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.

Mitt and Rick's Wild Ride

So what do we make of the Arizona and Michigan primaries? One thing's for sure: Mitt Romney didn't win them per se. Rick Santorum lost them. Oh sure, Romney got the popular vote and the delegates, but the truth is Santorum, like his uber-conservative fellow cult member Newt Gingrich, has a knack for imploding just when things couldn't look better for him.

Just three weeks ago Santorum looked absolutely golden after his impressive three-state sweep of Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado which sent Romney's campaign into a tailspin. But then, just as he did after his victory in the Iowa caucuses, when he imprudently sparred with a college student over gay marriage and blew (pun intended) New Hampshire, he went on a verbal-diarrhea tear last week, calling President Obama a "snob" for pushing college, and attacked John F. Kennedy's views on the separation of church and state, saying they made him want to "throw up." And then in the Arizona debate Romney wiped the floor with him over his own Senate record. Oh, so close Rick yet sooooooooo far.

Santorum, the self-appointed Jesus spokesman, has apparently pushed his social agenda a tad too far. There's a phone call for ya Rick...Anita Bryant's calling. She wants all her ignorant, narrow-minded homophobic bullshit back. The truth is, voters, be they Democratic or Republican, simply don't care anymore who marries who, who screws who, who takes birth control, who gets an abortion or who worships who, if anyone. Except for the remaining few idealogue dinosaurs like Santorum. No matter how many times these morality cops drive their religious DogmaMobiles off the cliff, they never seem to learn.

Which brings us to Romney. They guy nobody likes to like, at this point, seems like a sure thing to win the nomination. He has the momentum, the growing delegate count and, unlike all the others who've run and may still be in the race, a skeleton-free closet and an ability to refrain from the major verbal gaffe. To be sure, the out-of-touch gazillionnaire can't help making minor inappropriate, insensitive and politically inexpedient comments like "My wife has two Cadillacs" and "I know many NASCAR owners." But the Massachusetts moderate-turned-severe-conservative will likely prevail not because he deserves it or because voters prefer him, it's simply because he's the least crazy clown in this GOP circus.

Down with College!

In his quest to win the Michigan and Arizona primaries Tuesday and ultimately the GOP nomination for president, Rick Santorum has found a new target: higher education. Speaking Saturday at the Americans for Prosperity forum in Michigan, Santorum did his best at tossing red meat into the rapacious crowd:

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob!" He cited elitist "liberal college professors" in their "indoctrination mills." And he outrageously charged that the reason Obama wants everyone to attend college is that he "wants to remake you in his image."

Welcome to the new Republican Party. The party of homophobic, xenophobic, racist, anti-science, anti-education invective and hateful demagoguery. The party of mean and nasty and anti-accomplishment. The party that its iconic hero, Ronald Reagan, wouldn't recognize if Santorum himself fell on him.

Santorum, the candidate with undergraduate, MBA and law degrees, believes blue-collar youth should not share his college aspirations. Keep 'em stupid, is his new mantra. Sure, it's easier for the smart college guys like him to manipulate the dummies who don't know any better. Because a stupid electorate is an electorate that'll vote for hate-speaking boneheads like him. Wow. Nothing says "Oval Office" like "strive for mediocrity."

Santorum also criticized John F. Kennedy’s speech that the separation of church and state is "absolute," saying it made him "almost throw up." He also has said that Obama has a "phony theology" and that his policies "don't follow the Bible." One thing's for sure: if JFK were around today I suspect he'd puke knowing that a narrow-minded, ignorant racist ideologue like Santorum was seeking his job.

But Santorum's not the only lunatic in this nut house. There's Newt Gingrich, and his reprehensible comments that Obama's an "anti-colonial Kenyan" who is "the most dangerous president in modern American history." And Ron Paul who, when he's not writing/publishing newsletters with racist rhetoric, is busy sounding like the crazy old grandpa at the BBQ. And Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts moderate who in a flash has become the biggest anti-abortion, anti-immigration, religiously dogmatic "severely conservative" strapped-to-the-roof-dog in the race.

What's that sound you say? That's the sound of a roaring engine as the Republicans drive off the political cliff.

My Colonoscopy: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself

I went for my first colonoscopy this week. I'm 52-years-old, and technically, by medical standards, two years late in taking the examination. The truth is, I put it off out of an absolute dread of the procedure and the preparation.

It's important to understand and appreciate a few facts: The American Cancer Society estimates an annual 141,000+ Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and that roughly 35% of those stricken will die. It is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Approximately 90% of all cases occur in people over the age of 50, and at a 35-40% higher rate in men. It's a particularly slow growing cancer, developing over a period of 10-15 years. Which is why it's critical to have a screening exam such as a colonoscopy every five years.

So at the aggressive urging of my girlfriend Phoebe, I finally made the appointment, albeit with uber-trepidation. Full disclosure: I'm a really lousy patient. I have obsessive fears of sickness and death (exacerbated by the shocking murder of my wife Adrienne five years ago) and tend to avoid doctors and hospitals unless I am incapacitated.

I'd heard horror stories about the prep part. Guys would tell me how the night before, after eating nothing all day, they had to drink about 42 gallons of a disgusting liquid that tasted like a pasty vomitous combo of chalk and Elmer's Glue, and that that the rest of the night was filled with nightmarish bowel movements and desperate prayers to Jesus. I also made the mistake of watching videos on YouTube that demonstrated in gory detail every single aspect of this hellish ordeal. It literally scared the shit out of me (pun intended).

About a week before the exam my doctor mailed me instructions. I was told to purchase two 10 oz bottles of Magnesium Citrate and a Fleet enema. Leading up to prep day I was an emotional wreck. You'd have though I was going in for penile reconstruction surgery. At 6:30pm I bravely stuck a straw in one bottle, put it in my left hand, and held a raspberry lemonade chaser in my right. I was pleasantly surprised to find the medicine tasting almost like a Sprite. I sipped it up pretty quickly and waited an hour to drink the second bottle.

During this period I felt slight gurgling in my stomach, but little else. I drank the other bottle and naively asked Phoebe around 8:30 "Shouldn't something be happening by now?" Perhaps I did something wrong. Maybe the lemonade cancelled out the Magnesium Citrate? And then it hit. And hit. And hit again. And...then hit some more. And some more after that. Then a lot more. And even more. And even more than that. I basically spent the next ten hours in and out of the bathroom experiencing things no human being should ever experience.

Throughout the night I heard sounds coming from my stomach that I suspect the people of Pompeii never heard even as Vesuvius erupted. My bowel movements had the speed and ferocity of a tsunami. If I could only get a shower head this powerful. And it was like a Great White Shark had been cut open by Roy Scheider. All sorts of things came gushing out, like the pennies I swallowed as a kid, missing keys, beer cans and some small fish.

To be sure, I left my soul, and my dignity, in that bathroom that night. The experience left me weak, utterly exhausted and thirstier than I've ever been in my life. And if that wasn't enough I then had to insert the enema, just to make sure my insides were fully depleted before we left the house. "Lie on your left side and stay that way until you feel the need to evacuate" the instructions read. Evacuation? Is that what we're calling it now? At this point "evacuation" was what I thought my neighbors might be doing to escape whatever the hell they thought was happening in my apartment that might hurt them.

An hour later I was inside the exam room, my horribly dispirited ass exposed by the always-humiliating open-back gown they had me wear. Waiting for the anesthesiologist and doctor, I curiously glanced around the room and immediately spotted the dreaded beast: the seemingly 40-foot black Anaconda-like hose-camera they were going to insert up my now empty canal.

Minutes later, as they were prepping to give me some Propofol, we talked about how this stuff killed Michael Jackson. They assured me my fate would be different than the drug-addicted bizarro King of Pop. "Think of someplace nice for a vacation" they then said and in seconds I was dancing like Dorothy in the poppy fields. I woke up about an hour later. Hadn't felt a thing, and felt pretty good albeit a little groggy. I lay there alone thinking about the events of the past 24 hours and was glad it was over.

In all honesty, there was truly nothing to dread. My intense, almost paralyzing fear had been overblown and unwarranted. Sure, it was a mighty unpleasant experience the night before, but the worst part of that was simply having to go to the bathroom so much. The prep drink was more than bearable and the procedure itself felt no different than had I taken a simple nap in the exam room.

There was one final piece of this story that is a bit nerve-wracking: getting the results. After sitting a few minutes in the waiting room I was asked to meet the doctor in his office. He stood up, smiled (oh God, why is he smiling?) and proceeded to close the door (oh God, why is he closing the door?"). He's smiling, I thought, because he wants to be reassuring that this cancer I now have is a "good cancer." And he's closing the door so that no one can hear me scream "What the fuck do you mean "good cancer!?"

"You're exam went as well as I could possibly hope for," he quickly said. "Everything is perfect. See you in five years."

Music to my ears, and colon...

The Komen Controversy: Enough Already with "The Power of Social Media"

First off let me say that I find the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to end funding of Planned Parenthood irresponsible and reprehensible. Caving to right-wing anti-abortion extremists is both despicable and shameful. There's simply no place for politics in the on-going struggle to fight breast cancer. But I also have to say I am sick of hearing about the "power of social media to harness protest," as the New York Times reported Friday. While I completely understand, appreciate and accept the benefits the Internet provides, we as a society have to stop making it as important to the story as the story itself or, as in some cases, making it even bigger than the story.

Remember the demonstrations in Iran in 2009? And how quickly the media, and just about everyone else, rushed to give credit for this "revolution" to Twitter and Facebook? Back then I wrote:

What do the American Revolution, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement have in common? They all somehow managed to change history without Facebook and Twitter. But if you listen to our technology-obsessed media this week as post-election unrest unfolds in Iran you'd get the distinct impression that the current opposition rebellion could not exist without these social-networking sites.

To be sure, Demonstrations, protests, boycotts and revolutions have existed since the beginning of time. We all know what the Boston Tea Party protests of the 1700's led to, right? More recent examples include Cesar Chavez's Delano Grape Strike in 1960, the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and Anita Bryant's 1977 legislative victory against homosexuality (which, much to her ultimate embarrassment and disappointment, served to fuel a new era of aggressive gay rights activism and protest).

I know it sounds terribly sexy and is highly seductive to discuss social media and its role in major current events, but I fear the "me generation" of the 2000's risks patting itself on the back way too much (which, really, is what Twitter and Facebook is all about, isn't it?) rather than keep the focus on the story. A protest or boycott movement should be about the core issue and not on which medium those who protest are spreading the word. When that aspect starts to dominate, then it becomes more about the protester than what he or she is actually protesting.

If this were the 1960's and we were expressing outrage over Komen's decision, the word would ultimately be spread just as effectively and with the same outcomes...albeit with less speed. Let's not take away from the power of protest, and what we as citizens can achieve, by wasting so much time fawning over technology's role in all of it. At the end of the day, it's the people who use Twitter and Facebook, just as they used other media throughout history to foment dissent and harness protest.

Let's keep the relevance of Twitter and Facebook in their proper perspective. As I wrote in '09:

What would we have without these two sites through which to spread information about the massive protests? We'd have cell-phone cameras, Youtube, digital cameras and email. And what would we have before that? Phones, videotapes, 35mm photographs and underground newspapers. And what would we have before that? Well, we'd have the American Revolution, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, which last time I checked, profoundly changed the course of history without the ubiquitous Twitter and Facebook.