We Shall Overcome

What does it mean when the "California High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban" while "preserv[ing] the 18,000 same-sex marriages" on the books?

The gay marriage ban is Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It appears that the court is saying that Prop 8 is a valid amendment to the constitution, regardless of the fact that it requires discrimination, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno.

Because Prop 8 did not retroactively invalidate existing gay marriages, the court is allowing them to stand.

What all of this means to me is that the court will accept the will of the voters on gay marriage, but has no stomach for standing on principles, such as equality under the law.

OK fine. The trend of California voting shows increasing support for defining marriage as between two people, regardless of their sex. If we show up and vote, we will win this, no matter how much cash the Mormons pump into the campaign against us.

Stripe-ing Day

How do you add "ing" to the verb "to stripe". Perhaps it is striping, but it is definitely not stripping.

One of my favorite days of year in Tahoe is the day the county repaints the stripes that divide the highway. Sierra roads take a beating during the winter and when the snow and ice has melted and the grit is swept away, we are left with blacktop accented occasionally by the ghosts of former stripes.

Not only do the new yellow stripes look wonderful, they also are useful at preventing collisions. For example, there is a left turn lane from the highway onto a street I travel to get home. I know where it is, even if the stripes are missing, but oncoming traffic does not and they think it is part of their lane. Eeeeeek! No more. My left hand turn lane is now restored in yellow splendor.

The truck that lays down the stripes is cute (sorry I have no picture). It resembles a flatbed truck with an Apollo lunar lander leg stuck on one side. The leg extends to the middle of the road and squirts out the paint. I have no idea how they keep things aligned or control what kind of line is being painted: single stripe, double stripe, hashed lined, etc. It just looks like a guy driving a truck.

In other news, Clare and I exchanged our snow tires today for the all weather versions. My usual tire place is the Reno Costco because they have historically charged $24. Today they wanted $58 and it would be a two hour wait. Excuse me, but isn't the point of Costco to pay less money. The freaking VW dealership doesn't even charge that much.

A few months ago I read a gushing article about a family run tire shop in Truckee called Stowe's. They have very cushy couches, HD TV showing CNN, free coffee, and got me out in under an hour. Thank you Costco for driving away my business.

Miss Boo-S-A

Miss USA 2009, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina, AP


1st runner up, Carrie Prejean of California, AP

Yes, you are looking at two different women, not even twins, who sport equally fetching boob jobs. I did not actually watch the 2009 Miss USA pageant in its entirety, but tuned in for the last few minutes during the interview portion, where things got... interesting. How does one decide between two such obviously qualified Miss-USA-wannabees? Ask them a question?

Unfortunately for Carrie Prejean, Miss California, she was given the most difficult task. Her judge questioner, Prop 8 opponent Perez Hilton, asked "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Will Miss California show brains and poise to match her beauty? Here is what she said.

I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.

A few moments later, Miss North Carolina, Kirsten Dalton, got the tiara upgrade. She had been lobbed a softball during her interview and only had to say that taxpayers need not bail out failing companies.

Did Miss California shed loser tears because of her anti-same-sex marriage stance and/or the way she stated it? I am inclined to say yes, as her answer is poorly constructed and was the opposite of what Perez Hilton wanted to hear. One can imagine a more tactful response, where she doesn't say "I think that I believe" and offers up civil unions as a compromise, reserving marriage as a religious institution. Mr. Hilton would not have liked that answer either, but she might have scored for being a worthy opponent.

Update: Perez Hilton posted a video blog following the pageant where he called Miss California a "dumb bitch." According to ABC, he later apologized for the remark.

Did Noah St. John Choke?

© David Cannon/Getty Images

(Be sure and read the comments at the end of this post.)

Noah St. John is an author of self-help books. Following the Masters (golf tournament), he published a blog entry on the Huffington Post titled Why Did Kenny Perry Choke on the Masters? In this post, Mr. St. John claimed that Kenny Perry, who was two shots ahead with two holes to play, might have won the tournament had he only given himself permission to succeed, a topic Mr. St. John writes about.

I found that suggestion to be a bit shameless, as Mr. St. John was simply using Mr. Perry's loss as an opportunity to sell product. I posted a comment on Monday saying as much, however, comments are moderated and my effort was rejected. But on Tuesday morning, the original blog post had been rewritten, giving more sympathy to Kenny Perry and explaining what Perry could have done to be successful rather than offering him a book.

Did I cause a Huffington Post article to be rewritten? Did Mr. St. John choke on his first attempt and take a mulligan (golfing term for a do over)?

Upon seeing the rewrite, I posted this comment, which may also be rejected.

Yesterday I posted a comment that was critical of Mr. St. John for using Kenny Perry's loss as an opportunity to hawk his book. That comment was not published, however, the original article has been rewritten, making it more favorable to Kenny Perry and giving more advice on how to be successful. Also, Mr. St. John no longer offers Mr. Perry a free copy.

I still think Mr. St. John knows nothing about golf. He says "he suddenly could not hit shots that any pro can hit on a Thursday." The facts are that Tiger also finished bogey-bogey. Why not claim that Tiger choked? The winner, Angel Cabrera hit his first drive of the playoff behind a tree. His second shot bounced off another tree before landing back in the fairway. So why don't we say that Angel choked? Kenny Perry's final put of the Masters made it to the hole. If it had been a half-inch to the right, he and Angel would have gone to the third playoff hole, for the first time in Masters history. That is not the putt of one who chokes.

In fairness to Mr. St. John, the "he suddenly could not hit shots" reference was misattributed. St. John actually said "he let it slip away like so much fairway bunker sand." If you are curious about what a real sports writer says about Kenny Perry, try Perry is the master of class by Dan Wetzel.

Update: I was thrilled to get a comment (see below) from Nina of www.successclinic.com. Here is the email reply I sent her.

Dear Nina,

Thanks for answering my question about the rewrite. I really didn't think I had anything to do with it, but one never knows. When I read the first article, there was already one comment up and it was favorable to Kenny Perry.

What annoyed me and motivated me to comment and blog was that the first version of the article appeared to be an ad for a book. I have no problems with ads for books (I love books) but I thought I was reading a sports article. Never before have I encountered "product placement" in a Huffington Post article. You may disagree that the article was an ad, but that was my perception.

As to Kenny Perry, everyone saw that he lost a lead on the last two holes and lost a 3-way playoff, however, it was very close. To claim to understand the cause of a bad golf shot (after so many excellent ones) is going out on a limb. If Mr. Perry had turned in a miserable fourth round or had three putted from three feet (as others have done), you might have had more of a case to say that he choked. What is wonderful about Mr. Perry's story is the big picture, the fact that he does not live or die by what happens in a golf tournament, which is not really that important in the scheme of things. By many accounts, he is an excellent golf-pro, a wonderful father and husband, and a strong contributor to his community.

Thanks again for commenting on my blog.

Regards,
David Renaud

I checked the St. John post just now and saw that my second comment has been rejected, as was my first. Normally, the Huffington Post is a place for exchange of ideas and different points of view. Not in this case, which suggests that criticism is not welcomed. On the other hand, I received a very nice email reply from Nina, which I appreciated.

More update: Noah St. John has also provided a second comment to this post, which I also appreciate.

Beck the Tea Bagger

If you watch Comedy Central or MSNBC, it is not necessary to watch Fox (or for that matter Rush), as Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, and Maddow keep you up on all the "good" parts. However, sometimes it is fun to go right to the source. Glenn Beck, high school graduate and Fox weekday show host, popped up on my radar after his infamous "I just love my country" crying spell. On Friday, Beck put on an hour-long special report on how our country got to "where it is" today, with the hint that "where it is" is either "off the rails" or "heading towards fascism".

The teaser for the show also sucked me in. Beck insisted that the show be watched in its entirety, as to do otherwise would risk hearing things "out of context" and those decontexted snippets might seem extreme or give you the wrong idea, whatever that could be.

As it turned out, the content of the show was not nearly as interesting as the formula. Beck had four guests, each the author of a book that had changed the way he thought about the world. All of the authors were friendly witnesses and they had a grand time talking about Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, the progressive movement in the early 20th century, and the great depression of the 30s. The big takeaway was that fascism has two preconditions: fear and hunger. Once we were properly schooled in history-a-la-Beck, we were admonished that "history repeats itself." No attempt (zero, nada) was made to compare the circumstances of the 21st century with the circumstances preceding the rise of 20th century fascist regimes. It was up to the viewer to connect the dots. Beck also insisted that the viewer go out and buy the books, giving the show the feel of an infomercial.

The show concluded with a speech by Thomas Paine, who is normally unable to give speeches due to being dead for 200 years, however, an (old looking) actor filled in. Beck claims Paine as an ancestor but he may have been just joshing us. Paine the actor's purpose was to rouse the rabble to participate in some tax day tea bagging, you know, Boston Tea Party-like behavior to protest all the outrageous spending of taxpayer dollars by our federal government.

Did he say tea bagging? I first learned about tea bagging when watching one of my favorite movies, John Water's Pecker. Let's just say that if you look up and open your mouth and a guy sets his nut sack on your tongue, you have just been tea bagged.

Do the tax day tea bagging people not know what they are saying? I think not. Rachel Maddow is giggling so hard over this that I am amazed she hasn't fallen off her chair.

Just as Olbermann always refers to Rush as "Rush the comedian", I shall forever refer to Beck as "Beck the Tea Bagger".

Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Towleroad has a post about the National Organization for Marriage's 'pro-family' fear-mongering zombies release gay marriage scare ad. I checked out the NOM and found this FAQ on their marriage talking points page, which attempts to give same-sex marriage opponents the answers to some awkward questions.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

They have equated "believing mothers and fathers matter" to being against same-sex marriage, which it is not. They introduce African-American opposition, which is a red herring. Pointing out that marriage is not new and asserting their conclusion (not taking away rights) does not address the question of bigotry.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Prohibiting same-sex marriage continues the stigmitization of gay couples and continues their oppression. In this way, it is similar to bans on interracial marriage. The argument about marriage being for the purpose of male/female parenting assumes that marriage is always about having children and that alternatives to male/female parenting are inferior, both invalid assumptions.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The fact that same-sex marriage opponents desire an amendment to the constitution which codifies discrimination against gay people demonstrates that they understand that such discrimination is currently unconstitutional, confirming that judicial activism in states such as California and Iowa is correct.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples does not remove any rights from anyone, as there is no right to define a word the way you wish. People who have beliefs that others find bigoted are not treated as bigots unless they act on those beliefs. Religious organizations who are acting as agents of the government by running public programs are obligated to follow public policy. If this is in conflict with their dogma, they may decline public funding and limit their bigotry to purely religious expression. The education issue is a red herring, however, if children are being taught that people may be who they are, that is a good thing. Same-sex marriage does not hold that children should not have both a mom and a dad, only that there are valid alternatives. There may be an assumption among same-sex opponents that exposing children to the idea of homosexuality may make them gay, which is of course, absurd. Finally, asserting that something is "not right" is not an argument.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Actually, marriage is a legal contract and, for some, a sacrament.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Many decades ago, we decided that "separate but equal" did not work with respect to race relations. The same is case with respect to gay people and same-sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that everyone has the same rights is to say that everyone has the same rights.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

An excellent point. The same-sex marriage opponents should be spending their time trying to make divorce illegal. I'm kidding, but hope I made a point that our legal system should not be used to enforce religious views.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

There is an assumption in this argument concerning fitness to be a parent. Who is to decide this? Are two people, who together possess male and female parts, always the best parents? Are there not other factors, such as how these people participate in the lives of their children? There was one episode of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood that I cherish where he suggests that what a child really needs is one adult who really cares about them.

9. What about older or infertile couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Again, there is the assumption of the ideal parents, which is invalid. If you accept this assumption, then it seems reasonable to deny male/female marriage to a couple who intends to neither procreate nor adopt.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh Greg!

On Tuesday, one of my personal guides through the financial crisis demonstrated that otherwise smart people can sometimes totally not get it. Concerning the AIG bonus flap, Professor Mankiw wrote in Trivial Pursuit:

The AIG bonuses now being debated in Congress and everywhere else represent about .001 percent of annual GDP. Regardless of how outraged you are about the AIG bonuses, it is probably not an optimal allocation of resources for our elected leaders to spend large amounts of time and energy on the topic.

Conventional wisdom says that our populist rage is unleashed on this particular topic because, unlike many topics in the financial crisis, we understand it. People understand companies going insolvent, getting bailed out, then paying $400,000 bonuses to a chosen few. And they don't like it, regardless of the fact that the bonus fund is .001 percent of GDP.

Mankiw would have done better to have stuck to prior criticisms of recovery legislation, which focus on the inefficiencies and mistakes that are inevitably made when so much money is spent so quickly.

As it turns out, Mankiw's lack of faith in the wisdom of congress (evidenced by the last paragraph of his post) was supported by today's House vote to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent. Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out on Olberman that such a law is unconstitutional because it is both retroactive and targets a specific group (Article I, Section 9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.)