Gay Out Day

So it's December 10, aka, "call in gay to work" day. It's foolish, but I don't mind somebody having a day off. It's the sort of thing that grabs a few people some headlines, a few minutes of air time on TV, but accomplishes nothing much. I would advise against it. In some areas, people who participate in this action will lose their jobs, and they won't have much, if any, recourse. They're putting themselves, their jobs at risk, for somebody else's name to be in the paper. Big deal.

Those of you, who work for companies sympathetic to your cause, are punishing the wrong people. Those who are working for companies unsympathetic, will be punished. Can anybody honestly say that there is no positioning in their workplace? Of course not. This action will be used against you. Not necessarily because there's any malice at all, but because you handed a professional rival a weapon, and naively expected them not to use it.

Best thing is to protect your own interest, do the work. Put your partner's name on documents, see a lawyer, sign the power of attorney, etc. Yes it's a hassle, but it isn't much different than heterosexual couples.

Of course, do what you want. I think it's a silly idea to try to intimidate people into changing their minds. They'll come around on their own. Worst case, people get upset, push back, and what's already on it's way, gets slowed down. Best case, you get to hang and dine with converts. Eventually, those converts will expect to say the meal's blessing, and let's be honest, the concert version of Freebird takes less time then a convert saying grace. Sometimes all you can do is pick your poison. Just so everybody knows, it's okay to eat your food at the correct temperature. It's fine, really. Just saying.

Ed Rendell

So Ed Rendell, a man of a certain age, got caught on a hot mic. I don't agree that he said anything wrong. He didn't say that Janet Napolitano should "get a life" he spoke as somebody who has actually run something.

Anybody who has ever run a business, or a town, or a state, knows that it is hard. You want to be "fair" but when you hire somebody to do a job, that person is expected to do that job. The only reason to hire somebody to do a job, is so that the job will get done. It isn't about whether the person is a dutiful child to aging parents, or a good parent to growing children, or pretty enough to be popular,it's about getting the job done. That's it, that's all. If you pay people to do a job, that doesn't get done, when you need it done, you don't stay in business long, which puts you and all of your other employees out of work, which is bad for the economy.

Janet Napolitano is an accomplished woman. If she sees fit to call Ed Rendell on his comments, she'll do that. If it were me, I'd call him up, and laugh.

This is just another ginned up controversy, created by those who have never run a business, a town or a state. Cambell Brown is not old enough to be of a certain age, but she is of a certain mentality. Why is she perpetuating this we women are all victims nonsense? What is she trying to accomplish? Why aren't women of accomplishments teaching the younger ones how to navigate their lives, how to negotiate better deals? It might be less fun than wallowing in your own status as victum, but certainly more fruitful.

Wash v Hitchens

Anybody see that exchange between Joan Walsh and Christopher Hitchens? How embarrassing. Walsh did not smack-down Hitchens, in my opinion, she embarrassed herself, and women in general.

What is it about women of a certain age, acting as if all they are obligated to do is declare some man in the wrong? Was Hitchens trying to get her back a little bit for her "that's your opinion" remark? Certainly. So what? Why couldn't she return the return push? Why limit your response to crying foul? What kind of bone fides come from having a drink with Christopher Hitchens? Going to his house? Really, I do feel like that's too much information. At least she didn't complain about him not calling the next day.

TBA HRC?

Why did nobody tell me, that the reason HRC refused to end her presidential campaign even after she had lost, was so that she could get cute with the FEC rules? Yes, of course it's smarmy and underhanded, but at least it makes sense.

It took a while after she'd utterly and completely lost the nomination for her to publicly suspend her campaign. She used the word suspend, because it has no legal meaning, much like the word, is, while throwing her support behind Obama, so that she could bargain with the nominee. She forced Ed Rendell, and Charlie Rangel to bark her back, inviting the umbrage of women of a certain age. According to Mark Penn's polling firm, those women are angry.

I don't get why Bill Clinton should be lauded for straighten up and flying right. Should he not have been acting ethically all this time? Why exactly is he to be believed?

If she is appointed SOS, does that mean she'll have to return all those campaign contributions that she hasn't already spent? Does it mean that she will be unable to reach into her husband's pocket to pay back her debts? In this economy, why shouldn't the rich pay their vendors?

Prop 8

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked that the court to deem Prop 8 unconstitutional. That’s kinda nice, isn’t it? He’s of course, correct. Prop 8 should not have been put on the ballot. We Americans do not do as we please because somebody says we can, but because we are Americans. That’s it.

The question of, “why do you care?” is the wrong question. Everybody feels strongly about some things, but it usually isn’t the same things. It was wrong to put that on the ballot, because by putting it on the ballot, people were forced to express an opinion. Most people don’t want to be in other people’s private business. They pretty much know what’s going on, but if they’re not forced to acknowledge it, they’d rather go about their business, without making a fuss. Which really ought to suit everybody. But by putting it on the ballot, voting against Prop 8 would have made them complicit in something they, and those who have always loved them, have always believed to be a sin. Something just not right. It is at their base, and they cannot change it any more than the gays, can change what is at their base.

The real reason this fight is happening is because everybody seems to want to use the issue. The gays because they want some sort of external validation, and the Mormons want it so that they can counter balance the impression given the nation and the world via the success of HBO’s Big Love.

We know how this is going to end, the only choice to make is whether we get there acting like a bunch of damn fools, protesting and counter protesting, going out of our respective ways in order to make things more uncomfortable than they need to be, or are things going to get done properly? That means, doing the work. The work that's already done, a hundred thousand times, even though it seems nothing has ever been accomplished. It means knowing that there will always be those (with their own self esteem problems) saying despicable things to and about you, duping others into repeating and re-repeating the party line, and it isn’t your option to publicly snivel about it. Public sniveling is obnoxious, and it emboldens those who would strike out at you. Better to lick your wounds (if you have any) in private, allowing anyone who wants to, to consider you arrogant. Why not? Aside from rocks under your wheels, the Evil Eye, and a bad reputation, what have such people ever giving you?

Truth is, none of this could matter less. Really. The thing to do is to look out for yourself. When you know you’re in trouble, try to spy the incoming haymaker. Just do what you need to do.

This isn’t going to end through some magnificent moment, it’ll come quietly, nearly unnoticed. Live your life the way you need. If that means signing a power of attorney, so that your partner can make medical decisions, or whatever, then that is what you do. It’s a form, just paperwork, and if it has any bearing on how you feel about yourself, you really do have bigger problems.

Hillary as Secretary of State?

So the Clintons have put fourth a rumor that Hillary Clinton has been offered the post as Secretary of State, and is now thinking over the appointment. I'm sorry. If you believe this, there is something wrong with you. It simply doesn't make sense, at least not on its own.

If you put it in the context of Hillary Clinton's peers still talking her both up and (albeit unintentionally) down. Susan Estrich recently promoted HRC's electability by saying any democrat would have won the White House this year. Which is possibly true, but completely erroneous, as only one democrat had the nomination. It's also dangerous to make that point, as it reminds us all that there is nothing special about Hillary Clinton. Couple that with Bonnie Erbe's recent piece about how the Clintons "are being taken to the cleaners" and we've entered into a world of the ridiculous.

Erbe complains that Obama's disinterest in paying off the Clinton debt is somehow an act of misogyny. She criticises Michelle Obama's plan to raise and protect her daughters, as if such a plan were somehow retro, while complimenting the way Hillary Clinton raised Chelsea. Odd, apparently in Erbe's mind neither Bill nor Barrack merit any mention on the matter.

This is just being used as leverage for the Clintons to strong arm the new president. Barrack Obama is not Hillary Clinton's father. Barrack Obama is not Hillary Clinton's husband. Barrack Obama is not Hillary Clinton. Her debt is her responsibility. It's part of the package known as equality. If she so chooses to reach into her husband's pocket and pay off all of those small vendors, it would be a really good idea. The people she owes work for a living. They extended her credit because of her husband's name, and they should be paid.

Potty Joe

Somebody said something that was wrong. Wait seven seconds for it, now. Hahahahaha!