End of days

As 2006 dwindles away, Saddam Hussein's days may be numbered as well. The grim calculus of when to execute the former dictator is somewhat unsettled, due to the onset, of all things, of a religious holiday:

Saddam Hussein may be hanged within hours, senior Iraqi officials said on Friday, but the start of a week-long Muslim holiday might yet delay the execution.

Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and key officials met through the evening to try to settle the details, official sources said. Maliki has said he wants the ousted president put to death before the end of the year but, with Iraq on the brink of civil war, some Sunni and Kurdish leaders would prefer delay.

A senior Iraqi source told Reuters key legal issues were resolved and he could go to the gallows shortly. Among those meeting Maliki were the justice minister, who is responsible for executions, and the national security adviser, who may have to deal with any violent reaction from Saddam’s fellow Sunni Arabs.

Hussein is a monster who should never breathe free again. He committed and ordered unspeakable acts against innocents too numerous to contemplate. That being said, he should not be executed.

The execution of a criminal is never an ennobling act for the society carrying out the sentence. Execution is born of a thirst for revenge that, although frequently understandable, is an inexcusable basis for public policy. Whatever satisfaction a given execution may provide for the family of individual victims pales next to the corrosive effects the institution of capital punishment has on the rest of society. Where the slaking of blood-lust is enshrined in law, a people cannot hope for a government of compassion.

In Hussein's case, execution carries with it the added disadvantage of permitting that butcher to go to a martyr's death, at least in his own mind. It is a grand and, frankly, easy way out for him. Much better that he be locked away to wait out the end of his days -- impotent, irrelevant and forgotten.

Overheard In the Midwestern Household

MG: Look, the dog has a gray hair on his snout. He's too young for that.

Mrs. MG: Huh, he sure does. You are too young for that, buddy.

MG: I can't wait to get more gray hairs. I think it looks good on guys.

Mrs. MG: Some guys wear it well. You probably could. We can dye your hair gray if it means that much to you.

MG: Nah, that would be a little too Anderson Cooper.

Mrs. MG: What's wrong with that? Anderson Cooper's hot!

MG: He's not hot. He's a good-looking guy, but I wouldn't say hot.

Mrs. MG: It's his brain that makes him hot. If I was out to dinner with Anderson Cooper, I'd find him hot. I wouldn't kick him out of bed.

*pause*

Mrs. MG: But between Anderson Cooper and Hugh Jackman, who gets my loins shaking? I gotta go with Hugh Jackman.

Have you seen my weiner?

Posting pics of one's pets seems to be all the rage among bloggers. The Gent is not immune to the siren call of pimping the furry little view-grabbers; therefore, we present the first installment of The Weiner Blog.

Meet Otto. He's a 5-year-old miniature Dachshund out of Michigan weighing in at 10 pounds. He enjoys long naps in the sun, long naps on laps, long naps on his bed, and socks. Don't even get us started on the socks.

The Gent promises many more installments, because, as we say in the Midwestern Household, "all the world loves a weiner dog."

Need more proof global warming is for real?

NPR reported this morning that Allstate Insurance is discontinuing the sale of new homeowners' policies in Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey because it believes global warming makes catastrophic weather events more likely in those areas. These states join Florida, and parts of New York, Louisiana, Mississippi and California on Allstate's list.

Having worked on behalf of insurance companies in the past, the Gent knows that insurers want to sell policies to as many people as possible. That's how they make their money. For a major insurer to abandon several highly populated states indicates that they have looked at the data, done the modeling, and determined that the risk of global warming-related losses is just too great. That's a pretty strong statement. Insurance actuaries are not driven by emotion or political positions. They are stone cold bean counters (but lovely people) and they are motivated only by risk and profitability. With all respect to Al Gore, their determinations are extremely persuasive evidence that the market can recognize and act on an "inconvenient truth" better than the political class.

Borat: Funny is only moustache deep

SPOILER ALERT: I've tried to avoid giving away any key parts of the movie, but if you want to see it with a clean slate, read no further!

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is funny. Extremely funny. Trained bear in an ice cream truck funny. But that's about as far as it goes. As social commentary, I'd prefer South Park or The Simpsons any time.

As Mrs. MG so aptly put it, Borat is a kind of Jackass of social interaction. The protagonist doesn't hurt himself for our amusement, as Johnny Knoxville & Co. are wont to do; rather, he puts complete strangers in extraordinarily awkward situations and then films their reactions. Think Punk'd with a circa 1985 moustache and an Eastern European accent.

The fundamental weakness of Borat is that, in his roadtrip across America, Sacha Baron Cohen doesn't reveal anything to us that we didn't already know was there. The characters, who are real people, are stereotypical stock characters from Americana -- the gay-bashing rodeo organizer, snooty southern socialites, even the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold. The most poignant commentary to be found comes from an evangelican church whose members ignore Borat's physical needs but are only too happy to "save" him spiritually.

Oh, and you'll never look at a conference of mortgage brokers the same way again.

The movie does, however, include one worthwhile cultural learning -- Americans are, by and large, a very hospitable people. That hospitality has its limits, which are often despicably delineated by race, class, gender or sexual orientation. But time and again in the movie, Americans open their businesses and homes to Borat in a generous fashion, only to have that generosity backfire. It's an interesting cultural insight -- about the only one on offer.

Genuine Christianity

No sooner had we arrived in our new Pennsylvania home than tragedy struck our neighbors to the west - the Amish of Lancester County. Reading a story about the aftermath of the shootings this morning, I was stricken by the resolve and strength of these humble people. And by their ability to forgive:

John said he wouldn't do a television interview. The Amish believe pictures are a sign of vanity, and pictures on TV are an even worse way of indulging in the evils of the world.

But John was willing to talk about the horrible school shooting that brought so much evil to this peaceful world. "We're very concerned that no message of revenge gets out," he said. "We believe in forgiveness.”

In a day when the name of Christ is bandied about to justify the prejudices and bloodlust of so-called "christians," it is remarkable to see an unspeakable horror met with forgiveness. Grief, to be sure, and disbelief, are present as well. But how actually Christ-like that the community's grief includes the family of the shooter.

I had heard that some people from the Amish community were perhaps going to meet with Marie Roberts, the gunman's wife. John assured me that would happen soon, if it hadn't already.

"They need support, they need help," he said. "We will send them flowers." He expressed concern about how difficult it would be for the three Roberts children when they return to school.

Would that all Americans shared this spirit.

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are...

In law school, I spoke as a straight "ally" to various classes for the campus office of LGBT Affairs. During orientation, the speakers, both gay and straight, shared their coming out stories. The stories ranged from extremely painful to funny to sweetly innocent. One woman's story of her adolescent crush on a camp counselor was so cute I wished I was a girl just so I could date her.

I find revisiting my story every now and again a refreshing reminder of why I believe in tolerance and acceptance, and why the fight for full equality cannot stop until it is a reality. Here's my story -- I hope you'll share yours as well.

I went to college a fundamentalist Christian. I thought being gay was a sin, and that gay people should be prayed for. I wasn't hateful about my beliefs, but they were relatively firm.

Until I met Rob. Rob and I worked for the campus conference office, he as a full-time conference planner and me as a student assistant. Rob was in his late 20s, good looking, and very self-assured. He was a fun guy to hang out with, and we spent many a day criss-crossing campus together in the department minivan.

Some way into that summer, I said something about Rob, to which a co-worker replied, "You do know Rob is gay, don't you?" I didn't. But rather than the "ick" reaction you might have expected, what came to mind was more of a "huh, what do you know?" I couldn't instantly categorize or judge Rob, because I knew him, and we were friends. As the summer wore on, he said a few things that made his orientation clear, such as his trademark "doing the bobblehead at all the boys walking down the hall."

That one relationship triggered a change of mindset. I left college with the conviction that discrimination against LGBT people was wrong. But moving back to my little hometown to write for the local newspaper, the subject never really came up and I didn't do anything with my conviction.

Then our state senator came to town. At a time when major education issues were before the state legislature, he held a town hall meeting where the one and only topic was preventing gays from adopting. He had sponsored legislation to this effect based on anecdotal, hearsay evidence about a pair of gay men who adopted a child, and it was later discovered that one of them had a criminal record. This, somehow, made gays on the whole unfit parents.

What shocked me as I sat in a little diner covering the event was the prevalence of gay jokes being whispered back and forth between the "town fathers" at the meeting, most of whom were Democrats. I left the meeting furious, and logged on to join the ACLU that day. In a number of small ways, I've spoken for love and equality for the relationships of LGBT citizens since that day.

How about you? How did you come to accept your own sexuality, or come to the conclusion that you were "straight but not narrow?"

I drink alone, with nobody else

The Midwestern Household is movin' on up the I-95 corridor this month, as we relocate from Maryland to Philadelphia. Ms. MG has already made the trip -- she moved into our new house and started her new job two weeks ago. Me, I'm still camping (literally - sleeping bag, camp mat) in our empty condo, with no furniture and, as of this afternoon, no TV. So here I sit, enjoying a pinot grigio and Manwich (cuz that's how I roll), and ungodly silence.

Tres excited about my new gig -- going to be working for an alternative energy company that builds wind turbines and is looking to get into solar. Should be a big culture change from my law firm days. It's a great time to be getting into this industry, and I'm looking forward to learning all about it.

Mr. Conservative

HBO began running a documentary this week on Barry Goldwater, dubbed "Mr. Conservative" and often credited with launching the modern conservative movement in the course of his unsuccessful 1964 bid for the presidency. The documentary, spearheaded by his granddaughter, portrays Goldwater as an "old school" conservative more in line with William F. Buckley or Andrew Sullivan than what passes for "conservatism" today. Goldwater might more accurately be called a libertarian, because his fundamental premise was that less government involvement (read, interference) in the national life should be the goal of politicians. In this, he appears to have maintained a consistency rarely seen today, applying his philosophy to both economic and social issues, such as abortion (he didn't believe the government had any right to tell women what to do with their bodies). Later in life, he even came to renounce his previous resistance to gays in the military, concluding that there was no sound policy reason to exclude people because of their sexual orientation, which he considered none of the government's business.

The documentary was interesting not only as a profile of a figure I must admit to knowing little about, but also as a timeline of the evolution of the conservative movement from its libertarian roots to its current Christianist paternalism. Goldwater himself had little use for the "social conservatives" whose inclusion in the GOP led to its electoral success, frequently clashing with Jerry Falwell and other fundamentalists.

I've often thought that the primordial conservative movement, prior to its co-option by radial reactionaries, offered some potentially valuable ideas to public debate. It is interesting that more and more "old school" conservatives are now rebelling against the current state of the movement, which has betrayed the values that Goldwater and others sought to promote. I plan to follow with some regularity the evolution of this debate within the movement, and am looking forward to reading Sullivan's forthcoming book on "The Conservative Soul." Goldwater, and conservatism past and present, certainly contain faults and follies, but in a time when reason is being pushed further and further from the public square, they just might be symbols worth resurrecting.

Truthiness Goes Nucular

The WaPo reports today that Rethuglicans continue to put politics before the truth, issuing a report on Iran's nuclear capabilities that the IAEA calls "outrageous and dishonest". The report, written by a single GOP staffer and released before it could even be voted on by the House intelligence committee, contains claims about Iran's nuclear program that intelligence officials acknowledge cannot be supported.

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

Wow, talk about the tail wagging the dog.

If anyone has forgotten "the lessons of 9/11," it's Republicans who value political advantage over policy based on solid intelligence. The lack of shame and decency prevailing in the majority party is simply staggering.

Hands Off Constitutions

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has a great op-ed in today's WaPo arguing against the wave of "constitutionalizing" sweeping across the nation in connection with gay marriage. Judge Wilkinson argues that matters evoking such passionate debate should be left to the normal legislative process, rather than being enshrined in state and federal constitutions either by judicial ruling or constitutional amendment.

The Framers meant our Constitution to establish a structure of government and to provide individuals certain inalienable rights against the state. They certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does.

Ordinary legislation -- not constitutional amendments -- should express the community's view that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." To use the Constitution for prescriptions of policy is to shackle future generations that should have the same right as ours to enact policies of their own. To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country's founding charter as their own.

The judge's essay is a refreshingly balanced view of how the American legal and political systems were intended to interact. As passionately as I want to see gay Americans enjoy equal marriage rights, my thinking is evolving somewhat as to the best way to achieve this result. Increasingly, I wonder if working through state legislatures isn't, in fact, the better way to go, even though it could delay the achievement of equal rights for some time.

The increasing prominence of the so-called "procreation" rationale signals, in my opinion, the beginning of the end for marriage discrimination. Both the New York and Washington supreme courts, in refusing to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, held that inequality could remain because the legislature could rationally believe that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was necessary to encourage opposite sex couples to form stable family units for the raising of children.

"Poppycock!" you say? Exactly. It is poppycock, and it's the thin thread on which marriage discrimination currently hangs. Even the fundies have shifted, in large part, from arguments based on their reading of Christian theology to arguing "on behalf of the children." They had to, because the moral arguments simply hold less and less sway as more Americans are exposed to openly gay friends, neighbors and co-workers, and greater awareness of the hardships inflicted on gay families. Taking the fight to state legislatures will require discriminators to continue relying on such flimsy arguments, and in the long run, those arguments will not hold water with people.

As I say, my thinking is evolving. But I can see the arguments now for moving away from a judicial strategy to a full-on legislative push for equality.

Rest In Peace, Crocodile Hunter

I'm quite saddened by the freak accident that took the life of The Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin. My thoughts go out first and foremost to his family, who must be devastated, despite the constant risks Irwin faced in his professional life. The Australian government has offered to give him a state funeral, should his family so choose.

The impact Irwin had on conservation awareness will be a great loss. His methods were unorthodox, to say the least, and probably more than a little reckless. But that Aussie bravado did something the more tame animal experts out there (like the imminently respectable Jack Hanna) could not -- reach a broad audience with a conservation message. Irwin's antics thrilled audiences, and in the process, held their attention long enough to educate them, even a little, about the need to care for and protect all species, even the unlovable ones. Irwin found "real beauties" among the venomous, the dangerous, and the irrationally hated creatures of the world. Would that his example translated into our dealings with humans as well.

I don't know what, if anything, the afterlife holds, but it isn't too difficult to imagine the Crocodile Hunter explaining to others at the Pearly Gates that the "amaaaazing stingray" was only doing "what Nature created it to do." So were you, Steve, and we thank you for it.

Miles O'Brien Is A Tool

Today is moving day in the Midwestern Household, and I've had CNN on all morning. I just have to say -- Miles O'Brien has got to be one of the biggest tools on television. He makes jokes at inappropriate times, is a borderline misogynist, and generally conducts himself with the same smirking swagger that makes me loathe GWB. He's too cute by half for my taste. Just read the news, jerk off.

Thanks for serving the Lord. Now shut up.

A Baptist minister in Watertown, NY has fired a 54-year veteran Sunday school teacher because, say it with me people, "the Bible told him to do it."

The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

"Rotten, lousy sonuvabitch!" you're saying to yourself? Oh wait, it gets better.

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

The town's mayor put it all in perspective.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

And now, the cherry on top -- the pastor's feckless church board, rather than standing up for their leader's theological choices, instead publicly suggested that other reasons underlie the teacher's dismissal. Cowardly smear? You make the call.

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.
In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

A “threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law.”

The American Bar Association found its voice yesterday on Bush's use of presidential signing statements, declaring their widespread use "a 'threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law.'" Money quote from the NYT:

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

* * *

The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”

I'm happy to see the ABA standing up for our constitutional system. Arguments over presidential signing statements may seem like arcane mumbo-jumbo to some non-lawyers, but to any citizen (lawyer or not) who understands our system of government and where it came from, such statements are rightly considered a serious long-term threat to our republic.

For a little historical context, the Times notes:

The issue has deep historical roots, the panel said, noting that Parliament had condemned King James II for nonenforcement of certain laws in the 17th century. The panel quoted the English Bill of Rights: “The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.”

Chicks Rule

Saw the video for the Dixie Chicks new single "Not Ready to Make Nice" for the first time this morning. The song itself didn't blow me away, but the integrity behind the statement really struck me. Politicians (of both parties) triangulate for political gain so regularly these days, one never knows whether they really believe most of what they say. Yet here are three musicians, who have been vilified, threatened and boycotted by angry mobs, standing up for their principles, even at great risk to their careers and finances. A refreshing dose of authenticity in an otherwise poll-tested world. My favorite verse, and the chorus:

I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Agree with their politics or not. But admire their backbone.

Daily Wisdom

Extremists run the country, because moderates have shit to do.

- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show (June 20, 2006)

Father's Day Reflections

Father's Day is a funny day for me. Growing up without a dad (mine was your standard-issue drunken, absent, white trash loser), I barely paid attention to the holiday. It was so irrelevant to me that I remember showing up for church one Sunday as a teen and being totally caught off guard by the "dads rule" sermon. I bailed out in tears.

It was during those tumultuous teen years that I finally came to grips with not having a dad, or rather, having a chickenshit deadbeat as a chromosomal contributor. I raged, cried and once grabbed for a gun in my desire to get back at him. It finally took my youth minister's wife bluntly reminding me that "you're only hurting yourself, not him," to snap me out of it. Since then, I've been at peace with my past and even more grateful for the miracle that my mom held things together on her own all those years.

So, Father's Day no longer bothers me, but I still haven't managed to incorporate an appreciation for it. My mom's husband has been a good stepfather to my younger brother and the adopted father of my little sister for 12 years, yet I forgot to even send him a card this year. Ditto for my brother, who has my two-year-old nephew, whom I adore. Not being a dad myself, it still just doesn't register.

At any rate, big ups to all you dads who are present, involved, and loving with your kids. It will mean a lot to them down the road.

You'll watch "7th Heaven" reruns and you'll like it!

Der Pres signed legislation today increasing ten-fold the maximum fines for indecency on broadcast television or radio.

Proving once again that Republicans are best at putting other people's money where their mouths are, a House subcommittee voted last week to drastically slash funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- the folks who bring you PBS, NPR, and the wealth of family-friendly content that those organizations provide. The subcommittee's move would eliminate all funding for CPB in two years.

Thinking back, I realized today that the GOP has been targeting public broadcasting -- one of the most cost-effective public goods in existence -- since I was a studying telecommunications in college some 10 years ago. Just like gay marriage and flag burning, attacks on public broadcasting are one of those perennials that has bloomed every election year since 1994. Contact your Reps and Senators and tell them to let it die on the vine once again.

"The Decider" Goes AWOL

After calling his senior advisors together to discuss stategery in Iraq, the Shrub goes AWOL after ONE DAY to fly to Baghdad for a grip-and-grin with the new PM. WTF?! Bush reportedly "slipped out" without telling anyone but his closest advisors of the trip.

Wow, that must have been some power-decidering on Monday. Glad to hear he's engaged in figuring out how to fix the mess his fucked-up policies have spent the last 3+ years creating. No doubt he'll need a few weeks clearing brush and bike riding in Crawford after this marathon of statesmanship.

Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs

The Senate will likely vote this week on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and it will most certainly fail. Both sides will spin the margin of defeat as a victory, and the country will move on to its next issue of vital non-importance -- flag burning.

The FMA, and the state versions that actually have passed, are the "last gasp of the dinosaurs." Those who would keep gay Americans closeted, oppressed and out of sight are losing in the culture at large, plain and simple. My generation is far more tolerant that those before, and signs are good that Generation Y may consider sexual orientation to be nearly irrelevant. The day will come when gay Americans are permitted to live freely, marry and raise families, just like everyone else. I can't say when it will happen, but it will.

In the meantime, those whose religious, moral or cynical political views demand that marriage remain a strictly heterosexual union are fighting with all of their might; a cornered animal lashing out in a vain attempt at survival. Their tactics are divisive, hurtful, and so lacking in Christian spirit as to be blasphemous. But they will not prevail in the long run.

I say all this not to encourage a false patience or discourage brave efforts to advance the equality of all Americans. My message is simple: do not dispair. History will be picking over the fossils of this flawed ideology soon enough.

The Pain of Faith Lost

An article in today's Washington Post reports that a number of people wearing rainbow-colored sashes were denied Communion at a Mass in St. Paul, Minn. The ostensible reason -- Mass is an inappropriate place to protest. The gay parishioners denied the sacrament argue that they are merely celebrating their identity, not protesting.

Incidents like these break my heart, because they reinforce my growing conviction that my church has nothing more to say to me. I grew up mostly outside of church, enthusiastically participated in an evangelical Protestant congregation as a teen, and converted to Roman Catholicism as an adult. I have internalized the teachings of the Gospels and attempted to emulate the spirit of Christ (with questionable success). But I can no longer feel that spirit being exercised by my church, or rather, it is exercised so selectively as to reek of insincerity.

I have seen marvelous acts of love and beauty carried out in the name of Christianity, but incidents like that in St. Paul remind me that this love is conditional, with the primary condition being obedience to the laws of a man-made institution. One sentence in the Post article drove this home:

None [people wearing rainbow sashes] were reported yesterday in the Archdiocese of Washington, which has a policy of denying Communion to anyone wearing a visible sign of protest.

The denial of Communion is an accusation of sin. If protest or dissent is sin enough to deny someone the most important of sacraments, well, I am already damned.

Hat tip: Tyler and Lisa at Habakkuk's Watchpost.

NEWS FLASH: Whiny Homosexuals Not Satisfied With Being "Tolerated"

This just in from the Southern Baptist Conference Newsroom – homosexuals aren’t satisfied with simply having their sinful, disordered existence tolerated:

Once upon a time, homosexual activists claimed they simply wanted to be tolerated. “Live and let live” was their mantra.

But today, only the most strident activists would deny that homosexuality is accepted in America. Homosexuals are represented in every strata of society. If their goal was simply toleration, it has been achieved.

However, toleration for homosexuality was never the end for activists; it was only a stepping stone. Their real goal is equality. Homosexual activists will not be satisfied until their behavior is validated and valued as equivalent with heterosexuality.

Come on! Christians have stopped stoning gay people or burning them at the stake. What more do they want? A television show about a pretty straight girl, her gay roommate and their flamboyant friend? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT JUST ENDED AFTER 8 SEASONS!?!

Anyway, these “homosexual activists” will stop at nothing to achieve equality with the heterosexual race – er – I mean, heterosexuality. How are they pursuing this goal, you ask? How else? They’re targeting America’s schools!

In April, parents in Lexington, Mass., complained because their second-grade son was read a fantasy book about two princes who get "married." When they contacted the school, they were told that because "same-sex marriage" is legal in Massachusetts, parents cannot opt out a child from such experiences. An administrator explained that the school was "committed to teaching children about the world they live in."

The Massachusetts incident, while the most recent, is not isolated. Over the past few years there have been other reports of teachers introducing "homosexual marriage" to young children.

Scandalous. Next thing you know, we’ll be teaching kids that women can vote just because the damned 19th Amendment says so!

Don’t be fooled by those hippie tolerance peaceniks who say this isn’t any big deal. The future of man hangs in the balance!

Someone once said, “He who controls the youth, controls the future.” Homosexual activists want a future that not only validates their behavior but also equates it with heterosexuality. And they are going to try and manipulate America’s children to get it.

Sobering stuff indeed. Thank goodness Christian groups would never manipulate young people to indoctrinate kids into their views on sexuality.

Pat "the Love Doctor" Robertson

Ladies, are you single? Lonely? Looking for a godly man to submit to? I give you the dating advice of that foremost authority on love, Pat Robertson:

Q: I’m a Christian woman who would like to get married. I was always taught that the man was supposed to initiate the relationship, but I’m getting tired of waiting. Do you think men would appreciate being pursued? And is it wrong for a woman to take the initiative?

A: Well, the object is to get them to pursue you until you catch them. And the clever woman knows how to initiate something. And I’m sure I can’t explain to you feminine wiles on this program in a couple of minutes. Use the innate talents that God has given you. First of all, if you’re going to catch fish, you’ve got to go where the fish are. So you need to go where men are who are single. And there are plenty of them out there who would like to meet an attractive lady who shares their values. So go places. And don’t be reluctant to be friendly and see what happens. If a man thinks you’re chasing him, then he’s going to run. So you’ve got to let him think he’s chasing you. But, obviously, you’re going to be in control, ladies.

That's right, girls. This isn't an exercise is getting to know someone and making a deep connection. This is an intricate game of strategery. So get out there and use those feminine wiles, but don't let him see it coming!

Best Geological Formation Ever

"Big Stoney" - Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah

You have to love geology that makes park rangers giggle like twelve-year-olds. I had to search around a bit to find a travel website that actually included a picture of ol' Stoney. Mrs. Midwestern Gent and I shot this picture last summer on a trip through southern Utah.

Tending the Mulch

I'm president of my condo association (geek!), which rarely leads to profound insights. This Wednesday's meeting was an exception. After fixing sidewalks so disabled residents don't fall and planning for the replacement of a couple hundred old water heaters to avoid catastrophic damage (stay with me, the interesting part's coming), we turned our attention to a request by a resident to put mulch on her little private garden.

What ensued was a 30-minute free-for-all in which no fewer than five residents commented to excoriate us for the rank favoritism, yea, the unmitigated injustice that we visited upon this poor soul by refusing her request when other private gardens were (mistakenly, we explained) granted said mulch. You'd have thought we just told her pets were against the condo rules (relax, they aren't) and then kicked her puppy to drive the point home.

This got me to thinking, all of the so-called "conservatives" who want to tell us whom we can marry, what we can watch on TV and how we can screw are just "tending the mulch." While serious and dangerous issues swirl around us -- grotesque deficits, rampant government corruption, etc. -- they're more concerned with the things that make them feel good (or icky, as the case may be) than dealing with real problems that affect more than just their narrow interests.

Anyway, that's my contribution to the lexicon. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to call a landscaper.

Jesus Was a Democrat

Ruth Marcus in today's WaPo worries in "The New Temptation of Democrats" that in reaching out to evangelical Christians, the Democratic Party might sell out some of it's core beliefs (yes, I realize this means accepting that Democrats actually believe something). Nevertheless, she acknowledges that the exercise may be worthwhile:

To some extent, Democrats could help themselves with evangelicals simply by showing up -- at the megachurches, on Christian radio and in other venues where Democrats have been scarce. Whether the Democrats are deploying the right messengers is more questionable: a liberal San Francisco Democrat and a civil union-signing Vermont governor may not be the party's best bet with evangelicals. More important, occasional drop-bys and clunky dropping of biblical references aren't going to do the trick. These voters weren't born again yesterday.

This latter point is the real risk for the Dems -- that they will look clumsy, opportunistic and foolish trying to woo evangelical voters. Keep sending Dean, Pelosi or any of the other tone-deaf party aparatchniks to be the messenger, and this risk becomes nearly a certainty.

Any appeal to religious voters must be based on a sincere belief that Christians and Democrats have important things to say and do together. The Gospels provide myriad examples of the overlap between Christian ethics and progressive policies intersect. The Dems would do well to identify one of their own with sincerely held beliefs, or at least a sincere respect for the beliefs of others, and send him/her/them on a non-stop outreach tour from now until November.

Bayh Watch

Interesting story on MSN about Sen. Evan Bayh's forays into Iowa as precursor to a potential run for president. Choice words on the senator's biggest challenge:

At a living room event in Sioux City on Saturday night, former Woodbury County chairman Al Sturgeon told Bayh that rank-and-file Democrats still feel “outrage over this incredible debacle in Iraq.”

Calling it “the biggest political and military blunder of my lifetime,” Sturgeon said to Bayh, “I’d like you to explain your vote on the war and why you gave the president a blank check to get us into this disaster.”

Bayh calmly answered that “I wouldn’t cast the same vote today as I did then.” He noted that “the French believed that (there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), the Germans believed that, the Russians believed that, everybody believed he [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction.”

Bayh said if the Iraqi factions “get their political act together — and we will know this in the next six to eight weeks… if they can form a government… then there’s something to work with there.” If not, then “we’re out.”

Afterward Sturgeon said, “It was an honest answer and I did appreciate the candidness. It’s not a good answer, because there aren’t any good answers.”

No question, I like Bayh and would love to see him run and succeed. He was my Governor growing up, and his cross-over appeal cannot be overstated. In a very red state, he enjoys enormous respect and popularity. If Democratic primary voters hang him simply because he voted for the war, they'll be missing the boat on a strong national candidate.

A first-hand account of one blogger's encounter with the Senator can be found here.

Hopeful Signs of Democratic Leadership

This just in -- there are Democrats out there actually thinking about solutions to problems that don't end with blaming Bush:

This month they published a fascinating book that lays out what the foreign policy of a winning campaign by one of those Democrats -- or perhaps Hillary Clinton -- could look like. Sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is an outgrowth of the Clinton-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), it's called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty."

Like most of its authors, editor Will Marshall, a DLC founder who now heads the policy institute, sees himself as reviving the foreign policy of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, who formulated the Democratic response to the totalitarian menace of communism. Jihadism, Marshall says, requires a similar exercise of intellectual muscle. "Democrats have always been at our best when we have defended democratic values against illiberal ideologies," Marshall told me last week. "When we do that we can appeal to a broader public, not only at home but globally."

This is a hopeful sign for Democrats, who, generally speaking, are better at crafting policy than they are at politics. Far too much of the Dems' reaction on Iraq has been political, which is why they don't appear to have any viable alternatives. Simply put, they haven't offered any.

A carefully thought-out strategy of committing the resources to secure Iraq, and then eliminating the blatant double standards from our Middle East policy (by not coddling the Saudis or Egypt), could lend real momentum to Democratic efforts to retake Congress. More importantly, they would represent a genuine exercise of leadership - something desperately absent from national politics for too long. We'll see if the Democrat's political heads have the stomach (or the brains) to move forward in this direction.

Hitching a Ride on the Straight Talk Express

Interesting reader e-mail on Andrew Sullivan today about John McCain's recent speeches:

McCain seems to be stating one obvious, but frequently over-looked, truth. You need not agree with me on every issue to support me. It's laughable to suppose otherwise, yet that's where we seem to be as any deviation form party orthodoxy is treated as an act of excommunicable heresy. That's crazy and childish. If McCain can change that dynamic then he'll have done his country yet another service. After all, that's how most people actually think and feel.

As much as I agree personally with the e-mailer, I'd be very curious to see how this hypothesis plays out with the public at large. My sense is that one the extreme left and right, there are a large number of "single issue" voters who will run from any candidate who doesn't push their button on that particular issue. Abortion comes to mind as the clearest example, taxes as another.

But how great would it be to get not only a Republican, but also a Democratic candidate, who didn't spout the party orthodoxy on every single point?! Might the middle 50% of voters actually find themselves more engaged with the issues and perhaps have to work harder (much to their benefit) to make a choice?

Another brick in the wall

Charles Krauthammer's discussion of the need for border security in today's WaPo raises a question I've wrestled with -- why not build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico? If the concern is merely one of symbolism, it's time to get over it. Walls have been used for millenia to control territory. They are practical, functional objects. Only when they are used to imprison people, to keep them in, a la the Berlin Wall, should they be considered objects of oppression. A wall to aid in border control seems to be one pillar of a humane, long-term immigration policy providing for control of the borders, a path to legalization for immigrants already settled in the U.S., and increased opportunities for legal immigration (i.e., a responsible increase in the ridiculously small numbers of visas available each year.).

"The Bloody Eighth" - Home Sweet Home

I live near and work in Washington, DC, so politics has become one of my favorite sports to watch. In case anyone back home is interested, here's what the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza recently had to say about John Hostettler's chances this year in my home district:

Looking at the cash-on-hand positions of Republican Rep. John Hostettler ($56,000) and Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth ($533,000), this looks like a sure pick-up for Democrats. But Hostettler never raises any significant money and always pulls out a win. This southern Indiana district is decidedly conservative and seems to have taken a liking to the quirky Hostettler over the years. If Ellsworth can't beat Hostettler in what's expected to be a bad year for Republicans nationally, it's likely no one can.

I sincerely hope this is the end of Hostettler as a politician. He's not "quirky"--he's a ruthless, gay-baiting zealot who manipulates Hoosiers' fears and worst instincts to maintain himself in office. The Eighth deserves better.

Stranger In A Strange Land

Growing up in Indiana, we referred to "the East Coast" as though it was a foreign land located much further away than the 700 miles separating the Atlantic from our oasis in the corn. "The East Coast" also carried derisive connotations, conveying our sense that the over-crowded, hyper-speed world of the east (as communicated through television depictions of New York) lacked common sense, common decency, and knowledge of the truly important things in life.

Now some four years since I last called the Midwest home, I occupy a little condo in a lovely town, smack in the middle of "the East Coast." Looking back toward home from this perspective (for Indiana will always be home), its strikes me that the people here understand the Midwest as little we understood them. "The Midwest" is a savage place to some of them, occupied by bible-thumping zealots scattered across terrifyingly empty landscapes. The distances, the simplicity of life, the quiet, are all unfathomable to the mind accustomed to driving between four states in the course of an afternoon and dodging innumerable bodies jus to move along the sidewalk.

Across this gulf (consisting primarily of Ohio, which is unbelievably empty even to a Hoosier) I step, hoping to strike up conversations in both places on topics relevant to the denizens of both. Here's hoping someone reads it!