Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Yesterday . . .

. . . I said good-bye to my cherished cat Jordy. He lived a good life (16 years). Yesterday, was a crappy day all around. I just knew when I got up that something was wrong. Boy, was I right on that count. I made the painful – trust me, I kept Kleenex in business this morning – decision to have him put down. He’s just not been doing well, arthritis was setting in, and he was just having a really hard time of it lately.

Jordy was the best cat ever. Not that his sisters Tasmyn and Squeaky aren’t good cats, they just have an attitude most of the time. Jordy, on the other paw, was just Mr. Laid Back. He accepted life (the addition of Tasmyn to the household, then Spanky and Arthur when Frank and I moved in together, then Squeaky after Arthur passed away, and finally Jesse and James once Spanky had journeyed forth into the great beyond) as just another day.

I went to the pound sixteen years ago looking for the most adorable kitten ever. They had no kittens that day and kept showing me cat after cat. None of them seemed “right”. I’d finally settled on a cute cat, when all of a sudden I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and there was Jordy – cute as could be, just looking at me with those big green eyes saying “Uh, excuse me, excuse me, but I’m the best there is!!!” Truer words could not have been spoken. He melted my heart with that simple tap on my shoulder. I took him home that day and despite the neutering two weeks later, oh, and then the declawing incident two weeks after that, he was my little sack of flour that I could carry around like a baby . . . for sixteen great years. Okay, there was the diabetes in 1999 and two shots a day, but he took the shots like a trooper and showed up in the kitchen every night around the same time to take his medicine. I rarely had to hunt him down to give him his shots, though there were twenty or forty such occasions where he made me look for him. He was a cat after all, and had to remind me that I was at his beck and call, and not the other way around.

I went to the vet alone yesterday morning, just Jordy and me, kind of like the beginning of our lives together. Frank offered to go, but we had a contractor due at the house, and I think I just needed some “me” time with Jordy. Frank said his good-byes at the house, giving Jordy a ton of treats and petting him while he ate them. I said my final good-byes at the vet, just Jordy and me!

No one ever tells you when you adopt a pet, that the final day just sucks big time. Trust me, it does. Still, he brought joy to my life for a good long time. I miss him terribly. I’m still keeping Kleenex in business. He was the best!
There are so many good memories of Jordy . . .
  • The Closet Incident - okay, there were many times when this sneaky cat of mine snuck into the closet without either Frank or I knowing. We would only learn of his closet presence when he woke up from his nap and began to bang on the door to be let out.
  • The Scratching at the Door Incident - Jordy was an indoor cat who just loved to go outside. I would take him out every now and then and sit with him while he prowled around the yard. At one point, after finally adjusting to Spanky and Arthur (the dogs), Frank would take Jordy and the dogs out together. The three of them would run side by side across the driveway to the fenced in backyard. Jordy, at least for a time, was one of the dogs. Well, when Jordy wanted out, he would scratch at the door in the den. No, Jordy, you're not going out - was my normal response. One night, he was scratching at the door, and I made my usual response without even looking. It wasn't until the next morning, when I couldn't find Jordy to give him his shot, that I realized he was not in the house. I went outside, shouted for him, and here he came from the deeps of the wilds of the backyard. He was not a happy camper. Little did I know when I said No, Jordy, you're not going out, that he was scratching from outside wanting to get in. Boy, did Frank get a talking to that morning about not bringing Jordy back in . . . and not for the first time, I might add.
  • The OMG What Did You Bring Home Incident - this was when, after only having Jordy a few months, I brought Tasmyn home to join the family. Jordy went up to the carrier, sniffed at Tasmyn, turned his back and walked away. If you think I'm having anything to do with her, you're out of your mind. Jordy stuck to his word. He would have nothing to do with Tasmyn at all. He ignored her. If he was on the bed and she clawed her way up, he got down. If he was in a chair and she leaped over to sleep with him, he got down. He wanted nothing to do with her. Nothing at all. So, months go by and I come home from work early one day. What do I find? Jordy and Tasmyn curled up in a chair together. Jordy looks up in surprise and leaps out of the chair. After I stopped laughing, I told him that his secret was out. From that day forward, they were pretty much inseparable.
  • The I'll Protect You Incident - when Frank and I first moved in together we had the pleasant task of introducing the cats to the dogs (Spanky and Arthur). Let me tell you, Tasmyn drew blood from the dogs on many occasions. Finally, a truce was called . . . or so I thought. One night, the dogs are on the sofa with Frank, sleeping soundly, and Tasmyn struts by, reaches out, smacks the hell out of Spanky, and keeps on walking. Well, next day, payback time and Spanky corners Tasmyn. He barks. She hisses. From behind me a hear a low growl. Here comes Jordy, tail puffed up big as can be, eyes, wide, and coming across the room toward Spanky. Nobody, not nobody, messes with my sister, BUD!!! He might have disliked her to begin with, but she somehow wormed his way into his heart, and nobody was going to bother her, not even Spanky.

The memories go on and on, and the tears continue to flow. The picture above is of Jordy in one of his favorite places - on the dining room chairs beneath the table cloth. He always thought no one could find him there. His only problem - he always let his tail dangle out from beneath the table cloth. Still, when in doubt, no cat about, look beneath the tablecloth!!!

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The Christmas music . . .

. . . plays semi-softly in the background. Outside, the rain is falling. Glad I'm not in Chicago . . . or anywhere else where snow is socking them in and giving them a splendidly white Christmas. Okay, I would love a white Christmas. It just rarely happens in TN.

I grew up outside of Chicago. Snow was part and parcel of Christmas. I remember only one year where we could actually see the grass at Christmastime. Ahh, the days of childhood when I would romp all day in the snow - bundled up (long underwear, jeans, snow pants, quadruple layer of socks, sweaters, jackets, mittens, scarves, hats, face totally protected from the cold) and braving the huge drifts of snow, tunneling from yard to yard, building snow forts and snowmen, and having snowball fights. Oh, then there was the creek behind the house. Ice skating everyday as well. Oh, did I mention I had a tendency of finding the only thin spot on the ice and falling through.

Once upon a time, in the days of childhood, I fell through the ice - repeatedly - on a single day. Well, after the umpteenth time, my mother had enough. "If you fall through the ice again don't bother coming home." Ahh, the joys of childhood when you take your parents words literally. I fell through the ice again.

Darkness falls. I'm not home. My parents, sisters and brother, bundle up and beginning searching for me. No sight nor sound to be found in the winter wonderland that was the Chicago suburbs at that time. Finally, mother opens the garage door and there I am - soaked to the bone, shivering (probably blue, but she never mentions that part when she tells the story).

Well, years later we can laugh about the story. I always tell Mom "careful what you tell your children". Oh, and I have no true memory of the event. I guess it is true that you block out the traumatic events of your childhood. Still, those were the days.

Where do our childhoods go so that we no longer truly enjoy snow? Or Christmas for that matter! We lived in a two story house growing up. The one Christmas tradition I remember clearly, is the four of us (two sisters, my brother and I) perched at the top of the stairs waiting for Mom and Dad to wake (okay, they'd probably been awake since 4 AM hearing us whispering outside their bedroom door) up and allow us to go downstairs. We'd make slow treks - one at a time - down the stairs to peek around the corner into the living room to see what we could see. Then, in a mad - probably earth-shattering dash - we would scurry back up the stairs and perch at the top, expectantly looking at Mom and Dad's room. Again and again, we would repeat this action until finally Dad would emerge. Were we allowed to run pell-mell down the stairs? Oh, no, that would be too simple. Dad meandered his way down the stairs. Mom had yet to emerge. the wait was eternal. Everything was eternal at that age. Finally, Mom would emerge in her robe. "Merry Christmas. Wait here." She would go down and make coffee. Finally, Dad would appear at the bottom of the stairs with his camera. "Now," he would say, and we would rush down while he snapped a picture. Year after year, the same situation, a little less wild the older we got, but the picture - two girls, two boys, in pajamas and robes, rushing down the stairs on Christmas morning - filled the photo albums.

Bottom of the stairs, Mom blocking the way to the living room where Santa's presents lay exposed for all to see except for us. Around the corner into the family room where the overflowing (mostly with fruit, I might add) lay on the fire place where - thankfully - the fire had finally burned out to allow Santa entry into the house. We dug into the stockings with hurried fervor and only then were we allowed to dash into the living room and see what Santa had left us.

Mom and Dad let us play with our Santa gifts while Mom fixed breakfast. The same thing every year: blueberry muffins, bacon, scrambled eggs and orange juice. To this day, we all still make the same thing on Christmas day. Tradition. After breakfast, we could open the rest of the gifts. Chaos. Paper everywhere. "Thanks Mom and Dad". Phone calls to grandparents and then off - do we have to???? - Church. Back home from Church. Play with the toys. Christmas Dinner! Merry Christmas!

Childhood is gone. My brother, sisters and I are grown. We all have our own families and lives. No more running down the stairs in pell mell fashion. No more Dad snapping the pictures at the bottom of the stairs. Still, near or far, the memories remain forever in our hearts.

Merry Christmas!!!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Whatever happened to . . .

. . . children should be seen and not heard?

I was getting my haircut the other day and two women had brought their children to the salon (yes, I go to a salon - good haircut, they serve wine and the prices are not that bad) with them. The children were running rampant through the salon. Their mothers thought they were so cute. I'm sure their mothers were the only ones who thought they were cute. Eventually, one of the salon workers politely told the children that they needed to sit on the couch and not move. The children - for the most part - did.

Here's my gripe: the mothers should have told their children to sit on the couch, play with their toys, and not move. The children should never have been running rampant through the salon.

As a child, I would never have been allowed to run rampant. My parents had better control over us. We did what we were told . . . for the most part, we were kids, we misbehaved, and we knew we would get punished. It was part of life when I was growing up. There were consequences. If Mom told me to sit in a chair while she had her hair cut; I did exactly that. I did not get up and run like a heathen through the beauty shop. I listened to my mother.

The sad fact about this post, is that - most likely - the mothers of the children in question did not tell their children not to run rampant through the salon. The mothers - not once while I was there - ever said one word to their children as they ran through the store, sometimes screaming at the top of their lungs. Boy, talk about needing a glass of wine.

So, to parents everywhere when out in public with your children - it is not okay to allow your children to run around like heathens in a place of business. I'm just saying . . .

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Joe the Plumber is Appalled!!!

The title of this post is the title of a recent article on about how Joe the Plumber "felt "appalled" at some of his interactions with the Arizona senator, and soon felt the need to ditch his campaign" ( First - he never did ditch the campaign, he was there to the bitter end.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? This man - Joe the Plumber - literally threw himself on McCain's bandwagon. He appeared at rally after rally in support of John McCain and now that McCain did not get - thankfully - elected, Joe the Plumber is showing his true colors. I mean, really, get some morals, man!!! You had no problem grabbing whatever limelight you could - even though you owed back taxes - and going so far as to sign a deal with a management firm in Nashville to represent you . . . until your candidate of choice lost the election. Hmmm, maybe you should have supported Obama???

According to the article, at one point, because of how appalled he was, Joe "wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him" ( What stopped him? Why did he continue to go to rally after rally and support a man who "appalled" him? Well, let's see, does 15 minutes of fame have anything to do with it? More than likely. Why is he speaking out now? Because the world has forgotten about Joe the Plumber and he is - allegedly - not a happy camper. What's a plumber to do when the limelight begins to dim? Oh, wait, here's an idea, let me talk bad about the person that helped propel me into the limelight in the first place. Et tu, Joe????

I had little respect for this man - unpaid back taxes and all that jazz - in the first place, but I have even less respect now. I could place a bet that Joe being "appalled" would not have happened had John McCain won the election. I'm just saying . . .

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Tomorrow (Dec 10, 2008) . . .

. . . is call out gay day. In effect, in order to show the allegedly ignorant people that continually vote for hate legislation (Prop 8, for example), gays - and their supporters - across the United States are supposed to call in sick (i.e., call out gay) on Wednesday, December 10, 2008. The second option offered is to not spend a cent tomorrow - no Starbucks, no McDonald's for lunch, no nothing.

For me, since I work for a highly enlightened employer that accepts me for me (as I pointed out to our HR person, I'm gay at work every day, why make a special event of that fact??) and offers domestic partnership benefits, I'm choosing the second option and not spending a cent toward the economy tomorrow.

Personally, I think the "let's not spend a cent" makes more sense, because the true impact of our contribution to society will be felt. The allegedly ignorant love to take the money of the GLBT community, they just don't want to offer equality to GLBT. So, the logical choice in the matter, is to not spend a cent tomorrow.

Will the impact of GLBT non-spending be phenomenal? Probably not. Will any one notice the impact? Again, probably not. The point of the situation is not always the impact, but the fact that something was done. So what if the allegedly ignorant fail to realize that the economy faltered just a little bit more because those in the GLBT community, and their supporters, withheld their money for just one day. So what, if - for many - the effort seems empty. The effort is not empty. The effort - in my opinion - is the reward.

By not spending money tomorrow, by not going into work, the GLBT community is taking a stand against inequality. Maybe no one will notice. I think, however, that someone will notice. I think that the passage of Proposition Eight (hate legislation at its finest) will perhaps - hopefully and hurtfully - bite the proverbial asses of all who voted for its passage. In the end, the wake up call has sounded - loudly and clearly - for not only the GLBT community, but its supporters as well. Tomorrow - in the words of Scarlett O'Hara - is just another day, but it is a day where the economy will suffer a slight setback because many members of the GLBT, and their supporters, will choose not to spend their money. I'm just saying . . .

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Will Work for $1!!!

This is the amazing statement made by the CEOs of the Big Three automakers!

In my opinion, it is an empty statement. It has no meaning. It has no impact. Why? Well, let's see, because their salary per year is probably more than I'll ever make in a single lifetime, not to mention their yearly bonuses that are also probably more than I'll ever make in a single lifetime. So, forgive me for greeting the news with my normal dose, plus an additional amount for added measure, of cynicism. The CEOs can more than afford to work for $1 for a year. They are not going to be hurting for money. They are not going to have to worry about putting food on the table. They are still going to be able to take their lavish vacations, spend money like there is no tomorrow, and still have more money left in their bank accounts than I'll ever have in my lifetime.

Do I sound bitter? Well, probably, but it is not intentional. I'm just amazed that the CEOs actually believe they are making a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice. They don't have to worry - at least not right now - about money. Their working for $1 should not be a condition for the Big Three getting bailout money. The CEOs should take some of their gazillion of dollars of excess money and bail their own companies out. The ultimate decisions of the auto industry, that put it in the current state, end up with the CEOs. So, instead of taxpayer money, the CEOs can give back some of their bonuses and their years of extremely excessive salaries. I'm just saying . . .

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Rights Denied: The 2nd Class Citizenship of GLBT

The following is from Join the Impact:

There has been a great deal of talk on The Impact about Light Up the Night and whether or not we should have 2nd Class Citizen T-shirts. Many feel that they are a 1st Class Citizen with 2nd Class Rights, and I think we should be allowed to express who we are in a way we are comfortable with. When it comes down to it, few will argue that our lack of rights incorporates a feeling of 2nd Class in one way or another. On December 20th, we want to bring light to this lack of rights and want you to feel comfortable expressing the 2nd Class status in your own way.

So many people still don’t understand what we are fighting for. Here’s some examples of the “unequal protections under the law” that the LGBTQ community faces:

  • We can not fight for our country without hiding who we are
  • In many states (like the recent law in Arkansas) We can not adopt a displaced child in need of a home and safety
  • In many states, we can still be fired because we are gay
  • My rights in Washington do not stand when I cross the border to Idaho. Therefor, if my partner were to fall ill on a cross country trip, she would be alone in the hospital and I would be powerless.
  • Partners cannot share insurance in many states
  • In many states, people can be murdered because of their sexuality, but their murderer will not be tried for committing a hate crime
  • A loving couple can share a home, but if one passes, that home can be taken from the other in states where shared property rights are not available.
  • Finally, a couple can share their lives, share expenses, share good times and bad over many years, but they still cannot gain the equal protections and recognition that two strangers can in one drunken night in Vegas. 2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now who’s crazy?

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Random Act of Kindness

What is a random act of kindness? Well, it's pretty self defining, don't you think?

I was the victim of a random act of kindness on the way into work this morning. No, not a victim, but rather the surprised recipient! I'm in the drive-thru line at Starbucks - waiting, waiting, waiting, and waiting some more - and I finally get to the window to pay. I was informed that the woman in the car in front of me paid for my order as, her words, a random act of kindness.

I was surprised. The Starbucks employee was surprised. A stranger - total, complete - bought my peppermint mocha twist grande and apple fritter. She did not know me. For all she knew, I could be a serial killer. I'm not, btw! She just - randomly - paid for my order.

Now, I know you're wondering whether I paid for the order of the person in line behind me. No. Why? It is not a random act of kindness, though I'm sure it would have been appreciated, to automatically buy the person in line behind you something because something was bought for you. To do so, in my opinion, cheapens the act in itself. I would have been reacting out of instinct and a sense of obligation, and not out randomness. I will perform a random act of kindness at some point . . . today, tomorrow, this week, next week, and maybe quite often at that.

My challenge to any who read this blog: Sometime, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, maybe quite often, perform a random act of kindness. Buy some one's coffee, tea, Big Mac, whatever. Hold the door open for somebody. Say good-morning. Smile. Perform a Random Act of Kindness.

Lastly, I must say, the random act of kindness had a profound effect on me. I'm still slightly dazed. In a world of chaos, a time when the simplest things - a smile, a nod of the head, a thank-you - are pointedly ignored, a stranger bought my coffee. I hate to say it, but it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I'm just saying . . .


Monday, December 01, 2008

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day! The world has come a long way since the onset of AIDS. Back in the day, AIDS was thought a boon from above to eradicate the homosexual population. It was the GAY disease. The only celebrating being done at the time (and, potentially, still by a select few) was by the ignorant in the world who (most likely) cheered when news spread of a deadly disease ravaging the gay population.

In the 80s, no thought would have been given to World AIDS Day. Today, in an allegedly more enlightened time for society (unless you live in a state where hate legislation was passed during the recent election, or in years past) we take one day (shouldn't we take every day) to honor those who died from, and are still fighting against, the disease that knows no boundaries. The disease is not a gay disease, it is a disease that affects men, women, and children. It is a disease that did not spring forth suddenly in the 1980s. It is a disease that has existed since the early 1900s . . . oh, and it wasn't a gay disease back then.

So, why am I blogging about World AIDS Day? Because a friend wanted to know when, all theories aside, it really started. I have no true answer to that question, but my response . . .

Well, the theory now, is that AIDS began very early at the beginning of the 20th Century . . . they just didn't know much about the disease, or the fact that it would spread so rapidly once the 80s descended upon the 20th Century. Was AIDS a government generated disease to wipe out homosexuality? If so, it kind of backfired. Was it a Christian based disease spread by some religious organization, all in the name of the greater good? Or, was it just some random freak of nature that spread like wildfire through the gay community, and then beyond to affect all Races, all Genders, and all Sexual Orientations? I think that last one is the actuality of the situation. AIDS is just one of those random things that happen in life. There is no true explanation. It was not, however, a GAY disease as the ignorant liked to proclaim (and some still do) back in the 80s. It was not God's punishment. It was just something that happened. No true explanation. No true reason. No true understanding of why, even almost 30 years later. Some things, my friend, just happen. AIDS is one of those things.

So, take a moment today, and remember all those who have died from AIDS, and those who are valiantly, day by day, still fighting the disease. Take a moment to maybe not go and pay $5 bucks for a cup of coffee, and rather, donate the money to fighting AIDS . . . or cancer . . . or heart disease . . . or . . . well, pick the cause of your choice and remember that every single day in this country, somebody dies from natural causes, or from some horrific disease like AIDS, or Cancer, or even Heart Disease that can fell a seemingly perfectly healthy man just back from a walk from the beach, and just shy of his 60th birthday, or even a young man, 24 years old out playing basketball with friends.

Take a moment, my friends . . .

Sunday, November 30, 2008


I absolutely love Christmas. I think - other than Halloween (the gay new year) - that it is one of my favorite times of the year.

I spent this weekend listening to Christmas music and decorating the house. I put up the tree Friday and spent the rest of the day fluffing the branches, and fluffing, and fluffing, and fluffing some more. I spent hours staring at the tree, going over and fluffing over the bare spots. Fluff, fluff, fluff!!

Saturday was ornament day. Again, not a short process. In fact, I'm still adjusting the ornaments - move it an inch up, down, left, right. Crap! It still doesn't look right. Remove the ornament totally - music playing in the background ~ Josh Groban, Linda Eder, Barenaked Ladies, Celtic Woman, Manheim Steamroller, Transsiberian Orchestra - stare at the tree and then, slowly, methodically move forward to place the ornament once again. Sing along with the music, do a little dance, and the decorating continues. Whew!

Then, there were the outdoor lights . . . in the rain. Okay, so the majority of the lights went up the day before Thanksgiving when it was an absolutely gorgeous day, and quite warm as well. The final lights did not go up until yesterday, in the rain, and after quite a few phone calls made to my partner while I was at Target trying to decide what length extension cords we needed, and how many more lights, and . . . and . . . and . . . well, I guess you get the picture. The lights are up. The house is still in process.


Tuesday, November 25, 2008


This entry is two-fold . . . as you'll see if you keep reading. If you stop reading, you'll never understand the two-fold nature of this entry.

Here's the two-fold (actually, two questions) part: Why are people surprised by an act of kindness? Are people afraid of showing kindness (and/or compassion) toward others?

Here's the deal: I was brought up to treat people respectfully, to hold open doors, for women, men, children, whatever, to say thank you, no thank you, you're welcome, yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am, and all the other little kindness that demonstrate - at least in my opinion - the greater potentials of humanity. What surprises me, is that people are often surprised by these small kindnesses. Why? Has society spiraled so far toward chaos that kindness, whether among friends or strangers, is no longer recognized? Has humanity begun a backwards descent towards the neanderthal days? Will acts of kindness soon no longer exist?

I have no answers to those questions. I only know that, more and more, people seemed surprised by signs of kindness, and/or respect.

Now, to my second question (the two-fold nature of this post since the two questions, in many ways, are extreme polar opposites of each other): Are people afraid of showing kindness (and/or compassion) toward others? It seems to me that people would rather act rudely toward each other, than kindly. How difficult is it to hold a door open for someone or to say thank you? How much effort goes into a smile? A kind word? A kind gesture. If someone holds a door open for you, would it kill you (yes, major generalization, get over it) to say "thanks"? Is your face going to break if you smile? Now I understand, the Botox Queens cannot smile or show any facial expression at all, but what's stopping the rest of the world? Why are people afraid to make eye contact? Whew!! Sorry, that took a lot out of me. I guess I'm just confused by the whole surprise toward kindness I have been witnessing lately.

There is no price for kindness, only the reward (if you can get it) of a thanks or a smile, or a coke and smile for that matter. I'm just saying . . .


Supersize Me!!

I know, strange title, but . . . Thanksgiving is just days away, and everybody knows what happens on Thanksgiving: American society overeats like crazy. In fact, Thanksgiving is the beginning of the holiday eating season. From now until New Years, Americans will eat, eat, eat, and then eat some more and more and more. It's an American pastime. It's an American obsession. It's absolutely frakkin' crazy!!! Is this what the Pilgrims had in mind when they sailed to America? Were they not allowed to eat in Europe? When/why did America become such a "fat" society?

Why do Americans eat so much? Why is the South more obese than the rest of the country? Why do restaurants supersize every frakkin' meal? The portions are out of control. Eating is out of control. I think there is a conspiracy between clothes manufactures and the restaurant industry. Picture it: the two sides meeting and the clothes people saying Okay, now you give people way more than they'll eat, and then they'll feel they have to eat everything on their plate because that's what Mom's have told kids for generations, and then their weight will increase and they'll have to buy bigger clothes. It's a win-win situation. And the clothes manufacturers and the restaurant bigwigs laughed all the way to the bank. Can you hear their evil laughter?? It's all a conspiracy.

Okay, so it's not really a conspiracy. The fact is: Americans, for the most part, overeat. They gorge themselves during the holiday season, make false promises to themselves that they'll diet starting the first of the new year . . . and then, three to six weeks into the new year they have given up the diets and are asking for fries with every meal. Instead of cutting back, they go out and buy bigger clothes. Trust me, I've been guilty of the same thing.

My question: where/when does it end? At what point (it took me getting to a Size 34, a very, very tight Size 34) does a person say enough is enough? Why don't people say enough is enough? I have no answer to that question. I only know the eating frenzy that consumes (pun intended) American society will begin in just a few days. The glut of free food gifts has already begun at my office. From now until Christmas, deliveries will arrive. Will my co-workers and I step away from the free food? Hell no!! We'll eat more and more and more, and wonder, as New Years - literally for some of us - rolls around, how in the hell we gained so much weight between Thanksgiving and New Years. Was it the pound of chocolates? The boxes and boxes of cookies? The fruit baskets? Okay, so fruit - in moderation - is somewhat good for a person, but too much of anything packs the pounds on! I'm just saying . . .


Saturday, November 22, 2008

Faux Heterosexuals

Faux Heterosexual - a man/woman who is gay, but pretends to be straight, and marries to perpetuate the facade of heterosexuality.

Why am I providing a definition of faux heterosexuality? Well, because I recently learned that a faux heterosexual donated money in support of Proposition 8. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. This faux heterosexual has been married numerous times. Gee, I wonder why? In fact, the gayvine - telephone, telegraph, tell-a-gay-man - alleges that one of his wives caught him in bed with another man. Gee, do you think that's why she divorced him?

So, this faux heterosexual, in defense of the illusion that he is straight, donates money to support hate legislation that denies same-sex marriage. WTF!!! I mean, seriously people, marrying a woman and donating money against same-sex marriage is not going to make the man straight. He was born gay, he might deny he is gay, and he is going to die gay. You can't change genetics.

Isn't it strange how many of the people who denounce gayness are actually gay? It's as if the only way they know how to react is with anger and oppression toward their own people. It's a crying shame, my friends. I'm just saying . . .


Wednesday, November 12, 2008


I believe in equality for all, and not just a select few - this is what I tell people when they ask about the bracelet (see picture) I've started wearing.

This bracelet is available here. It's not expensive. It's $12.00. That's less than three trips to Starbucks for a Grande Cafe Mocha. That's less than you'll pay going out to lunch two days per week.

The sad fact is, election day brought about the passage of hate legislation (Prop 8, etc.) in our country. The sad fact is, equality only exists for the select few in our country. I am denied equality on a daily basis. I cannot marry my partner of 14 years. I cannot (unless I want to risk the potential of violence) walk down the street with my arm about my partner's waist. I cannot openly show affection for my partner in public (again, unless I want to risk the potential of violence). I can, however, since I work for a great company, have my partner covered under my company health plan since we offer domestic partner benefits. Not everybody can say the same thing. Equality does not exist for all.

I believe that equality should exist for all. So, in protest for Prop 8 and all other hate legislation passed on this most recent election day, and on previous election days, I am wearing my believe bracelet. I will respond in the same way - I believe in equality for all, and not just a select few - every single time someone asks about the bracelet. When further asked to explain, I will point out the passage of hate legislation.

What do I ask of my readers? Go here, buy the bracelet, and tell people the same thing. It is a small step toward equality, but it is a step. Every step counts, my friends.


Just in case the link doesn't work - go to, shop, jewelry, cuff bands/watches and scroll down until you find the believe band.

Friday, November 07, 2008

Hate Legislation

President-Elect Barack Obama made the following statement in his victory speech: If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

I doubt that "America is a place where all things are possible". The passage of hate legislation that dares to deny the love between two men, or two women, that dares to decree that marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman, does not represent a "place where all things are possible". The passage of hate legislation proves that America, for the most part, in some States at least, is a place where equality is denied to people on a daily basis, and where only the allegedly heterosexual people of this country can expect equality.

So, President-Elect Obama, I issue this challenge: change the policy of discrimination and non-equality against the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community. Stand up for the rights of all citizens of the United States, and not just the rights of the allegedly heterosexual. Erase my doubt that "America is a place where all things are possible"!


Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Gay Marriage Bans

Here's what I don't understand: why isn't someone taking the states that pass gay marriage bans to court? The gay marriage bans clearly violate the separation between Church and State set forth in the United States Constitution. Defining marriage solely between a man and woman is Biblical based (i.e., Church). So, to ban gay marriage by using that definition, the separation between Church and State no longer exists, thus the violation of the United States Constitution.

Now, I know, I'm probably missing something, somewhere but it seems pretty simple to me. If the law (gay marriage ban) violates the separation between Church and State, then the law is illegal. I'm just saying . . .



Okay, enough said! Yes, I'm ecstatic over the results of the Election. Whoo-frakkin' - hoo!

As my last official blog of the 2008 election, I would like to commend (in an odd sort of way) Senator John McCain for accepting blame for his failed election. Very few people today are willing to step up to the proverbial plate and say hey, I'm responsible and I'm sorry. In his concession speech, John McCain spoke those admirable words.

I'd like to point out, to him, to the country, that he is not solely to blame for his failure to get 270 electoral votes. The majority of the blame can be summed up in one, very simple word: Bush. Yes, our current President, as well as the Republicans in charge, along with some Democrats as well, are partially - if not majorly (I know, not a word, but I'm using it anyway) to blame for John McCain's failure to garner 270 electoral votes.

With that said, Senator McCain made a few missteps along the way:

  • First - instead of sticking to his ideal of running an honorable campaign, he ran a dishonorable campaign.
  • Second - he never should have suspended his campaign because of the economic crisis. He did himself more harm than good with that act, and then whined continuously about that act for the rest of his campaign.
  • Third - he underestimated the effects of the economy, and George W. Bush, on the American voters.
  • Fourth - he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate!!!! WTF!!!! Before her nomination as his running mate, who in the heck had heard of her? He picked - in my opinion at least - her for her gender alone and not her qualifications. That, my friends, is sexist!

Still, he accepted the blame, in part, for his failed campaign, so the man has earned some of my respect. I'm just saying . . .


Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Another Gay Character Bites the Dust on Network Television

The Grey's Anatomy lesbian storyline is gone. Dr. Hahn has left the building. ABC let the actress go. Why? Well, who the heck knows why the network executives do what they do. The common thread is that they didn't like the lesbian storyline. Shonda Rimes says it didn't have anything to do with the lesbian storyline. The message boards are abuzz with rumors and hateful comments, oh, and the alleged Christians are saying good-riddance. PLEASE!

What would Jesus do? Well, from what I understand - and the more sane of commenter's responded - Jesus would accept and love everybody, without judgement. He would not - yes, grand assumption on my part - spew hate and take the words of the Bible out of context to stress His point of view.

So, what's your take on the firing of a talented actress involved in a lesbian storyline? Was she fired because - as many posted - her character is unsympathetic? Was she fired - as Shonda Rimes stated - because she had no chemistry with her bi-sexual counterpart Callie? Or, was she fired because the ABC executives are narrow-minded and have no clue about real life?

The sad fact is, even with the limited number of gay characters on television, the gay population - my people - are sadly underrepresented. I can find a gay man/woman anywhere I go in this country - restaurant, hotel, law office, gym, Church, grocery store, bus stop, library, etc. The person may or may not be out, but they are there. We are there, we are everywhere, except equally represented on network television. I'm just saying . . .


Today . . .

. . . the people of this country make a very important choice.

. . . the world waits, along with the American people, with baited breath to see which path the United States will take.

. . . the hopes and dreams of one candidate, one party, will be dashed into a million little pieces.

. . . for a little while at least, maybe until tomorrow, the voters will hold hope in their hearts that their candidate will win the election.

. . . I accept the fact that I have done all I can do . . . I have voted (well, technically I voted a few weeks ago when early voting started).


Monday, November 03, 2008

Joe the Plumber

Why all the media hype about Joe the Plumber? First - his name is not Joe. Second - he owes thousands of dollars in back taxes. Third - he's not actually a licensed plumber. Is this really someone we want to represent the average American?


I'm just saying . . .

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Everybody is talking . . .

Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.

My question: why did it take her so long to release her inner diva? Why now, after months in the spotlight, is she suddenly trying to step away from the puppet strings of the Republican Party? What about in the first days as the spotlight first shined on her? Why now? Because she - in my opinion - is looking out only for herself (somewhat admirable, I must say, if not a little bit too late) and her political future. She is not looking toward November 2008, but rather November 2012 when she could (oh, shudder at the thought) attempt to run for President. Excuse me while I go barf. The only thing scarier than dear Sarah P as Vice President, is dear Sarah P as President. I think I'll need therapy (massive, massive amounts of therapy) if that ever happens.

Okay, back to what this post is about: dear Sarah Ps slow realization that her public image was doing her no good, no good at all. So, she steps to the forefront, grabs the proverbial reins, and attempts to wrest control of her life back from the all consuming GOP. She is called rogue and a diva for daring to even attempt to snip at the puppet strings so artfully (well, not really artfully, more travesty-like than anything) controlled by the GOP. Many women (no offense meant) are calling the term sexist. Yes, the term is sexist. The sad fact is, dear Sarah P, for whatever reason, allowed the GOP to present her as they did. She should have said no, this is not me, choose somebody else. She did not. She made the choice to allow them to present her as they (GOP) did. She made the choice to bow down to the pressure of her chosen political party. She made the choice to let the GOP, McCain advisers, McCain himself, or whoever, control what she said, when she said it, and all that jazz. The choice, my friends, was hers and hers alone. No one forced dear Sarah P to do anything. She alone made that choice, perhaps (though doubtful) for the greater good; but perhaps (much more likely) for her own political good.

In the end, her choices have made her a joke. Her choices have painted an ugly portrait of dear Sarah P. In the end, whatever terms (sexist or not) are used against her, whatever portrait the American public has of her, are all by her choice. If she had stood up for herself sooner, if she had said hey, thanks, but no thanks to the $150,000 wardrobe and make-over, than perhaps some respect might exist for her right now. If she had not put her political (future or otherwise) ahead of herself, than . . . well, I wouldn't be writing this blog.

Everybody is talking about dear Sarah P because she failed to stand up for herself in the first place. I'm just saying . . .


Good News

A psycholgist friend of mine once said, that for every bad news story, there should be five good news stories. So, in doing my part . . . here is a good news story. Yes, it is only one, but one is a good enough start.


Wake Up and Smell the Manure

So, I'm flipping channels last night and land on CNN and Larry King Live. He has a panel of four women - Janine Turner (Northern Exposure) among them - discussing Sarah Palin. Two of the women were for Sarah Palin and two against. The problem: both sides were not actually listening to each other. They would spout their rhetoric and then, while the other side was speaking, they would plan their response, without actually listening. It was just amazing to see the defense/attack of Sarah Palin and/or the Republican Party.

I love the rabidness of politics. I just wish the fervor/passion would be directed in a better manner. Forget about a rabid defense/attack against Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Your voice, your thoughts, and your energy are wasted. Direct that passion, that fervor, that rabid single mindedness toward something better: fixing the system that no longer works.

The current system of government in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. How much better would our government be if the rabid defenders of either party actually put forth an equal, if not greater, amount of energy toward fixing the problem?

The current candidates are not going to fix the problem. The current candidates are part of the problem. Sarah Palin - love her or hate her - is part of the problem. The American People are part of the problem because we sit back and allow our government to stagnate and decay. We are responsible for who is currently in office, and who will be in office soon. We pick sides, when sides should not exist at all, and rabidly defend our position without looking at the bigger picture. We the people, to borrow a phrase, have failed as much as the government has failed.

It is time that we the people wake up and smell the coffee, roses, or huge piles of horse dung emanating from our nation's capitol. It is time that we the people stepped back from our rabid defense of either party, and focused on the actual ideal of fixing the broken, stagnating, decaying government that has inexorably driven our country into a recession. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, and their hope because we have a government that cannot cooperate with each other, even to save a failing economy.

So, hold onto your fevered beliefs, but direct them in a way that helps, rather than hurts this nation. Defend your politicians of choice, but not so rabidly that you lose sight of the greater picture: we are a country in crisis.

Just because you are Republican/Democrat does not mean you are honor-bound to vote Republican/Democrat. Sometimes, change comes from going against the flow, rather than with the flow. I see most political mind people as lemmings - those cute, adorable little creatures, that have no greater sense than to follow the leader over the cliff to certain death.

Wake up, dear little lemmings!!


Friday, October 24, 2008

Random Thoughts About Sarah Palin

Obviously, my I Want list is not working . . . yet. I still have hope.

So, I'm scanning the Internet ( - favorite news site), and what do I find, an interesting article with a ton of different pieces of information. The best, dear Sarah P talking about her $150,000 make-over. First, I'll admit, there is a double-standard in talking about her hair, make-up and wardrobe. Second - she still accepted a brand spanking new top of the line wardrobe.

According to dear Sarah P "most of the clothes are still in her campaign airplane . . . and the designer clothing she has worn, she said, will be returned, auctioned off or donated to charity" ( In fact, her "favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet" (

First - thousands upon thousands of dollars of clothes are just sitting in an airplane? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where people are having a hard time putting gas in their cars and food on their table, let alone buying new clothes - and she has a frigging new wardrobe sitting on her airplane??? Go figure.

Second - the clothes will allegedly be donated to charity after the election. What charity? The RNC??? Like they need more money. I mean, if the clothes are going to be donated to charity, I'd like to think the money would go to a worthy organization . . . American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, a cancer organization, AIDS organization, etc.

Third - So, if dear Sarah P's favorite store is a thrift store, then why in the heck is she wearing the designer clothes? Why not present herself as a real person, and not some RNC puppet with the strings clearly showing? I'd be far more impressed - if that's even possible - with her had she presented herself to me, and not the image the RNC thought would draw in more votes. For the record - the clothes, the cars, the house, the jewelry - do not impress me. People - on their own, no adornments - impress me. I don't care what you wear, drive, or where you live. I care about you - as a person. It's that simple, and perhaps all politicians should get a clue!

Now, because it's so obvious, I must comment on her choice of stores. Out of the Closet??? Uh, is she sure it's not gay owned (you know her stance on gay marriage by now)???? I'm just saying . . .

I Want . . .

  • A day without politics.
  • A day I don't have to hear about a McCain supporter allegedly being attacked by an Obama supporter.
  • A day I don't have to hear about the fact that the RNC spent $150,000 to make-over dear Sarah P.
  • A day without seeing an attack ad by either party.
  • A day without all the media hoopla surrounding dear Sarah P - do you realize the sound of her voice makes my dogs bark?? Seriously. No kidding at all. My dogs don't like dear Sarah P. Not only are the boyz adorable, they also have good sense.
  • A day without talk about the current economic crisis or plunging stocks. The country is in the current crisis, in part, because of the current Administration; though, the current Administration can only accept part of the blame.
  • A day without hearing something about Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears, or any other celebrity. WTF, people, do we not have lives of our own???
  • A day without any reality television except Project Runway. I'm sorry, but reality tv is carefully edited tv to show the worst in people, rather than the best in people.
  • A day where I can sleep past 4 AM. Note to my dogs: if you can read and access the Internet, please pay attention.
  • A day so devoid of anything to blog about!!!!!!

There's my wish list. Now, see what you can do about the last one on the list. Because, so my warped logic dictates, if the last one happens, then all the others would have happened. I'm just saying . . .


Thursday, October 23, 2008


What better thing for a gay man to write about than the Y.M.C.A?? C'mon, you know, you know the dance unless you've been living under a rock for far too long.

The YMCA of Middle Tennessee is "altering its membership plan to become friendlier to all, including same sex couples" ( Whoo-hoo! According to the news story, "the family membership category will be changed to two plus, meaning two adults plus dependents that live in the same household would qualify for a membership together, including same sex couples" ( Again, whoo-hoo.

Of course, this story is not without its detractors - Cornerstone Church Pastor Maury Davis. According to this allegedly enlightened Pastor, "the change goes against Christian principles".

Yeah, last time I checked, Christian principles were all about discriminating about your fellow human beings. I'm sure theres is some sort of commandment or something in the Bible that states "Thou shall discriminate against people because you feel you should discriminate against people". Okay, so not my best work. Still, you should get my point. I just love it when hypo-Christians take the Bible out of context to suit their own purposes.

The very fact that a Christian organization is willing to change its policies so they are not discriminatory, is admirable. The very fact that an allegedly Christian Pastor has a problem with the decision is just . . . SAD!

It is time to put discrimination of any sort to bed. There is no place for discrimination in today's world. Discrimination is an outdated, ignorant ideal, that needs to become a part of ancient history, and not modern/future history. The time is NOW to stand up against discrimination. I'm just saying . . .


p.s. I bet you can't get the words of the song out of your mind right now, can you??? Hate it!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


OMG, this election is turning me into a blogoholic. I used to be a nice, normal (well, not if you ask my sisters - but that's a whole other story, and a few trips to therapy on my part) person. I'd occasionally dip into the blogsphere, post something, and go about my normal life. I did not, did not, did not, post more than once a day. Heck, in the old days (i.e., before this cursed election ruined my life), I was lucky to post once a month, let alone once a day. Now, every time I go onto the Internet, something about this cursed (drat and double drat) election grabs my attention. My mind slips into blog mode and all hope for normalcy (at least until I get home and can pour myself a glass of wine) slips away from me. I become a blogmie (that's a zombie that blogs, just in case you're wondering).

What's happened now, you're wondering? Okay, even if you're not wondering, I'm going to tell you, so you might as well keep reading.

This happened, and then this, and then this (which I blogged about earlier this morning). OMG!!!!!!! It's a Palinlaplooza!!!!

First - dear Sarah P has no clue about what the Vice President actually does. Uh, shouldn't she have researched that before signing up for the job? Talk about no experience.

Second - $150,000 for hair and make-up????? Can't the woman afford to dress herself? Oh, that's right, she left the town of Wasilla, Alaska $27 million in debt after her term as mayor. Of course dear Sarah P cannot afford her own clothes. Again, I ask of you, do we really want this woman as Vice President of the United States. Suzi Orman would be a much better candidate. At least she knows how to manage money. I'm just saying . . .

Third - well, I blogged about that earlier, so go read that post.

Have a nice day!


Every Vote Counts

Okay, another election post. I know, I'm tired of them too. Only 13 more days, and then, at least for almost another four years, I can blog about something else. One can hope!

The other day one of my co-workers said to the other: Well, I guess your vote will cancel out my vote. My partner - yes, there is such a thing as a gay Republican (p.s., don't tell the Republican party, they might get scared) - said the same thing to me at one time. In his defense, he doesn't always vote Republican. Anyhow, the point of this post is: every vote counts. If I vote for one party and my partner the other party, both of our votes count. Neither vote cancels out the other vote. That, dear readers, is a frakkin' common misconception. The President of the United States - unfortunately - is not elected by popular vote. If he/she was elected in that manner, than, yes, votes might have the ability to cancel each other out. Since the President is elected based on Electoral Votes, every single vote counts.

So, what I'm saying with this post is: get your butts out there and vote. Do not think, oh, Suzi's vote is going to cancel mine out, so why should I vote???? Your (massive generalization, in case anybody is keeping count) vote counts. I'm just saying . . .


Need I Say More

Check this out! Apparently, dear Sarah P has altered some of the expense accounts during her Governorship of Alaska. It seems that dear Sarah P took her children on some trips she shouldn't have, but then altered the accounts to make it look like it was official business. According to the article . . . In the amended reports, Palin added phrases such as "First Family attending" and "First Family invited" to explain the girls' attendance. "The governor said, 'I want the purpose and the reason for this travel to be clear,' " said Linda Perez, state director of administrative services. Uh, wouldn't logic - I know, I'm talking about dear Sarah P and have stepped into oxy-moronic territory again - dictate that you fill out the forms correctly the first time, and not once you know the forms are about to become public record. Please, dear Sarah P, give the American people some credit!!!

Here's another of my favorites: The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. I mean, when is it official business for the State of Alaska to pay for the Governor and her daughters to watch a snowmobile race???? A 5 day stay for a 5 hour conference? I mean, really, dear Sarah P should have to pay back the State of Alaska for the extra 4 days she stayed in New York . . . at the State of Alaska's expense.

Do we really want this woman one step away from the Presidency of the United States? We have enough of a deficit right now without allowing dear Sarah P anywhere near a governmental expense form. I'm just saying . . .


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Church burns Porn

Okay, admit it, I got your attention with that title. Here's the story, and it's not about a man named Brady . . . a Church in FL bought some land, upon which stood an old drive in movie theater that used to show porn, lots, and lots, and lots of porn. The church discovered all this porn when they went into the building. So, what's a church to do with an overload of porn??? Why, have a massive bonfire of course!

Okay, can you sense just a little bit of snark in the above paragraph. Of course you do, that was my intent. The church in question, of course, thought the burning of the porn was symbolic in showing a fresh start for the Church and somehow erasing the past of the land. In my opinion, it was only an amazing show of both ignorance and censorship. Number 1 - last time I checked, burning film creates noxious chemicals. I sure as heck hope that all the children and adults present wore masks. Oh wait, I watched the video and none of them did so. Smart move, eh? Okay, now for the ignorance part, the pastor made the comment that burning the films was better than letting them get out in the world. That's the censorship part, just in case you're wondering. Who is he, to decide what should or should not get out in the world. Yes, I understand, he's a man of God and all that jazz. Being a man (or woman, for that matter) of God does not make that man/woman any more intelligent than anybody else. It also, at least in my humble opinion, does not give that man/woman the right to decide what should or should not get out in the world.

As I've mentioned before, and will again and again until ignorance no longer exists in this world (fat chance of that ever happening), I, and probably most humans, are capable of making decisions for themselves. I, we, don't need other people to make these decisions for me/us. If there is a television program I don't like, I switch the channel. If there is a book I don't want to read, or that I find offensive, I don't read the book. No matter what my personal feelings are about porn, if somebody wants to watch it in the privacy of their own home - more power to them. Forget the symbolism of burning the porn to create a fresh start. The burning of the porn was an act of censorship, of that particular church attempting to send a message about what they believe is right or wrong. For the love of (insert favorite Deity here), if we weren't meant to procreate, we wouldn't have been instructed to go forth, be fruitful (I handle that one really well, btw), and multiply. There is no dictate, at least none that I know, that says how we must go forth, be fruitful, and multiply. Those films probably had some pretty good suggestions. I'm just saying . . .


Sarah Palin is at it again. Shouldn't her views be quite similar to that of John McCain, especially since she is his running mate? Yes, I thought so too. Recently, however, she opened her mouth and . . . well, we all know what happens when she opens her mouth. Nothing good. Explosive gas. Anyhow, she clearly stated that she goes against McCain's beliefs about same sex marriage, and the fact that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting such marriages.

Sarah Palin is a throwback to an ignorant past America can no longer afford to embrace. It is time for our country to move forward, and not backward. It is time for the People in Power (PiPs), to embrace change, rather than continue to stagnate in the Pool of Outdated Beliefs. It is time to stop oppressing people on a daily basis. It is 2008, people, not 1908. We are an allegedly enlightened society. Discrimination is wrong. Applying Biblical passages out of context to suit your own ignorance, is wrong. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!

Now that I've ranted about that, let's explore the issue of marriage.

First off - marriage is based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether a judge marries a couple, a priest, a pastor, someone with an Internet minister license, or a justice of the peace. The concept of marriage is religious based. It's in the Bible, after all.

Second - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly sets forth a separation between Church and State.

Third - so, if marriage is a religious based institution, and you enact laws to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, isn't that unconstitutional since there is clearly not a separation of Church and State in that instance? Hmmmm . . . In my opinion - YES! Since there is no way to remove the religious stigma from marriage, it does not seem legal (at least to me) for individual states or the country as a whole to enact legislation that prohibits marriage between same sex couples without violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Fourth - why in the hell hasn't someone challenged the legislation enacted???

Okay, that's about it for right now. With Sarah Palin around, and 13 days left until the election, I'm sure I'll have plenty to blog about in the coming days. She is just an absolute joy, isn't she? She provides so much fodder for my blog. Geesh!


Monday, October 20, 2008


Just a little note about comments for my blog. I moderate all comments. I do not do this to limit free speech or censor any one's thoughts. I do this to stop the crazy spammers in the world, and the people that insert links into their comments. I do not necessarily agree with the comments I allow on my site. I still allow them, for the most part, unless they are extremely derogatory, hateful, and all that jazz.

I made an exception with a comment I allowed earlier today: there's an embedded link in the comment. I will not make such an exception a second time. For anyone who is a part of blogger, your name appears in the comment and people can click on your name to review your profile and see whatever blogs you have through blogger. Please, whatever you do, do not insert a link to your blog within your comment. It will not get posted. Any comment with a link will not get posted. It's how I operate. It is my blog after all.



I just hate it when someone with greater brilliance then I have, beats me to the punch. I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I couldn't come close to saying it better. I bow to the greater brilliance of Garrison Keillor. In a recent article he wrote the following:

It was dishonest, cynical men who put forward a clueless young woman for national office, hoping to juice up the ticket, hoping she could skate through two months of chaperoned campaigning, but the truth emerges: The lady is talking freely about matters she has never thought about. The American people have an ear for B.S. They can tell when someone's mouth is moving and the clutch is not engaged. When she said, "One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars," people smelled gas.

Here is the full article. Have I mentioned I think this article is brilliant? If not, I do. If I did . . . well, get over it. I'm allowed to repeat myself. It is my blog after all. Read the full article. He really nails things down. I just love the visual of the above paragraph, especially the line "people smelled gas". Too damn funny.


Friday, October 17, 2008

Bush to Give Pep Talk to Anxious Country

The title of this blog is a headline on one of the news services this morning. Isn't the title an oxy-moron? I'm finding more and more of those lately, btw. I think the oxy-morons had a party with a little Viagra involved and are breeding like rabbits now. I'm just saying . . .

So, dear (add heavy dose of sarcasm/snark to that word) President Bush is going to give a pep talk to an anxious country about the mess he created. Oh wait, sorry, he didn't create, he just pushed it over the precipice into a bottomless pit. I mean, really, people, is anything he can say going to change the current economic crisis? No! Is anything he is going to say really going to calm the fears of the nation when unemployment continues to increase and the stock market continues to tumble? What words can he say to ease the fear of someone who lost $32,000 out of their 401K? What about 100,000 thousand? What about people who no longer have homes because the banks lent them money that the banks knew they could not pay back? What comfort can a - thankfully - departing President, who did more harm to this country (at least in my snarky opinion) than good), offer right now? What fears can he allay? How many times can he go on television and read the words off a tele-prompter before he realizes that nothing he says can actually turn this country around or ease the fears of people watching their retirement savings shrink into nothingness?

There is nothing he can say or do that will change what has already happened, and what is currently happening. The time for change was four years ago when he was mistakenly elected to office a 2nd time. Boy, didn't this country pay for that mistake? Yes, I know, he's not solely at fault for the current crisis or the problems in the country. He is a part of the problem, however, as is the current administration, and I'll go so far as to say the current House/Senate/Whatever. We need dramatic, positive change in this country where the Administration does not bow down to the whims of the rich and conservative. I'm just saying . . .


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Where's Forrest Gump When You Need Him?

The phrase "stupid is, as stupid does" popped into my mind just a little bit ago. I told you somebody, somewhere would do something stupid . . . Boy, was I right, and I didn't have to wait more than an hour or so.

You go to college, take all the required courses, make good grades, and reach graduation day. The routine of millions of people every year. Once you graduate, you have your diploma and go out into the real world to - hopefully - find a decent job based on your college degree. The degree is, after all, just a little bit more than a piece of paper. It is the magic key to allegedly higher paying jobs. What happens when the magic key is taken away? A recent graduate of Brigham Young University (that Mormon school) is about to find out.

Brigham Young University just sent a letter out to one of it's recent graduates (Aug 15, 2008 graduation date) and basically told him his degree is worth nothing because he is "not in good honor code standing to graduate because you had been excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the affiliated sponsor of BYU". Why was he excommunicated? Because this recent graduate created a Mormon Beefcake (yummy!) calendar. Let me tell you, those Mormon's are good-looking. So, there is a hold on this young man's graduation until he is "reinstated as a member of the Church in good standing".

So, this recent graduate's degree is not worth the paper it is printed on because he produced a beefcake calendar. WWJD???? I guess he'd pull a persons degree according to BYU.

Can you get any more idiotic than this? Yes, I'm sure you can, and I'm sure someone will, and I'm sure my fingers will be flying over the keyboard in response any moment now. I'm just saying . . .


Family Portraits

Since the election is - thankfully - almost over, I figure I'd better find some other things to write about. Oh, I know, somebody, sometime soon, is going to make an allegedly stupid comment and force me to respond on this blog. The holiday season is coming up. What was it last year? Oh, that's right, no Christmas trees because they might offend somebody. Scroll through the archives of this blog and you'll find an entry or two about that bit of stupidity from human society!

Today, I'm going to write about family portraits. Why? Well, because a friend of mine just had one done. He was all dressed up in a fancy suit, the wife in her pretty dress, and the two kids in equally pretty dresses (oh, the kids were both girls, just in case you were wondering). My question: why in the heck do we dress to the nines for family portraits? What's wrong with dressing casually, in everyday wear? Why does society insist that family portraits must look stuffy and uncomfortable? Trust me, I have a black and white family photo (this was before digital cameras and, I guess, before color film - I'll have to research that one a little more, I'm not that old) of my brother, sisters, and I taken when I was about two. I was a cute little devil. Not much has changed in the intervening years. My sisters have on their matching dresses and my brother and I are in our little suits with bow ties (yes, another ancient custom that is - thankfully - no longer in practice). I did look pretty sharp (and cute) with my bow tie. The thing is, I was also probably as uncomfortable as hell. Perhaps that's where my dislike for suits and ties originated. I'll have to ask a therapist about that.

What I'm really trying to say is, why do we take pictures of ourselves, that don't actually represent ourselves? Is that the real me (cute as can be) in the suit with the bow tie looking absolutely adorable? Of course not! I was two years old. I was probably more comfortable running around in a diaper . . . or naked, for that matter. I was two after all. Clothes aren't really that important to a two year old. I'm just saying . . .

So, at what point in our lives, do we decide that we need to dress all nice for a family portrait, if that dressing nice is not actually representative of the person having their portrait taken? I do not have an answer to that question. I guess it's just another one of those mysterious things that happen, kind of like the sock going missing in the dryer, or once a person reaches age 50, how gravity tends to affect certain parts of the human body.


Wednesday, October 15, 2008


For a change, this blog is not going to discuss politics. Instead, I'm going to discuss the lovely subject of relationships, or rather, the break up of relationships. Yes, I know, a very delicate subject.

Picture it: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, you like the person your friend is dating, they move in together, and then - BAM (Emeril at his best) - they have broken-up. What in the heck is a gay man to do when two people he likes breaks up? I mean, I like them both. Okay, so I've known one longer than the other. I like them both. Oh, man, I've suddenly found myself between the proverbial rock and a hard (don't even let your nasty little minds go there) place. Let me tell you. It's a very tight squeeze . . . almost tighter than trying to fit into my jeans about a month or so ago. Too much ice cream over the summer. Oh, did I mention that one half of the couple started dating another man within a week???

Picture it - the sequel: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, and then - BAM (the whole Emeril thing again) - they break-up. Your friend is devastated. A few weeks later you learn that another friend is now dating the ex-boyfriend of your friend. Whoa!!!

So what do you do in situations like this? Run screaming into the night and never look back. Okay, that's not really an option. Pretend you're a politician and lie like hell! Dang, and I was trying not to talk about politics. Pretend that you know nothing about nothing! Ooops, there I went back into the whole political thang!

In the first scenario, only a week and all that jazz, you just do the best you can do. I mean, how do you tell a friend that his ex-boyfriend is already seeing somebody else? This is not something you can bring up in casual conversation. "Hey, man, did you know your ex is banging the waiter in the back alley?" Trust me, that's not a good start to a conversation. In that instance, discretion is definitely the better part of valor. Say nothing and deal with the consequences later. Let someone else be the bearer of bad news. Run screaming into the night.

In the second scenario, it's a little more tricky since you're good friends with both parties involved. Again, run screaming into the night seems the best option, especially if the one friend doesn't know anything at this point, but has strong suspicions. Sometimes, however, you just have to bite the proverbial bullet and be the bearer of bad tidings. My simple advice in this area was that someone needs to tell the friend that his ex-boyfriend is already dating somebody else. Do not, whatever you do, mention the name of that somebody else. The crap is going to hit the fan soon enough and you, the bearer of bad news, do not necessarily need to get splattered by the crap quite so soon.

Now, while I'm talking about relationships. Here's something you shouldn't do when trying to keep people from finding out about your new relationship: do not go to the local gay bar two weekends in a row with your new boyfriend. I'm just saying . . . There's no such thing as a secret in the gay community. Telephone! Telegraph! Tell-a-gay-man! The gayvine knows no limits and is the source of all information, and misinformation within the community. Be discrete. Stay home with the new love of your life. That way, dear friends, your new boyfriend's ex-boyfriend won't have a clue . . . at least until the next time you appear in public with your new boyfriend, who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of your good friend. Whew!!

As all the above situations remind me, sometimes, life is a bitch! I hate it when friends break-up. I never know what to do, who I should invite to margarita night, who I shouldn't invite, and all the other fun - heavy on the sarcasm on that word, just in case you're wondering - social situations that crop up after a break-up. It would be nice if I could just only like one person in a relationship. That rarely happens, my friends. My advice to all my friends who are currently couples: please don't break up, because I'll have to disown both halves of the couple just to remain fair to all. I'm just saying . . .


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Sarah Palin's World of Delusion

What world is Sarah Palin (Sarah P for short) living in? It's definitely not the real world. As everyone should know by now, unless they're still living under the proverbial rock, Sarah P's ethics were in question over the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. In effect, a bi-partisan committee (though McCain's campaign alleges the committee is partisan) found that "Palin's efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action" ( - see full article here. The official response from Palin's camp is: Branchflower's conclusion that Palin had violated state ethics law was wrong, because no financial interest was involved. Palin told reporters over the weekend that she had been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Now my question: what world is Sarah P living in? Obviously, it is a world of delusion. The report clearly states she violated ethics; yet, her attorney states she did not. Sarah P thinks she did nothing wrong.

Sarah P needs to go back to her delusional world and let someone who actually knows the difference between right and wrong run for Vice President and, in the bigger picture, run the government. Oh wait, that totally eliminates everyone currently serving/running our government. Dang, hate it when that happens. Well, at least, someone less delusional than Sarah P should be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Is that even possible? I'm just saying . . .


Wednesday, October 08, 2008


The entries just keep coming! Check out this article from The word for the day is association. Barack Obama is continually being slammed by the Republican candidates for President and Vice President for his association with William Ayers, a 1960s radical; a terrorist. This article turns the table on Senator McCain and lists a few of his associates: Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd. Each of these men were racists, to such an extreme that one of them belonged to the Klu Klux Klan (definitely a terrorist organization) and all of them wholly supported the segregation and oppression of African Americans. Now, as the article points out, based on the logic of John McCain and Sarah Palin with Obama's association with Ayers, McCain is associated with . . . well, I painted the picture for you, and I'm sure you can see it clearly.

As I pointed out to my co-worker the other day, nobody truly knows their friends. You might have hung out with a great guy in high school, only to find out that he's a rapist. Your best friend might abuse her children. There might be a sex offender living in your neighborhood. By the (misguided) logic used by McCain and Palin, you (yes, a generalization that would make any English teacher . . . or school principal cringe) are guilty by . . . association. Since you knew the child abuser, rapist, or lived in the same neighborhood as the sex offender, you are - in the words of Sarah Palin - palling around with them. Don't you hate it when your words come back to bite you in the nether region????

In the end, as the article points out, the association argument is "weak and impotent" (where's Bob Dole when you need him - EDS commercial, people!).

Lastly, the best point of all of the article is: What I find to be more deplorable is to hear McCain advisers say they want to turn the page to anything but the issue number one -- the economy. ( - 10/08/2008)

Amen to that, my brother!!


Read This

Go here. The link is to a blog written by an 82 year old woman about Sarah Palin. I find it absolutely hysterical. Too dang funny. OMG!!!

The Debate

This will be brief and to the point. At last night's debate, when Senator McCain was asked to prioritize three things (health care, economy, and something else - sorry, first cup of coffee hasn't hit yet), he made the statement that he would work on all three at the same time. Excuse me, is that the sound of ice forming in hell? This is the same man who could not multitask and focus on his campaign and the economic crisis at the same time. This is the same man who suspended his campaign to help the economy. BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the economy is still in the crapper.

As I was thinking about this entry this morning, I realized one simple thing: I was assuming that Senator McCain was incapable of multitasking, i.e., running his campaign and dealing with the economic crisis. After careful thought, I realize that there wasn't any multitasking involved at all. Senator McCain is not running his Presidential campaign, his co-workers, advisers, and speechwriters are running his campaign. They tell him where to go, hand him a speech, and prepare statements for him when he wants to attack Barack Obama. So really, there was no need to suspend his campaign since he wasn't really - at least in my opinion - doing much in the first place. Now, if he'd just quit whining about suspending his campaign, which, technically was never suspended, since all the little people were still working behind the scenes, I'd be a really happy camper.

Also, in case you watched the debate, go here to get the facts. Oh, and lastly, John McCain repeated some of the things Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama during the Vice Presidential debate. I guess it's fairly obvious now that originality does not exist with the Republican ticket. I'm just saying . . .


Monday, October 06, 2008

Sarah Palin Forgets To Tell the Full Truth . . . Again

Here we go again . . . does she never learn?

Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (

Once again, poor, deluded Sarah Palin makes a - mostly - false comment. She is, in part, according to this article, referring to 1960s radical William Ayers, who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama. This is not somebody that Obama pals around with, only someone who lives in the same neighborhood. A fact which Obama brought up earlier this year.

The actual facts that poor deluded Sarah Palin failed to relay in her speech are:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. ( - factcheck)

I guess her false statements should be expected. Barack is making similar statements. What's a poor voter to do? Go to one of the many fact check sites and spend a little time researching the truth before making the final decision to vote. The fact is (at least in my opinion), there is not a politician alive who allegedly tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Politicians have a history of taking things out of context and presenting them as truth, hoping beyond hope that voters are going to take them at their word. Isn't that another one of those oxy-morons? What person in their right mind would believe what a politician tells them? Have we learned nothing from no new taxes? Or wait, what about the infamous - and nonexistent - WMDs???

I'm just saying . . .


Friday, October 03, 2008

Is it so hard for a politician to tell the truth?

Case in point - during last night's debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

What Sarah, obviously either at her own discretion or the insistence of the Republican Party, failed to mention was the following:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Fact Check Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on

The fact is, Sarah Palin told enough of the truth for her statement not to be an outright lie. She just failed to fill in pertinent details, obviously hoping the voting public was ignorant and would not bother checking facts. What, is she living beneath a rock?? Google is my friend. A good portion of the voting public knows how - and will - to check facts. Perhaps Sarah, and every other politician out there, might want to consider that option before they lie by omission.

Now, since I'm being fair here, let's pull out the following statement from Joe Biden - "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forthe health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Now for the facts, my friends.

In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.

In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the lastdecade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."

Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.
McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.

Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.

Verdict:Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on

Again, Biden told a partial instead of a full truth. In effect, like Sarah Palin he lied. Enough with the lies, people. Try telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a change.

Also, check out this - very interesting.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Whine, whine, and more whine . . .

Whine, whine, and more whine . . . and the election continues! Is it November yet??? What's the latest whine from Republican country. Click here.

Basically, John McCain is down in the polls. His response, as can be found in the linked article is quite classic. According to the article, "Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."" ( Sen. McCain went on to clarify (didn't read like a joke to me - I'm just saying . . .), "He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings." (

For the record, Obama did not do nothing. He did make plenty of phone calls - as McCain reluctantly acknowledges.

Would you like some cheese with that whine, Senator McCain? I mean, really. The only thing the suspension of his campaign proved (to me, and quite a few people I talked with) is that the man who hopes to become the next President of the United States is unable to focus on two things at once. I can picture it now: there's a hurricane a coming and nature is calling. What's a man to do? He can't handle two things at once. Oh well, guess since he's distended he'll have to go void. Okay, so two totally different things, but I think you get my point. Senator McCain - like Barack Obama - should have kept his campaign going and called whoever he needed to call to get things moving toward the economic bailout. This is the age of technology after all - telephones, cell phones, instant messaging, emails, and all that jazz. What he did in person, he could have done in some other way. There was no need to suspend his campaign. He should have proven, to himself and the country, that he is capable of multi-tasking.

Now that his decision is biting him in the nether regions, all he can do is . . . whine, whine, and more whine!

Senator McCain made a choice that did not turn out as well as he expected. That happens to everybody at some point in their life. I have three words for you Senator McCain: Get Over It! I'm sorry, I know this is probably harsh; but he sounds like a spoiled brat who did not get his way. Life is not fair, Senator McCain. Bad things happen all the time. If you cannot accept responsibility for your choices as a Senator, how in the heck are you going to take responsibility for your choices as the - potential (hopefully not in the lifetimes of anybody I know) - next President of the United States. Well, uh, I really didn't press that red button!! BAM!


Tuesday, September 30, 2008


In a recent speech, Sarah Palin - again reading words written for her, because after the Katie Couric interview, everybody knows she can't speak on her own - made the following comment about Joe Biden: "I haven't met him, but I've been hearing about him since, like, second grade." Okay, here's the rub: Joe Biden is younger than John McCain. Isn't her slap in the face to Biden a double slap to McCain? I would think the Republican drones that write the speeches, would have a little more sense - oh, wait, that's an oxymoron isn't it? - than to bring up Biden's age, when McCain is older. I'm just saying . . .