Time for a New Kind of Gay Pride Celebration?

In the forty or so years since the initial Gay Pride parade in Manhattan, the event has mainly become associated with raunch: public, often times drunken displays of nudity, kink and camp so high you'd need a satellite to photograph it. And that's the problem. At this annual parade and others in Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere, gay "pride" has been co-opted by the wild and crazy and has become synonymous with promiscuity and debauchery.

Maybe I'm just an old fart, but virtually every gay person I know leads the same sort of life I do: hard work, family, kids, good times. No one I know who's gay took to the streets this past weekend. They took their kids to parks, saw movies, ate at restaurants, sat around pools, BBQ'd and/or got together with close friends to celebrate. And I don't think any of them condone the kind of Sodom and Gomorrah-like revelry that fills our nation's streets each June.

I'm not gay, so I don't know what that sort of "pride" feels like and perhaps therefore don't understand the need to let loose like Rip Taylor and Grace Jones on Ecstasy. But I'm just not so sure that a large segment of the homosexual population wants their pride symbolized this way either. They don't share in that form of celebration, and many have told me they feel as alien from this annual event as I do.

Maybe it's time for a new kind of gay pride celebration...one where gay and lesbian couples could feel safe, comfortable and honored to attend with their small children. As the nation increasingly moves toward accepting homosexuals into the mainstream, maybe a more mainstream celebration would be more fitting as well.

The Perfect Stump Speech for Obama

Back in early Spring, gas prices in many parts of the country hit $4.50 per gallon. The Republican attack machine warned  of imminent $5.00 per gallon prices which would destroy America's fragile economic recovery and push the nation back into recession. And, it was all President Obama's fault. The fact that no president can control the price of fuel didn't matter. It made for a great soundbite. So with gas prices down to an average $3.48 per gallon, with prices dropping $.15 in just the last two weeks alone, why isn't Obama, and his Democratic surrogates, taking credit for this precipitous drop in price? As Obama's GOP challenger would say, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." .

The prevailing wisdom should be that, if you cause the price of gas to rise, then you also are responsible when it drops. And with just four months until the election, and with the economy still the number one concern of most voters, why the heck isn't Obama giving this speech ad nauseum:?

"Several months back my opponents on the right accused me of causing gas prices to climb near $5.00 per gallon. Well, under my watch, prices have now fallen below $3.50 a gallon.  That's right...I've worked with my Democratic peers in Congress to help you fill your gas tanks for a third less cost. That's money that goes right back into your pockets. We did that. My opponent said you'd soon be paying five bucks a gallon. Shows you how much he knows about how to fix the economy. And that's why you should keep me as your president for another four years..."

Of course, he could go on about the 4-million jobs he's created, the turnaround in GDP growth, the historically low interest rates, growth in housing, the auto industry recovery, record corporate profits, the doubling of the Dow, yada, yada, yada...

So why are Obama and Democrats so inept at spin? Why can't their rhetoric be as effective as the GOP's? Why would they stand by and let Obama be accused of driving up gas prices and not create a media blitz when they fall? This would seem like a no-brainer. A gift-horse. Rhetoric handed to him on a silver platter.

If Obama's to renew his lease for the White House this Fall he better start figuring out a simple, bumper-sticker-effective way to tout his accomplishments or he'll be handing over the keys to Romney. 

What is Mitt Romney's View of Government?

What do you think the political impact would be like for Mitt Romney if his central campaign narrative went something like this:

"Hello, I'm Mitt Romney, and I want to be your president. My father was head of an automobile company and was governor of Michigan. And that afforded me an incredible start in life. A start which gave me a Harvard education, an influential network and a powerful career in business. I am very grateful for that. But I realize that not everyone gets such a start in life. In fact, very, very few people do. Most Americans are not born into wealth and privilege. They have to work...sometimes two jobs or more...just to house and feed their children. For them, education and good health care are luxuries not a right of passage. And as president, I will fight to help those who've been less fortunate than the wealthiest Americans like me. It's time for America to take care of it's own..."

Just imagine the appeal of a Republican who demonstrated genuine compassion for the little guy. In the current climate, imagine Romney embracing his elite stature and using it to his advantage rather than sounding like the proverbial rich kid born on 3rd base who thinks he hit a triple. George W. Bush took a stab at "compassionate conservativism" but it was half-hearted and short-lived. Unfortunately, today's conservative politician seems to care as much about the poor, the sick, the elderly, the needy, education, immigrants and minorities as Kevin Durant would like to help Lebron James win his first NBA title.

Republicans rail against "big government" and any sort of assistance or program designed to help the 99%'ers. Which begs the question, just what is government for? I'd like to ask Romney what exactly he thinks government does? And who is supposed to benefit from it? Is there anything that government does that he believes is good? Is there any money that government spends on the poor and middle classes that he thinks is important? Does government have an obligation to help those who can't help themselves? Or is all government spending, save for Defense, wasteful? Is government designed to benefit only the rich? Does government exist solely to keep taxes low and regulations few...except when those regulations are intended to control women's bodies, who people marry and who they sleep with?

Who needs government, right? Forget building roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, hospitals and schools. Forget protecting the environment. Forget controlling air traffic. Forget the Centers for Disease Control. And garbage collection. Or cops, firefighters, teachers and other public servants (ya know, all those lazy, hand-out grabbin' folks Romney doesn't include in his "helping Americans" speeches).

And job creation. Where would our economy be if President Obama hadn't injected $787 billion into it three years ago? Romney would like voters to believe that it is business, and in particular his brand of private equity experience, that creates jobs. But that's the furthest thing from the truth. Businesses exist for one reason: to create profit and wealth for its owners and investors. They do not exist to create jobs. Just the opposite, in fact. I'm sure many small business owners and corporate CEO's would readily admit that their ideal scenario is one where productivity and profit increases without having to hire additional staff. Which is exactly the problem with the employment landscape in post-recession America. Earnings are at record levels, and there's an estimated $2-trillion in cash sitting in corporate bank accounts. So why should businesses hire more people if they can achieve record profits without it?         

I somehow think the Founding Fathers would have a very serious problem with Mitt Romney's idea of government. I don't think they'd subscribe at all to conservatives' mantra of screw the little guy and protect the rich.  In Mitt Romney's simple, self-serving view of government the rich get richer, government is essentially an ATM, and only the wealthiest 1% get a debit card.          

I Hate Facebook Part II

Three years and several hundred million users ago I wrote a critique of the #1 social networking site called "I Hate Facebook." Since then, my feelings about Facebook have not changed. In fact, I hate it even more.

Once again, I will, in the interest of full disclosure, cop to having two Facebook accounts.As a writer and political pundit I promote my blog, OstroyReport.com, and my pieces that appear on HuffingtonPost.com. Yes, shameless self-promotion. The other account is for brand awareness and communication for the non-profit I founded and run, the Adrienne Shelly Foundation, named after my late wife who was murdered in 2006. More promotion, yes, but I think that's Facebook's real value.

Facebook began in 2004 as a site for nerdy Harvard boys to check out the campus girls who offline wouldn't give them the time of day. Its popularity quickly spread across the country to other colleges and universities and then expanded into the mainstream worldwide. It now has over 900-million users. But getting inside the statistics reveals a company facing major hurdles:

-Half of its users have migrated to mobile devices, and Facebook has no clue how to monetize them
-Major advertisers like General Motors have pulled $10-million+ campaigns citing little or no return
-Growth has slowed precipitously; monthly unique U.S. visitors have been on the decline
-A recent Reuters/Ipsos Public Affairs survey showed that a third of users were spending less time on the website than six months ago, while just 20% were spending more. 80% never buy from an ad on the site; 1 in 3 users say they've grown bored of the site
-The threat of privacy legislation hangs like a dark cloud
-Teens are defecting to other, hipper social networking sites like Twitter and Tumblr (who the hell wants to be 'friends' with mom, dad and the grandparents?). It's losing its grasp on the critical 18-34 segment
-It's stock, valued at 100 times earnings, is down a third from its IPO last month     

I won't go into the main reasons why I hate the site. You can read my original piece for that. But what I will say is the rampant narcissism that dominates Facebook now threatens to infect children under 13, as the company seeks ways to attract them, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Will we soon be subjected to endless photos of Mac n Cheese? Status updates of "Kaitlyn is cranky?" Will our little ones brag that they have 5000 friends? And will some of those friends be 50-year-old guys living in their mothers' basements? 'LittleFacebook' seems like a pedophile's dream come true.

Yeah, let's do away with playdates and playgrounds and just have the kiddies sitting at home sharing their every underdeveloped thought on Facebook. Just think of how it will also improve communication with their parents. "Mommy wishes Jack would clean his room," he'll see on his Facebook. "In a minute, mom," he'll reply. "We're so sorry you have to clean your room, you poor thing, we're here for you!" his 'friends' will comment.

Marketing Advice For Obama

President Obama, if he's to boost his chances of winning re-election, needs to take off the gloves and start swinging. He's got five short months left, and statistics indicate that Americans will spend more time during the first part of this period worrying more about BBQ's and swimming than they will politics. Come Labor Day many will have already made up their charred-meat-filled minds.

Obama needs to do two things: prove he's the most qualified steward of the economy and shore up support among women. In both cases he must swiftly and deftly define Republicans as obstructionists who care more about defeating him than working earnestly to fix the economy, putting people to work and championing the rights of women. He needs to put the GOP's back to the wall so that he can more clearly and effectively draw distinctions during the campaign's 11th hour.

Obama needs to think like a brand marketer and act like a Republican. As such, he needs to immediately rename his Jobs Act the "Jobs Creation Bill." Sounds like a minor change? Hardly. One simple word will change the entire tenor of the debate. The president is being relentlessly attacked by the right for not creating jobs. While re-branding won't get House Speaker John Boehner, Whip Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to act responsibly in America's best interest, it will afford Obama a killer soundbite: "How do they expect me to create jobs when they kill my Jobs Creation Bill?

Next, Republicans had their Defense of Marriage Act. Obama should put forth his Defense of Women Act, which would protect women from acts of violence, pay inequality, and reproductive intrusions. When defeated, Obama would have yet another killer soundbite: "Republicans voted against defending women."

And if he's successful in this effort he will, by default, appeal to the highly coveted independents as well.

It's the branding, stupid.

Democrats, Be Afraid...Be Very, Very Afraid

I've talked to a great many Democrats who are 100% convinced that President Barack Obama will be re-elected. They very intelligently, and almost to the point of arrogance, site electoral maps, the gender polls and the youth, black, Hispanic and senior votes. It all makes perfect sense. But these folks are in denial. Obama could be in serious trouble, especially if Friday's horrible employment report is a precursor of things to come.

While analysts expected at least 160,000 jobs created in May, the economy added just 69,000, while the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2%. There was a significant downward revision in April's jobs number to 77,000 from the initial 115,000. That's three months in a row of tepid job growth. Lastly, labor force participation remains near 30-year lows; the unemployment rate that counts discouraged workers increased as well; and long-term unemployment also rose sharply. Not very good news for the administration.

Yes, Obama inherited a colossal mess from George W. Bush. And yes, the economy has pulled back from the precipice of disaster. And yes, there's been strong signs that the economy is in a sustained recovery. But Summer is right around the corner, and July and August have historically been challenging months, so there's little reason to expect that much will change. And right around the corner after that is the election. There's simply not a lot of time between now and November to expect a serious uptick in the economy's metrics. And that's precisely Obama's problem.

When it comes to voters, it's perception over reality. The key question is, will voters believe the economy has turned positive enough to keep Obama at the helm for four more years or will they believe that the economy's stalled and that it's time for change? He will need something positive to point to; a reason why voters should stick with him. The enthusiasm factor is critical. But with the kind of numbers we've been seeing these past few months it may be difficult for him to create excitement about another term. The fact is, no sitting president has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is.

To my very confident fellow Democrats I say, be afraid. Be very, very afraid. I remind you of how certain you were in 2004 that, with a challenged economy and the nation fighting two wars, John Kerry would win and you were shell-shocked when he didn't. Be afraid that Mitt Romney could win. Do not discount the the power of his narrative: the fiscally conservative business guru who built Bain Capital, saved the Olympics, successfully governed the liberal state of Massachusetts and is just the guy to turn around America's economy. That most Democrats know he's a moderate in conservative's clothes--evidenced by his former positions on health care, gay rights and abortion--doesn't hurt. And, let's not forget he's white which, sadly, could be a huge factor this time around.

The Failure of Occupy Wall Street

For those who are objective and unemotional it was easy to see this coming. The Occupy "movement" (and I use that term generously) has spiraled into irrelevance and relative obscurity. And it's a shame, as much of its message had broad resonance which could’ve been harnessed into significant power and influence in Washington. Instead, it became a whole lotta nuthin' over nuthin.'

So what went wrong?:

1. The "Occupy" Factor: Successful protest movements aren't about occupation per se. This movement was too tied to its home base, a small symbolic tent-city near Wall Street, and in other similar parks in Boston, San Francisco and other cities. In order to rally scalable national support people needed to see marchers taking to the streets rather than largely hanging out in a park, which served, rightly or wrongly, to portray the Zuccotti Park inhabitants as drifters, vagrants and freeloaders rather than committed protesters. Much of the attention was not over its message but over the communal aspect of park life. Successful protest movements aren't about camping out, book sharing, eating, and "talking to each other," as one organizer told me. As a friend of mine joked, Zuccotti looked more like Bonnaroo. It confined and defined the message in a way that was limited and negative. 

2. No Leadership: Every successful protest movement needs a leader; a strong, passionate, articulate, visible face and voice of the movement. (See Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, etc)

3. The Wrong Message: While I understood and agreed with much of what this movement was about, I think it took a deadly turn when it essentially turned into a "rich bad/poor good" theme. That wholesale indictment of everyone in the "1%" (including passionate, dedicated, extremely generous liberals like George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the Kennedy's) was the wrong message. The mission shouldn't have been class warfare, but equality and fairness for all through reasonable government regulation and taxation. 

4. No Agenda: While the organizers prided themselves on the fact that they had no real agenda other than to vent the nation's collective anger over the economic divide and injustices on Wall Street, this lack of clear, stated demands was a huge mistake. It should've taken a lesson from the Tea Party movement which was and remains powerful, articulate, clear in its demands and which sent 63 Congressman to Washington in an election year to advocate and legislate its small government, less taxes agenda. 

And that last point is the real shame of it all. In an election year as significant as this one, the Occupy movement is as good as dead. It will have achieved nothing legislatively, it will have elected no one and, in the end, it has had no material impact on American life. Nothing, that is, if you measure it against all other successful protest movements.

           

How About a Trump Boycott?

Donald Trump is at it again. This time the megalomaniac real estate windbag has hijacked Mitt Romney's campaign by reviving his reprehensible attack on President Obama's citizenship. The man with the grossly fake hair continues to question the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate despite its clear existence and validation by Hawaii, his birth state. At this point his actions could be viewed as motivated by a despicable cocktail of ego, racism and unpatriotism. Perhaps it's time Democrats send this attention-starved jackass a loud message by  boycotting anything with Trump's ubiquitous name on it, such as his hotels, casinos, suits and "The Apprentice" television show.

It's not just Democrats who have criticized Trump over his relentless attacks. Conservative columnist George F. Will pulled no punches on the impact the business tycoon's surrogacy might have on Romney's campaign:

“What voter is going to vote for him because he’s seen with Donald Trump?” Mr. Will asked Sunday on the ABC News program “This Week.” “The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious, it seems to me. Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your I.Q. can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics.” 

The real question is when, if ever, Romney will condemn Trump's trumped up citizenship charges and distance himself from The Donald. Or, as he has shown so far, will the core-less Republican candidate continue to chase the money no matter how filthy dirty it is?

But at the very least, Democrats could hit Trump where it hurts most: in his wallet. Traveling? Pick a non-Trump hotel. Gambling? Lose your money at a non-Trump casino. Shopping for a suit? Buy one that doesn't have the Trump label. And if you feel the need to watch a moronic reality show, there's a ton to choose from besides "The Apprentice."  

Birthers: Why Don't You Just Call Obama a Ni**er?

We thought we saw the last of the Birthers when President Obama released his long-form birth certificate a little more than a year ago. Under normal circumstances, even with a "movement" so outrageously offensive as this one, the issue would have been put to bed at that point. But birth certificates don't cure racism. Racists have a way of perpetuating their hate no matter how logical, rational or factual the reasoning against their vile behavior. But why don't these bigots just come out and say what they really want to say: Obama is a ni**er.

Enough with the "Kenyan" code language. These people don't really care if Obama is a socialist, a communist, an elitist, a U.S. citizen or from planet Earth. What does set them into a rage is his skin color. The goal of these racists is to achieve a major breakthrough to other "moderate" racists. The semi-subliminal message they want to convey is, "Don't vote for this ni**er." And, "Do you want a ni**er in the White House again?" Or, "Why vote for a ni**er when you have a white guy like Romney, who's just like us?" That's all this Birther crap is about: ni**er, ni**er, ni**er...

And the same holds true for those who attack the president over his past association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, another hot-button issue which appeared dead but simply lay dormant instead, rearing its bigoted head once again now that the election nears. Here a similar ugly message is, "It takes one angry ni**er to know another angry ni**er."

These cowards should just say the word we all know they wish to say but for some convoluted sense of decency they feel they can't. Go ahead, I say to them, use it. It won't make a difference as to how the rest of intelligent society views you. It'll just shine a spotlight on you for exactly who you are.

Romney: University Professors Don't Have Real Jobs

In a Fox News interview this week Mitt Romney made it quite clear that he's the anti-education candidate. In criticizing what he calls President Obama's attack on capitalism, the presumptive Republican nominee summarily dismissed and disrespected the entire teaching profession:

"He doesn't understand how the free economy works," he said of Obama. "He's never had a job in the free economy."

Really? Teaching Constitutional law was not a real job? Being a grade school or high school teacher or college professor doesn't make you part of the "free economy" workforce in Romney's convoluted elitist thinking?

It's morally reprehensible and irresponsible enough that, as Massachusetts governor, he cut the education budget so severely that state universities were forced to raise tuition by 63%. But his latest salvo against educators should be a dire warning to voters as to what a Romney presidency will look like for those who, unlike him, weren't born with a silver spoon and who need educational assistance.

And any teacher or professor who is contemplating voting for Romney has to question his principles, his lack of commitment to the education of America's youth, and to his palpable disdain for how they earn a living in his "free economy."

Egg On Their Facebook

Facebook Shmacebook. That's what a lot of small investors are saying four days after the social networking behemoth's highly anticipated IPO went bust for them while creating massive wealth for a minuscule bunch of insiders, venture capitalists and institutional investors. And what has Wall Street apparently learned since the go-go days of the banking crisis? Apparently nothing.

The stock, which went out at $38.00 per share, has fallen off a cliff since Friday, dropping 18% from the offering price. Shares were overpriced, oversold and brought to market under very dubious circumstances. As a result, the IPO, and its lead underwriter Morgan Stanley, is under investigation by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Massachusetts Secretary of State, whose office subpoenaed the banker over its discussions with investors over the offering. All of this on the heels of news that Morgan, just prior to the IPO, advised its elite clients of its appreciably lowered revenue estimates for Facebook. The NY Times reports that one such investor dumped his entire position at $42 per share after learning of the revised forecast. Once again, Wall Street's privilidged fatcats get in and out with hefty profits while the proverbial little guy, operating in an information vacuum, gets screwed.

Facebook, valued by the Street at over $100 billion, about $100 times earnings, has serious challenges in monetizing its 900-million membership and ultimately growing into this stratospheric valuation. The company itself has warned investors that it's having trouble figuring out how to make money from mobile advertising. Its members are increasingly using the service on mobile devices, yet Facebook doesn't quite know how to build its mobile ad business without cluttering its pages and negatively impacting members' experience with the service.

Underscoring this potentially massive problem for Facebook was General Motors' decision last week to cancel its $10-$40-million ad spend with the company. When one of the country's largest advertisers tells you they can't make money with you that's not a good sign. Especially when you're trying to convince investors that your colossal valuation is justified by future ad sales.

The controversy surrounding Facebook's IPO, and how certain Wall Street investors received critical information about the company while those on Main Street didn't, further demonstrates the need for greater scrutiny and regulation of the type of cowboy trading practices that nearly destroyed our economic system four years ago.

Romney's Bain in the Ass

Mitt Romney's running for president on one central campaign theme: that he's the savvy business guy whose tenure at private equity firm Bain Capital in the 1980's and 90's has made him a job-creator while President Obama is a job-cutter. A pretty lofty claim considering the financier's #1 goal was to earn a hefty profit for him and his partners even if that meant actually putting people out of work. That's what a new devastatingly effective Obama ad, focusing on GST Steel in Kansas City, is hammering home to voters.

GST went bankrupt in 2001 after being taken over by Bain. "He was like a vampire...came in a sucked the life out of us," one worker says in the ad. Another refers to Romney as "a job destroyer."

In another ad, Democrats profile SCM, a small Indiana paper company, bought by Bain's American Pad and Paper (Ampad) in 1994, which went bankrupt six years later. The web video details how workers were subsequently laid off and lost their health insurance. "They put armed guards at the doors, did not look at anyone, did not speak to anybody, and told us we all were fired," one worker recalls in the video."

And you can bet between now and the November election there'll be myriad ads like these defining Romney as an elitist corporate raider concerned only about lining the pockets of the rich. And while Romney has been critical of the attacks, calling them a distraction from the real issues, Obama says the scrutiny on Romney's record is highly relevant "because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. He’s not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He’s saying, I’m a business guy and I know how to fix it,’ and this is his business.”

"When you’re president," he continued, "as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.

Romney's running from his record as governor of Massachusetts. He's running from RomneyCare. He's evading the impact of his Mr. Potter role at Bain. But Obama and Democrats appear intent on defining the debate and making his private equity experience the Bain of his existence this Summer and Fall.

Romney needs to figure out how to address Obama's positive economic record which includes 26 consecutive months of job growth with 4.25-million private sector jobs created, including 489,000 in manufacturing. Unemployment, which peaked in 2010 at 10%, has dropped to 8.1%. And let's not forget the stellar turnaround in the auto industry, America's largest industry, which Romney wanted to bankrupt.

Romney would be better served in telling his surrogates, SuperPacs and campaign staffers to spend less time on Rev. Wright and birth certificates and to instead create a compelling plan to maintain Obama's economic recovery.

The Most Outrageous Aspect of the Trayvon Martin Case

So now we know, through evidence released by prosecutors this past week, that George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old superhero-wannabe who shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL on February 26th, had wounds on his head and a broken nose. And as expected, ignorant racists nationwide rushed forward with disingenuous cries of "See!?...that proves the kid had attacked him!" But Zimmerman's wounds suggest one thing: that Trayvon fought like an animal to save his life.

Ever since this story hit the press I've been mortified about how Trayvon has been vilified as the aggressor when all evidence points to him being the one who desperately needed to exercise his state's Draconian 'Stand Your Ground' law. For the life of me I don't understand why the media has not explored this angle more than it has. The simple fact remains here: that a grown man with a gun, safe in his locked car, against the implicit instruction of a 911 police operator, left that car to pursue, confront and kill a child (yes, racists, under the age of eighteen one is legally considered a child) who was holding nothing more than a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.

What exactly does 'stand your ground' mean if not to fight like an animal to save your life when you believe it's being threatened with deadly force? Why does the fact that Zimmerman suffered wounds serve as evidence that Trayvon initiated the scuffle? To the contrary, Zimmerman's wounds reinforce that the kid bravely came at his attacker with everything he had. That after screaming for help seventeen times in a desolate area he fought furiously to save himself from being shot dead...something he unfortunately failed to do. Why is no one talking about how it was Trayvon who 'stood his ground?' Why does it seem that this law is only being discussed as it applies to Zimmerman?

As for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense? Bullshit. That defense went out the window the second he stepped from his locked car with a loaded semi-automatic weapon.

It's Time to Take the "Gay" Out of Marriage

It's been a week since North Carolina voters chose to continue discriminating against homosexuals, President Obama chose to make history by publicly declaring his support for gay marriage, and Mitt Romney's been outed as a teenaged gay-basher. In 2012 America, are we really still debating whether any segment of our population deserves civil rights and equality? Pardon me if I think we're living in one very fucked up country right now.

I'm tired of all the anti-gay rhetoric. To the homophobes I say one thing: you're ignorant. I don't care how many of you in your backward states choose to vote against marriage equality. Many of you would also vote to bring back slavery if you could. A majority of hateful bigots doesn't make for an abundance of logic. It just means there's still a lot of truly horrible people living amongst us who are so ignorant, intolerant and frightened that they'd deny two people, any people, the right to live and love like everyone else. Shame on you.

A common argument of the haters is that gays "choose" who and what they are, unlike others who are born the way they are, and therefore don't deserve the same protections under the law. Well then, does that logic apply to religion? Everyone chooses what religion if any they observe. So I guess it's ok to discriminate against people of faith? I'm sure evangelicals would agree with that one, right?

How comically ironic that North Carolina last week, as its voters went to the polls to continue persecuting gays, was in the midst f its prosecution of John Edwards, perhaps the most despicable philandering heterosexual in the country. Can someone please explain to me why this so-called sacred institution should be reserved only for people like Edwards who defile and disgrace it so reprehensibly?

A Game-Changing Move That Could Give Romney a Win in November?

If Mitt Romney wanted to dramatically improve his chances of beating President Obama in the November election he could do one thing: appoint a conservative Democrat as his running mate. Someone like retiring Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), Sen. Jon Tester (MT) or better yet even someone from the South like former West Virginia governor and the state's newly elected Sen. Joe Manchin, for example. The move could be a political coup, and just the sort of game-changer that could propel the presumptive Republican nominee across the finish line.

The political landscape today is more polarized and partisan than ever, and poll after poll indicates that Americans are fed up with the bickering and backstabbing across the aisles. They want candidates who put country first and party second. They want an end to the toxic rhetoric that dominates the debate more than the actual issues that are important to them. They want to know that their elected leaders can work together in true bi-partisan fashion to fix the struggling economy, create jobs, and restore the nation's standing overseas as we fight terrorism and focus on national security.

But the biggest payoff in appointing a Blue Dog Democrat would be how it's perceived among independents, the most critical voter segment of all. The presidential election will be decided by this group, and who they're fired up over is key. Imagine how the unprecedented move of appointing a Democrat to the ticket would appeal to those in the proverbial middle. Imagine the speeches Romney could make:

"It's time to put politics and party aside and put America first! Which is why I'm breaking all the rules and doing what no one else has had the courage to do: I'm putting a Democrat on the ticket with me. Someone who shares many of our ideals and positions and who will help me get Washington working again with true bi-partisanship cooperation. Now this is change you should believe in!"

A risky gamble? Perhaps. But the truth is, both Obama and Romney will have the support of their respective bases. It's the moderates they'll need. And what better way to to appeal to this non-partisan group than with a bold non-partisan move.

Mitt Romney's Chuckle-Heard-Round-the-World

"My God, I have absolutely no recollection of that...but if in fact it's true, I'm horrified and don't care how young I was. Bullying anyone, anywhere, at any age, is 100% wrong and inexcusable and I'm deeply sorry for my behavior."

That is not what Mitt Romney said last week when asked about an incident when he was an 18-year-old student at the prestigious Cranbrook School in Bloomfield, MI. An attack on fellow student John Lauber, believed to have been motivated by his rumored homosexuality and bleach-blond hair that draped over one eye, was the result of Romney's bizarre obsession with the kid's appearance:

"He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told his pal Matthew Friedemann, according to Friedemann. Led by Romney, Lauber was harrassed, chased, pinned to the ground and then had his hair cut off by the future Massachusetts governor. (pops to comedian Bill Maher, btw, who joked on his HBO program "Real Time" Friday night, "I don't know what it's like at your salons, but isn't the guy usually cutting the hair the gay one?")

Instead of taking responsibility for his reprehensible behavior, the Republican who wants to be president just chuckled and issued a tepid apology akin to 'boys will be boys.'

"Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by (it) obviously I apologize," Romney said of his "pranks."

As if the chuckle wasn't offensive and dismissive enough, Romney's choice of words with "if someone was hurt by it" shows indifference and a clear lack of empathy. Does he really not know for sure that this vicious attack on a terrified gay kid by a pack of sneering homophobic rich preppies wasn't hurtful?

The real issue here is not solely what Romney did as kid, but more so how he's handled questions about it as an adult; as someone who's running for the most important job in the world. It speaks to Romney's character. Maybe his former opponent Rick Santorum is right: the man has no core.

My Interview with an Obama Hater

I recently had the opportunity to talk with an elderly blue-collar New Yorker about why he won't be voting for President Obama in November. Dale (not his real name), a self-proclaimed "life-long Democrat" and definitely "not a Republican," is representative of many whites of a certain generation who clearly remain extremely uncomfortable with having a black president but can't openly admit it.

AO: Still a Republican?
Dale: Never was one. I'm not a liberal either.
AO: Not a Republican? So, you'll be voting for Obama?
Dale: No
AO: Why not? Does that mean you're going to vote for Romney?
Dale: Let's just say I ain't voting for Obama.
AO: Can you tell me why?
Dale: I just don't care for him, that's all.
AO: But can you tell me why? Is there a specific policy you don't like?
Dale: It's just the whole thing. Let me ask you something. He was a cut-up in school. Bad marks. Took drugs, cocaine. He was a bad kid. How'd he get into Harvard?
AO: You've been listening to Sean Hannity I see.
Dale: I LOVE Sean Hannity!
AO: I guess that's the non-Republican in you. How about giving me something that relates to his presidency?
Dale: I think he's been a very bad president and all he wants to do is turn America into a dictatorship.
AO: Really? That's a pretty hefty accusation. Can you give me an example of something he's done to warrant that?
Dale: Look, I'm not gonna get into all of this with you.
AO: So you'll drop a bomb like that but not give any substantive explanation for it?
Dale: He's been a disaster for the economy.
AO: Really. And why do you say that?
Dale: You're just trying to goad me into a debate with you and I'm not gonna do that.
AO: No, I'm simply trying to get you to back up your broad stroke accusations with substance, and you don't seem to be able to do that.
Dale: Let's just say you and I disagree and leave it at that.
AO: I have no problem disagreeing with you, or you having different opinions about Obama or anything else. What we're doing here is having a conversation, not a debate, so why can't you simply just explain your positions?
Dale: He's ruing the economy, that's all.
AO: And you're basing this on statistics, leading indicators like GDP?
Dale: No
AO: Job growth? Consumer confidence?
Dale: No
AO: Wall Street gains?
Dale: No
AO: Recoveries in the auto, banking, retail sectors?
Dale: No
AO: So what you're saying then is that actual facts about the economy since Obama took office don't really matter to you. You just make sweeping criticisms but don't care if the facts don't support them. Yeah, I'd say you're voting for Romney.
Dale: Let's just say I'm not voting for Obama.
AO: I know. You've already said that. Why would you vote for someone, for a party, that seeks to take away from you everything you need to survive...Social security, medicare?
Dale: Nobody's gonna take away my Medicare.
AO: Oh really? Have you seen the Ryan budget?
Dale: They won't take away my Medicare.
AO: We need to cut $4-trillion of debt. Where do you think that's going to come from if Republicans take the House, Senate and presidency? You think they won't take it from the poor and middle class? You think they'll choose instead to raise taxes on themselves?
Dale: They won't do it.

Pretty scary stuff. What I saw in Dale was a truly visceral yet inexplicable disdain for Obama which he either couldn't or wouldn't honestly articulate. Unfortunately, people like Dale know absolutely nothing about the issues they discuss. And nothing they say is based on fact. Instead, they regurgitate the "news" and sound bytes they get from Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing provocateurs and continue to vote against their own economic self-interests, operating in an absolute knowledge vacuum, to the delight of Republicans who use them and exploit this political ignorance. And what makes 2012 worse than ever in this regard is race. Don't think for even one nanosecond that Obama's skin color isn't what's behind the "I just simply don't like him" sentiments of folks like Dale. But...they'll never admit it.

A War of Words Over the GOP's War on Women

The Republican party--its leadership, 2012 candidates and media surrogates--is working feverishly to dispel and dismiss any notion that they're engaged in a "war on women" as accused by Democrats. To this end, a quick listen to presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney would have you believe that the GOP is the true champion of issues critical to women.

The issue took a hot turn Sunday when sparks flew on the set of NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning as guests Rachel Maddow and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos debated whether American women are at a compensation disadvantage in the workplace.

Maddow: Right now women are making 77 cents--on the dollar for what men are making, so--

Castellanos: Well, that's not true.

After a brief back and forth and several interruptions by the right-winger:

Maddow: --it's weird that you're interrupting me and not letting me make my point, because we get along so well. So let me make my point.

Castellanos: I will.

Maddow: But it is important, I think, the interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your perspectives, that women are not faring worse than men in the economy. That women aren't getting paid less for equal work. I think that's a serious difference in factual understanding of the world....It's about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don't believe is happening.

After another brief exchange Castellanos added: And I love how passionate you are. I wish you are as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it. I really do.

Maddow: That's really condescending.

Kudos to Maddow for holding her own and making Castellanos appear like the typical middle-aged conservative white male who claims to know more about what's best for women than they do. She came prepared with facts, which of course makes it extremely difficult to debate those on the right. But what's really condescending, and infuriating, is how Republicans like Castellanos and his clients in the House and Senate say one thing and do another when it comes to supporting women and their interests. They've consistently voted against and/or advocated the repeal of every single thing women care about... from contraception, health care and food subsidies for children to day care, equal pay and shutting the Department of Education. They really think American women are stupid.

If Romney and Republicans truly cared about women as much as they contend, they'd stay out of their bedrooms and vaginas and stop trying to cut everything that supports them and their families. Don't think women won't go to the polls in November remembering who's on their side and who isn't....and, to Castellanos' claim that men and women are paid the same, which party believes women have nothing to be upset about. All the fake conservative rhetoric in the world won't change that.

Parents, Get Your Kids to Watch This Show!

I'm not one for reality television. In fact, I tend to believe that this form of "entertainment" is turning the minds of our youth into seaweed and destroying American culture in the process. Programs such as "Teen Mom", "The Real World" and "Jersey Shore" dish up dialogue and situations so vacuous and dimwitted that we may as well lobotomize those who watch them. I pray for the day that these media cesspools of narcissism disappear and the industry returns to employing actual writers to create more original sitcom and dramatic programming.

But there is one show that I find utterly fascinating and enjoyable. What's more, I am thrilled to say that my 8-year-old daughter is even more obsessed with it than I am. The show is ABC's "Shark Tank," which airs Friday evenings and gives entrepreneurs the opportunity to pitch their business ideas to a panel of five "filthy rich" (as the announcer refers to them) gazillionaires who then decide whether or not to fund their ventures.

"Shark Tank's" genius is that it's more game show and educational show than the standard reality fare. It actually teaches something important, and because of that unique benefit I strongly recommend that every parent have their children watch at least one episode.

As an entrepreneur who's started three businesses, it's music to my ears when Sophie asks, "Do we have any Shark Tanks taped?" This kid knows more about sales, profits, balance sheets and corporate valuations than I could ever have dreamed she would at this age. She's developed a genuine interest and appreciation for deal-making and the venture capital process.

Part of the fun for Sophie is the good-natured competitive jostling (the show could be called "Snark Tank") amongst the Sharks as they vie to outdo each other for the most desired investments . Her clear favorite is Mark Cuban, the irreverent technology billionaire-turned-author-actor-movie/tv mogul-Dallas Mavericks owner. She loves the way he always seems to out-Shark the others to get the best deals. Her least favorite is Kevin "Mr. Wonderful" O'Leary. "That guy really loves money," she says with zero reverence. "Nobody seems to like him."

But the real payoff is when she asks questions such as "What are sales?" "What does 20% equity mean?" And "What is a partner?" That she has such a capitalistic curiosity is refreshing, and I love being able to talk with her about it. Are there some adult themes, advanced humor and phrases uttered during this highly entertaining educational hour? Of course. But have you seen "iCarly" lately? I'll take "Shark Tank" any day over the mindless sarcastic drivel currently aimed at kids on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel and MTV.

George Zimmerman 2.0

George Zimmerman, the Florida vigilante many believe shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in cold blood, has created a website ostensibly to "thank" his supporters and to raise funds for his living and legal expenses. He's not been seen since the killing, and is feared to have taken flight. And if his lawyers dumping him Tuesday is any indication of things to come, Zimmerman's gonna need all the help he can get as special prosecutor Angela Corey may be preparing charges against him...which could be announced as early as today or the latest Friday. One thing's certain, it's never a good sign when your attorneys quit and you start pleading your case in the court of Sean Hannity and Fox News, as Zimmerman did this week.

The disturbing website, which is peppered with self-serving quotes from Thomas Paine, James W. Loewen and Edmond Burke, promises that police will be able to investigate the case "unhindered" and that "the facts will come to light." The home page states:

"On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life..."

What about Trayvon? What was he forced to give up? He's the one who's dead, not the self-pitying Zimmerman. As of this writing he has 7200 visitors. I can only imagine the amount of money he must be raising from his racist "supporters."

On Monday Corey chose not to send the case to a grand jury, thus ruling out murder charges (in Florida only a grand jury could hand up such charges). She's now facing the biggest, most critical decision of her life. One that will not only have lasting impact on her career and legacy, but one which could have a major if not violent ripple effect across the country. If she files charges--most likely manslaughter--is there enough evidence (did Sanford cops blow the case with an inept investigation as many believe?) to actually convict? And if she elects to drop the case, will America face Rodney King II where the Spring/Summer heat, the economy/unemployment, and anger over the case bloody the streets?

The one haunting fact of this case still remains: that a 28-year-old man with a 9mm semi-automatic gun left the security of his locked car--when instructed not to by 911--and confronted a teenager holding an iced tea and a bag of Skittles and shot him to death. Zimmerman's "self-defense" claim is both unfathomable and unconscionable. Justice needs to be served here, and quickly.

The Second Assassination of Trayvon Martin

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The only thing that could be worse than a presumably innocent 17-year-old boy being shot dead is the aftermath where police, gun enthusiasts, conservatives and racists attempt to smear the youth's reputation. The wholesale character assassination taking place is despicable but not unexpected. It's the typical "she was asking for it with that short skirt" defense. When all else fails, blame the victim.

I don't care if Trayvon Martin had a police record or not. Or if he was suspended from school or not. Or whether he smoked weed or not. Or that he was out at 10pm or 3am. He could've just held up a liquor store for all I care. And I don't care whether he threw the first punch at Zimmerman or not. In fact, Trayvon could've been the worst scum of the Earth (which he clearly wasn't) and none of that...let me repeat none of that...justifies Zimmerman stalking, confronting and killing Trayvon. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, not by vigilantes who play judge, jury and executioner.

On neighborhood-watch patrol, it could be argued that Zimmerman did his job by calling 911. It should've ended there. He was told to stop following the kid. He didn't. He then elected to put himself, and Trayvon, in harm's way. Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law should not protect him. To the contrary, it protects people like Trayvon. It is Trayvon, unarmed, who apparently needed to 'stand his ground' after being menaced by an older man with a 9mm semi-automatic weapon strapped to his waist. Even if that meant throwing the first punch. It was his right to use deadly force after believing that Zimmerman was out to kill him.

Trayvon Martin has already been assassinated. The shameful second assassination taking place right now needs to stop.

What Trayvon's Death Means for America

There are some events that transcend all others and taken on greater historic value and significance, perhaps even serving to reshape our culture, our laws and how we ultimately think. Trayvon Martin's death is such an event. And in terms of civil rights and race relations, the name Trayvon Martin will be forever etched in America's collective consciousness much in the same way as Rosa Parks, Emmett Till and Martin Luther King Jr.

To be sure, all of the facts of Trayvon's death have yet to be investigated, uncovered and revealed. But on the surface, it would seem highly likely that an innocent 17-year-old black youth was stalked, confronted and provoked into some sort of dispute in which the young man, holding only an iced tea and bag of Skittles, was shot dead. His killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, remains free and has yet to be arrested or charged with any crime. Trayvon's killing has spurred impassioned protests nationwide, even resulting in an emotional statement from President Obama.

Zimmerman is hiding behind Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" which permits the use of deadly force in cases of self-defense. But a 911 tape of his call while on neighborhood-watch patrol in the gated community where he followed and ultimately shot Trayvon clearly shows how he was told to stop pursuing the youth. This is the precise point where the law should no longer protect him, because it was the moment Zimmerman lost his right to claim self-defense and instead chose to put the life of another in grave danger. It was Trayvon, an unarmed young man being followed by a menacing older man with a 9mm semi-automatic weapon, who had more of a right to stand his ground.

As his grieving, shell-shocked father Tracy has vowed, Trayvon will not die in vain. His death has galvanized an entire nation in demanding justice. From his death I'm sure will come new legislation ("Trayvon's Law," which will protect innocent people from over-zealous civilian patrols) and amendments to old laws. You can bet that Stand Your Ground will soon exclude the pursuing and confronting of people. Police protocols will be changed. There will be schools named after Trayvon. There'll be documentaries and films preserving his legacy. Thousands of babies will be named Trayvon. And, justice will ultimately be served.

Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time Zimmerman was following him. She told him to run. He said he didn't want to. And he shouldn't have needed to. Trayvon Martin stood his ground and he died for it. In America's chain of progress, he is already a major link.

Why George Zimmerman Must Be Arrested and Tried For the Murder of Trayvon Martin

The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin one month ago in Sanford, Fl has all the earmarks of the 1964 Mississippi murders of civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner... right down to an inept local police department that, while not involved in the actual crime, as County Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff Lawrence Rainey and Cecil Price respectively had been forty-eight years ago, has failed to effectively investigate and arrest the killer. At best, it's an egregious dereliction of duty, and at worst it's a chilling example of the rampant racism that still exists in America today.

In many regions of the country there's been little material change regarding racial intolerance since Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were beaten and shot to death. In 2012, despite the presence of Lebron James, DisneyWorld and Northeast retirees, Florida is as much the bigoted deep South as 1964 Mississippi. Which is why both the Martin and Mississippi cases required intervention and investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice. So much for progress.

Martin's killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, has not been charged or arrested, and remains free in an outrageous, reprehensible travesty of justice. All thanks to Florida's misguided Stand Your Ground Law which states that any person may use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Zimmerman had been part of an unregistered neighborhood-watch program in his gated community, Retreat at Twin Lakes. Records show he called police at least 46 times in the last eight years to report various suspicious people and acts. According to The Orlando Sentinel and other news organizations, he was twice accused in 2005 of either criminal misconduct or violence. He was licensed to carry a concealed firearm, and had a black Kel-Tec semiautomatic handgun the night he shot Martin. Martin was found with only a can of Arizona Iced Tea and a bag of skittles. Last time I checked, no one's ever been killed by a beverage or a bag of candy.

Florida legislators maintain that Stand Your Ground does not provide a defense for people like Zimmerman who, despite being told by a 911 dispatcher to stop following Martin, pursued and confronted the youth before shooting him to death.

Zimmerman "has no protection under my law," said Florida Senator Durrell Peadon, who sponsored the law. And according to state Representative Dennis Baxley, "There’s nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people.” So how is it that Zimmerman, carrying a semi-automatic weapon, felt his life was in danger by a 17-year-old carrying nothing but candy and a drink?

Wendy Dorival is Sanford's volunteer coordinator for the Police Department. She helped train Zimmerman. She stated that those involved in neighborhood-watch programs are supposed to be "the eyes and ears" for the police, "not a vigilante.” Specifically, she said, members "are not supposed to confront anyone. We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle." She added that carrying and using a gun on patrol violates protocols.

Furthermore, the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the neighborhood-watch program nationwide, is 100% clear in its manual on this point as well: "Patrol members do not carry weapons," have no police power, and should “not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.” Lastly, not following the guidelines can result in serious consequences: "Each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority."

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee has resigned, but said “While I stand by the Sanford Police Department, its personnel and the investigation that was conducted in regards to the Trayvon Martin case, it is apparent that my involvement in this matter is overshadowing the process."

But that's not enough. What's needed here is justice. Logic and circumstantial evidence suggests that an innocent 17-year-old youth carrying nothing but candy and drink was murdered by an unemployed super-hero wannabe vigilante with a sketchy past and a semi-automatic gun hiding behind some Draconian law after being told by police to go home and let them investigate. It's hard to fathom on any conceivable level how Zimmerman can claim his act was in self-defense, or how and why Lee's police department would let him walk free....automatically presuming his innocence over Martin's. Martin is dead and can't defend himself. Hopefully the rest of America will.

Republican Vaginsanity

Why does a party whose members (pun intended) frequently get caught with their pants down have such a seemingly negative view of sex? The very guys who seem to have more mistresses than a Vegas whorehouse can't seem to stop obsessing over the fact that the rest of us like it too. We just don't want to have babies every time we play hide the salami. Lighten up already, righties, will ya!?

The latest uber-offensive, invasive legislative salvo's been fired out of Arizona, where House bill 2625 seeks to allow any employer to refuse birth control coverage if the intended uses are "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." What that means is that if a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered she has to prove to her employer that she needs it to treat medical conditions such as endometriosis rather than simply wanting to pound the flesh with her man. The law would also allow employers to fire a woman if it was disclosed that she took birth control for....birth control purposes.

"This shit's even more Draconian than me!" said Draco through a medium Thursday.

Arizona's foray into Vaginsanity comes on the heels of Virgina's failed efforts to force women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds (wasn't that Rick Santorum's teenage Christian rock band?) and Oklahoma's Personhood Act, which would grant full personhood rights to embryos from the point of fertilization.

"Finally, a bill that protects our rights as citizens!" beamed Harry Gamete, President of Zygotes United.

Why, then, aren't Republicans aggressively proposing legislation to ban condoms? Wasted sperm is a wasted life, right? Isn't it a mammoth double-standard to only seek a ban on female contraception? If conservatives are so hot under the testes about birth control being used as pseudo-abortions, why not hold a special erection and stop it at the point of ejaculation? Oh wait, I remember...they can't outlaw condoms because they'll never be able to screw their mistresses again.

Which brings us back to Santorum, the Republican poster-boy for lust-less sex:

"One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay. It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

The day I listen to Rick Santorum about how sex is supposed to be is the day I castrate myself. The man who spends more time thinking about gay men and bestiality than the 12-million unemployed believes sex to be purely for married people to procreate.

"That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen" (I thought he was anti-union?).

I guess that explains why Santorum's such a repressed tight-ass. If he's literally practiced what he's been sanctimoniously preaching, the poor guy's only gotten laid eight times in 22 years.

What "Game Change" Really Tells Us

The HBO film "Game Change" certainly portrays former vice presidential candidate and conservative firebrand Sarah Palin as ignorant, arrogant, erratic, impetuous and narcissistic. But the real villain in this saga is Sen. John McCain, the opportunistic mad scientist who birthed this Frankenstein and dangerously unleashed her on society.

McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign with his principles in tact and maintaining his enviable maverick status. But by the time it was all over he had sold his soul to the devil while creating a landscape that could've put America in the hands of the most unqualified politician the nation has ever seen. And that's the most indicting aspect of this entire story.

To be sure, we didn't need "Game Change" (the book or the movie) to inform or convince us of Palin's massive failings. Just listening to her speak gets us to that conclusion within seconds. But that McCain, despite knowing how woefully incapable she was, would put her within striking distance of the Oval Office is tantamount to treason. That he could so cavalierly abrogate his principles and risk the security of the nation purely for selfish political gain is an unconscionable, un-unpatriotic act and is glaringly in direct conflict with the phony "Country First" theme on which he disingenuously ran.

Yet to this day he ardently supports and defends Palin, as he did last weekend in an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: "I admire and respect her, I'm proud of our campaign and I'm humbled by the fact that I was able to give her the Republican vice-presidential nomination." He added that she was the "best qualified person."

But are we really to believe that this old-school, war-hardened career politician, one of the smartest guys out there, truly believes she was qualified for the most powerful and important job in the world in the event something happened to him? Given all that we've witnessed since, and what we now know from those inside the campaign, his behavior then, and now, is reprehensible and shameful.

McCain has made his bed and is still sleeping in it. It was and remains his choice to make Palin his legacy.

True Grits

"Mornin' Alabama! How y'all doin' today!? One thing's fo' sho', I need y'all's vote! Lordy bee, I been skootin' around so much I'm tired-er than a racoon at a garbage dump! I tell ya, I've been busier than a caterpillar at a toe-countin' contest!"

No, that's not Mitt Romney talking. It's his new alter-ego, Mr. Cheesy Grits. Romney, in his desperate, last minute attempt to win the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, has been trying to sound more Southern than Foghorn Leghorn. Nothing's more painful to watch than the uber-stiff, fake and uncomfortable Romney trying to connect with regular folk. Because the truth is, with Mitt Romney, there is no truth.

At a Dixie rally last week he told the crowd "I am learning to say y’all, and I like grits and things...strange things are happening to me." Strange for sure. But what's strange is that Romney thinks the way to win voters in the South is to turn them all into inarticulate, soul-food-eatin' caricatures. Perhaps a more effective strategy might've been to say, "Now I don't know a thing about fixing grits, and I'm not going to pretend I do. I'll leave that to Rick and Newt. But I'll tell you one thing, I know an awful lot about fixing the economy and creating jobs. That's why I deserve your vote."

But that won't ever happen on the Romney campaign trail, because that would require the candidate to sound like a real human being rather than a fork-tongued automaton who wouldn't know honesty and sincerity if it hit 'em in the neckbone.

Romney is the "severely conservative" candidate with more flip-flops than a Birkenstock store. From abortion, immigration and taxes to gay marriage, health care and the environment...from the way he talks to the food he claims to eat...with Mitt Romney it's what you see is, well, we have no idea what you get."

An Open Letter to Republicans

Dear Republicans...and in particular those running for the GOP nomination, as well as Congressmen and Senators like Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Roy Blunt, Marco Rubio and countless others. I just want to say, in this era of unprecedented political invective and vitriol, that I appreciate and respect you. I also want you to know that I am extremely thankful for your existence, and feel blessed by your consistency and predictability. I say all that because you guys have literally handed the White House on a silver platter to President Obama for another four years. And maybe even control of the House again too.

Who would have thought, just a few short months ago, that Obama would be out measuring drapes again. The economy, while clearly in a solid recovery to those who obsess over leading economic indicators, still appears fragile to most Americans. We still have high unemployment, record high fuel prices, a depressed housing market, weak manufacturing and way too many foreclosures, defaults and bankruptcies. A perfect storm making this year's elections ripe for the GOP picking, you say? The table couldn't have been better for you guys if Martha Stewart had set it herself.

So how do you Republicans respond? The first thing you do is turn your presidential nomination process into a circus complete with unqualified clowns like Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich dominating the three rings. And then you let these bozo's turn Mitt Romney, a generally decent, historically moderate guy, into a "severe conservative" in his rapacious hunger to win. What you did was say to voters, "We obviously don't take this election seriously, so why should you?"

Then, if that wasn't enough, while everyone wants to hear about what you'll do to fix the economy and create jobs, you guys go off on a non-stop tangent over religion, gay marriage, abortion and contraception. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people!? You never learn. You simply can't help yourselves, can you? As your car is once again careening off a cliff you're still screaming about the evil of birth control and sex. This from a party with myriad mistresses and sensational sex scandals. I'm so confused. You guys clearly love sex. It just seems like you want to stop the rest of us from having it.

Lastly, just when it seems you could do no more to destroy your chances of winning in November you go ahead and let your spiritual leader Rush Limbaugh make outrageously misogynistic remarks--comments that attack an entire gender and offend all thinking people--with relative impunity. Not one of you running for president repudiates or condemns these despicable slurs or makes any attempt to distance yourself from this vile sexist pig. It's as if you're all happy that he's saying all the nasty crap you guys really wanna say yourself but can't.

So again I say, thank you. No, wait. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Because one mere thank you isn't enough. You guys and your radical extremist social views are the gift that keeps on giving. So keep it up! Keep all the God, gays and sex stuff coming. We love it.
Signed,
A Very Grateful Democrat

The Republican War on Religion

The Blunt Bill, which sought to allow any employer in America to deny certain medical insurance coverage to employees on the grounds that it violates their personal religious beliefs, failed to pass the Senate last week. This bill would have widely expanded the Obama administration's January measure, as part of the new health care reform law, requiring religiously affiliated institutions to cover contraception. In a later compromise, Obama adjusted the rule to require insurance companies, rather than Catholic schools and hospitals, to guarantee contraceptive coverage if the religious institutions themselves refused. Since the controversy first heated up, Republicans have disingenuously framed the debate as a "war on religion." Nothing could be further from the truth.

And the truth is, America is a secular society. The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, preventing government from mixing religion and politics. What the Obama administration has done with health care and its contraception policy is to protect religious freedom not assail or violate it.

Some Republicans, like presidential candidate Rick Santorum, have used the birth control issue to expound extreme social views. Contraception, he said, is "a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." The fact that the Centers for Disease Control cite that 99% of all American women have used birth control escapes the former Pennsylvania Senator. I suppose, in the infamous words of the GOP's spiritual leader Rush Limbaugh, these women are all "sluts" to Santorum.

So here's what it all boils down to: where do we draw the line with employers regarding contraception and other medical/health coverage? If the Catholic Church can take a pass on birth control, can a business owned by Christian Scientists pass on drugs, surgery and other conventional methods? Can Jewish-owned businesses deny delivery coverage unless parents of newborn males agree to circumcision? Should we simply say to those who don't like such policies, go to work someplace else?

Yeah, why not just let employers hire people who share their religious beliefs so there won't be an insurance problem, right? Wrong. That's called discrimination. There are laws protecting against such violations of religious freedom and one's ability to get a job without being subjected to religious Litmus tests.

Employers don't get to play God. And they don't get to decide what goes into or out of a woman's vagina. Nor do they get to pick and choose an employee's health coverage in an effort to satisfy their religious beliefs.

To be sure, there is no "war on religion" other than the one being waged by right-wing religious extremists like Santorum, Newt Gingrich and countless others who relentlessly attempt to impose their fanatical beliefs on everyone else.

The Vagina Follies

Republican men are obsessed with vaginas. What goes in them, what comes out of them, who can touch them and, of course, those that belong to their mistresses. But to be sure, it's a very unhealthy obsession. For women, for the country and certainly for the Republican Party. This year's presidential election could literally be called "The Rise and Fall of the Vagina Empire."

Vaginas are the Republican volcanoes. They lay dormant for years and then, just when everything seems fine, they suddenly erupt, usually around election time. The nation could be at war, the economy could be in a tailspin, and voters could be more disenchanted than ever. A perfect storm of opportunity for the GOP you say, right? Wrong. With uncanny predictability we see these "severe conservatives" leapfrog over the obvious campaign gifts and crawl right back into the vagina of obscurity and defeat.

Vagina is the Republican crack. They want men to want them, enjoy them and control them. To the Republican male, a vagina is something only they know how to work and protect. To them, the women who own them are simply too dumb, slutty, amoral and lesbian to do what's best with them. So they legislate. They legislate the vagina, or at least try to. Which is why no matter how positive things could look for them in an election cycle, they keep driving off the cliff over abortion, contraception, gay marriage and all sorts of other meaningless social wedge issues designed to rile up their ignorant, backward, hypocritical masses.

But here's the rub. The Republican red meat lies rotting on the floor. The GOP masses aren't buying. That's because they're too busy using birth control, getting abortions and not giving a fuck who marries who anymore. They want jobs. They want financial security. They want better health care and less expensive education for their kids. Ya know, the kind of stuff President Obama constantly talks about and enacts. Which is why he will almost certainly win re-election, maybe even by a landslide, in November.

While Mitt Romney appears to be hanging on to some shred of true front-runner status and just might in fact be the inevitable Republican nominee, his victory won't come because of his wide appeal, his experience or his vision for America. It comes by default. He'll win simply because his opponents' crazy train has derailed and exploded. The campaigns of candidates who've taken extreme conservative social positions have died a horrible, humiliating death. If the GOP and its future candidates were smart, they'd learn from Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and all the other vagina-obsessed dogmaticos who are setting the party back 300 years and making winning so damn easy for Democrats.