the best pie but I could not find any - so I used another old reliable - Macintosh.

The relish tray - pre-dinner.

I cook my turkey in an oiled brown paper bag. It is a bit unusual - but it works beautifully. The bag keeps the turkey juicy and moist and the skin still browns up nice. It is a bit messy - but worth all the bother. Dry turkey breast sux.

Dinner! We had turkey, stuffing (in the turkey), mashed potatoes, candied yams, pan fried corn, green bean casserole, broccolini, muffins, cranberry, and butternut squash soup.

Morality vs Equal Protection under the law

2008-11-25T23:27:00.003-05:00

Oh dear. William McGurn had a textbook case of shortsightedness today in the WSJ in his entry on the Opinion page entitled" "Gay Marriage and the California Courts".

I shan't go into great detail about the article - it is pretty vapid stuff about how the majority is welcome to impose its will and usurp the courts' protection of the minority.

I will, however, pick out one interesting quote:

..gay-rights activists see no moral difference between two men who want to get married and the traditional male-female couple making their walk to the altar."

Ummm, given that marriage is a civil ceremony in all 50 states (not a moral ceremony in the view of the state) - one does have to wonder where equal protection under the law stands. Marriage is a state issue, by and large. States can define when a couple can get married (i.e. restrictions on bigamy, age, mental condition, etc). But marriage itself is the union of two willing participants (most of the time) that requires the blessing of the state through a license. That means it is a contract. The Federal Government ensures that the rough parameters of marriage in the states are (for males and females) rather fair. To wit - no marriage between people of differing races can be denied in our country despite what the majority of the population, in any given state, might inherently believe, be it moral or otherwise.

Ergo, morality and marriage might be very fervently tied together by many people but "morality" is not allowed to prevent marriage in obvious cases of discrimination. I mean did anyone actually protest that Tiger Woods (mixed racial composition) married a white woman? 100 years ago, in many states of this great Union, mixed marriage would not be allowed. But in the 1950s and 1960s, the courts actually started to impose the real meaning of the Constitution where bias (read: morality) is not allowed under the Constitution with regard to mixed race marriages.

So I just finished reading the article and was incensed.

I don't want to get married, period. Bubba and I have been together for 7 years and our interest in marriage has nothing to do with commitment or existing Federal Law - we just don't talk about marriage as part of our path. I don't think it is a good idea for many gays to get married - 50%+ of straights cannot seem to get it right and we should learn from their mistakes.

But I want to ensure that people who want to make that choice to allow government intrusion into their lives are given every chance - hell, it might work for them and think of all the benefits. Marriage between two willing people is standard in our country - and the recent paradigm is that so long as one person has a vagina and one person has a penis then that is their right (given certain constraints). Thus, is morality now reduced to an innie-outie paradigm? Two penises, no marriage for you. Two vaginas, no marriage for you either. We've reduced marriage restrictions to something as silly as what people were born with between their legs (or more specifically, that one must have two X chromosomes and the other must have one X and one Y chromosome). The sex chromosomes are the same as the color of ones skin - it is just some DNA after all.

Opposition to gay marriage - or more specifically, subscribing to arbitrarily imposed rules by the majority - is what is at play. People who don't even believe (much less think about Christ) can get married and this is sanctioned by the state. Thus what role is "morality" actually playing here? A Hindu couple from Asia who has no meaningful interest in Christ or Christian principles has their marriage validated upon entry into this country. Is that "moral"? What rational thought can be given by the majority in this country to support a marriage of two people who the Christians implicitly believe are going to Hell? If we are going to split hairs - why would any Christian support a "pagan" or "non-believer" marriage? Oh I forgot - the penis and vagina matter here - not their "moral" beliefs (note: I picked Hindu arbitrarily).

If we are going to be "moral" (read: Christian) then let's get fucking moral. Make baptism in Christian faith required. How about weekly attendance at Sunday School.

You see how silly this can become if you sit and ponder it.

A moral marriage is just some idiotic construct that is sufficiently plastic to adapt to the times. The reason that Hindu marriages are recognized by the state is that the majority has said that some sinners can get married and others cannot. Completely arbitrary in my opinion. The majority in this country will let a sinning couple doomed to Hell get married and have it recognized if they have a penis/vagina dichotomy. However, a Christian penis/penis couple is forbidden.

Silly games, I know. But that is where gay marriage is now. Silly rules decided by the majority in complete defiance of the Equal Protection Clause. Can any strict constructionist please point to the Constitution and find the statement that only that couple with a one to one ratio of penis and vagina are allowed to get married.

(Crickets chirping loudly).

The courts are in place for this very reason. Silly and arbitrary rules imposed by the majority need to be revised in accordance with the law of the land. If marriage is a contract that some decide is legal and others decide is moral and yet others decide is both - the courts have to step in and clarify.

I agree that California ought to be able, in a free world, to ban gay marriage. However, California is not free, it is beholden to the powers of the Federal Government which derives is authority from the written law, of which the Constitution is a primary guiding force. If marriage is viewed by the Federal Government and the Constitution as a legal contract - then the matter is closed. Federal rights trump states rights every day of the week. Thus the states may refine their rules for marriage in an arbitrary fashion but is must comply with the spirit of the Constitution.

Morality is just a pretty term for bigotry. Ask any black person who is 70 and lived in the south about "Christian morality" and they will probably give you a pretty good case for why the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is not something to be taken lightly. I just offer these thoughts to suggest that the Federal Government and the courts have a right and respobnsibilty to protect the minority.

Detroit gets the cold shoulder

2008-11-25T22:16:00.002-05:00

Regarding my earlier post about Detroit and Obama - it is quite interesting to me to see the new administration (and Congress) standing up to Detroit and the unions.

Some interesting developments:
1. GM admitted this week that bankruptcy could be a possibility which is, in and of itself, shocking.
2. Chrysler and GM will be in a race to see who will run out of operating capital first - GM has a publicly known burn rate which places it somewhere between Christmas and St Patrick's Day to fail to have enough cash on hand to do day-to-day business. Chrysler is privately held and Cerebrus will be riding that ship down to the bottom of the ocean. Cerebrus picked up an 80.1% share in Chrysler for a cool 7.4 billion - a fraction of what Daimler picked it up for in the late 90s. Cerebrus figured that a focus enforced by private capital could whip the auto maker into shape.
3. The government, at this moment, has not taken up a bailout in any meaningful shape for the automakers. Meanwhile, Citi just got an astounding 20 billion of direct money (from the President's allocation of the bailout package - he has discretion to allocate 100 billion) and is now on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of toxic loans should Citi not be able to cover them.
4. The press made some hay about the fact that the CEOs of the automakers (GM in particular) had rather plush travel arrangements to Washington to ask for a multi-billion dollar bailout. GM sold released, note not all, of their corporate fleet.
5. Obama has made noises about helping out Detroit but the package would require a quid pro quo - Detriot gets money and then has to make fuel efficient cars.

This last point is actually pretty interesting - I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day for a bit while riding around at lunch doing some errands - and he hit the nail on the head. Why should we give Detroit money without a coherent plan? Why should we give Detroit money for paying workers who don't work through their Jobs Banks programs? Why should the unions not concede horrendously expensive compensation for their hourly workers and ease their blockages of factory closings? And, most interstingly, how will Detroit make fuel efficient cars that anyone wants to buy given their current small chassis platform?

Detroit has buoyed an idea that bankruptcy is bad primarily because it discourages potential buyers from purchasing a car from a company that could go under, thus threaten the implicit warranties on a car.

This is clearly bogus - no one wants to buy a small car from Detroit because they are garbage. Detroit can't make a small car to save its life - it, however, can make a big SUV or truck. So, Rush asked quite cogently, how will Detroit suddenly pull out this miracle and rapidly convert their product development pipeline to small car design that is interesting and marketable?

Short answer to Rush's questin is the response of Washington - the government knows that Detroit cannot and, more pointedly, will not. Hence the game of chicken has commenced. The politicians are looking askance of Detroit's childish tantrums, and rightfully so, until there is some tangible measure of a plan.

Praise for politicians is not often heard here, but bravo for DC for at least showing some spine and not caving reflexively to the unions or big industry. The banks, however poorly behaved, still hold things of value (i.e. mortgages) which can be leveraged into a long term position (once the default swaps are unwound). Detroit, by comparison, has very little of value beyond their potential to unload tens of thousands onto the welfare rolls. The employees are going to land there anyways - so why not take the bitter pill now and get it over with rather than prolonging the agony?

And they only have to look at Honda and Toyota - both with large manufacturing operations inside the United States - to validate that the wounds are clearly self inflicted. The day of reckoning for Detroit has, at long last, arrived.

You Go Girl

2008-11-24T20:38:00.002-05:00

Michael Petrelis calls it out.

A must read regarding Elizabeth Birch and Larry Kramer (Love Larry Kramer - my most top favorite gay in the whole world! His poster is fabulous!)

DC trip

2008-11-24T20:17:00.015-05:00

I went out to see my peeps in DC over the weekend. A very nice visit. DF fetched me from the airport for a quick jaunt out to Annapolis to see another peep who moved into a super cute neighborhood near the capitol. Drinks were had and chat, chat, chat. Then out to visit the bars.

Saturday, we did a quick tour of downtown Annapolis and the Naval Academy - pics below.

Then DF and I jetted back to the city. I met up with Jimbo for some drinks at Nellie's. We caught up - had not seen each other in a over year. Lots of good chat!

Then a festive Saturday night with the neighbors up in Takoma and visit with my darling new fairy god-niece, Peanut. Nice dinner and drinks.

Sunday was a trip over to the co-op and Takoma Farmer's Market with football and beer in the afternoon. I was sick all day Sunday (sinus drama) so the ride home on the plane was not fun.

The Castro means something

2008-11-21T06:41:00.004-05:00

Jimbo had an interesting entry about how gay people fare as they progress through their days. He was writing it after a very thoughtful entry from Dogpoet which is considering how gays should react when provoked - in this case the protesters coming into the Castro and being chased out.

Now that I have adopted Iowa as home (for a little bit at least), I've seen the bizarre counterpoint to the DC, ATL, SF gay ghettos where I spent the last 10 years. Out here, gay people come out at 20 and move to Chicago (never to return) or they get married at 20, have a bunch of kids and then come out at 40. Its the Iowa Midlife Crisis. And I'm not exaggerating for effect - if you go to the bar and meet someone over 40, odds are that they were married to a woman at some point.

Since I always knew I was a screaming homo and never made any serious attempts to use chicks as cover growing up or in my 20s, this is why I find the Iowa Midlife Crisis bizarre. Did they know they were gay? Did they get married out of love or because it is expected? Why spend your 20s in a domestic trap?

For me, the most powerful aspect of Brokeback Mountain was the concept of looking at a gay couple before the concept of gay existed. The most searing quote in the whole movie is when Enis exclaims "Its because of you that I am like this." Thus I suspect that many people growing up in small towns in the Midwest lack any concept of gay - particularly before mainstream media turned gay into the 'new black'. I grew up in Raleigh (not terribly progressive in the 80s, but not a complete backwater either) and so natural variation among the folks in town was fairly normal to me. However if you come out to the Midwest and go to a small town, you will see little to no variation at all in terms of color and appearance. Jack McCafferty said the night of Obama's win in the Iowa Caucuses that Iowa is the whitest place outside of the North Pole (It is pretty much true).

I'm meandering towards a point here - the Castro was the place in the 70s where those who "knew" what they were could go. It represents more than just a place where the gays live. It was a place tenderly portrayed by Armisted Maupin in the early parts of Tales from the City. It was a refuge for gays of all ages and a promised land for those who could get there from the oppressive hinterlands.

The Castro, to me at least growing up, was the place that people from Raleigh went and everyone knew why. You not only went there to come out, you essentially told everyone you were gay when you went there. It was the west coast oasis for gays and, being one of the first gay ghettos, allowed people to figure out what gay meant to them. So for those who were bold enough to make the move in the 70s, the Castro became one of the first little incubators for defining what being gay, and more specifically an urban gay, was. In short, it is hallowed ground.

The Castro is full of memories of our past - the clone as the look, the brutal crackdowns by the police in the bars, Harvey Milk's rise and his assassination, the sex clubs and sexual freedom, AIDS, the active genocide of the gays by the Federal government via their indifference, the subsequent loss of an entire generation of gay men (that gaping hole remained, rather obviously, when I was there in the 90s), and the reblossoming of the culture once condoms became part of the wardrobe and retrovirals hit the scene.

So I agree with Dogpoet, I wish I was there. I'd chase people out - it wouldn't even require a second thought. As I was telling Bubba the other day - straights have 99.999% of the country as theirs. Let us have our 0.001% of the country as our space.

Particularly a place as special to American gay culture as the Castro.

Politics at its finest

2008-11-19T21:02:00.000-05:00

From Breitbart via Drudge

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers—and millions of Americans' jobs—after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. President George W. Bush has "no appetite" to act on his own.

U.S. auto companies employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other people have jobs producing the materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million on top of that work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the auto giants were to go belly up, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.

"If GM is telling us the truth, they go into bankruptcy and you see a cascade like you have never seen," said Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, who was working on one rescue plan Wednesday. "If people want to go home and not do anything, I think that they're going to have that on their hands."

The automakers—hobbled by lackluster sales and choked credit—are burning through money at an alarming and accelerating rate: about $18 billion in the last quarter alone. General Motors Corp. has said it could collapse within weeks, and there are indications that Chrysler LLC might not be far behind. Ford Motor Co. has said it could get through the end of 2008, but it's unclear how much longer.

For now, however, with the federal emergency loan plan stalled in the Senate, lawmakers in both parties are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken, positioning themselves to blame each other for the failure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scrapped plans Wednesday for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new auto industry loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

It's really up to Bush's team to act, he said.

"I don't believe we need the legislation," Reid said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can tap the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies, Reid said, but "he just doesn't want to do it."

Not our responsibility, countered the White House.

"If Congress leaves for a two-month vacation without having addressed this important issue ... then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

She said there was "no appetite" in the administration for using the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies.

The White House and congressional Republicans instead called on Democrats to sign on to a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September—designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles—to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.

Voinovich and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., along with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, were at work on that measure Wednesday, trying to placate skeptical Democrats by including a guarantee that the fuel-efficiency loan fund would ultimately be replenished.

"It is the only proposal now being considered that has a chance of actually becoming law," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

If an acceptable deal emerges, Reid said it could be passed as part of a measure to extend jobless aid to unemployed workers whose benefits have run out. A vote on that bill is likely on Thursday. Negotiators were discussing a scaled-down aid package of $5 billion to $8 billion to help the automakers survive through year's end.

But there was little sign that Democratic leaders would go along.

"We have to face reality," Reid said.

They are vehemently opposed to letting the car companies tap the fuel-efficiency money—set aside to help switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline—for short-term cash-flow needs.

All of which leaves the Big Three bracing for a bleak winter without government help.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House committee Wednesday that the downfall of his industry would ripple through communities around the nation. Pressed by lawmakers, Wagoner wouldn't say precisely when GM would run out of money without a government lifeline, but he disclosed that the company now was burning through $5 billion a month.

Still, with the $25 billion emergency package, "we think we have a good shot to make it through this," Wagoner said.

Many lawmakers in both parties are now openly discussing whether bankruptcy might be a better option for auto firms they regard as lumbering industrial dinosaurs that have done too little to adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The carmakers argue that bankruptcy would devastate their companies, but proponents say it would give them a chance to reorganize and emerge stronger and more competitive.

It's unclear, though, whether Democrats controlling Congress are willing to risk being blamed for letting one of the Big Three—symbols of the nation's once-mighty manufacturing sector—go under.

Bailout-shy lawmakers got an earful from jittery constituents last month when the House let an early version of the Wall Street rescue fail, sending the Dow Jones industrials tumbling and erasing more than a trillion dollars in retirement savings and other investments. Congress took a deep breath and reconsidered, passing the plan a few days later.

Faced with a similar collapse in the auto industry, the Bush administration might yet decide to step in to help the auto companies, or the Federal Reserve could step in—though both have steadfastly refused to do so.

If not, lawmakers have left themselves a contingency plan: Come back to Washington in December for yet another postelection session where they might be able to strike the deal that now seems beyond reach.

Democratic leaders are planning to gather for an economic conference the week of Dec. 8, noted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

"That is available," Hoyer said this week. "The year has not ended."

Will the Dems cave on Detroit's latest "dire warning"

2008-11-19T05:50:00.003-05:00

Obama's first major task in office won't be related to terrorism or abortion or education - it is going to be what to do with Detroit.

With Wall Street busy digesting its $250 billion dollars in direct payments from the bailout package (on top of the hundreds of billions floated by the Treasury and the Fed before the bailout package was raced through Congress) - that leaves the rest of the country to start picking about the carcass so see what is in it for them.

Treasury Secretary Paulson has said this:

`The rescue package was not intended to be an economic stimulus or an economic recovery package,'' Paulson said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed to stabilize financial markets and the flow of credit and ``is not a panacea for all our economic difficulties.''

Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve was quoted as saying this:

He [Bernanke] told lawmakers at the hearing that using the TARP for buying stakes in banks is ``critical for restoring confidence and promoting the return of credit markets to more normal functioning.'' He warned that lending in the U.S. is ``still far from normal.''

Barney Frank, one of those lawmakers and Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, said this:

Frank, who heads the House panel, took issue with Paulson, urging the Bush administration to step up efforts to stem record foreclosures. Democrats are also pursuing legislation to deploy part of TARP to prevent General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC from collapsing due to lack of cash.

All quotes from Bloomberg.

The interesting aspect of this is: What was the $700 billion TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) originally intended to do?

Help banks and banking specifically?
Help companies in distress because of the financial crisis precipitated by the banking industry?
Facilitate the revision of mortgages for homebuyers to more favorable terms (because the banking industry couldn't restrain themselves from engaging in an orgy of exotic loan originations)?
Some combination of the three options?

So I cruised over to Wiki and here is the lead blurb of the entry:

The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) managed by a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts.[1][2] The law which created the fund authorized the Treasury to draw up to $250 billion for immediate use, then requires the President to certify that an additional $100 billion in funds are needed; a final $350 billion are subject to Congressional approval.[3] As of November 12, 2008, $290 billion of the first $350 billion allotment funding TARP has been allocated: $250 billion for bank equity infusions, and $40 billion for an equity infusion into insurer American International Group.[4] Secretary of the Treasury Paulson indicated that reviving the securitization market for consumer credit would be a new priority in the second allotment[5], while legislators proposed loans to the struggling automobile industry.[6]

So Henry and Ben got their $350 billion and shot their wad. But now they want the next $100 billion to continue their "rescue/bailout" (someone needs to come up with a new word for this - like "rezbail" or "bailscue" - defined as floating a plan to save something or someone when actually it is just providing them resources to continue behaving badly).

But the next $100 billion is up to the president to decide when and how to use them. Since W is firmly against helping Detroit - he is going to need to come up with a way to spend that money before Jan 20th. He probably will (more to Wall Street would be my armchair QB bet - housing prices continue to tumble in many of the worst affected areas) and the price of oil is headed down to $40 shortly (all those speculators are almost shaken out of their speculative positions). Commodities (i.e copper, nickel, zinc, iron ore etc) have, like oil, plummeted rapidly over the past 3 months - too quickly in fact (more speculative money has been flowing out to cover stock positions thus bringing prices back into line with demand). Thus banks are taking steep hits on the mortgage debts and also their long term commodity puts/bets which they have had to quickly sell for cash to cover margin calls.

So then things get interesting - the final $350 billion will be decided by Congress (ostensibly with the President's approval in some form). Thus it was not lost on a lot of people that not even 2 days after the election, all of Detroit descended upon Congress to start the drumbeat for money. Obama has stayed above the fray (his true gift) but at some point he will have to make a stand on this position. So far what I have heard him say is that Detroit will have to make more fuel efficient cars as a condition for money.

That is a nice thought - I'm really warm and fuzzy thinking that all Detroit needs is to start making fuel efficient cars and they get their check and we all live happily ever after.

One problem is that Toyota and Honda have already cornered the market on fuel efficient sedans - finding a new Prius is harder than finding a new Wii. Another problem is why would anyone actually want to buy a sedan from Detroit, much less one that runs on a new platform (i.e. either batteries/hybrid or electric)? A further problem is how are you going to retool your factories to do this?

Obama cannot punt on this and push the choice onto Congress - that is not "Change we can believe in" - Congress will cave (if left to its own devices) and slice and dice the money to every "worthy" constituent group with a lobbyist. Obama will need to lead this discussion and use his mandate for change to start fixing Detroit. And that is a political minefield.

The simplest solution is to let the companies go under - it sounds more dire than it is. Some clarity that bankruptcy will bring:

Get rid of middle management - Detroit suffers from excessive bureaucracy - how else would you get the Cavalier from GM or the Five Hundred from Ford? They look and feel like BAD rental cars.
Break the lock unions have on plant closings. Unions are not exclusively at fault here - there is plenty of blame to go around - but unions are hamstringing the companies in the prevention of capacity reduction and efficiency gains. This unfortunate situation was brought on by management continually caving to the unions year after year until the tail now wags the dog.
Get rid of upper management. Everyone knew this day was coming and upper management at these companies have done their best to stick their heads in the sand. I mean, if we are going to talk tough that Wall St shouldn't pay for failure - that should translate to Detroit.
Get rid of the Jobs Bank program - Detroit continues to pay people who were displaced to sit around and respire.
Pensions will have to go too - this is the most reasonable bailoujt out there. If the Feds take on the legacy costs of pensions in bankruptcy and the unions are busted - there should be no reason that these companies can not come out of bankruptcy slim, trim and efficient.

Note that all of the problems that Detroit is having are, as Chris Dodd put it, self-inflicted. Why on earth should we give one dime to these companies in their current state? I say the rescue/bailout money should be dangled like a carrot to the Boards of the companies - i.e. Washington will come to the rescue of the Board if the Board cleans house and pushes the companies into Chapter 11. The promise would be that the Board would get some money to help out with the reorganization and a stock option in the refloated shares (note that in bankruptcy, the common shares would have a value of $0.00) and that it would be incumbent upon the Board to reshape the companies with new blood and new ideas without the distractions of the legacy issues. There is no one else in the company outside the board that will willingly take the companies into Chapter 11 until it is far too late. Thus management is now playing a game of chicken with Washington to prop them up a little longer - sounds like the drunk to me (This bailout is the last one, I mean it this time, I will become a good company, I swear to you, but I just need the $25 billion this one last time).

If the Boards of the companies take the bitter dose of medicine now, they might actually come out very competitive in a few years (albeit with a massive additon to the Treasury's responsbilites to cover penions and unemployment) - however, we are going to have to pay for it anyways so that is just a question of when, not if.

Obama will have a tough decision because the last thing that anyone in Detroit wants is meaningful change. Not the unions, not the mayors, not the elected leadership in the state, and certainly not the company white collar leadership. Those are some mighty big chips stacked against Change and Obama will not be able to duck this issue for much longer.

HRC cannot get with the program

2008-11-18T22:33:00.002-05:00

I cruised over to HRC just to see what they had about the weekend rallies:
This was the nationwide coverage.
DC coverage

Compared with these two stories, I had more pictures on my blog from DES MOINES FUCKING IOWA.

So I looked to make sure I wasn't missing something about the HRC lack of coverage. JoeMyGod, Chris Crain, Pam's House Blend, Andrew Sullivan etc had lots of great content about the weekend rallies all over America and their view about HRC's role in gay advocacy. The summation of my small sample - HRC is largely ineffective.

The summation of the few gay blogs that I cruise by is clear - Stonewall 2.0 is about the viralcy of the web to tap into the discontent of the gay community looking to enter the next phase of advocacy for equality.

From Jimbo:

Wow, looks like somebody sent out press releases to the media and politicans. With the speed and viralcy of the event, I was worried if some of us may have forgotten to tell anyone else we were protesting.

I find it hard to believe that the rallies all across America could be arranged and executed so quickly. But then again - that is the web for you. It is a disruptive technology that is being used to tear down the old facades of power (i.e. control and distribution of content).

I think the web should be used to coordinate a March on Washington - no need for messy platform meetings and fashioning a message. Just get the gays together in one spot and on one day and let them tell America and the leadership what they need.

HRC continually tells us (the gays) that they are working for us. Really? If the content of their website three days after the rallies is any indication, then donations rank higher on the website than direct action.

Not that I am surprised. Their role appears to be how to use our money to cozy up to Congress. While I'd like to believe that might impact our movement somehow - let's look at what Congress has managed to do in the past two years of Democratic control.

1) Increase minimum wage
2) Pass the Farm Bill (Pork, pork and more pork)
3) Pass the bailout package for the investment banks (Tax hike for everyone!)

Don't see anything in there about GAYS! ENDA (crickets chirp). Civil unions (the crickets are still chirping). Protection for discrimination of gays in the workplace (damn crickets).

The effect of Stonewall 2.0 is to show that there are a lot of gays out there who want and desire change. If we can have rallies for No on 8 in Memphis, Tucson, Des Moines, Raleigh, and many other medium sized cities in addition to very high profile rallies in the big urban centers - it is clear that there is a nationwide need for leadership and change. Is HRC interested? Not based upon their website.

There is popular discontent that extends beyond the political games inside the Beltway - and it needs to be harnessed and focused for positive change. Don't plan on the HRC leading the charge - it is MURDER on your pumps to stand outside and actually PROTEST. It is just so retro to stand and shiver in the cold - when it is so warm in the halls of Rhode Island Ave busily collecting donations for the next HRC dinner.

Boycott HRC and participate in direct action on the streets. The rallies this weekend got coverage from all angles - much more than I have ever seen HRC get.

Posterboard: $2.50
Markers: $4.00
Visibility: Priceless

Marriage Equality Public Forum in Ames TONIGHT

2008-11-18T07:42:00.004-05:00

Calling all Central Iowans - tonight there is a forum up in Ames to discuss marriage rights. There is a similar event in Iowa City tomorrow night.

Note the small newspaper item below the flyer is from the local gay newspaper ACCESSline - oral arguments will be heard before the Iowa Supreme Court (i.e. last stop!!) on December 9th. If the courts rule in the gays' favor could be the only state in the heartland to have legal gay marriage.

Rally for Gay Equality in Des Moines!

2008-11-15T21:01:00.018-05:00

I found out about the Gay Equality Rally today headed by OneIowa at City Hall in downtown Des Moines on the east side of the Des Moines River.

Jimbo, in letting me know about Join the Impact, was responsible for me finding out about a rally coordinated through this direct action initiative.
Thanks JIMBO!

It was a cold and blustery day - temps held in the mid 30s with snow flurries and a stiff northwest wind at 15-25 mphs.

~250 people showed up (Bubba's estimation) for a rally at 12:30pm which was coordinated with other rallies described here:
Chris Crain
JoeMyGod
Pam's House Blend
"Homer's blog

The one in Des Moines was very simple and straightforward - notes below the pics to describe some of the highlights! Enjoy and GREAT showing from the Heartland. We have heard practically NOTHING about Prop 8 here in the Heartland. So it is good to see the power of direct action to bring together people.

I signed up for OneIowa as a volunteer and hope to get really involved in gay politics here.

Could HRC have gotten this crowd out on such a raw day?
I JUST WENT TO THEIR WEB PAGE AND NOTHING WAS PRESENTED ABOUT THE COORDINATED RALLIES ON THE FRONT PAGE- THIS IS INEXCUSABLE.

The venue in Des Moines - the East Face of City Hall - a quite nice building.

Turn around and you will see the Iowa State Capitol.

The West Face of City Hall where the rally occured.

The crowd out front of City Hall.

Some signs from the rally.

The flags were fluttering beautifully!

State Senator Matt McCoy spoke quickly (it was really fucking cold).

His point was that this is a long journey to equality. 48% of CA voted to support the courts and support gay marriage!

He was also clear in his closing words in a paraphrase below:

"We cannot wait on the majority to issue us full equality, we must be active in protecting and advancing the rights of the minority!"

Rev. Mark Stringer from the 1st Unitarian Church spoke at some length about his role in being an advocate for his gay brethern. His main concern was that most people who have contacted him to oppose gay marriage (he officiated the first and only legally recognized gay marriage ceremony last year) were religious. This deeply troubled him as a pastor. It fundamentally offends him that beautiful weddings and unions occur, blessed by him, and all that is missing is one little piece of paper from the government.

Money quote:
"Civil marriage is a civil right"

OneIowa volunteers signing up people!

KCCI8 - the local news station showed up and did a quick blurb on the news tonight!

Urlacher

2008-11-15T11:27:00.007-05:00

Direct Action Today! 12:30 at City Hall

2008-11-15T10:41:00.004-05:00

Well - I gotta get Photoshop on my new laptop. The point of the image below is that there is a direct action protest in Des Moines coordinated by Join the Impact.

I'm going and calling some peeps to see if they want to go. The nature of direct action is viral - I prefer fractal but I am a geek.

Where: Des Moines City Hall
Address: Between Locust and Grand on the first block east of the river (just west of the East Village)
What time: 12:30pm

Attire: Festive but warm - blustery with snow flurries (temps holding in the low 30s and dropping into the upper 20s this afternoon)

Important event on Tuesday in Ames!!!

2008-11-15T10:38:00.001-05:00

Join the Impact

2008-11-13T20:31:00.006-05:00

Check links to Jimbo and dogpoet for some thoughts. Something more fundamental is stirring - perhaps the gay populace will start thinking about direct action outside the calcified and indifferent national organizations??
Jockohomo has a nice post on the Mormon church vis a vis Prop 8.
Chris Crain has a great entry about how to focus the anger - a la Stonewall 2.0.

Join the Impact.

Rugby Beef

2008-11-13T20:26:00.009-05:00

50%+1

2008-11-11T23:00:00.003-05:00

Chris Crain has had a nice discourse on the reverberations of Prop 8.

Honey - I call it the train effect (my old roommate Don was absolutely fervent on this point). Morbid as the trains sound, any minority in this republic is at the will of the majority - particularly if the Courts are directly or indirectly beholden to the electorate. The trains are an obvious reference to the Nazi regime (never a republic) but the effect can result in the same outcome. The tyranny of the majority over the minority is always real.
1)Ask anyone Black and over 50. They lived in the times of majority rule when young (and with no effective controverting argument, they still suffer broadly from this effect).
2) Ask any dead woman (seance needed) who wanted to vote and could not; they lived in a majority rule republic.
3) Ask a Native American (seance optional or just drive through a reservation for a more current view) and they lived/live in a majority rule (after they were either shot or driven West with the threat of being shot)
4) Ask a Jew in the 1950s trying to get into an Ivy League school.
5) Ask a gay guy suffering from GRID/AIDS in the 1980s when Reagan could not even say the acronym, much less bring the government to solve a major health crisis (read: gay genocide) in the gay community.

The list goes on. Our, that is the gay collective, existence is allowed by varying degrees to continue (and compared to earlier times thrive) by the will of the majority. In actuality, we gays, as the minority, rely upon the courts to protect us from the whim of the majority. Prop 8 is the reality - we are allowed to exist but NOT to be equal in the largest and most progressive state in these United States. And the will of the majority rebuked the courts. The will of the majority can always trump courts via direct action at the voting booth.

This is a bleak view compared with Chris Crain and his comment trail - they rage. I offer the words in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to put this rage into context.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I hate to say it - but Prop 8 could substitute marriage for trains. As my roommate Don used to say - "I won't go without a fight".

If Jefferson, in writing the Declaration (and holding slaves at the same time) could posit so obvious a lie in the political sense, then why should we expect to be treated as equals? We expect the foundations of our country to protect us based upon their written word. But is the minority protected?

Just a quick dig: HRC is sponsoring facials as a tonic to our loss. That is the response. As a minority subjected to the tyranny of the majority - a seaweed wrap is not going to work when the majority rolls back the court protections of gays.

OMG - you've got to be joking

2008-11-11T07:15:00.003-05:00

HRC Spa Night - Excerpt below from Mike Petrelis.

HRC Action Tonight in SF Over Prop 8 Loss

After all the hard work HRC did shoving gays back into the closet during the No on 8 campaign, and the other valuable things they did recently to get us out on the streets demanding gay equality, HRC is now giving the San Francisco community what it truly needs at this point as we pick ourselves after being knocked down by the voters.

It's HRC Spa Night! I tell you, just between us girls, there is nothing more to think about after one loses a gay marriage equality fight with CA voters than hitting an expensive spa, getting rejuvenated for the next HRC dinner and making a contribution to this fabulous group.

$1.77

2008-11-11T06:56:00.002-05:00

That is the price of gas at this moment in Des Moines IA.

We paid $4.03 a gallon in Chicago a month ago when we saw Tina Turner in concert (fabu).

Oil went from trading at $148/barrel in July to yesterday's close of $62/barrel.

Remember all summer when the marketplace said that oil was set to trade at $100/barrel forever? This was due to supply and demand issues and that this was not a speculative event, rather that the paradigm had shifted and we were past the halfway point (hence the amount of oil left for extraction was less than that that had already been extracted). The WSJ had a practical tantrum about speculation - it was almost insulted that anyone dare suggest the marketplace was not showing the true price of oil.

Speculation - Never!

Well the housing market starts it's slide this summer and then the defaults begin to unwind in the banking sector. Stocks immediately start to tank and the margin calls start - and magically, the price of oil drops precipitously. To the tune of almost 90 dollars in a quarter.

Interstingly - the WSJ had a series of stories a few weeks back outlining how stock traders were selling their oil futures (lucratively) to get cash to shore up their stock positions. They asked experts to predict where oil would bottom out at and it was somewhere between 50 and 60 bucks. If you look at the price of oil lately, it has indeed been bouncing just above the 60 dollar mark. And the authors included in their articles that it was a combination of speculation and supply/demand that drove the price of oil to stratospheric heights. Also interesting was that Goldman Sachs had projected (in Spring) the price of oil would be around $150/barrel. Being prescient is not the same as rigging the market.

So it looks like now that speculation has been removed from the oil trading pits - prices will bounce around for a bit and then drift upwards as the economy stabilizes. What I've been reading is that prices will stabilize somewhere around half of their July highs, or $75. This translates into $2.00-$2.50 (depending upon taxes in your state) for a gallon of gas.

The massive tax break the Americans need now - keep gas prices out of the hands of speculators.

Detroit wants their bailout

2008-11-10T22:19:00.002-05:00

Interesting developments for Obama this past week well beyond his election. Detroit is busy trying to get their bailout and stepped it into high gear in the post-election euphoria. The CEOs of the big 3 popped down for a call on the Democratic Congressional leadership to get some cash for their abysmal companies. GM will be out of cash by June at the latest (some are speculating by Spring) and Ford is only slightly better (in part because they put their entire corporation up as collateral for a 26 billion dollar loan earlier this year). Chrysler is held by venture capital so it does not report - but Cerebrus (who bought Chrysler for a song from Daimler) was pushing GM for a buyout in late summer (not a good sign).

These three companies are the embodiment of the old paradigm - big unions, bloated middle management, and largely unsalable products. Market share losses have really accelerated in the past 12 months but were already in rapid decline last year. The economic meltdown doesn't help them but it is not the cause of their failure. Thus it strains credibility to think that they should get a government bailout without significant restructuring.

However, Henry Paulson threw a wrench into the whole deal with an upgraded bailout package for AIG - after crafting an intial 80 billion bailout that ballooned to 130 billion a few weeks after and then this past weekend scrapping that original deal in favor of a new 150 billion package that is much more favorable to AIG. The problem is that AIG, much like the big 3, created their own mess. Thus, the specter of moral hazard (rewarding bad behavior will only beget more bad behavior - hence the hazard) has now been formalized by the government. If AIG can play a game of chicken with the government and win - well surely the big 3 can do the same.

The problem Obama will quickly confront is this - yes we can doesn't equate to yes we will. Unions need a bailout, CEOs need a bailout, and middle management needs a bailout - this will keep the cake walk going and everyone employed. This kicking of the can down the road has been going on for 35 years (at least) and if the government caves and gives the big 3 a bailout, it only prolongs the agony.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers- the market should handle that - but the government is now assuming that position and everyone is busy feeding at the trough. When the government refused to support Lehman's toxic loans, no one wanted to buy and they vanished almost overnight. Lehman was sliced and diced among suitors for the more interesting parts of the business and the remainder was left for auction. What is the real result of letting the big 3 go into bankruptcy? I mean, we the taxpayers already know that we will eventually foot the bill on the pensions (airlines already unloaded theirs after 9/11) so that point is moot - and the shareholders have dogs for stocks now so the intrinsic value can only drop from 2 bucks a share to zero. The benefit of going into bankruptcy is that the union contracts can be shredded which saves the companies money, management has to make a plan that focuses on getting out of bankruptcy (i.e. making a product that someone wants) and the company must shed lost of dead weight (factories, dealerships, etc). In essence, bankruptcy forces clarity.

The government should step in to help the big 3 but with very strict conditions - unions have to cave, white collar jobs have to go at a faster clip, and the product lines have to be of utility. Obama has made some murmurings that the big 3 should focus on making more fuel efficient cars in the future (ummm, we've all been saying that since the 1979 oil crisis and the early 80s recession gave the Japanese companies a crack at our market with spectacular success). Oh - and GM and Ford do make lots of very successful fuel efficient cars, just not in America where it is not "profitable". Note they can make cars in Europe and Brazil that consumers want and buy which are compact and fuel efficient - but something mysterious prevents that from occuring in America.

We all know that the government will not take a hard line with the big 3 - lobbyists and unions will keep the status quo going until the companies fall in on themselves - problem is that that prospect is scarily close now and no one is blinking. To wit - AIG threw a tantrum wanting more and they got it, so shall the big 3.

So Obama confronts the mess of having to throw more good money at these companies to keep them on life support rather than possibly implementing "change". Will he effect "change" by taking a hard stance on unions and lobbyists to drive a turnaround at the big 3? Not when the bitter pill puts tens of thousands of union jobs out of work to save the company. Not when you are trying to force companies to make fuel efficient and desirable cars and those companies resist at every turn.

This matter will have to come to a head shortly after the Inaguration - Bush has said no deal beyond 25 billion and has given no indication that this will change in the lame duck period. Meanwhile the companies will be hemorrhaging cash as the economy continues downward and will be unable in the Spring to fund their basic needs as the cash on hand dwindles.

The bailout will be big, the long term effects negligible and the political costs very high. Tax cut for the middle class? With two wars, Wall Street getting close to a TRILLION dollars, a broad economic slowdown, and house sales largely moribund, the cash cannot be printed forever. At some point, revenue that has flowed out will need to be replaced in the form of payments to the government. Taxes will have to go up for ALL, and pretty significantly. How will Obama spin that one? We'll wait and see.

Take away that tax exempt status - stat!

2008-11-09T18:16:00.002-05:00

The real travesty lies beyond the voters in the California who weighed in on No on 8 (removing the ability for legal marriages in California to continue being legal). Joe My God had a little blurb on his blog about protests in NYC against the Mormon Church.

There is clearly a ground-swelling expression of rage, disappointment, and relegation to 2nd class status in the gay community. However, protest marches such as this are not directed in a politically astute manner - the current protests are just the collective anger burbling up. However, what if we took this raw anger and refocused it into an all out economic war against one of the larger agents of intolerance in these United States - that being the Mormon "Church".

I put church in quotes to reflect that everyone knows this is a corporation. The Mormon church pays no meaningful tax like a corporation. As a religious organization - they are technically tax exempt if they follow certain rules - the most relevant here is that they must not engage in meaningful political advocacy. However, with such an ENORMOUS footprint in the No on 8 debacle in California - is there any doubt that the Mormon Church engaged in political activity. See this link: http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/ for an interesting discussion.

Any church must not engage in meaningful political advocacy in order to maintain its tax exempt status. Well, I think that the Mormons subsidizing the Yes on 8 efforts not only crosses the line but it amounts to a Carl Lewis type long jump over the line. And because the advocacy is so transparent, documented, and coordinated - time for Joe S and the HRC elites to go to the new Congress and start an all out war on the Mormon Church. Mormons, in political terms, are not really recognized by or easily grouped with the more established Christian denominations (and the Mormon Church is viewed rather suspicously by those who are more secular in nature).

This is the perfect storm - Joe could get oodles of free press by announcing an effort by all gays everywhere to force the Congress to revoke the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church. Other Protestant and Catholic denominations are explicitly not to be targeted and this would actually work in the gays favor(and oddly enough would probably develop into an odd-bedfellows situation). The evidence is simple and transparent - so Congress should be easily placed into a situation where they will have to take a stance against the Mormons or the gays. Wouldn't that be delicious?

The Mormon Church is impervious to shame - so a generalized protest by gays against the church is pretty moot - but economically the gays can threaten to hit the church where it would have maximum damage, their tax exempt status. Just the thought of having the Church finances drug out in Congressional hearings for violation of political advocacy brings a smile to my face.

Joe - go get to work on this one. People are already mad and spontaneously protesting - channel it and make it work toward some productive end. While it won't get us married - it will allow us as gays to see what our political status is. As a group, can we force the Mormon Church into a very awkward and politically precarious position? I say it is worth burning some political capital and would be a very useful exercise to focus gay activism in a post-activist landscape.

Petrelis on the rich white gays and the boobs in the HRC leadership

2008-11-09T17:55:00.003-05:00

I am going to excerpt a blog entry below from Mike Petrelis from this weekend.

The full blog link: Rich White Gays Killed
Straight Black No on 8 Vote

Also a very typical, and thus sad, explanation of how our HRC leaders are completely ineffective by Mike Pertelis: HRC on Prop 8:
Solmonese = Idiot, Birch Kisses Rosie's Butt

Rich White Gays Killed
Straight Black No on 8 Vote

All the blogosphere chatter about assigning some blame for the passage of Prop 8 to straight black voters is getting on my last nerve, because full blame for the loss rests squarely with the rich white gays who ran our side's operation.

Time for a history lesson, including for myself. I'm not a Democratic Party voter and don't follow the gay clubs in town, so I boned up on the letter Barack Obama sent to the Alice B. Toklas Club back on June 29, in a letter proclaiming Gay Pride month.

The money quote:

"I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

"For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect ...
"Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks."

I recall the headlines about Obama's letter and thought responsible gay leaders would use his words to make in-roads to undecided or independent voters, and straight black voters, to oppose Prop 8.

However, the No on 8 campaign, which never lacked for money, didn't spend a dime creating any press materials using Obama's visage or words opposing the proposition in June, July, August, September and October. Five freaking longs months went by without No on 8 exploiting the Illinois Senator's position on the measure, and his declaration of respect for our love. What a wasted opportunity.

Fast forward to October 31, when I received the Yes on 8 mailer with Obama and his words opposing gay marriage, and persuaded Cynthia Laird at the BAR to write a story about the direct mail piece, the gay community and the shocked No on 8 campaign saw how to effectively use Obama on a gay marriage amendment.

On November 1, five long months after Obama wrote to the Alice Club, three weeks after absentee voting began across the state, and three short days before the election, the rich white gays finally used some of their oodles and oodles of big bucks on an ad featuring the candidate and his opposition. That act of extreme tardiness was probably dumb No on 8 decision number 269.

I cringe when thinking of how many Obama voters who voted Yes, might have voted no on 8, if our side had been informing the entire CA electorate about his opposition.

Halloween

2008-11-09T16:55:00.002-05:00

My carved pumpkin for Halloween! Cigarette was a nice touch - Bubba's idea.

Our porch with a nice collection of pumpkins we got at a pumpkin patch out in the country. Halloween night was beautiful here - mid 60s with a light breeze - we sat on the porch in shorts to hand out candy.

Linus - Being cute

2008-11-09T16:44:00.008-05:00

Our dog Linus - he is a Foxhound mixed with a touch of Lab.
Very sweet dog - and fairly unusual to see outside of the country in the Deep South. I copied some information about the breed after the pix.

Appearance

While standards call for the American Foxhound to be about 21-25 inches (530-640 mm) tall to the withers, and weigh anywhere between 65-75 pounds (29-34 kg), many of them are larger in structure (especially the show strains), with males standing 26-29 inches (660-740 mm) and females 25-28 inches (640-710 mm) and smaller in weight, typically between 40-65 pounds (20-29 kg). Some breeders have theorized that this is due to the considerably improved diet the dogs receive. For years it was traditional to feed Foxhounds on a diet of "dog bread", a variation on cornbread. The legs of a Foxhound are very long and straight-boned. The foxhound’s chest is rather narrow. It has a long muzzle, and a large, domed skull. The ears are wide and low-set. The eyes are hazel or brown, and are large and wide-set. The coat is short and harsh. Overall, they are very similar to the Beagle, only standing higher and being larger. Their coats come in four colors: red, tri, black and tan, and blue.
An American Foxhound.

Temperament

The American Foxhound is sweet, kind, loyal, and very loving at a home. As with all hounds they need careful training, constant socialization, and owners who are willing to give them ample exercise: a bored foxhound will find ways to keep themselves entertained and can be very destructive, some examples of destruction include everything from scratching at doors to tearing apart objects and, being rather long, they have the ability to take things from counter-tops. If routine walks are not an option, access to a secure yard is a good alternative; however the best option would be constant access via a dog door and a secure yard.

Intelligent creatures as they are, many foxhounds quickly learn to open gates or scale small fences to go wandering. While on the hunt the foxhound is a warrior, once a scent is picked up he or she will follow it neglecting any commands. Because their hunting instinct is strong they should never be trusted off-lead. Foxhounds are rarely street savvy and will follow a scent trail into the street where they could get hit by a car.

Foxhounds are easy to live with and thrive as members of a family; however, they are not ideal apartment dogs and shouldn't be left alone indoors for extended periods of time. They do however, get along very well with children, especially small children; although one must always keep an eye when children and animals are interacting as it is not beyond any animal to bite or claw when they feel they are threatened.

Foxhounds do not make good watchdogs; while more skittish hounds may howl when they see a newcomer, more often than not they will greet the newcomer affectionately hoping for treats or scratches behind the ears. This is due to centuries of breeding; any hound that growled or bared its teeth at its master would not be bred or in some cases put down.

Most scent hounds are bred to give "voice". Foxhounds are not nuisance barkers but they do have loud, deep voices that carry a great distance. Although most people love the sound, many urban or suburban neighbors do not appreciate the deep barks or melodious howling of a foxhound.

They cannot be expected to act like retrievers because, though affectionate, they are independent by nature. Although a few foxhounds have been trained in obedience, most will not follow commands unless it suits them. Training a foxhound can be a trying experience, training a retired foxhound that grew up in a Fox Hunt can be even worse, they can be stubborn and don’t respond to negative reinforcement well.

JFK - not really

2008-11-09T12:56:00.002-05:00

I've be reading some trash lately in terms of books - a breezy Elizabeth II biography, The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersch, Rewriting HIstory by Dick Morris, and so on.

The Dark Side of Camelot was an excellent example of Tina Brown/Vanity Fair sort of journalism - well written, well edited, and focused on the salacious or rapacious details of the rich and famous. This tome focused on JFK and RFK and their bad behavior. It was interesting in a revisionist sort of way. I mean does anyone actually believe that Camelot is real? Of course not - it is a nice concept used to whitewash some seedy details from a very optomistic period of time.

The one tidbit that was actually eyebrow raising was the sums of money fronted to JFK to get him into the W.H. And it came primarily from dear ol' Joe Kennedy. Thus the first real example of mass marketing of a candidate by a shadowy PAC was the 1960 election.

I'd posit that Obama really transcends the comparisons with JFK primarily based upon his up-by-the-bootstraps biography. Obama had no priveledge in his upbringing, he lacked the strong male role model in the house (if you want to think of Joe K in that way) that JFK had, Obama's wife Michelle is not aristocratic in her background, the family that Obama has now is upper middle class (but they DO have to work), and the main fear that Americans now have to face is their fading status as an economic superpower (JFK was rather more concerned with our military superpower status).

I think that to compare Obama with JFK is to diminish the former on multiple levels. In fact, I'd say that Obama represents more of a post-modern version of JFK - in essence that old paradigm is useful as a historical guide but JFK is actually quite stale in terms of how we look at electoral politics (particularly with the internet).

As one very good case in point: Look at the deftness with which Obama handled Jeremiah Wright and the issues of race and religion in his more perfect union speech" versus JFK's <I'm a Catholic speech.

My point, meandering as it might be, is that Obama has approached his candidacy with considerable more deliberateness and a full attempt to share his vision for how this country can confront its most pressing challenges while also elevating our discussions about those areas of difference. To be sure - I've never been a big Kennedy family fan (they are very vulgar in the truest sense of the word) - but it is not a bias against the family rather a reflection of their values that gave JFK a much more superficial (assuredly far less cerebral) approach to how the president unites the nation.

Perhaps a much more interesting comparison of the paradigm shift that Obama embodies might be with Alexander Hamilton or even Andrew Jackson. Hamilton gave very clear direction to the Federalist party about the centrality and importance of the Federal authority over the states as well as establishing the foundations of the Treasury for the new nation. Jackson of course was a man of the people and his focus on widening the participation of the country in politics and this had the interesting direct effect of causing the collapse of Hamilton's creation. I throw out those names for more suitable comparisons to Obama than JFK simply because both of their roles in the Federal Government had substantial and lasting effects. JFK's legacy? The Peace Corps? The Berlin Wall? Bay of Pigs? Cuban Missle Crisis? Jackie? Containment? None of these seems to line up neatly or cleanly with a vision that Obama has shared with the country - I think that the similarity is only that 2008, much like 1960, offered the chance for a paradigm shift. Beyond that fact and a shared gift for oratory - not much else lines up with JFK.

Of course it is easy to make distictions now - nothing has happened yet beyond naming Rahm Emmanuel chief of staff. So it will be interesting to see how Obama defines this opportunity of a generation for transformative change. Bill Clinton screwed it up horribly and lead to the 1994 rout in the mid-term elections, Ronald Reagan needed two years of partisan battles to get his tax cuts through the Congress before his destiny was clear, no one even remembers W's transition.

It will be interesting to see where it all goes during the next few years.

Gabe Kapler

2008-11-09T12:50:00.009-05:00

Gabe Kapler who has played for the BoSox and Brewers. Enjoy - should be a Jimbo caveman favorite.

Gordon's alive!

2008-11-08T15:56:00.003-05:00

Flash Gordon

Surf fishing as a means of relaxing

2008-11-08T13:17:00.007-05:00

I spent a week at the beach doing as much surf fishing in the morning and evening as I could. Caught lots of Bluefish (first picture is an example) and I am trying to pull out the hook from the mouth of one down below. Surf fishing is wonderful - just hang out on the beach and watch the waves.

Beachy days

2008-11-08T13:10:00.005-05:00

Bubba and I spent a week at the beach in late September. We had an ocean front house on Holden Beach, NC. Some pretty pix from our stretch of the beach and from the deck looking in both directions from our rental house.

HRC's trite e-mail to me.

2008-11-08T10:44:00.003-05:00

First up: A very very good idea from Joe My God .

Below is a personal message in my Inbox from Dear Joe S - my favorite person to dislike. Joe's e-mail is a perfect reflection of how stale and unimaginative our leading gay rights organization is. I want to bathe after reading saccharine bromides and touchy-feely stance on keeping the gay marriage dream alive. It is still baffling to me that HRC thinks that gay marriage is now, as it has been for some time, ahead of the efforts to give BASIC human rights to everyone in the US. The top priority of marriage (notably a choice which many appear to regret since the divorce rate is 50%) - but protection from being fired because you are gay is down the list of priorities at HRC.

Joe's personal message to me:

Human Rights Campaign

Dear Matthew,

Unfortunate news has dimmed the exhilaration of this historic, life-changing election.

I am deeply disappointed to report anti-LGBT marriage bans passed in Florida and Arizona, and in Arkansas voters voted to bar all unmarried people, LGBT or straight, from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

Meanwhile media outlets have begun to report bad news for marriage equality in California. However, the Human Rights Campaign just participated in a conference call with our coalition partners and we firmly believe that all votes should be counted before calling the race. Several million votes in California have yet to be counted. Now is not the time to speculate on somebody’s fundamental rights. So we are waiting to see the final results from those ballots and will be issuing a statement after the race has been called. Please stay tuned.

While this news certainly put a damper on such a historic election, we should celebrate the fact that our movement came together in an unprecedented way, and worked tirelessly to defeat these amendments, and millions voted with us yesterday.

It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow. But we cannot allow distorted facts or shallow tactics – the foundation on which our opponents built their campaigns – to break our spirits. We are on the right side of history – and we will continue this journey.

Let us not forget that we saw many glimmers of hope for LGBT equality across the country last night. We increased the ranks of pro-equality lawmakers in both the House and the Senate. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), ringleader of the campaign to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, was soundly defeated. Jared Polis (D-CO) became the first openly gay man ever to be elected to Congress as a non-incumbent. Democrats took the New York State Senate, giving us our best chance ever to pass a same-sex marriage law in a legislature. We beat back a ballot question in Connecticut that could have threatened our recent victory there. In fact, marriages begin next week. And we elected Barack Obama as our next President, ending eight years of anti-LGBT policies. I truly believe that despite these setbacks, our nation is moving in the right direction.

After fighting for years, so many victories are now within reach. And thanks to yesterday’s victories, we can now pass critical LGBT equality measures like the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and begin unraveling the damage of the last eight years.

I vow to you today that HRC will not give up, nor will we retreat. Moving forward, HRC will:

* Continue our efforts to win incremental victories for relationship recognition, so that legally married lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts and Connecticut have full standing under federal law; the same holds true for civil unions and domestic partnerships in places like New Hampshire, Vermont and Oregon.
* Use amendments and other legislative vehicles in Congress to establish growing equality for LGBT Americans under federal tax, Social Security, pension, insurance and other laws – piecing together as many of the rights of marriage as we can until the full victory is achieved in years to come.
* Work with our allies in New York to make good on the extraordinary opportunity presented by the election of a new fair-minded majority in the State Senate, which paves the way for the nation's first-ever legislatively achieved marriage equality victory. We are also simultaneously working on marriage equality in New Jersey.

Together, like we have done some many times before, we fought the good fight until the bitter end.

In Florida, HRC contributed $120,000 to Florida Red & Blue (backers of the SayNo2 campaign), including $50,000 of early seed money that allowed the campaign to raise significant additional funds and provided high-level fundraising consulting for the campaign. We started building an early base for campaign operations by sending staff to Florida and conducting volunteer trainings during the January Presidential Primary. We held a Camp Equality election skills training in Fort Lauderdale and mobilized hundreds of volunteers. And in the final weeks, four additional HRC staffers and a Campaign College participant were sent to work on the ground in Florida.

In Arizona, HRC contributed $50,000 to Arizona Together for media production and air time. We had three HRC staffers and one Campaign College participant on the ground. We also held a Camp Equality election skills training in Phoenix and mobilized the participants to work on this issue.

In Arkansas, HRC provided half of the funding necessary for the Arkansas Families First campaign to hire a campaign manager. We deployed a Campaign College participant to work on the campaign for 12 weeks, and an HRC staffer to work on the campaign during the final push.

And in California, HRC participated fully as a member of the marriage coalition executive committee, with unprecedented on-the-ground support, and extensive voter mobilization efforts. I am proud that HRC was the second largest funder of No on Prop. 8, behind Equality California, in what ended up being the most expensive campaign in the nation next to the presidential race. When all was said and done, HRC and our members invested nearly $3.5 million directly to the efforts in California. But our messages of fairness and reason were met with appalling messages of fear, distortion and downright hate that our opponents put forth on television, on radio, across the Internet, and in Sunday sermons.

In 2000, a similar marriage ban in California was passed by a margin of 61% to 39%. So the closeness of this race and the positive shift in public opinion underscores that it is only a matter of time before we add more states to the march for marriage equality. As Obama said last night, “That's the true genius of America – that America can change.”

Yesterday, an unfortunate majority of voters stood with the most extreme and negative elements of society to deny the rights of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. But it’s not the first time that has happened to us, and it won’t be the last. It doesn’t change the fact that we are married. It doesn’t change the fact that we have families. Make no mistake. We are bowed, but not discouraged. We are sad, but not disheartened. We grieve, but not as those who are without hope.

Today we will mourn the losses in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas, but tomorrow let's resolve to lift one another up, and continue our march forward.

Remember, our marriages didn’t begin with a decision of the court, and they will not end with a vote of the people.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese

President

Halloween fun

2008-11-08T10:37:00.002-05:00

I did got get a chance to blog about Halloween this year - mainly cause I don't remember much of it. I went as a marine and Hot Mama went as Amy Winehouse. Kevin went as the person who bought us drinks all night.

Since I am getting back into the digital world and seeing who is still blogging - I ran across a creature that I had forgotten about. Halloween in 2006 - Jimbo went as Charlene - she looked SUPER-FIERCE. I was Lurleen Ritchie (it was back in the days of the Simple Life). Those were some good times!

Utley

2008-11-08T10:32:00.006-05:00

In honor of the Phillies World Series win this year - the offering of beef is Chase Utley.

Weather fun

2008-11-08T10:15:00.003-05:00

First snow of the year yesterday! Snow started in the morning and continued through evening. Temps were too warm for it to stick - but it was pretty to watch all day.

JP Morgan starts to tackle the problem?? Not really.

2008-11-02T19:27:00.006-05:00

Well - I have missed alot over the past few months of being in slumberland (from the blogging perspective) - but now that winter is coming and I have done what I can do outside to my new pad (Bubba and I bought a house in the Spring) and golf is done - time to get focused on more indoor activities.

So I will start off my new blogging season with the topic du jour - who is actually going to rewrite the mortgages for those who took ARMs in the housing boom.

Interestingly - it is JP Morgan. Odd choice in my mind as they are not usually so visible in the consumer (read: middle class) sector directly. However they snapped up some troubled lenders/banks and got 25 billion from the government last week - and, SHOCK , they are now going to start rewriting the problematic loans. The revisions will take the following form: The ARMs, with the messy interest only teaser and balloon payment later, were a favorite of the speculators and those who, in many (but not all cases) ought not have bought a house in a speculative boom, will get rewritten into conventional type loans.

Bubba and I did not get on board this housing boom when in DC and Jimbo has blogged about in great detail. Maybe we could have bought a house - but the fundamentals were not right. Prudent (or stupid - you can take your pick) - Bubba and I sat out the DC boom and paid exorbitant rent. Now with the expected downfall of what EVERYONE saw as a boom - the messy mortgages have to be dealt with. The spike in foreclosures that started the entire mess, has yet to actually be addressed.

I'll say that again - the initial cause of the recession has yet to be addressed. The Feds have picked winners in the bailout (Bear Stearns, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Merrill Lynch) and one particularly notable loser (Lehman Bros. - could not find a buyer to take it intact and got sliced and diced). However the bigger solvent banks (Wells Fargo, B of A, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) that absorbed the distressed winners in the bailout - had to take on the debt of the companies that they absorbed - of course that was guaranteed by you and I via tax dollars. Also the big banks got direct loans from 2-25 billion on top of the other guarantees. Also they got a big gift from the SEC to halt short selling of stock (in a very delayed measure to prevent the market from trashing their stock prices). And they got Freddie and Fannie out of the private sector (they were both taken over directly by the Federal Government).

So we have had, since Bear Stearns was absorbed in March for $10/share which was bumped up from the original deal of $2/share) - nothing tangible done to rewrite all the messy loans. That was up until this past week (it is November now)- instead the Feds wanted to keep at least some of the banks solvent first and keep the stock market from completely shutting down.

So now that the Feds have ALSO added money into the system to allow banks to loan to each other (another gift from us to them which is added upon the costs of direct payments to banks) and now banks are loaning again to one another - then we can start to deal with individuals.

Odd how the system that made so much money off of the boom got their needs taken care of first while the consumers were put to the back of the line. NOw I agree that many consumers were trying to speculate and flip houses - but those of us who lived in white hot real estate markets also know that houses in Logan Circle cannot go from 100K to 800K in one year without some assistance to buy a house from the flow of cheap and easy dollars.

Interestingly, the onus of this appears in the economic press to have fallen on Freddie and Fannie - which is odd when you consider that many large banks say that the Feds made the banks (i.e. Freddie and Fannie) loan money cheaply and without any sort of background check. I find this twist very odd - that the blame game (while taking hundred of billions of dollars from us over the past six months) from the private companies is due to Fannie and Freddie. Now remember when you mother said - "just because someone else is doing it why should you, if they jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" If Fannie and Freddie were being speculative - why should the private banks follow suit? After all Freddie and Fannie are backed (well, it is understood this backing to be implicit) by the Federal Government while the private companies are beholden to their shareholders.

An additional twist comes when you think about what the private banks really did - they would originate a loan (and accumulate the points and fees as real time earnings) and then slice and dice off the loan into complex deriatives priced based upon the quality of the loans. So banks get to collect up front fees, then move the loans off their balance sheet, and repeat. This is what is called leverage - that means that banks had originated far more loans than their balance sheet could handle (but collected fees for that, i.e. good revenue for Wall Street and helps their share price). So then comes the default crisis - and guess what happens? The derivatives are structured such that if a defined default rate is reached, the debt gets returned to the bank. Oops - you can see how the spiral starts.

Now the real fun begins - the banks then are returned the debt (they originated of their own free will) onto their balance sheet. PLus they are now required by accounting rules to price the property on their balance sheet at the current market price (mark to market is the catch phrase). Double oops - how do you value something that is in default and no one wants to buy it. Yup, the balance sheets start to look really really ugly because the banks are on the hook for the sold price of the house but now have a real value on their balance sheet that is much less (and in many cases unknown since the market has no idea how to handle the derivatives in real dollars).

In the old days, banks had to loan out only what they could reasonably expect to cover with their own balance sheets. But Freddie and Fannie then got a pass from the Federal Government to start loaning out money to minorities and poor folk to increase the rate of home ownership (remember that "ownership" society nonsense years back). Well Fannie and Freddie started over-leveraging but using the Feds as their backstop. The private banks then got bitter - Fannie and Freddie get to generate all this revenue in real time and the private banks are losing out on a new market segment. So the private banks decide to use complex derivatives as a method to mimic the Federal backing - but then pat themselves on the back for having a "market based solution". And they start earning lots more money from origination without the costs on their balance sheet.

Well with the default crisis at hand (and totally predicable) the heaping pile of shit loans are back where they started; the banks are now insolvent by their own volition. Do they go under? Mostly not - they just get consolidated into the stronger banks with heavy investment of taxpayer dollars. The banking system is just "too big to fail". Perhaps - but did anyone think of this 2 year ago? Did anyone actually force the banks to do the thought experiment of "what if". Nope - the loaning went up to the end, and then froze. The music had stopped and where were the chairs? So the taxpayers now get to absorb the costs of the bad behavior and for what benefit? Consumers bought what the banks offered - probably not a good idea - but the banks always say it is the responsibility of the consumer to take a loan responsibly. But how do you buy a house in DC without being somewhat irresponsible?

The banking sector made the housing boom and now they are being trashed for their excess on Wall Street - sad part is that converting the ARMs to conventional loans was not part of the medicine - until now. And ONLY with a healthy bribe from the taxpayers. Oh well, yet another fleecing of the taxpayers for the private companies' excess - not the first and not the last. But let's remember who is coming last in the bailout - the whole source of the problem. The banks used their "too big to fail" threat to get their servings from the Federal trough first - and then, and ONLY then, would they convert the exotic loans to conventional products.

The real problem is that we have had a real concentration of wealth in a few banks - the biggest surviving banks can and now will act as a cartel when things get sorted out. Cartels never work in the public interest and NEVER expect this concentration of wealth to thank the taxpayers for bailing them out when in dire straits. Nope we'll pay once now for their excess and then pay very dearly later when the survivors act in a concerted effort to corner the market.

A tax funded bailout of irresponsible companies will end up becoming the taxpayer-based noose around the consumers neck. Some relief will come via JP Morgan's lead to refinance but that is short lived and will only benefit the healthiest of the speculators. Expect in 2010 when things start to revive that the pool of companies that survived (and sucked up the competition) is shockingly small in number - the cartel will be at hand and their existance to fuck you and I will have been paid for by, you guessed it, you and I.

Yo Tebow!

2008-11-02T19:14:00.010-05:00

Tim Tebow - U of Florida's dynamite QB.
WOOF!

Long pause

2008-10-25T20:12:00.002-05:00

Well it has been awhile.

I was swamped with life - but it kept nagging at me to get back to bitching and moaning. So I'll be back at it.

Friday beef

2008-04-04T06:18:00.002-05:00

Well - I was going to start up a favorite item of the blog - as an aggregator of beef. While meaningful ideas are nice to ponder, even vegetarians like hot mama like to gaze upon the superficial beauty of beef.

So today I was thinking about water polo - so I typed into google "beefy water polo men" - just to see what I would get. On the second page, this picture of "peacock men" popped up.

umm - yeah. Google might want to work on that filter. Anyways - here is some beef for all to enjoy. Today's theme is water polo and it is inspired by Outsports.

Clintonian legacy

2008-04-03T05:45:00.003-05:00

This is from ABC News on-line today. I found it via Drudge. I have copied it in so that it will hang around after the link dies.

This is an interesting take on how things get done behind the scenes. Do we REALLY want Bill involved to this degree in American politics. It would be nice if she could win the election on her merits and hers alone. Sadly, Bill cannot keep himself out of this election. Republicans only need a few more examples like this to basically run the campaign as follows:

"Hillary couldn't beat Obama alone - so she brought in Bill to seal the deal. Whom do you think will run the White House in 2009 if Hillary wins? Forget Billary, it is now Bill's Third Term".

If Hillary doesn't think Obama can win in the general election, so be it. But combine her AND Bill as the defacto lead of the Democratic ticket - every Republican from East to West will vote for ANYONE - my dog included - to keep those two out of the White House. Cleverly the Republicans are sitting by and watching Hillary and Obama sling mud at each other - and now Hillary is making Bill every more present in her campaign. Somehow he always pops up in times of need and who says that he won't stop just because she won he election?

Dems are in trouble and they basically have the Clintons to blame. The vast right wing conspiracy is the least of the Dems worries now.

Candidate Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

Share April 02, 2008 7:39 PM

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Richardson, who served in President Clinton's cabinet, disagreed.

At a rally in Oregon, standing next to Obama, Richardson insisted, "My great affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver." But he added, "It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting among ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall."

A report in the San Francisco Chronicle detailed another explosive exchange in which the former president angrily objected to Richardson's endorsement.

"Five times to my face [Richardson] said that he would never do that," Clinton said, according to the Chronicle -- before, the newspaper reports, he "went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out."

Another, neutral superdelegate who was in the room for that meeting called the Chronicle's take "a bit exaggerated." But there is no question the Clintons are passionately arguing their case against Obama in what is fast becoming an intense race not just for the votes of the public but of the Democratic elite known as superdelegates.

Thoughts on the campaign

2008-03-31T21:02:00.003-05:00

I find it interesting that there is so much drama about Florida and Michigan primaries. It is obvious why, this tight of a primary race, was never predicted. But had FL and MI allowed themselves to have their respective primaries at some point past Feb 1 - then the map would look, potentially, quite different. Super Tuesday was a draw. Hillary won some big states, and she lost alot of the smaller states. Florida and Michigan decided to rebel against the Party and hold their primaries before this arbitrary line in the sand, that being Feb 1st.

The primary results of these two states, obviously, should not count. The Democratic leadership of these states obviated their citizens' votes. This is not a Federal issue nor is it even an issue of fairness that their votes are nullified. The people of those two states let their "leaders" disenfranchise them, willingly. There was no ambiguity from Howard Dean on this issue. The "leaders" decided to defy the leaders as a gamble to push their importance as bellweathers for the primary candidates. Sad to say that the leadership decided to put their own interests as "players" ahead of their people. As a result, the people of these two very populous and very distinct populations are now sitting on the sidelines. And I would argue this is now very much to Hillary's chagrin. Hillary polls well in blue collar states - Ohio, Pennsylvania are two states with similarities to Michigan in many regards. She would have probably taken Michigan cleanly. Not neccesarily for a large share of the pie - but in terms of supporting her stated position that she can command the vote at large. Florida, very unlike Michigan in almost every way, is full of minorities - Jews, Cubans, Blacks, Hispanics (of the non-Cuban ilk), gays, the grey hairs. She might have fought to the draw here - but a draw in Florida would have been huge to support her role as a "vote getter".

Instead, Hillary got no bump from either state because both MI and FL chose to place themselves at odds with the Party rules. As it turns out, Obama came to a draw on Super Tuesday (in VERY early February). He then secured his position as the leader by going on a rampage in the February primariles. The problem that Hillary now faces has become clear in the national polls of Hillary vs. Obama. To wit, Hillary can win the big states, but she has not shown any ability to win most of the small states. Are we to believe that the people of the large states, in voting for the very liberal Hillary, would then turn around and vote for McCain or some third party candidate? Nope - the large states would, in a general election, still go blue and that would be benefit Obama. On top of that, the electoral college votes would go(notably non-proportinally) to Obama. He would be, if he were to become the nominee, a formidable challenger in most of the 50 states, not just the big ones.

So Hillary, not having primary votes from these two VERY large states (in terms of population and their very distinct differences where Hillary was competitive), is now almost a moot point. Especially when, a favorable vote tally from both of these states in early February, could have contained, to some degree, Obama's bubble.

It is interesting to me that state politicians of FL and MI would allow their people, and a big chunk of votes, to be nullified by their own fiat. The gamble had such poor odds at the time when the bet came due (maybe not when the bet was made many months earlier, that being when Hillary was to be coronated after an appropriate time of "appearing" to compete), one has to wonder, in context, what the whole point of Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore really entailed. That Supreme Court decision had everything to do with advancing a candidate and not the people. When every vote is supposed to count, and in that particular case, only Kennedy's did, the Democrats now must have an odd feeling of deja vu - except their own party fucked them in this case - not the Federal judiciary which was Republican in the case of Bush v. Gore.

Hanging chads and premature primaries. Florida seems to be the home of the disenfrachised. And Michigan, a state in dramatic decline, could only benefit from Hillary's big government proposals - those free Federal dollars would keep the state of Michigan afloat. At least for a few more years. But here we sit, watching millions of primary voters left on the sidelines due to a small cabal of insiders playing God with their citizens' will.

I say the choice is obvious. The state leaders went against the rules of the national Democratic Party, and now those leaders ought to pay the price. This price should be a recall of every state government person in FL and MI that supported the premature primaries in defiance of the national Democratic primary rules. Whether those national rules are valid is a sideshow now. The Democratic leadership of those two states rolled the dice in a longer term battle, that being which state decides the momentum in the early primaries - and the result is a catastrophe for every citizen who wanted to have their voice heard in the Deomcratic primaries.

Now onto the more troublesome (in many ways) situation of the superdelegates; Hillary's last hope. The superdelegates are a fine way of recapitulating the political machines of old. In the past, the conventions were about back room deal-making in spite of the will of the majority. This was not fair but it was par. In our current era - this sort of old-boys network seems rather dated (in kind terms) and downright undemocratic (in reality).

The proportional distribution of the common vote, in primaries, seems easy to comprehend. The check of superdelegates in close races seems far more complex to understand. Do we need the leaders of the states to have a non-proportional opportunity to "check" the fiery will of the Republic, via the electoral process (in this case primaries), with their more "considered" opinion? They have no mandate to reflect, and thereby echo, the will of the majority - rather, they act, in theory, as the Senate which tempers the House. While this to-an-fro between the Senate and the House is all well and good when framed within the Legislative Branch (we vote for the House and Senate members to do that sort of tug of war) - we do NOT vote for these people to temper the primaries. That was NEVER specified in the Constitution. In this very nondemocratic arrangement, this superdelegate effect is against the very grain of the Democratic Party. It seems much more befitting of a Republican scenario.In reality, are the Democrats, when considering these sorts of manipulations, any different? Of course not. It is, as it was in the past, about controlling access to the highest levels of power.

I do not posit that Obama will wash Washington clean. But, if his message of hope, compromise, and respect - and that resonates with the primary voters - is discounted by some sort of backroom dealing, are we any different than a banana republic? If the secretive cabals of the leadership are biased against (even for) what the majority wills with their vote (and, as a side note, who pays the taxes??) then what is the point of an election, in a primary or otherwise?

Having superdelegates is no different than having the Supreme Court decide a contested election - it is having a politically chosen body "arbitrate" the outcome - and that outcome does not consider the will of the people. It is the will of those, interestingly not directly voted upon for this particular role, to propel their own goals and ambitions.

I find it sad that when the bully (Hillary) becomes the bullied, she resorts to the sorts of undemocratic shenanigans that happened in Bush v. Gore. Her coronation was all but assured in mid-2007. If she cannot win the majority by convincing them of her superiority as a candidate, then it appears she will game the system to still come out of top via the insider/superdelegate vote. Whether it is one Supreme Court vote or one superdelegate vote, the effect of these hollow victories, for us all, is the same. Our vote, sadly, does not matter unless we bow to the will of the majority and consent to their candidate.

So happy together

2008-03-27T20:28:00.002-05:00

Well it is round 2 for Obama and the mayor of NYC. Obama and Bloomberg.

This is a match made in heaven and solves alot of problems for Obama. Having the multi-billionaire on the ticket is a very strong vote for business. Bloomberg is no dull conservative - he is very saavy at working both sides against the middle. The mere fact that someone has made an estimated 13 billion and rides the subway to work is something that makes the working man smile.

Maybe not smile, but at least they know that someone is riding the same train as them. And when was the last time you saw Hillary take the Metro? Living in DC for years- never heard about the Dem high-priestess descending into the bowels of the city to get around. The point has to be this - Obama came from us and Bloomberg, while not one of us, reminds us that he is not above us. This makes a Obama and Bloomberg ticket lethal to the Republicans and the Dems. Here is a ticket that is progressive and experienced. Obama worked his way through the system and Bloomberg made a fortune explaining the system. United on a single ticket, they offer something that is an antidote to what we all have expected.

Hillary's coronation is not only troubled - this Obama/Bloomberg ticket would drive the stake into the heart of the Clinton legacy. Hope is not just a town for Bill and Huckabee - it is a notion that stirs the heart. Could we actually have a ticket that is heart-felt and driven by the market at the same time?

This flap over Hillary in Bosnia is not just fodder - no, it is emblematic of Hill politics at its worst. Here is a serious candidate using a trip to a war zone as some emblem of her capability. She, dogmatically, stated that she was runnning from the bombs at the airport. Well, do you drag your 16 year old daughter in tow to a war zone? Do you think about the fact that there are photographers taking your picture on the tarmac smiling and waving? Sinbad, the comedian, was on the same flight and noted that he never got hit by shrapnel. This is politics at its worst - Hillary is desperate to show her credentials by fabricating something that never happened. She is so desperate to run from the First Lady role - or more accurately, turn it into something more than what it was. Meet and greet, that is all it was in Bosnia - pictures, in this case, offer only one word - LIAR. Meanwhile, she churns it into a version of the "Winds of War". Shameless. Utterly shameless.

The worst part is that she doesn't have to do this. She has cheapened the First Lady role of advocacy into some tawdry telenovela - she tells us that she is battle-hardened beyond the "vast right wing conspiracy" - and this is her evidence - waves and smiles with Chelsea, in tow?

There is nothing worse than having someone on the bubble who lies - not stretches the truth a wee bit - but flat out lies. An, all of this, in the vain attempt to burnish her record.

It is becoming an alarming pattern that Hillary will bring up anything to separate her shortcomings from her. Having her attack dogs go after Obama about youthful drug use was just silly given her linkage to the "I didn't inhale". Her need to dig into Obama's land deals are just silly when she have Whitewater hanging over her head. It is as if she has taken all her shortcomings (or whatever you might call them, liabilities might be a better word) - and projects them.

Just stop. Please. Hillary is not giving me a reason to vote for her - rather, she is giving me a list of reasons to vote against her. And just a few months ago - this was unfathomable. She is not presenting herself as a leader - she is busy trying her best to self-destruct with these antics. Add to this mess, Bill wagging his finger, red faced, on every network about how Hillary is the best person. It is just sad to see this whole legacy of the Clintonian dynasty fall upon itself. But they cannot, this time, point the finger at Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or their minions. Nope, the Clintons are digging their grave all alone.

The bet is this - Obama/Bloomberg vs. McCain/Romney. The result is a no-brainer -to me and many others. Hillary's desparate moves in Michigan and Florida look even more contrived against the ideal Obama-berg Dem ticket. Poor John Edwards - he just stands and watches (with his unregulated Theresa Heinz Kerry-esque wife) with Hillary's bid for VP as his only lifeline. Not gonna happen. Not gonna work.

At the end of the day and when all is said and done - Hillary has become a shell of her original self - her desperation is evident- and thusly all the more damming. If only she could stick to the facts and keep it all above the fray. But she cannot. She, in spite of the obviousness of her peril, will not. A vote for her is not only regressive - but it supports the ideal that an insider is the only viable candidate - it is just plain rubbish. And I am full of shadenfreude at her own self-inflicted demise. She had every advantage, via Bill, to win - but all she can seem to do is try to lose.

Obama/Bloomberg - so happy together!

A Woman in Full?

2008-03-24T19:58:00.004-05:00

Well looks like everyone who is elected is busy hitting it - save Hillary. And poor Donna Shalala pines away for her.

Seriously, it is a tad disconcerting when the American people (via the media) are transfixed in yet another of the sex eruptions that periodically occur. Although this fissure is more Mauna Loa, that is to say the spewing a steady stream of hot lava, rather than a Vesuvian burst. Seems that Bill Clinton, in his move to NYC, has unleashed the baser instincts of the state leadership. The Republicans cannot seem to find a straight guy to save them from their own man-loving sect (i.e. Foley, Craig, Miss Lindsey Graham, Empress Crist, Miss Greater Kentucky at large (McConnell) etc). The best they have right now is Vinter (a relative non-event by Clintonian standards) or McCain's over-friendliness with a young woman - pretty limp offerings compared with the Dems.

When is the last time that you would have predicted that the Democrats would be the studs about town and the Republicans trolling the netherworld of bathrooms and chat rooms? This should be vice versa according to conventional wisdom. But that is the problem with stereotypical ideas embodied by conventional wisdom- they stubbornly provide counterpoints on a regular basis.

Poor Hillary has no one talking about her sex life. While the chattering classes steer clear of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Crist, et al and their "secrets" (but it is clear that everyone knows the gay subtext), Hillary presents, comparatively, a much more complex situation in her sterility. She is married to a true man-whore, yet no one seems able to fathom her as a sexual being. I'd be tempted to say that the media is presenting some sort of passive statement on the sexuality of post-menopausal women, but then I walk by a rack of magazines and see that everyone, unless on life support, is having AMAZING sex. I think this goes a few levels deeper than simple feminine ageism. Hillary does not wrap herself in matronly gear and pearls like Barbara Bush, she doesn't have the vacuous deer-in-the-headlights look of Laura Bush, she has none of the superficial plasticity of Nancy Reagan, and certainly none of the plucked-to-within-an-inch-of-her-life of Nancy Pelosi (she seriously looks like a droid). Hillary dresses, when looking at her in total, like a woman in her 40s who is professional and serious without being sterile. Her hair is carefully done and regularly updated. Her make-up is present, and subtly flattering, without being garish or vain. She has one ass, not two. She picks festive colors and flattering cuts. The construction of her uniform, i.e. pants-suits, is impeccable and fails to register as even vaguely lesbian. Her suits (by my estimation) tend to be ready-to-wear intepretations of Christian's winning collection on Project Runway. Her speaking/presentation style is not winning, to be sure. The smile is clearly plastered on her well-done, and well-preserved face. Her annoying head nodding affect is almost bobble-headed. Side note: Her nods distract almost as much as Bill's penchant for shaking his hands as if he were playing a Wii. Her voice, having an unattractive gravel-like feeling, seldom has any warmth. But Americans forgive such superficiality in favor of the content presented.

So what gives? Hillary is firmly in the older MILF category. Insiders note her for being warm, responsive and funny - which seems almost as odd as Al Gore's insider reputation as a deft mimic. When one tries to conjure a mental image of what Hillary would be like in person and behind closed doors, based upon those "in the know", most of us come up short.

And I don't think this is the by-product of the wars fought during the Clinton years. It wasn't like all that drama hardened her. Even when she was initially installed as First Lady - she had no sexual presence. I find it odd that she currently presents herself on the campaign trail in moderately feminine drag, and lacking any frivolity associated with that loaded term, that no one really thinks of her embodiment as a woman any more than they do her hair color. I surmise that many people look at Hillary as a man in a woman's body.

This may just be the by-product of our era where women have moved up the ladder, and in the process, become sterile. Sexy is just not an option - that I can fathom to some degree. But men ascend the ladder and still exude sexuality and vitality. I wonder if Hillary, allowing herself to be boxed into a corner of asexuality, is what unnerves many of us.

No one, outside those who are rabidly partisan, would doubt her ability to lead. She has shown herself a very competent Senator who can convey her seriousness and determination without a heavy dose of ego. She is a serious candidate (compare her to the shrill Ferraro) with mature ideas and thoughtful insight regarding the political machine. However, where Obama seems alive and vital and, in many areas, naive - Hillary comes across as oddly lifeless. I wonder if Hillary needs to have a consequential speech on her "femininity" the way that Obama laid out his views on race in a recent, and generally brilliant, speech. Were Hillary to present herself as a woman, and more accurately a person who embodies a woman, running for president and not the presidential candidate who happens to be a woman - would the perception of her candidacy not undergo a renaissance?

I have ruminated over the idea that Hillary's problems are, in actuality, not about Bill. Yes she stayed with him even though there was one bimbo eruption after another. Yes she appears to have ridden his coattails to the Senate (appears is the operative word). I would submit that she has subordinated herself in some ways to acheive her longer term goals. But this is the stuff of character and drive. Who, male or female, has not stood by a flawed spouse (Jackie O or Laura Bush)? Who has not used certain openings for their own longer term gain (John Kerry anyone)? Who, in politics, has not used their own battle scars for their ultimate advancement (John McCain)?

Hillary has been using the First Lady stint to explain how she has participated in substantial aspects of government. And, as it should, this facade rings hollow. I'd posit that Hillary has not taken on the Bill problem vis a vis her own story - this is the gold mine. She has been defined by Bill (and this is not solely the fault of the media - Hillary is saavy) without explaining why she was so passive in allowing herself to be "boxed" into this supposed role of calculated gain through her public humiliation.

I feel that Hillary's inability to articulate who she is has led her to where she is - in second place to an articulate upstart. Her stiff upper lip treatment of Bill allows others define her - and in many ways this definition becomes a virtual truth. Make no mistake - she is not running for PTA and, thus, her private life is not just fodder for the gossips in the room. She is running as a viable candidate for the leader of the free world. And her story, that being the narrative of her life, is largely a void in the personal sense. She has accomplishments, she has victories, she has battle scars, she has mistakes, she has strengths and flaws - in short, she has all the makings of a very interesting human being. But I think that the collective unease stems from the fact that we want to know our leader in some way. Bill couldn't avoid telling you his story - people just love him. Reagan exuded his fortunate life - his lust for life and optimism just spilled out of him. Obama interests many because we see his vision, we feel it when we close our eyes and listen to his visceral power through speech.

Hillary's tears in New Hampshire threw the media into a frenzy, somewhat belatedly, as the chink in her armor. But what resonated across that state was not weakness - it was humanity, it was her visceral response where none was expected. Hillary actually let us see (calculated or not) something beyond the rather thick veneer of polish and presentation. Hillary could blow Obama out of the water by not even speaking of her opponent, she doesn't need to - rather she could tell her narrative and seal her victory, in the primary and the general election.

In a nutshell, I think of her asexuality as the embodiment of who she projects - and not who she is. Obama has his narrative and McCain is a fucking novel. Both exude, in very different ways, a view of themselves, however circumscribed, beyond the political animal. Hillary is a political animal - no one in their right mind would think otherwise. But that is the role of the politician - to tell us the lies we want to hear. We all know that backroom deals have to be made - proverbially, it is the making of the sausage.

Hillary has shown that she has the grit and stamina - her marriage to Bill, her superb raising of Chelsea, her strong presence in the Senate (John Edwards would be happy to have done a tenth of what Hillary has done), her wit, her intelligence, and so on. But we have had to play the waiting game to see the results without being reminded, by her, of her battles, her fortitude, her drive - not in a political sense but also in a personal sense. And that is what we yearn to see. A compelling vision, dictated forcefully, by Hillary of why she should be president both from a political and personal standpont. She needs to separate herself from Bill - but she can only do that by explaining her relationship to Bill. This optin is not conventional - this is probabably not even advised by those around her - but this is where she needs to go. Boldly proclaiming that, she, Hillary has made her choices and why those choices did not determine her fate, rather she made her path in spite of those obstacles presented to her. Its very Horatio Alger. I feel until Hillary allows us to see her struggles and her flaws, we will remain indignant of the projection she offers us.

The number one rule of high end politics is not about locality - its about quid pro quo. Hillary seems to be projecting an ideal that she is the best candidate, ergo, we should vote for her. But I would state that she ought to force us to vote for her, explain why she is a leader, give us the rough and tumble story - we all know it is there - just level with us. Show us who you are Hillary, and we will hold up our end of the bargain. Continue to show us the sterile resume and bland platitudes, and we will vote for the alternative with a soul. Obama gives us a story - you are giving us a resume.

Hillary, make yourself real, flaws and all, and we will love you in your totality.

Mortgage mess

2008-03-22T20:28:00.003-05:00

Well. For those of us who lived in DC for the past few years, the mortgage mess is no secret. Easy loans, lots of money floating around, "sophisticated" hedging schemes to spread risk, low interest rates, incentive for banks/loan origininators to cheat, ARMs, speculation, etc.

Any surprise that it all came crashing down?

The funny thing now is that all these really smart financial people are "scratching their heads" trying to figure out how their complex leveraging schemes to spread risk eventually came up broke. Well, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that people who play the market on others money will get burned at some point. And these whiz kids knew that it was the poor people who would pay the price.

We have both sides of the aisle in the Congress and our nominal Commander in Chief advocating how wonderful it is to have people own homes. Let's just not talk about how they will be bankrupt in two years when the teaser rates vanish and the bill comes due. And who owns them now? Yup, the bank. And the bank become really the nominal owner. There are other things afoot.

I don't buy this idea that "no one saw this coming". Two and a half years in DC and I saw this beast grow and begin feeding on itself. Homes that were 180K in 2000 became worth 800K in 2006. We paid 2000 bucks a month in rent (60K over our time in DC) and the place was bought for 120K in 2001. The level of speculation (flowing out of the dot com bust) was truly spectacular. Am I supposed to feel sorry for people who played the market and lost. Well maybe. But I am really not sorry for the infrastructure that fed the boom and now has to deal with the mess. Should they go under? Absolutely. Teach the market some discipline.

Banks thought that they could move their positions in real estate off the sheet just one day after mortgaging the house. Except they had to write in clauses about foreclosure rates. Oops. Now they are having to pay their due for originating bad loans and are running to every Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, and Singapore that will loan them the money to get through. Their normal cash cow, Washington, has not sprang into action to resuce them in totality. And now the sterling institutions of the banking world are whoring themselves to the highest bidder to cover their ass.

Let's get this straight. Banks made bad bets. They want DC to cover their bad positions. DC blinks. They run immediately to rich international governmental funds to get their cash infusion - and dilute their stock in the process. Are you kidding me? Merrill Lynch is sucking up petro dollars from the terrorists and the government lets them slide by? I say that is a real problem because they are leveraging the financial structure of America on bad bets that they made. And now, they are shoring up their positions with foreign governments which are no ally to America.

Let's just clarify this. The major capitalists are selling themselves to enemies to hedge themselves and, let's just ask, who will own your house when it is all done? Some emirate in the sand? This is not leverage in the traditional view - that being that these governments buy a position in publicly traded bonds. No, they own sizeable shares in the companies that were given to them for a fire sale price.

I guess that we should not be surprised. China funds almost 20% of our housing debt - albeit in bonds which are tradeable (until dumped en masse when they approach zero in value - but we will set that elephant in the room aside fornow). Why ought these financial whores (read: banks) not shell out another 20% (not in bonds, but in real shares) to our non-allies. If Germany or France were going to finance our debt - I might not be so specious. But to give shares for pennies on the dollar to totalitarian governments (and board seats to boot) - are you kidding me? The point of this is that banks originate the loans of their own free will. Those freely given loans go into default when the teaser rates vanish and the people who paid NO money down start to walk away - banks, thinking that no one would ever default (um, are you kidding me), now have their pretty little leverage package handed back to them (under the terms of the agreement they willingly entered) and they now have to put all that loan mess back on their balance sheet. So when they hold the loans and then run to foreign governments for a capital infusion (for a trade of stock) - who owns your loan? Note the volition of the banks that set this whole debacle in motion.

I just find it hard to belive that banks had no "idea" about the mess. Of course they knew - it was short term gain (originate the loan, sell it off, and get the 1.5% charge in up front cash) and don't worry about the longer term implications. Well longer term implications are here. And banks, who hate to carry loans on their own balance sheets, are stuck with bad ones when the complex leveraging schemes hand them back because the default rate is too high. Had they followed the old model, they would NEVER have loaned out this money. But once they had the green light to move the loan balances off of their sheet and onto the sheet of complex leveraging schemes - they could make the origination money and the interest (read: profit) without having to carry the debt. Too clever by half. And now, when the bill is coming due, for their willing participation in the shell game of "who owns the mortgage" - they sell your loan out (in part through their shares) to those who don't (and won't) practice core capitalistic principles at home, much less democracy.

I have been watching some old movies lately while sipping wine and the whole Japanese conquering America in the 1980s theme has come back to me. Japan went on the rampage in the 80s - they took their money and went on a shopping spree in NYC and LA. This caused major drama. But they took those loans onto their own balance sheets and when the crash came, well, Japan took a 15 year hiatus to work out their bad loans. Now fast forward 20 years. American banks have facilitated a domestic buying binge and then moved all that money into complex schemes. Doesn't work out - but do they take it on the chin? Nope. They run to DC, no dice. Then in the next breath they take their debt to foreign governments and offer shares for cover. So you now have our financial institution, after using China to buy our housing bonds rather quietly, these capitalists are overtly going to our enemies to get cash to cover their bad bets.

I'm thinking of Sharon Stone in Casino right now. The end is not pretty. But the mortgage mess is not a quick OD and the screen fades to black. It is you writing a check to Abu Dhabi via Merrill Lynch. Bad enough your $300 gas bill for winter heating goes to them. Or your $3/gallon gasoline goes to them. Now, your house is owned by them and you pay them interest. When the bill comes in Arabic, don't be surprised.

The short version is this. Capitalism works great when anyone wants to set a price in a market that is transparent. Capitalism is not so good when things get opaque. And when you hear words like "leverage" and "collatorized debt organizations" - you best think of some milky haze. The person who loses in the near term are the poor saps who over-reached or speculated ((probably both), but in the longer term we all lose. Even if we don't pay the terrorist governments directly through shares (remember - all those shares get a quarterly dividend), we sell our infrastructure to them by these sorts of shenanigans. This does not occur in one bolus, rather it gets doled out nickel and dime to the enemies via our "valiant" capitalists.

Sounds really weird. But look at this for what it is. Junkies having to pay the bookie -- and when they cannot pay bookie number one they go to another bookie (number two) to kite the loan. Let's face it, the first bookie isn't great and you need to get him out of your hair - but when you have to borrow from the second bookie to pay the first - well, there should be no surprise that our financial system is now descending to the level of ghetto economics. Crack and loans are now analogous. But the crack whore is now Merrill Lynch, B of A, Wachovia, WaMu, etc instead of Strawberry, Tanisha, Evangeline, etc.

It will all end in one of two ways. Either we, the people, foot the bill to shore up the bad boys of capitalism via tax money, or we the people are forced to pay the terrorists a monthly bill (and quarterly dividend) so that the capitalists can go on.

The sad thing is that the WSJ, of all institutions, were the rallying cry for leverage. They know better. But now the WSJ writes about the complexities of the marketplace. Shame on them - the Washington Post or the NYT doesn't know any better - but the paper that embodies true capitalism has turned a blind eye. Vote this year to own the debt through American tax money. We all hate it. But better the devil we know than the terrorist we really do not.

Iowa

2008-03-22T20:08:00.002-05:00

Well - we've been here since July. I find Iowa to be an interesting and sometimes strange place. Things that have happened since we last chatted:

1. Job is going well. I LOVE IT.
2. Bubba is doing well. Got a job. Got a raise. No travel. He's in paradise.
3. Bought a house - move in April. The house is fab.
4. Linus has gotten fat. Very fat. Iowa agrees with him. Bubba spoils him.
5. Kitty is fine. Nothing really changes with him.
6. Hot Mama moved to town with her furry child - they are living it up in a fab loft and some $$$ from her fab new job.
7. I'm actually enjoying my life alot more. Academics and I were not the best fit.
8. We've met the DSM gays and we have our gaggle. Good times!
9. Been traveling alot for work and for fun. Enjoying having $$$!
10. Off to Pensacola for a fab vacation in April with Angry and the rest. Boys trip - a weekend away.
11. Had alot of guests pop by. And many more wave when they fly over.
12. Midwest (aside from winter) is really a great place.
13. Des Moines has alot of very cool places - just have to find them.
14. DJ Neal, photo phenom and mix master, has been a breath of fresh air. Love him.
15. The girls in Iowa can drink. ALOT. I'm a rank amatuer here. There is literally a bar on every corner. Could go all year and not hit half.
16. Best bar in town. Kung Fu Tap and Taco. Hands down. They serve only tacos and booze. Biker bar, smokey, rough trade.
17. Rough trade is everywhere here. Lots of fur. A Jimbo wet dream.

Much more to tell. That is just a smattering of the things running through my mind.

Back on track

2008-03-22T20:04:00.002-05:00

Hey all

Its been awhile. Long while. But I figured that it was time to get back in the saddle and start blogging again. Jimbo made me a fab banner for my new blog - but I will post it on this one. I'll transition over to the new blog at some point - its got a GREAT name. Jimbo thought it up - Gene Queen.

Love it.

Anyways - enjoy the new content. Lots to think about.

Track beef

2007-11-02T07:29:00.000-05:00

The track and field beef got some chatter last week - Jimbo and Homer engaged in a virtual cat fight over Illinois hottie. Here is some more track and field beef.

Friday beef

2007-11-02T06:54:00.001-05:00

In honor of Hot Mama's last day of work (she will be in Des Moines in 10 days!) I hauled my carcass out of bed early to drudge the web for some tasty beef for her (and your) enjoyment.
Cheers!

Beef - This is what's for dinner

2007-10-26T06:06:00.000-05:00

I posted a separate furry Friday beef below for Jimbo - for those of you who like your beef sans fur I give you some tender morsels.

Yeah....

Hell yeah!

This is what Hot Mama is looking for...

And strangest looking box I have seen in awhile....

Friday beef - All Ben Cohen

2007-10-26T05:53:00.001-05:00

Nice satellite image

2007-10-26T05:18:00.000-05:00

There is a very interesting pattern in the ConUS at the moment. I have attached an enhanced satellite image which shows the cloud formations across the middle third of the continent.

First of all you will note the technicolor popcorn piled up over the Southeast. This is a classic Fall cold front that is producing much needed rain from Florida up into the Northeast. While the back edge of the moisture is not a perfectly sharp line, the edge between the dry air west of the applachains and the moist air to the east is evident. This whole mess will be moving north during the weekend to make a damp and breezy weekend in New England - if the leaves aren't off the trees yet - they will be by Monday.

A more unusual feature rests over Memphis. This is a closed-off low pressure that has made for a raw few days in the Mississippi Valley. At one point it was associated with the messier weather on the East Coast, but they have technically separated from each other. This closed off low has been spinning for days and drifting west and north slowly as the associated weather on its east side has drifted east on its own. It has little significant precipitation associated with the closed low - just showers and low clouds. The closed lwo will actually move north today and bring fog and drizzle to the Upper Midwest (including the DSM which has had SPECTACULAR fall weather this week).

Neither of these low pressures (the east coast mess or the closed off low in the Mississippi Valley) are in any hurry to go anywhere east or west. This is a bit unusual for Fall because most weather tends to move briskly along a west to east axis.

This is likely part of the La Nina effect setting up in the Pacific. This phenomenon brings cooler waters to the eastern Pacific which leads to a shifting in the jet stream across the ConUS. La Nina tends to shift the brunt of the moisture hitting the Pacific Coast northward and tends to make for warmer and dryer conditions across much of the US in the winter. You can definitely see a nice streak of moisture across the Pacific Northwest which is a powerful jet stream bring moisture across Oregon and into Montana and up into Canada. This shunting of the jet well to the north leaves much of the rest of the country without a driver to move the weather.

The pattern does not appear to shift dramatically in the near future...the trend is for the two lows to move gradually north and east leaving the rest of the country relatively dry and warm. Some arctic air may slip into the Great Lakes and Northeast in the early period of next week which will create the first lake effect snows of the season - particularly in the Upper Peninsula of MI and around Erie PA.

I don't mind the stagnant pattern one bit - we will have highs in the mid to upper 60s in the DSM this weekend and bright blue skies.

Maybe I can find a lawnmower to replace the one that mysteriously disappeared from our garage. Everything else is in place but I went to mow the lawn on Sunday and the mower was gone. Oh well....I just watched football the rest of the day!!!

Sunday Fun

2007-10-21T10:00:00.000-05:00

Uh-oh

2007-10-21T09:12:00.001-05:00

Well I am in the doghouse. Looks like I have developed an allergy to wine (which is bad news for those of you who know me) - by process of elimination (and Bubba thinks that I have no commmon sense) I have deduced that my evening congestion and morning sniffles are not due to the dog or the cat or the house or anything else. It would appear that it is wine - and red wine in particular. The conclusive proof arrived last night as I had a few glasses of Sangiovese Rose (horrible horrible horrible) which is not techincally red wine but it does possess more tannins than white and less than red.

So I was blogging and sipping and after a glass, I started to sneeze. Now I have not sneezed/wheezed in the evening (or morning) for some time. The last time it was noticeable was when my parents were here and we drank alot of red wine. So it got worse as the evening went along - and now I know. I am probably allergic to the tannins....some people get headaches, other intestinal drama, and I sound like I am getting the flu.

Well you can imagine that I do not make a good bed partner in this condition...Bubba was kept up by me much of the night and is not pleased with me today. Looks like my red wine days are numbered!

Bubba is currently at the Des Moines Marathon....he is going to watch the elite runners. I am still sneezing and wheezing and trying to get enough energy together to get to work for a few hours.

I am flitting about the net this a.m. trying to figure out when it begins to snow in Iowa. Some say Halloween can be white and others say that it is usually around Veteran's Day - definitely by Thanksgiving. The web was of no use in this regard....where are all the weather queens when I need them???

So I decided to look at more smutty blogs and found this funny comic from some porn-centric blog on Jimbo's blogroll.

I also happened to find a snappy blog with a great name: Faggoty-Ass Faggot. Give it a read.

Let's hope that I get out of the doghouse soon - its starting to get cold and I need my evening snuggles.

Larry Summer vs. Jim Watson

2007-10-20T19:09:00.000-05:00

Jim Watson and Larry Summers. Or, how I learned to hate radical academic activism because it is a crock of shit with no spine.

Both have waded into areas of pop culture that ought to be verboten to anyone who is trying to convey a complex idea to gotcha journalists - who tend to be not terribly smart, as a rule, and their focus is not to educate or inform, rather to create soap opera level drama to sell some newspapers.

I thought that Larry Summer's scalp was won only for the advancement of the very silly ideas that men and women ought to be identical. Feminists of the more radical ilk are prone to assert that women can do anything a man can. If that were all they would state, I would be all for their activism and agree whole-heartedly with them. Their overt statements of capability would be noble and pure and beyond disagreement. However, they use the guise of equal capability to project the idea that "equality" (note they are using a sleight of hand to switch capability with equality) is only achieved by mathematical representations of 50% men and 50% women. Until that measure is met - there is some sort of discrimination at work and you can fill in the blank as to who or what causes that sort of inequality. In academics, this "proof" of inequality is borne out by more men than women faculty in a department.

The reasons for disproportions in the gender representations at the faculty level are varied and complex. But I have yet to find anyone in my generation to say that capability has anything to do with the matter. Larry's point (which should not have been gender specific) was that women often have not achieved parity in percentage of representation in most academic departments because they may be confronting a complex stew of issues that includes their gender, societal norms, and personal value structure. He clearly stated that it is unfortunate that faculty people must work 80 hours a week to be successful and is there a way to develop a work-life balance where women who want to have children and be a responsible and available parent could (and should) also be successful in the academic world.

When men talk about women and their "tendencies" towards being responsible adults in terms of child-rearing as causes for disparities in gender representation in academics- the feminists turn red and start frothing. Larry's intention was right on the mark (aside from the gender specificity) - people (not only women) should be able to do good science and be good parents (or, by extension, have outside interests that they can pursue if it is not children). But his mistake was talking about women in particular. So the feminists went to town on him with every incendiary tactic they could devise. Capability (which Larry never talked about) was brought to the fore. The radical feminists and their minions never did address the 80 hour a week problem that Larry was trying to address - and that was startling in its omission in my humble opinion. The workload is the real problem here at a human level - not a gender level. No, these feminists chose to spin the argument that Larry was making the sin of talking about how women who fall away from academics because they are also wanting to raise a family and be a good parent. And I will be the first to assert that many men also fall away for the same reasons.

In an interesting aside, there are a number of areas where women and men have achieved proportional parity in academic departments. Some examples:

If one goes into any engineering school of any reputation, one will see that women are under-represented in some areas and equally represented in other areas. One clear example might be to compare electrical and chemical engineering. I graduated from NC State in Chem E. NCSU is a top ten school in Chem E. In all of my Chem E specific classes, including Thermodynamics I and II, Transport, Control, and the intro sets of 200 level classes, women and men were roughly in equal proportion. This is interesting given that NCSU has more men than women overall, and that Engineering is not supposed to attract women. But the fact remains that there were still 40-50% women in these classes. One of those women, my lab and study partner for 3 years, would regularly get a 100% on her tests - a true curve buster. But if you wandered across the street and went into the Electrical Engineering (double E), there were very few women.

Another great example: When I was at UVA as a grad student in Biomedical Engineering - women everywhere. Not only were they there, but they were publishing at an astonishing rate.

Another great example is veterinary medicine - Davis now has 70% women in any given class which is a complete change in demographics from 30 years ago when there were very few.

I'll bring up another example in biology - go to the Plant Biology dept at Davis (where I got my PhD) which is among the best in the world and you will find equal numbers of men and women - both genders succeeding using all measures.

This diversion is only to point out that there really is no bias in academics against women, per se, rather it is that women (in my opinion) who are pursuing an academic position may be focused in certain areas. Why that is - I haven't a clue. But I firmly believe that it has nothing to do with institutional bias and everything to do with a very complex mixture of choices that women confront that is probably not even on the radar screen of men. And this supports my hypothesis that women and men are equally capable in the diverse areas of science but probably are not comparable in how they approach their career choices.

A feminist would be quick to say that this disparity is because some gender-biased societal structure dissuades women in subtle ways from the sciences. But I would point to those getting a Chemical Engineering degree (widely held as among the hardest of degrees to obtain) and that, in my experience, this approaches a 50-50 split. Same goes for Plant Biology or Pediatrics or Psychology. None of those are a cake walk but all have tons of women who are top in their respective fields and equally represented in academic and working circles. But if you compared those three choices with Plant Breeding, Orthopedics or Neuroscience - these later three scientific fields (which are similar in their respective area but different in focus) are lacking in proportional representation of women.

My examples are specific to scientific areas and only to show that, maybe just maybe, women might be more selective in their interests in the sciences. Conversely, it may be that societal norms are at play here and many capable women are steered away from certain areas of academics by more sinister forces. As you could probably predict from the previous paragraph, I favor the former idea and frown upon the later.

So moving on from the diversion and Larry Summers, we now have to confront the more troubling character of the two. Jim Watson.

Here is an excerpt from CNN:

The controvery began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and he said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

Now first of all, it is hard to find the statement by Watson in its entirety on the web. That alone tells you that the journalists, whose job is to inform, are more intent on making sure they have distilled the issue to its "key" points (remember its all a soap opera to sell papers).

But Jim Watson should have known that the old days of his ability to make cynical remarks which draw, at most, an eye roll are long gone. The new world of instant scorn via the web are at hand. Particularly when making a really really really dumb set of statements.

His apparent intention was to discuss how evolution affects intelligence as, purely, a genetic trait. His idea was that geographical isolation allows for localized adaptation and that, by his estimation, intelligence, absurdly defined as a purely genetic trait, would be unequally distributed among these discrete populations. I have a number of problems with this. But I shan't build a house of cards just to knock it down. Let's just get to the heart of the matter - intelligence is a trait that has a very strong environmental component and the genetics of it are just one factor. Anyone who is gay will understand the fundamentals of this (i.e. the genetics of same sex attaction, much like intelligence, is present in every population but its ability to be observed is highly dependent upon the environmental factors that are at play.....more simply put, gayness and intelligence are never purged from a population but they can be masked or promoted using all kinds of societal devices).

A proof that intelligence is subject to environmental whims would be that there may be a fetus with all kinds of genetically favorable alleles that would confer high intelligence, but, if said fetus was residing in a mother who smoked crack all through the pregnancy, does any geneticist think that the posited "purely" genetic trait of intelligence would overcome a hostile environment? Another example might be if a very gifted child is raised in a family where he/she was fed a continuous diet of crap food and no books might become the next Einstein? Environment most likely trumps genetics again. We can play these hypothetical games all day and night and we will still get the same result - the phenotype (observed trait) for intelligence will always have a genetic as well as a environmental component.

Watson's first problem was asserting that intelligence is a genetic trait that has no environmental influence. Am I to believe that a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry (geneticists is usually lumped into either this category or in Medicine) who has spent his whole life in genetics and molecular biology can wantonly ignore the environment as a major component in complex traits, including intelligence? He argues that geographic isolation is the factor that matters. I would argue that the horrors of colonialism and subsequent despotism has made the African continent such a mess where few can get adequate nutrition, much less an education, would preclude a meaningful comparison of intelligence between a rich and educated Westerner and a poor and starving Ethiopian. Jim's point was that "testing" supposedly proves his hypothesis. Testing of what? You actually expect me to compare a population, using a written test, of people who have enforced education (incidentally along with high rates of adequate nutrition, vaccination, preventative care, etc) against a population of people who have to deal with famine and totalitarianism daily?

As if this sin were not bad enough, he then rubs salt into the wound by asserting that African Americans are collateral evidence. Ouch. If the victimization specialists, namely, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, were ever needed to expose a legitimate institutional bias, they have been handed enough hate to work with for the next few years. Mike Nifong is small potatoes compared with Jim Watson.

Here you have a person who has used Federal funds for most of his career to advance his scientific interests and he is now spouting this non-sense rhetoric during the late autumn of his illustrious career in genetics and molecular biology - and on a book publicity tour no less. Jim is now on forced leave while the board at Cold Spring Harbor Labs (CSHL) decides his fate. What decision needs to be made? We have a preeminent geneticist who cannot put together a logical thought about how environment affects a complex trait, namely, intelligence. Said geneticist then layers on pure racial bias as "proof" of his argument. The Federal Government ought to halt all monies to CSHL immediately and continue this spending freeze until Jim Watson has been stripped from any project using Federal funds that he is even remotely associated with. This move would be good politics and better ethics. To allow someone of his stature, and I would argue coddling, to spew a fundamental flaw in basic genetics and then use racist tenets to support his flawed argument is beyond the pale - particularly when his institute operates disproportionately on Federal funds paid for by you and me.

If Barak Obama were sharp, as I think he is, he could use this as a very useful opportunity to frame a discussion about how the second largest class of entitlement benefactors of Federal dollars in America (namely, academics - the first being the military) should have their speech regulated. I refuse to accept that anyone on the Federal dole should be allowed to spout hate (and use the language of science as the method of pontification) to continue to receive funding.

And where is the outrage against Jim Watson from all the feminists who so quickly excoriated Larry Summers? Where are they? What are they doing? Probably still scratching their heads about how geographic isolation drives the evolution of traits. If they are so "informed" about gender neutrality of complex traits, shouldn't they be burning someone's bra over this? Racial bias and gender bias have the same origin. As a gay man, I would posit that homophobia could be included right along with the two previously stated forms of bias.

Larry's sin was to forward a nuanced discussion about developing a work-life balance that would allow women (and, as he failed to mention overtly, men) to succeed in academics. Jim Watson, on the other hand, projects a flawed hypothesis about the evolution of intelligence in genetic terms while ignoring the environmental factors and uses racist tenets as his support.

It is a sad day for academics. And a sadder day for radical activism. Jim thought that he could couch the discussion in genetics and get away with it....and he really has if we don't see a meaningful response from the academic zealots. For if they don't see the very real advancement of hate and racial bias that has been presented, then their PhDs are useless.

Tasting notes

2007-10-16T22:14:00.000-05:00

The parents were in town this past weekend. Dad likes wine while Mom has never been a big fan. But suddenly Mom has become a Pinot Noir drinker - she had a knee replacement recently and a subtle dry wine settles the pain at the end of the day without upsetting her stomach.

While I shy away from American Pinot Noir - it is always a crap shoot - I REALLY shy away from California Pinot for it tends to be thin and harsh on my palette. Additionally, the price point is too high for me to continue to wager on one disappointment after another. And why bother when generic Sonoma Zin offers such a burst of the best of CA wines???

However, Dad and I stopped by a wine shop on the way back from my workplace on Friday and picked up two bottles of wine, one being a Pinot Noir from CA and the other a Riesling from the Finger Lakes. The Pinot was truly superb - and a bargain at 15 bucks.

Tasting notes:

2005 Angeline Pinot Noir from Russian River Valley

Wine was clear and bright - a diluted burgundy hue.

Bouquet has a sharp alcohol component mixed with generic berry - I suspected the worst at this point.

Taste: Sharp notes of smoke and cherry that was front and center - the wine snapped your tongue to attention without being harsh. Strong alcohol component worked nicely with the smoke and cherry notes and filled the mouth with a warm body - it filled the mouth without coating it. Finish was dramatic in how quick the strong notes left and the subtle note of oak lingered on. Tasteful use of oak at this price point (particularly with Pinot) is rare indeed. Very easy to drink - this is not silky but the wine is very, very smooth.

Would pair perfectly with herbed pork or a tangy grilled chicken.

Quick summary: Cabernet Sav Lite - all the best that a Cab Sav varietal has to offer in a breezy, light package. A perfect wine when having company over. Pinot this integrated, at this price point, and from CA is a rare trifecta.

2006 Dr Konstantin Frank Semi Dry Riesling

Color was a clear strawish with a hint of light green

Bouquet was light in acid and green notes, it gently wafted up the nose

Taste: Very soft and even across the palette - the light notes of muscat and berry were delicate and nuanced but definitely not wimpy. The wine had a warmth that lingered long and a sweetish finish of granny smith apples. This is not a crisp wine. Thankfully, the acid lingers in the background to give some tension. A wine that lures you back for another taste so you can put your finger on what it is that is so good. Dad couldn't get enough of it.

Paring would definitely be with a milder cheese or quiche and could stand up to a grilled scallop nicely. Too delicate and ephemeral for substantial food, but perfect for a brunch with fag food on a warm Sunday morning.

Summary: Where Granny Smith meets Gala

Back in the Saddle again....

2007-10-16T21:12:00.001-05:00

Lord...things have been busy.
I have been on a travel binge of late. Part of my promise to myself, upon coming to Iowa, was to get into a more normal lifestyle. And for me, travel is an important component of living a full life.

I was back from Rehomo just long enough to get some work done before I had to jet back out to the East for a trip to the Finger Lakes. Hot Mama's neck of the woods.

I visited some friends there who live in Ithaca and they were wonderful hosts. Lots of dinners and drinks. We did a wonderful wine tour along the west shore of Lake Keuka - purported to be the prettiest of the Finger Lakes.

While I would not venture an opinion on that given this was my first trip to the area, it was definitely a pretty day and a wonderful time was had by all. We had a nice trip to Bully Hill Vineyards....the dry Riesling was enchanting. Then up to Dr. Konstantin Frank for some really outstanding wines....Riesling was phenomenal. The tasting room was simplicity and very relaxed. Small groups did tastings over the course of 20-30 minutes and there was no rush. A view from the deck of the vineyard.

I fell in love with Finger Lake Riesling right then and there. Then down the way to Heron Hill which was much more of a rush and much less enjoyable....but damn if they did not have a fantastic Johannisberg Rielsing.

We toured the campus of Cornell, saw waterfalls, had a nice drive through the countryside and did some leaf peeping...although the leaves were still in the early stages of changing.

All in all, a fantastic way to spend 3 short days. Upon my return, my parents came for a visit a few days later and spent the weekend. We had a nice visit and ate very well. They seemed to enjoy their time in Des Moines.

This week is all about getting back into the swing of things. I had two papers accepted in the past week which was a relief. These two outstanding manuscripts were my last clear link to my academic life. Having them accepted led me to feel that I am bringing things to completion and that, finally, I could move on to focus on other areas of my life.

Bubba is enjoying his new job....his new boss is a golf fanatic. Bubba has already been golfing twice with the new boss. I think that this is good for Bubba's professional development to golf with the work crowd and it is good for him to get back into a normal rhythm of life.

So it appears that Fall is going to bring us back to a very normal lifestyle of work all week and relaxing weekends of watching football and doing house stuff. I could use some predictability!

Hot Mama will be moving to Des Moines in a few short weeks....she is rather excited about starting a new position and, probably more exciting, emerging from the academic mire. I look forward to talking with her about this major transition that we both have made. It should make for some interesting blog entries!

Linus continues to thrive in Iowa - he is just happy as can be chasing rabbits and protecting us from chipmunks. He's become so butch!

I should be providing more regular entries for the foreseeable future and there is alot to explore!

Academics?

2007-09-27T22:19:00.000-05:00

I have been talking with Hot Mama this week about her professional opportunities and it has given me pause to think about my own path. Hot Mama is confronting what might be viewed by my partner Bubba as the "bullshit moment".

I say this with all sincerity that I firmly believe that education is a valuable contribution and choice as a path to follow. The problem is that in higher education, the commitment to education wanes as the need to generate revenue (at the behest of the dean and one's peers) waxes. This push and pull at the highest level of education has attracted something of an odd creature. That sort of person who is more interested in their grant portfolio than their job. This may sound odd to anyone outside the academy, but those of us in the know, know. That is to say that we no longer interest ourselves in the gregarious professor as the paragon of virtue in academics, we virtue the money whore.

This is a sad state of affairs - my own progression into private industry was largely facilitated by the knowledge that I was always viewed in my career as "OK" or "having potential". But then again, I like working with students and I don't like writing endless novels on esoterica. I, in short, like to either make a difference or get something done. It is the engineer in me. I got my undergrad degree in Chemical Engineering and then made the right turn (or left turn as many in the right wing would call it) into academics. I value much of my education in grad school and thereafter with a stint as a post-doc and a stint in a publicly funded research institute. But that totalled 9 years of my life and I was still viewed as "having potential".

Oddly, upon entry into the private sector, I get things done, I run a big lab (bigger than most academics and a much larger budget), I treat my lab people like grad students - I expect top-notch science and critical thought, and I get immense satisfaction and praise for the way I run my lab as well as interact with people. In short, I am acheiving scientific self-actualization. Hot Mama and I have discussed this at some length and we have concluded, in different phrasing, that praise, of any form, is seldom given in academics.

Imagine trying to become an expert in something in the total absence of praise and you will envision the state of academics today. I hope to float back one day into academics to teach and run a small lab. Basically, to educate the younger ones (and older ones too....I am not biased). But that is not pertinent today in the academic world. Education is the excuse for raising money via grants and whoring the grad students and post-docs for your own advancement.

Were I to have actually thought about this at an earlier stage, I would have left all together. But I stayed on and have "made it". But according to my peers in the academic world, I am a "cop out". Yes, the need to be an academic and submit to a paternalistic system where you have to spend a decade preening for the recommendation to get a position is at hand. And why bother? My father was tenured at the point I am at now. Most of my professional contacts who are in their 40s had a much easier time getting a prof job. But not the current crop of hopeful academics....we are expected to bring in money, and alot of it, immediately. And for what goal? Not to educate but as a money sluice. Disgusting. Layer on top of that the mantra of "academic freedom" (and when you are writing 4 grants a year for a few bucks...do you think you are free?) and you end up seeing the bullshit for what it is. Dysfunctional people looking askance of anyone who is not following their path of self-negation (i.e. if you go to the beach, you are not a "serious" person because you could be working). So sad.

The academic world has turned to the very dark side. Education is not valued in any shape or form. Money is. No wonder I retreated to the private world. I have a fully stocked lab, lots of great toys, a fantastic staff in lab and I can see what my work will become in real time. In short, I make a product that sells in the marketplace. The engineer in me loves it.

I suggest that anyone who wants to pursue a PhD now is crazy. I am. But one must remember that the PhD is all nostalgia now. It is not the way it once was. To climb to the top you cannot have a balanced life as the profs of yore did. You, simply, must be a capitalist who likes to write 10 grants for every 1 you might get. That is the reality. Can you imagine writing 10 big grants and praying for one?

Sounds like inefficiency to me. And parents pay 20K+ for their kids to interact with these messes? Get a masters and get out. My advice is freely given and I would suggest that anyone thinking about the heroic ideal of being an academic would think twice.

Hell, no one even calls me Doctor now. What was the point? Were I not crazy, I would have taken my own advice long ago and been better because of it. But I did not and I am very happy now. But I am lucky. Hot Mama will be too....but the price is high. Far too high for the normal person. To follow your academic heart, you must be part masochist and part sociopath now.

HRC.....vomit

2007-09-25T21:40:00.000-05:00

While I feel that HRC may do some things that are right....they sure do alot that is wrong. Chris Crain brings up another item in a litany of things that HRC should be paying attention to and is not.

I bring this up, not only because Chris is right, but also because the HRC sponsored an LBGT oriented "debate" on gay issues (in LA....where else?) which was then recycled by the Advocate into a puff-piece on Hillary Clinton. I subscribed to the Advocate for Bubba, that must have been years ago! And they keep sending it to me with no renewal. Well the most recent issue, that came during my fab trip to Rehoboth , has Hillary on the front and lots of HRC plugs.

VOMIT.

Cross-marketing is a reality, I know - but come-the-fuck-on. The general election is 14 months away and the Advocate is doing a breathless article about Hillary at the behest of HRC. I threw the Advocate away immediately. Not even worthy of recycling. Pure rubbish. Am I to believe that gays are actually a political force in the nation? Maybe in the urban centers of Atlanta, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago there is the need to pander to the gays - but at a nationwide level? Taking a nationwide view, the gays are trivial as a political force (i.e. the number of votes). But they do donate money and this is where the HRC is whoring the gays. We are being sold down the river for fundraising. And the gays play into this wholeheartedly.

Joe is using gay capital to become a lobbying force. Not using the bully-pulpit as should be done. Nope, he is doing slick marketing to the homos and then he parlays those dollars into access with Hillary.

Chris Crain's point was clear and simple. Gay rights are not being taken care of at a local level. I have seen Hillary and Barak and John Edwards in my own neighborhood in Des Moines - but not Joe. We should see Joe here because they just legalized Gay Marriage for 12 hours in Polk County,Iowa...until the inevitable judicial stay was put on it. So if Hillary can trot out here every week for this, that, and the other - why can't Joe do that? Particularly for the pipe dream "Gay Marriage" issue which HRC pimps endlessly. This is really fucking simple - HRC is not worried about the small skirmishes (Iowa??), they are worried about bribing DC politicians to effect change. And that requires bucks, lots and lots of bucks.

HRC is just a lobby like the AFL-CIO and Teachers' Union which whores their membership to the Democrats. If Joe cannot schlep his bony ass out here to the hinterlands for a cause that HRC is "so committed" to when Hillary and Barak are endlessly making their appearences, then what is the point?

This begs the question "But who is providing these bucks"? I would posit that it is all those homos I saw in Rehoboth this past weekend. HRC has done a wonderful job of taking money from homos and turning those pocket-picking events into a status symbol. While this may be the norm, this does not mean that it is acceptable. I refuse to believe that the HRC pimped via the Advocate for Hillary was not planned. And planned 14 months in advance? If it was July 2008, do you think that Hillary would be on the cover of the Advocate? Surely not. Joe is using the gay capital to score a coup with Hillary before the campaign starts in earnest. He gets his access with the dollars of the gays wanting to look good at the all-important HRC events but he does not get that access at the correct time. Hillary can be on the cover of the Advocate now because it doesn't matter at this point in the election cycle. Let's do a little experiment - let's see how gay positive Hillary is in the summer of 2008....I'll guess that when the votes REALLY start to matter, the 1% of the nation who is gay will not be as interesting. At that point, the real dollars and the real votes will be prioritized. Meanwhile, what about the day-to-day gay issues?

The strategy is so overt that it borders on a travesty. But rich queens will pay Joe to rub elbows with Hillary at the initial phases of the cycle. Will the gays hold Joe's feet to the fire when push comes to shove next summer? Don't hold your breath.

We need a national gay organization that stands up for us 365 days of the year. Not playing cat and mouse with the election cycle. Gay rights are human rights. We all are familiar with the Equal Protection Clause and our basis for political discourse should radiate from this facet of the law, not fund raising cycles or the whims of the political climate. Chris Crain's blog entry was a clear example of that.....when your leaders are busy sucking the dick of any politician who will whip it out, then you are reduced to being a lobby. And not in the good way. You become a whore.

Shame on you Joe.

Beachy days

2007-09-25T21:02:00.001-05:00

I just returned to Iowa from a ultra-fab beach vacation. The weather was stunning....low 80s, nice breeze and crystal clear blue skies. It was the best weather that only September at the beach can offer. Jimbo was our herder and Bruce Weber. He got some amazing photos when trooping about Rehoboth.

Our trip:
I flew out first thing Saturday and fetched Jimbo from his Shaw lair. I had to deal with the no left turn drama on New York Avenue which was the one hindrance of the day....I had to go 30 minutes out of my way and deep into the ghetto because I missed the First Street exit onto North Capitol.
Jimbo was ready to go with the Big Girl Rehoboth Mix 2007 and lots of banter for the drive. DC was Africa hot but by the time we got to the pool party at Rehoboth, the front had passed and we had nice dry air push in. We had drinks by the pool and caught up with Jimbo's buds....good times. Off to the guest house and who should be staying in the room at the end of the hall but MakersMark. Love him!!!

Rehoboth Guest House was our staging area....fab place and the manager Tom Napier-Collins was perfection. We got primped up and headed out for cocktails at Aqua...lots of DC gay attitude. But that is why God made cocktails...to make most gay people tolerable. We decided to skip dinner and head back for wardrobe change #2 and a quick set of cocktails on the patio...MakersMark brought hooch....we giggled on the veranda and had cocktails awaiting an appropriate time to go to the Double L's. Around 11:30 we rolled into the Double L's and promptly kept cocktailing. Delicate Flower was in rare form and Jimbo was prowling for hot Cavemens.....MakersMark and I stayed in the corner and chatted. Well Jimbo and MakersMark did not last too long - they were headed home around 12:30. DF left for some recreation with a beefy buy in a Navy T-shirt. That left me alone - I was targeted by some couple who had a guest that they wanted to unload for the night....so I talked with a very nice guy forEVER until our valet (Jim - from NYC - was doing valet service) returned to liberate me from polite chit-chat.

I then had cocktails with the valet on the veranda and Joe joined us...he was a very nice boy from PA.

Well I was awoken the next morning when DF entered and we sat in bed chatting. MakersMark heard the chatter and hopped in bed....we were giggling which awoke Jimbo. Jimbo came down and informed us that all he could hear was "Blah Blah Blah Cocktail Cocktail Cocktail Blah Blah Blah."

We semi-hustled to get to the beach and had a delightful time Sunday morning on the beach. Jimbo informed us that we needed to eat so we had lunch in gay-town and returned for a stunning afternoon of sun and fun. We cruised a really hot guy named Joe all afternoon and caught up on our gossip. Sadly, the crab dip was not as fresh as it ought to have been and we all had some intestinal issues. MakersMark was taken down for the night but the rest of us powered through for more drinks at Aqua and the Double L's.

We all slept like logs Sunday after bidding DF farewell...he had to work.

Monday was gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. We went down to Poodle Beach and Jimbo was working some woofy guy the next towel over. MakersMark and I just sat under the umbrellas and strolled the beach. It was truly a fantastic day.

We finished up with cocktails at Blue Moon Monday night and dinner and then more cocktails where I proceeded to get picked up by a straight couple. Nothing happened but it was definitely the guy doing the picking up and the wife was just going along with it. The weird thing was that it was Monday and they had gotten married on Saturday. They were on the honeymoon and he was already trying to pick up a third.

Sounds like that marriage is going to be a mess.

We rolled out this morning and I flew back to Iowa. A great time had by all and I feel the most relaxed I have felt in YEARS. September on the East Coast is always good but we luckily got some of the most amazing weather.

SIGH....back to work tomorrow!

Beach Holiday

2007-09-22T05:26:00.000-05:00

At long last, a beach holiday.

Children, it has come to pass that I have finally gotten my East Coast Fall beach holiday. I grew up fishing with my dad at the beach in the Fall and we would also go for long weekends at the beach with the whole family.

Blue skies, warm temps and two of my favorites will be with me this weekend. Of course, everyone knows Jimbo. Also making a hit and run appearance will be my ski buddy, Delicate Flower. DF has the unfortunate problem that no one thinks he is gay...I still don't. So I told him he is going to have to work on projecting his gayness....he promised to unleash the "hair burner"....before DF was a respected economist, this girl was like Truvy in Steel Magnolias...burning hair and dishing gossip.

Here is the forecast:

Tonight: Partly cloudy, with a low around 65. South wind 6 to 8 mph becoming west.

Sunday: Sunny, with a high near 77. North wind between 10 and 13 mph.

Sunday Night: Clear, with a low around 55. North wind between 6 and 8 mph.

Monday: Sunny, with a high near 79. North wind around 9 mph becoming southeast.

Monday Night: Mostly clear, with a low around 64.

Tuesday: Sunny, with a high near 81.

So if you are in Rehoboth, look for the furry (Jimbo and DF) and fairy (me) combo to be tearing up Poodle Beach.

OUT???

2007-09-20T23:09:00.000-05:00

Jeez...I thought I was OK with being gay. But I have had to butch it up for two days with a bunch of breeders (real breeders in the agronomy aspect) and I am a bit lost.
I had to tour Kansas with a bunch of breeders the past two days and walk fields and talk about traits. I found it very revealing in many aspects.

One aspect is that I learned ALOT. Quite interesting to see how a potential field product makes it to the market. Another was how out of place that I felt. I have been pretty open about being a homo. But today, I was peppered by questions about being married and kids. Not being 25 or 30, you cannot slide by with anything. Marriage and family are the reality in the heartland. Oh what have I gotten myself into?

Luckily I know about fishing and hiking and rugby. That buys time. But how much? Will I be the rarity in my world....a gay guy who likes it out in the field??

It will all come out in due time. But I was not ready to come out today to a bunch of hard core heteros. Gay pride yes.....but sensibility also. I really confronted how hard it is to be a homo in the heartland.

Rehomo

2007-09-19T06:48:00.000-05:00

Well my long awaited beach holiday is just about here. I have to go to Kansas tonight and tomorrow to look at dying plants, come back for a quick day of work on Friday and then jet out DC. I'll pick up a car, pick up Jimbo and his new, fab dance cha-cha disc and we will jet out to Rehoboth for a weekend of sun, fun, and boys. Weather is looking good too!

Perhaps we will see you on the deck at the Blue Moon!!!

Intersections

2007-09-19T06:19:00.000-05:00

Hey all...I had Hot Mama up for a wonderful weekend visit in the DSM. She is up here exploring some professional opportunities and visiting with Bubba and I. Hot Mama and I talked alot about leaving the academic world. My departure after 9 years was swift by many people's standards but necessitated by the instability at the institute where I worked in DC and the departure of my boss for a faculty job.

Hot Mama's discussions reminded me that I may not have thought through every aspect of the academic/private division. But it does occur to me that I definitely stayed in academics, in part, because of the romantic view of the professor. Teaches class, helps educate bright young minds, runs a small focused lab, etc.

Interestingly, Hot Mama and I discussed that you never actually got to see that romantic principle at work in big labs at big universities.

She is mulling over alot right now....but one book was of particular help for me and Hot Mama is reading it now too which is called"So What are you going to do with that" A must read for anyone who is a bit lost after waging the academic wars and wanting more sanity in their life.

On the other side of the metaphorical block, we have Jimbo who is fighting wars of a more urban nature. The gentrification wars. He was discussing with me this week how he has gotten some major negative feedback about his blog posting a few weeks back regarding the kids who hang out on the block, all dress alike, don't seem to be employed, and the occassional gunfire that does enrupt seems to always come from that same area......

Well Jimbo had people pulling that victimization non-sense and my favorite is the historical card - Shaw is a historically black neighborhood. Well, identity politics tends to crack quickly where large sums of money are to be made and Jimbo and his ilk are the pioneers that are taking owners capital and converting a neglected area into a place that is habitable by all (who have the money).

Here is the rub, which you probably picked up in the last paragraph. Jimbo is not going to earn a dime for his efforts and will not see a rent reduction in trying to get the community going in the right direction. No, people who rent in the city are being forced into marginal areas (well where else are you going to move? a closet in logan for twice the price?) to do the gentrification and the owners reap the rewards.

It is nothing new nor nothing to get exercised about...simple capitalism. However, like Hot Mama and her struggles with the nostalgia of the professorship, Jimbo seems to be confronting an analogous problem. Living in the city is great and living in edgy neighborhoods can be exciting and meaningful - but at some point, you get too old to keep moving and making neighborhoods livable that will then become too expensive for you to continue living in.

Bubba got a good job yesterday too.....

Intersections.....lots of people in my life are having large cosmic forces come together now. It will make for an interesting last part of the year.

My Young Science Geek Days

2007-09-13T06:56:00.000-05:00

Well, if you did not know, I am a bit of a geek. I try to hide it well but there was a time when the two halves of my budding self (gay and geek) intersected into a sweet spot. Luckily pop culture was there to provide an outlet.

In the early 80s, there was a bubble of hot sci-fi guys - not like the geeky Dr. Who shit, but the more virile sort that spoke to us geeks who weren't going to be programmers.

My pantheon!

The Drunk Deacon

2007-09-13T06:42:00.000-05:00

From Drudge - note the number of stitches:

OU fan accused of gruesome injury to man clad in UT shirt

By SEAN MURPHY

The Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY -- To some University of Oklahoma football fans, there are things that just aren't done in the heart of Sooner Nation, and one of them is to walk into a bar wearing a Texas Longhorns T-shirt.

That's exactly what touched off a bloody skirmish that left a University of Texas fan nearly castrated and an Oklahoma fan facing aggravated assault charges that could put him in prison for up to five years.

The case has set off a raging debate in this football-crazed region about the extreme passions behind a bitter rivalry. Some legal observers even question whether this case could ever truly have an impartial jury.

"I've actually heard callers on talk radio say that this guy deserved what he got for wearing a Texas T-shirt into a bar in the middle of Sooner country," said Irven Box, an attorney in this city 20 miles from OU's campus in Norman.

Police say Brian Christopher Thomas, 32, walked into Henry Hudson's Pub on June 17 wearing a Longhorns T-shirt and quickly became the focus of football trash talk from another regular, Sooners fan Allen Michael Beckett, 53.

Thomas told police that when he went to the bar to pay his tab, Beckett grabbed him in the crotch, pulled him to the ground and wouldn't let go, even as other bar patrons tried to break it up.

It took more than 60 stitches to close the wound, and police interviewed Thomas at a nearby hospital.

Beckett's attorney, Billy Bock, concedes that his client commented about Thomas' shirt but said that it was just good-natured ribbing and that he apologized to Thomas when it appeared to upset the Texas fan. Later, Bock said, Thomas approached his client at the bar and threatened him.

Thomas' attorney disputes Beckett's version. "That's total malarkey," Hughes said. "My client never said a word to him. He got up to pay and when he paid and left a tip, the guy grabbed him."

Beckett, a church deacon, federal auditor and former Army combat veteran, has pleaded not guilty. His next court appearance comes Oct. 4, two days before the Sooners and Longhorns tangle in their annual football game at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas .

Wednesday beef

2007-09-12T07:55:00.000-05:00

Well I don't have to troll the net for skin this week....the Paperboy did it for me.
Track and Field types and I think the Paperboy got them all!!!

Some perfect specimens of Caveman!

That wacky Cyd

2007-09-12T07:34:00.001-05:00

Cyd Z at Outsports worked himself a funny little deal, check this link for more on the Gay-Straight Fantasy Football Challenge.

The straight names looker gayer than the gay names....the "Romosexuals" anyone?
I can only presume this is a pun on Tony Romo who is apparently banging Carrie Underwood.

Here is a picture of Tony Romo with Carrie.

Hennepin County Minnesota Sux Donkey Dix

2007-09-12T07:30:00.001-05:00

Can you beleive this? From Reuters via Drudge.

Court grants Sen. Craig hearing on sex charge

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Minnesota court on Tuesday granted U.S. Sen. Larry Craig a hearing on his request to let him take back the guilty plea he made after his arrest in a men's room sex sting.

The Hennepin County District Court said the hearing would be held on September 26 at a courthouse in Edina, a town near Minneapolis -- just days before the September 30 deadline the Idaho Republican set for himself to resign if his name is not cleared.

The announcement came a day after lawyers for the three-term senator filed a motion in court saying he pleaded guilty to the charge against him because he panicked under intense anxiety and fear of publicity, and is innocent of wrongdoing.

Craig, 62, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in August, was ordered to pay $575 and given a 10-day suspended sentence.

He was arrested on June 11 at the Minneapolis airport by an undercover officer who said Craig peeked into his stall, sat down in the stall next to him, tapped his foot and later brushed it against his and reached his hand under the divider in an effort to solicit a sexual encounter.

Under pressure from Republicans, who lost control of Congress last year following a string of scandals, Craig announced his intention to resign effective September 30, but indicated he might not do so if he could clear his name.

Reaganomics 2.0

2007-09-11T21:23:00.000-05:00

A funny thing happened this week while reading the WSJ. I saw the clarification of that was wrong with Reaganomics 1.0. This came in the form of a series of articles about how Scotland was using tax cuts to stimulate the economy - with one small adjustment (called Reaganomics 2.0) - that educating people was also required.

Tax cuts are fantastic for stimulation of an economy - it opens up capital to be spent on other areas of R&D or other forms of development. No problem there. But the problem arises quickly as to who will drive this expansion?

We need educated people to force this economy along as it does not occur because of tax cuts. The right-ish view is that tax cuts offer the salve alone. SO NOT TRUE. Someone has to run this company and others have to implement the new initiatives.

So I have always wondered, how can one have tax cuts and growth? The tax cut, in and of itself, does not educate anyone. The reduction in revenues to the state only allows additional allocations to the company. But who will work to push this capital investment forward and how will we pay for this?

Education costs money. Alot of money. And most is wasted on those that will never drive the economy. But Reaganomics 1.0 assumed that these educated people would come from....anyone? Oh, property taxes that fund local education at the secondary level...but this level of education never drives the "knowledge economy" forward. It is higher education that does....and funded at the Federal level.

So I find it odd that the WSJ lauds Scotland for the dual approach - tax cuts are great. But how do you fund the people who will drive the economy forward? If the right-ish culture likes to spend lavishly on the defense of the country (the largest entitlement program in America) then ought it not also include the knowledge based curricula?

Much hay has been made of the re-jiggering of the Reagan philosophy...but to make anything of value requires some investment. Capitalism rests upon this axiom. To make money you must spend some capital.

Tax cuts are fine. No problem there. But you must also have the workforce to implement the capital to some productive end. Herein lies the rub. Tax monies, for all their waste (and it is alot in alot of different areas), do provide a value to our economy - they sink capital into the promising future of training people to do something. And to bring value to the American economy, those trained people need to be able to do something more than be literate. They need to synthesize novel ideas into products.

Three cheers for tax cuts. But those cuts must be taken in the broader view of how our economy is structured. If you are not willing to invest in the building blocks, then how can you expect the economy to be driven forward? Education costs money. Period.

I'm glad to see that Reaganomics 1.0 has learned this painfully obvious lesson and progressed to the more elightened 2.0 version. Learning, while widely viewed as wasteful, is a necessary opportunity cost. If you don't learn the people, which people will push us forward?

I'll just venture that it is not outsorcing....while this may work in the short term view of Wall Street, it weakens our country. Education is a valuable waste of money. If that were not true, then why is the government spending so much on basic research? Cut taxes, sure - but don't cut them to satisfy short term gains in earnings for long term losses to other countries. If Scotland sees this, ought not we?

Shock and Awe

2007-09-11T20:52:00.000-05:00

I find myself a bit at a loss regarding the reports this week about the "surge" in Iraq. WSJ has reported widely this week that the surge, notably in Anbar province, has been accompanied by cash dispersals to the leaders of the tribes in provinces. While a little cash never hurts, it was shocking to me to find that the cash amounts to tens of MILLIONS of dollars in suitcases (dispersed by the Marines).

Let's just get this straight. The surge is being heralded by the right-ish press as being effective - but the cost is bribing the very people who were using the Marines (who are delivering the money in bundles) as target practice in the very recent past. So let's do a little experiment - let's cut off the cash and see if the "surge" is working. Very crafty of this administration to bring together a much heralded surge with a surge in cash to the leaders - this bribe effectively halting (temporarily) the dismemberment of American GIs.

It is disturbing to me on many levels that the bribes are in place now - and not years ago. Years ago we could be waging and economic war to placate the factions that might be lulled, flush with cash, into getting along with each other and supporting the central government. But the current development is taking place as a direct payment (under the table) from the US to the terrorists. Perhaps the tribesmen are not true terrorists, rather they are playing the sides against the middle, but if I had a son or daughter who was killed in Anbar a year ago - what would be a reasonable reaction?

This is organized crime - effectively a Mob style operation. I give you money and you give me cover. It would be remiss of me to say that this is not the prevailing model in the Mideast. Egypt is paid money every year (and no closer to democracy than in the 70s) via "foreign aid" to leave Isreal alone, overtly. Jordan is in the same boat. Our fair Jimmy Carter set this up and it has been carried on for decades by both parties.

We can pick out other clear examples of our money going to bribe good "overt" behavior while failing to scratch the surface. Saudi Arabia and Venezuala are paramount in this regard. Why do we fail to translate a clear message to these two totalitarian states (one a monarchy and the other a facist/populist state) as we did with South Africa and its segregationist past? Or Pakistan with its military dictatorship?

I find it very taxing to feel compelled to be nationalistic about the US when our actions are so clearly antagonistic to the pursuit of democracy. Should we buy oil from the nationalized Saudi oil congolmerate? Should we buy refined gasoline from Venezuala when they have such clear Marxist tendancies? Should we continue to pay Egypt to behave when they have been in a "state of emergency" for the past 20+ years?

These tendencies of the government to harbor antagonistic states and coddle them while also denouncing Iraq, Iran, N Korea, et al. strikes me as peculiar. But more peculiar is the fact that the same Marines who were being shot at last year in Anbar are now delivering cash to the tribal leaders who now are our "allies".

The surge in Iraq is masquerading as a mob-style operation to buy time. It is no coincidence that the violence has tempered dramatically while the cash payments (in suitcases) have increased.

Ought we bribe the Iraqis??? Well if it was a good idea, it would have happened at the opening of the war, right? Or is the bribery a clear sign that we need cover, for a time, to get through 2008?

Neither party in government has taken this on in a clear way or offered a clear path. But if we have to bribe our enemies in Iraq, as we do around the globe (China anyone??), ought we just say that this is the only way forward in a rough and tumble world. Extortion like this occurs only in the vacuum, much like the mob operates.

Home of the free and land of the brave? I fear it is much more capitalistic than that. Such altruistic thoughts are better left in speeches.

Iowa visitors

2007-09-11T07:34:00.000-05:00

Well Bubba and I figured that when we moved to the heartland, no one would ever come to visit us....Des Moines (The DSM) not the middle of nowhere, but west of town, you can see it.

So we took a month or two to get settled and that phase has ended and now we are having guests!!!
1. Hot mama is staying with us this weekend for a quick visit. Love Hot Mama - she is fresh back from a fun wedding and has the hankering for some beef - I hope the Midwest will not disappoint.
2. The 'rents are coming in October for a visit. My dad grew up in the Midwest, the oldest of eight, was acutally born 1.5 hrs east of The DSM. Apparently I have a million second and third cousins all over eastern Iowa - although I would never know them if I saw them. He is kind of excited about cruising about Iowa. Mom will love to see my cat and do some shopping at the Farmer's Market.
3. Delicate Flower has just made his reservations for Thanksgiving!!! So excited. I'll take him down to the Saddle for a night of cocktails at the bar where you "never have to ask for a double".

Perhaps this picture below will be DF after a night of the high life in The DSM????
Anyone know who is passed out? It is not me...This was a pic from the summer that was passed along to me which I have hesitated putting on the web. DF, my conscience in this regard, said that I should post it.

It is Fall...

2007-09-10T23:48:00.000-05:00

I have been discussing the impending Fall weather....after a day that started with a temp around 60 and dropped the rest of the day with steady rain, Fall is here.

As an East coast person, 50 degrees in mid-September is unheard of. More like late October. Lows at the end of the week will be in the low 40s with upper 30s just to the north. Children, what have I gotten myself into?

Snow at Halloween? Bubba might just have an open revolt if that happens.

I bought some new and very fab Fall clothes which I got to wear some of today. Lots of rusty-orange colors. With the weather, felt very nice to change gears. One week ago, it was a low of almost 80 and sticky...what a difference a week makes!

Very excited about a trip to Rehoboth with Jimbo in a few weeks. We are going to have a nice Saturday to Tuesday trip to the beach and will be staying in Gay Central. My banana hammock has been washed and pressed and I have a few back issues of the New Yorker to catch up on. I only hope the late and sunny days of autumn will be with us. I spent many a day growing up at the beach in the Fall in NC - some of those late Sept and early Oct days were so clear and brilliant, it was like a movie.

It will also be nice to visit with Jimbo and have some R&R time to chat and catch up. There will likely be a few blog entries that will come from our exploits! Delicate Flower may make a showing and she is always good at stirring up the pot o' trouble.

NFL!!!!

2007-09-09T18:32:00.001-05:00

Finally, after a 8 long months, NFL is finally back in season.

This is a nice pic from the last preseason game which took place on this past Thursday. Indianapolis easily trounced New Orleans. The pic is of Peyton Manning (QB-Indy) talking with the SUPER-DREAMY Drew Brees (QB- NO).

All those cavemen lovers out there, today Brian Urlacher was looking fetching in the black Bears outfit - sadly Da Bears lost to San Diego in a mess of a game. Chris Cooley was also in fine form as the Skins took out Miami - there are two pics below of Cooley in short shorts. All of this goes to show that even butch straight men can have embarassingly gay moments!!

And the dreamiest of all current QBs, none other than Eli Manning, is starting tonight in the top game of the day (Giants vs. Dallas). Hot Mama - you need to get to NY and land this man!!!

That's my hoof

2007-09-09T16:41:00.000-05:00

Very important!

Planet Unicorn Episode 5 is now available! Its a good one.

You can also download the ringtone!

Madison County

2007-09-09T09:55:00.000-05:00

Hey Y'all

Well I mentioned yesterday that fall was coming and guess what appeared on the lawn this morning....a ton of yellow leaves from the walnut tree. I came down to get my coffee this morning and the weather was cool, cloudy and leaves were fluttering down from the trees. Bubba and Linus are going for a walk now and Bubba is in long sleeves. While I thought fall was coming..in fact it would appear that Fall is here.

Tomorrow's forecast is textbook: Showery with some breeze and a high of 60. I might need to wear a sweater!!

Well Bubba and I wandered about yesterday on one of the prettiest days I have encountered in a quite awhile. I bought a new (to me) 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee this past week (it is totally tricked out and fab) and so I wanted to drive it about. So we went to the farmer's market, drove out by work and then out to a small town to the west called Dallas Center which has a good bar with food. We didn't get any food - the cook was not having a good day - but the drive through the Iowa corn and soybean fields was very nice. We also bought a new ottoman to match our new living room set that is coming in October, and went and saw my wine boyfriend the tony grocery store in Des Moines. His name is Ben and he has informal tastings on Saturday and is cute as can be.

I'm very into wine at the moment (the cosmos were getting banal) and I am exploring three different varietals at the moment.....
1. A world tour of Sauvignon Blanc
2. A comparison between German and Alsacian Reislings
3. The hybrid wines here in Iowa

I had a shockingly good Sav Blanc last night from Chile - I was talking on the phone with a friend out in New York at the time and I, briefly, was focused only on the wine - this wine is that notable. Ben has been assisting me in a tour of the world and yesterday we landed in Chile. While New Zealand makes the best and most consistent of the Sav Blancs and California is the worst (barely quaffable in my opinion) - there are alot of other regions that are working with this grape.

South Africans tend to be very much grapefruit, Argentinian tend more towards the California side with a very strong acid and weaker fruit (not good), Chileans have, in the past, been a mixed bag, and French is not in sufficient supply to really dive in and get a feel..plus the French rarely make a varietal wine anyways.

Anyhoo....Ben raved this particular Sav Blanc from Chile called Cono Sur. Delightful!! The notes that I took on it include:
Full body, excellent balance of fruit and acid, crisp but full - all notes are in harmony.

Now I have drank alot of Sav Blanc in my days and I don't know that I have ever encountered a 10 buck bottle of wine that I would say this about. The only other Sav Blanc that has come close is a New Zealand one called "Bradgate" which you can get at the fab little gay wine shop in Dupont. Careful when buying this....it is a smooth wine that you will drink without even noticing. We polished off three bottles one night in DC without even thinking about it.

So the whole point of this entry is to say that Bubba and I are taking the Cherokee down to Madison County (remember the book - the bridges of Madison County - it is the same) to check out a winery there and maybe see a bridge or two.

I'll report back in a few weeks on some Iowa wines of note.