Double Standard

Read this piece from Slate by Glenn Greenwald -- but only if you want to be pissed again at the hubris and double-dealings of our president and his morally-bankrupt administration. In the piece, Greenwald quotes from a document he discovered in which the US protested offenses against human rights taking place in Russia.

What was Bush saying about the Russians way back in 2001?:

"Authorities continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights. Government technical regulations that require Internet service providers and telecommunications companies to invest in equipment that enables the [Foreign Security Service] to monitor Internet traffic, telephone calls, and pagers without judicial approval caused serious concern.?

"(P)roceedings took place behind closed doors and the defendants and their attorneys encountered difficulties in learning the details of the charges."

"(T)orture by police officers usually occurs within the first few hours or days of arrest and usually takes one of four forms: beatings with fists, batons, or other objects; asphyxiation using gas masks or bags (sometimes filled with mace); electric shocks; or suspension of body parts (e.g. suspending a victim from the wrists, which are tied together behind the back). Allegations of torture are difficult to substantiate because of lack of access by medical professionals and because the techniques used often leave few or no permanent physical traces."

But when we do it, it's in defense of freedom and liberty, so it's OK, right George? What a joke. It will take years to undo the damage this man has done to our once-great country.

What are the odds of getting this side effect?

In this litany of potential side effects for new drugs, "compulsive gambling" is a new one on me.

The New Breed of Terror

As if Islamic terror wasn't enough, now we have to deal with Christianist terror. This story from the Houston Chronicle tells the story of a man who believed God wanted him to kill a gay man: "I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet," said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. " ... I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing." Just like any good jihadi.

Connie Champagne IS Judy Garland!

We are all on this Earth for such a brief time that it’s vital we waste absolutely none of it. A friend of mine just saw a show in New York and wrote to me saying “that’s two hours I’ll never get back.” On the other hand, there are theatrical experiences one has where the time you invest is repaid with interest: they persist in memory, and you recall them with pleasure, reliving the wonder or the laughter or the insight the performers gave you while you sat in the dark.

Connie Champagne’s latest effort, “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road,” in which she appears as Judy Garland, is just such a magical theatrical experience. Playing now in the tiny Theater 3 at San Francisco’s New Conservatory Theater Center, “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” transports you into a world where Judy Garland is alive, well – and still completely in love with music and performing. This is Judy Garland as if aging had been suspended, but time continued to roll on, and Judy discovered new songs that she could make her own. If Judy lived, wouldn’t it make sense for her to do highly dramatic, highly theatrical numbers? Of course – and though you might not think of Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” or Aerosmith’s “Dream On” as fitting within the Garland oeuvre, they sound exactly like the sort of thing she ought to have done had she lived.

Champagne and her creative team draw from a wide variety of contemporary music, from Tom Waits to Neil Finn to Janis Ian (a touching interpretation of a song I didn’t know, “When I Lay Down”) to modern Broadway tunes from “Grey Gardens,” “Nine” and “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” And they become perfect songs for Judy.

This may be the most brilliant bit of theater I’ve seen since “I Am My Own Wife.” The brilliance comes from Ms. Champagne’s imagination (and that of her collaborators, director F. Allen Sawyer and musical director Joe Collins) in the invention of a Judy Garland that is at once classic and completely contemporary. A character that is brimming with vivacity, yet still wounded and insecure in the way Garland was. (A brief note: though I certainly appreciate the genius of Judy Garland, I would never call myself a true “fan.”)

Champagne’s impersonation of Garland isn’t precise – but it’s perfect nonetheless. Having recently watched several episodes of Garland’s TV show from the 60s (I’m not a Garland fan, but I live with one), there are gestures and physical ways of being that I think are missing from this show. But at its heart, Champagne’s performance is essentially true, which I think is some of the highest praise that can be given to any work of art. For the entire evening, I felt as if Garland herself, still hungry for the stage, had managed to project her essence into Connie Champagne in order to get just another hour or two in the spotlight.
Of course in one sense, the truth of Garland lies in artifice: she gave the public all she had, but ultimately her stage persona was still a work of art, and it is this tension between genuineness and artifice that made “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” so compelling to me. Champagne gave us a rare treat – a visit from a Judy Garland who would look at modern life and music in the way she might have had she been able to catch some real magic and stay 44 for ever.

I took in the Connie Champagne show on Friday, and followed it up with a similar sort of show on Saturday: “Kiki and Herb: Alive From Broadway!” Kiki and Herb are Justin Bond and Kenny Melman, a San Francisco duo that made it to Broadway with a show based on their creation, a boozy chanteuse and her “homosexual Jew ‘tard” pianist. Kiki is supposed to be in her 70s, I believe. Yet, like Connie’s incarnation of Judy, she’s not stuck in the past, and loves finding contemporary numbers to perform.

Unlike Connie Champagne, “Kiki and Herb” is ALL about artifice and irony and winking knowingness. There’s no sincerity here – that wouldn’t be hip. But when it comes right down to it, sincerity is what you need – on some level at least – to truly connect with an audience. And that is where Connie Champagne delivers.

Kiki and Herb you can skip – but don’t miss Connie Champagne as Judy Garland in “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.”

Stunning

Annie Leibovitz is still the greatest living portraitist, and this photo shows why.

The Police Report

Click here to read the arresting officer's report on Bob Allen. Seems to me like the officer led Allen on a bit, initiating verbal contact with him. Doesn't cut the hypocrisy, but doesn't make Allen out to be such a "predator."

Allen Again

Keeping you all up to date on the latest Republican hypocrite, it turns out Florida state representative Bob Allen also authored a bill extending the definition of "lewd and lascivious" acts to include masturbation performed in front of anyone, not just minors.

Photo is Allen's booking photo from Brevard County jail, taken last night.

p.s. I love the slogan on the flprogressive blog: "The Republican Party: Come for the Torture, Stay for the Pedophilia"

More On Allen

An update on the Bob Allen case. (I just love hypocrisy exposed -- though I feel very sorry for his family.) Turns out Florida state representative Bob Allen authored a bill to increase the penalty for child molestation to life without hope of parole. Money quote: "One of the sexual predators said it the best: 'I want to do better. But, sir, it's like if someone tried to sit you down guaranteeing you'll do 15 sessions of counseling, and in that 15 sessions I'm going to talk you out of your sexual preference and get you to do something else.'"

Another Republican with a Secret Life

Will they never learn? Yet another elected Republican is caught in a sex scandal. This time it's Florida state representative Bob Allen. He was observed cruising at a public restroom, going in and out three times, then offered to perform oral sex on an undercover police officer for $20. Allen was arrested (this all happened earlier today) and will likely be released on bail soon. Allen calls it a "very big misunderstanding," but I find it interesting that, on his office web site, he lists his favorite recreational activity as "water sports."

He is innocent until proven otherwise, but it's not looking good for the guy. Maybe if he, and Ted Haggard and Mark Foley (what is it with Florida and closet cases, by the way?) had come out and used their energy to fight for equal rights, we'd be a few tiny steps closer to a world where they (and the rest of us) would be able to express their sexuality in a healthier environment than public loos, and with more appropriate companions than underage pages or rent boys.

(The photo, by the way, is credited to "Mark Foley." But it's merely a coincidence.)

Can It Get Any Worse?

This seems to happen over and over with the Bush Administration: they ignore science and rational thought to pursue only their own political aims. Every day comes another reason why this is the worst, most reprehensible set of criminals ever to occupy the White House. Leading us into a trillion-dollar war which has cost over 3000 American lives, plus tens of thousands crippled by injuries, ignoring international treaties (and human decency) to institute a program of torture, suspending habeus corpus, asserting a right to arrest and imprison any person the President chooses to call an "enemy combatant"...it just goes on and on. Bloody depressing is what it is.

Is Golf Really Penal?

The game of golf is generally thought of as a penal one. More than penal. Cruel, even.

Then I happened to catch a few minutes of a show on The Golf Channel that recapped the 2005 Masters Tournament (won by Tiger Woods, thanks in part to the amazing chip on 16). In it, the announcers mentioned a player who'd "hit into a bush and had to take a one-stroke penalty for taking an unplayable lie." And I thought -- one stroke isn't really much of a penalty. The rules of golf could just as easily require a golfer to have to hack at a ball that is visible and within reach until it is back in a better spot. Even if you lose the ball entirely, the penalty is still just one stroke. It could penalize you ten strokes for losing a ball, not just one. So let's have no more complaining that golf is a penal game.

Frustration Building?

Need to take out your anger on a specific person, but don't fancy the jail time that might come with actual assault? Then order yourself a dozen or so photo golf balls imprinted with the image of your favorite nemesis and whack away! That double bogey might not seem so bad if it means you get to smack Dick Cheney in the kisser a couple more times.

I'm Back

Apologies for not posting for the past few days. There was a technical problem with Blogger (the service I use to create and host the Rational Feast), and I just got it figured out today.

I Changed My Mind

I know I said I didn't want an iPhone. Apparently I was lying. Once I actually got my hands on one (at the Apple store yesterday), I now want one more than ever. Why? Well, there IS part of me that would like the attention of being the first on the block to have one (it was fun having a Honda S2000 when they first came out), and to receive the attention that would come from using it in public for the first week or so, but I think the real reason is how much I dig the interface, the easy synch between my iBook and iPhone (contacts and calendar), plus the mapping feature. And it's thinner than my Razr -- which at one time was the coolest phone in the world and is now almost as ubiquitous as obesity.

Why Humans Yawn

A theory. Key point? It actually serves to increase our alertness.

Is that a shoe Bush is holding?

And when will it fall? Seems a full pardon could be in the offing for Scooter, so he can get his money back (like he actually paid the fine!) and practice law again and be able to say he's not a convicted felon.

The Science of Gaydar

The title of this article in New York magazine is misleading -- it's not really about how people can tell whether someone is gay or not, it's about the science surrounding all the little things that seem to go along with being gay: the tendency to have a counterclockwise hair whorl, or more tightly packed fingerprints or the greater likelihood of being left-handed or ambidextrous.

But I'm not doing the article justice -- it's filled with all sorts of fascinating research and insights. Two of my favorites:

"Because many of these newly identified “gay” traits and characteristics are known to be influenced in utero, researchers think they may be narrowing in on when gayness is set—and identifying its possible triggers. They believe that homosexuality may be the result of some interaction between a pregnant mother and her fetus. Several hypothetical mechanisms have been identified, most pointing to an alteration in the flow of male hormones in the formation of boys and female hormones in the gestation of girls. What causes this? Nobody has any direct evidence one way or another, but a list of suspects includes germs, genes, maternal stress, and even allergy—maybe the mother mounts some immunological response to the fetal hormones."

"In a universe in which we look for purpose in order to appoint value, what is the purpose of my gayness? Dean Hamer sees one possible answer in the fraternal-birth-order studies. “In Polynesian cultures, where you’re talking about very big families, it was typical to have the last-born son be mahu, or gay,” he says. Explorers described young boys who looked after the family and sometimes dressed as girls. “They suspected that their families had made them that way. But you just can’t take a guy and make him clean up and have him become gay. He’s got to have some gayness inside. Maybe that’s the biological purpose to the mahu: taking care of Mom.”

"Would you like a chutney Squishee?"

Twentieth-Century Fox is taking product placement in movies to a whole new place -- off the screen. In support of "The Simpsons" movie, they've negotiated with 7-11 to rebrand about a dozen 7-11 stores -- into "Kwik-E-Marts," the convenience store that's most convenient to Homer and his family. In addition to the signage change, the stores will sell products created on the show: Duff Beer, KrustyO's and Squishees. It's like the "Tron" episode, where Homer is transported into another world -- one of three dimensions. Now the show is nudging itself into our world.

Knock Me Over With A Feather

Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence. By so doing, he sends the message that says: "Scooter was playing a political game. We're in charge of that game and we change the rules however we like. Or hadn't you noticed?"

Yet another reason to distrust these men. As the Bush administration has shown over and over again, if you are connected and/or powerful and/or rich, the laws that apply to ordinary people do not apply.

"Stay on target! Stay on target!"

Here is another story of an evangelical who believes natural disasters are God's punishment for society's permissiveness, especially in terms of gay rights. This one happens to be English, and says the floods in his country are part of the wrath of the almighty: "Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want," the Right Reverend David Cow, Bishop of Carlisle said, adding that the introduction of recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination to undermine marriage.

My question is, what's wrong with God's aim? If the Supreme Being doesn't like homosexuality, surely He has the power to send an earthquake to the Castro, or destroy Chelsea with a firestorm of lightning. Yet, he leaves what many evangelicals would describe as dens of iniquity completely alone, and instead kills innocents and inundates the Bible belt of America, where so many of His supporters live?

How do these guys keep a straight face when they promulgate this bullshit?

Opinions Keep Changing

A new CNN poll shows that, for the first time ever, a majority of Americans believe sexual orientation can not be changed. According to the CNN/Opinion Research poll, 56% of Americans believe gay people cannot change their desires, even if we wanted to. In 1977, only 13% felt sexual orientation was unchangeable.

More Coveting

These make me wish I had more shirts with French cuffs.

I Was Right

As I predicted Thursday, Michelle Wie did not finish her second round in the Women's U.S. Open, withdrawing after making six bogies in her first nine holes. Karrie Webb, on the other hand, who I predicted would bear down and recover, is even after 17 holes -- one of the best rounds of the day. I'm not doing quite as well on some other predictions I made earlier in the year. (Though a few are turning out as expected.)

A Small Bit of Cultural Progress

Though laws can't change culture, I still find it heartening that Egypt is getting serious about ending female genital mutilation.

Christopher Hitchens also made an intereting point about FGM (and MGM, or circumcision) in his recent book, "god is not great: how religion poisons everything": "As to immoral practice, it is hard to imagine anything more grotesque than the mutilation of infant genitalia. Nor is it easy to imagine anything more incompatible with the argument from design. We must assume that a designer god would pay especial attention to the reproductive organs of his creatures, which are so essential for the continuation of the species. But religious ritual since the dawn of time has insisted on snatching children from the cradle and taking stones or knives to their pudenda."

One of my favorite stories about FGM (if there is such a thing), came from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues." Ms. Ensler, who had interviewed hundreds of women about the intimate matters surrounding their genitalia, spoke to a woman in an Islamic African country who was responsible for performing the clitoridectomy required by their custom. What she told Ensler was the most heartening, uplifting thing I heard that night in the theater: instead of performing the procedure, she simply pinched each girl's clitoris really hard, so the men outside the tent would hear her scream in agony and be satisfied. Think of the dozens of girls who were not mutilated because of this one woman's bravery and willingness to fight mindless tradition.

Pixar's Newest is their Best Ever

"Ratatouille," Pixar's latest, that opened today, is their best film ever. It's smart, funny, touching, big-hearted, filled with brilliant visual imagery, great comic moments, and is perhaps the best-written film of the past few years. The final voice-over from Peter O'Toole's restaurant critic character Anton Ego alone is worth the price of admission. As is the scene when Remy (the rat chef) first communicates with Linguini (the restaurant domestique who becomes Remy's way of achieveing his culinary vision).

Go. Have fun. Trust me.

Equality Above All

In this New York Times editorial, Juan Williams makes a good case for why yesterday's SCOTUS decision to limit affirmative action in education is not the blow to the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education some think it is. America has changed, Williams argues, and the landscape of public education is far different than it was in 1954. Schools are failing not because they are segregated; they are failing because they are poorly funded or poorly managed.

Although I disagree with several of the Court's decisions of the past two days, this one is, I think, in line with American values. As Chief Justice Roberts said yesterday, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." We must do all we can to make sure we live up to the 14th Amendment principle of equal treatment under the law. And race-based preferential treatment does the opposite of that.

An Approach to Acquisitiveness

On the release day for iPhone (something I was coveting but have now decided I can do without -- I have a phone, I have an iPod, all I'm missing is the mobile Net access, and with my vision being what it is these days, the chances I could actually use the iPhone for that purpose without the assistance of a scanning electron microscope are far slimmer than Apple's sleek new toy), Salon has a piece on how people deal with coveting.

Money quote: "What do I do when I want something that I know I don't need? I'll often go to the store and put it in my cart and push it around for 10 minutes. At the end of that time, I realize that I've "owned" it and I ask myself if I still want it and if my life has changed because of it. Often, the answer to both questions is "No." The item finds its home on the store shelf and I go home with one less thing."

Spam -- but to what purpose?

On one level, I can understand the spam touting Viagara and penile enlargement (though I never seem to get those -- wonder why?), but I'm completely at a loss as to what this mail is trying to accomplish:

"That square—Oh, 56 x 56
Clear-voiced despite its years, strong, eloquent—
IX. After the Great Northern Expedition
He never even dreams, being sheer snow;trainer flips young alligators over on their backs,
The surge of swirling wind definesI've drifted somewhat from the distant heart
In dense bare branches, or the ubiquitousWith my foot the supple ball, for perhaps
and the Splendid Splinter. For a few dreamy dollars,Among us, only Alberti, then Sangallo,
My keyhole blows a galeIn the sound of the snow. What the countless
Swaying in unison beneath the snow,His sightless eyes horribly watch the air;
V. The Dutch in the Arcticat balls hit again and again toward her offspring"

The subject line was "Autodesk AutoCad 2008 download"

What does it all mean?

Tomorrow Will Be Interesting

At the first round of the U.S. Women's Open, easily the most prestigious of any women's golf tournament, teen phenom Michelle Wie, who hasn't had an under par round in any tournament this year, shot an opening 11 over 82. However, one of the other top players, Karrie Webb, a woman with several major wins under her belt, shot an 83.

What will be interesting is to see how both of these players rebound tomorrow. My prediction? Michelle will fade and maybe even withdraw, Karrie will buckle down, shoot a decent round, but still miss the cut. Michelle Wie is now deeply in Anna Kournikova territory.

Romney the Heartless

Can Americans elect a man who does this to a dog?

"The Decider's Decider"

I haven't yet read the Washington Post series on Cheney, but I did read this piece in Slate. Both describe a man committed to expanding the power of the executive beyond what the founders intended, a man so committed to secrecy that he kept much of his paperwork in a "man-size" safe and even marked talking points for the press as "top secret," a man who enabled and encouraged the President to order the torture of detainees...see, now I've got to stop because my blood pressure is getting up. What the hell has happened to this country?

How Important is "Marriage"?

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a case that will decide whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the state's constitution. Last week, the Court sent both sides in the case a set of questions it wanted answered.

From the questions, it seems the Court is trying to determine whether or not the state's domestic partnership law provides all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, thereby making the extension of equal "marriage" rights a moot point. The reasoning seems to be that if gay couples in a domestic partnership get the same legal rights (on a state level) as straight married couples, is there a need to allow same-sex couples to marry?

It all seems to hinge on the word "marriage": just how important is that word? The Court asked the two sides four questions. Number three reads, in part: "Do the terms "marriage" or "marry" themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution?" If the state decided to change the name of the legal relationship we now call "marriage" to something else, what would that mean for couples within the state?

What seems more important to me is what that would that mean for couples in the state in terms of their legal standing on a federal level? Obviously marriage delivers important federal benefits, the most vital being Social Security survivor benefits and the ability to grant a partner permanent resident status through marriage. I've advocated in the past for a requirement that all couples who want the legal benefits of marriage, no matter their gender mix, would need to enter into a new legal arrangement that could be called "civil union" or some other term. Those who want to "marry" could then go to whatever church would have them to enter into that spiritual union.

The challenge is, can you get recognition of civil unions on a federal level without the term "marriage" being applied to them? That's a question for which I don't yet have an answer. But it's one that could have tremendous consequences should California decide to create a legal couples relationship that is not called "marriage." Would same-sex couples who entered into a fully-equivalent legal relationship be denied federal benefits of marriage? Would opposite-sex couples be denied these same rights if California's new legal "marriage" was not in fact called "marriage"? More questions for which I lack answers!

The New Wonder Drug

Queue Management

You've had this experience -- you go into a grocery store or a pharmacy or Costco (or any retail outlet with multiple cash registers) and try to choose the shortest line. Then one of the customers in front of you turns out to have an expired credit card, or they forgot to get Metamucil, or they decide to wait until everything is rung up and bagged before even beginning to search for their checkbook. Doesn't it seem like forming one line to wait for the next available cashier would be the smartest way to manage the queue? I always have. And, it turns out, we're right.

Harry Potter and the Angry Christianist

The Christianists (as opposed to Christians) never cease to amaze me. There are quite a few of them who are upset over the success of the Harry Potter books because they "support" witchcraft. Of course, they've missed the point entirely: the books are about loyalty, courage, friendship, hard work -- all good Christian values, I would think. Now a hacker, trying to attack the books for their "neo-paganism" has apparently hacked a secure site, read the book and posted its secret ending -- all to try and limit sales.

Time to Try Rumsfeld for War Crimes?

Accorsing to a very credible source, Rummy knew long ago about the Abu Ghraib abuses, limited investigation of the case and lied about its findings and his knowledge of the case.

A Prediction

Despite being the leader going in to the final round, Aaron Baddeley will NOT be able to hold on to his two-stroke lead and win the U.S. Open today. I just saw an interview with Baddeley and he looked very nervous and anxious. He just doesn't have the solid look you need to face the pressure of the final round of golf's biggest major.

Fanning the Flames

After watching "The Daily Show" (Thursday night, which featured this cryptic video from Mike Gravel), I went to Mike Gravel's website to see if I could learn more. Once on the site, I was surprised to see Gravel come out in full support of equal marriage rights. I thought it was pretty brave of him to speak out so openly on an issue that has been so divisive and seems to strike people at such a deep level. So I decided to see if any other Democratic candidates were willing to address the issue directly, and how much play Republican candidates would give the issue on their websites. (Virtually every candidate has an "issues" button where they list their stands on a variety of key issues of their choosing. Dennis Kucinich's site lists dozens of issues, where

Unfortunately, the results were just about what I expected. Only two of the eight Democratic candidates would even touch the issue, though both (Gravel and Kucinich) were in favor of civil marriage equality. Of the ten Republican candidates, all but Ron Paul mention the issue, and all of them are against marriage equality. Giuliani, while reiterating that marriage is between a man and a woman, "supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters." That's more than any other Republican candidate will do, but note it's not "ALL legal and personal matters," but only "IMPORTANT legal and personal matters." So I think we have to mark Giuliani as still standing for inequality.

Some Republicans went even farther. Three called for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to define marriage as one man and one woman. Four mentioned (though not necessarily in conjunction with same-sex marriage) that judges should not legislate from the bench. Personally, I think the Constitution does a pretty good job of defining who gets to make the law and who gets to interpret the law, and all the talk of "activist judges" is nothing more than inflaming the passion of their base.

Again, if only we could get our politicians (on all sides) to focus on reason and the common good, instead of fanning the flames of partisanship, we'd all be a lot better off.

It's Not All Good News

Another civil war. Great.

More Good News!

This story led to this story -- Massachusetts has defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In a related bit, Columbia becomes the first Latin American country to extend something like equal rights to same-sex couples.

Minds Change

A positive sign. Money quote: "For me, what all this comes down to is this: Same gendered couples are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, who are important community contributors, well-loved and well-respected by their families, friends, neighbors and employers. They deserve and are entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by all others citizens of our state. Despite dire predictions, there has been no adverse societal impact from this decision and most people now express little concern about same gender marriage." Gale Candaras, a Massachusetts state representative, in explaining why she no longer supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as limited only to opposite-gender couples.

I'm NOT rooting for...

Vijay Singh (never liked what he said about Annika), currently even
Phil Mickelson (can't say why, but I just don't like him), currently +4
Zach Johnson (he thinks God is on his side), currently +6

I'm rooting for...

Fred Funk (he's 51!), currently even
Camilo Villegas (love that putting preview), currently +2
Tiger Woods (admire his work ethic and his amazing determination), currently +1
Richard Lee (he's 16!), currently +2
Ian Poulter (golf wouldn't be the same without his sartorial splendor), currently even
Jose Maria Olazabal, currently even

Living Up to the Hype

Oakmont is doing what all expected -- giving the world's best golfers a very tough time. Tiger closed with a one over 71, but former leader David Toms bogeyed five out of the last six holes. Sergio Garcia shot a nine over 79. Put me on the tips and expect a score somewhere above 120.

Tiger is Bleeding

After being -1 early in his round, Tiger has bogeyed three of the last four (9-12) and fallen back to +2. He's putting well, his problemis he keeps driving it into the rough, even with his stinger 2-iron. And the rough at Oakmont is almost always going to cost you at least one stroke.

Good Thing the Sound is Back...

...because now you can hear the "slurp" as the rough swallows any ball that doesn't find the fairway.

Speak Up!

ESPN has lost sound on its broadcast, but I can still see why David Toms is leading at -2: he just made a brilliant chip from one level of a green to another. The touch these guys have is just amazing.

Eating 'Em Up

Oakmont is already taking its bites. Jose-Maria Olazabal hits his drive into the rough and is able to advance his second shot only about 15 yards. Defending champion Geoff Ogilvy couldn't get out of a bunker on 8 (a 261-yard par three!) and Tiger two-putted from four feet for a bogey four.

It's Open Time

It's finally here -- the biggest tournament of the golf season. The U.S. Open. Sure, the Open Championship has more history in terms of sheer years behind it, and The Masters has the benefit of being played at the same course every year, which adds to its mystique, but the Open Championship belongs to another country, and The Masters is just too stuffy and exclusive to be as great as it could be. At the U.S. Open, virtually any golfer can play in qualifying tournaments and earn his way into the field.

The venue this year is the Oakmont Country Club, a diabolical test of golf. In addition to many deep fairway bunkers (including the famed "church pews" (photo above), the greens are VERY fast, with some slopes so severe that with certain pin positions golfers will have to hit the ball within a six-foot circle or else the ball will roll right off the green.

There will be something like nine hours of coverage today, and though I may not be able to watch ALL day, I'll try to keep you up to date on what's going on.

The Web of Addiction

This is pretty funny.

glumbert.com - Effects of Drugs and Alcohol on Spider Webs

"To Get the Tchotchke!"

The quality is terrible, but here is a link to Julie White's acceptance speech at the Tonys. One of the best.

Thoughts on Hitch

I've finished Christopher Hitchens's new book and, as I expected, it made me angry. To be honest, I think he could have made the same basic point (religion poisons everything) in a long article in The Atlantic. But to read page after page discussing the atrocities committed in the name of god does have a way of reinforcing the ridiculousness of the whole enterprise. If wars and bloodshed weren't always started because of religious issues, churches almost always had a role to play in supporting one side or another. (Including the Vatican's support of Nazi outrages, for which they have only recently apologized.)

Look around and you will see the hand of god (or at least, as perceived by believers) at work in more stupidity and idiocy than one could ever imagine happening. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 24% OF people who attend church regularly believe in evolution, as opposed to 71% of people who seldom or never attend church. Despite all the scientific evidence, and even assuming that many church goers who believe in evolution believe in it only because they think that's how god chose to create the world, only a minority of people trust what empirical, verifiable, repeatable scientific effort indicates. And these people are allowed to vote!

What is to become of us if we can't see the truth that is right in front of our eyes? If we decide instead to play the make-believe game that an omnipotent being watches over us and prepares mansions for us in a kingdom in the sky and knows the number of hairs on the head of every one of the Earth's billions of inhabitants, we seem doomed to dwell in darkness and ignorance. It's time for a new Enlightenment!

Quote for the Day

From the last chapter of Christopher Hitchens's new book, "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything":

"Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard--or try to turn back--the measurable advances we have made. Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given the choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two. Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in the proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be "saved." It is as if someone, offered a delicious and fragrant out-of-season fruit, matured in a painstakingly and lovingly designed hothouse, should throw away the flesh and pulp and know moodily on the pit."

Tony Night

Sorry about not posting much over the past couple of days, but I had a lot to do to get ready for last night's Tony festivities. Not just the awards for the best Broadway has to offer, but also the chance to finally learn the fate of the other big Tony, Tony Soprano. (Spoiler alert: if you taped or TiVo'd the Sopranos finale, things will be revealed later in the post that you won't want to know.)

First, the Theater Wing of America's Antoinette Perry Awards. I thought the broadcast itself was relatively well done, especially considering they get probably 1/50th the number of viewers that the Oscars gets. The audience was mostly dressed very elegantly and with a lot of class. No fashion train wrecks like one gets on Oscar night -- except for the woman (can't remember who) who wore the dress with a collar that looked like the pop-top from a 70s era beer can. Angela Lansbury looked terrific, the speeches were mostly elequent and gracious, and the musical numbers exciting and well-staged.

As usual, it was also the gayest night on TV. I think the first two couples shown during the TV broadcast were gay and lesbian, and it seemed like half the male winners were gay: David Hyde Pierce, Steven Sater, Bill T. Jones, Jack O'Brien, all the design winners, the producer of "Spring Awakening." Even the lone child on stage was already clearly on the road to being a member of the Family.

Best acceptance speeches came from female actors: Mary Louise Wilson (who, after saying she wondered that if she ever won a Tony would she feel as if someone had made a mistake, said: "And I don't.") and Julie White (who was genuinely shocked to have won for her role in "The Little Dog Laughed" yet had something prepared that acknowledged the shock and allowed her to give thanks with both grace and humor.) I'm also glad "The Little Dog Laughed" won something (the link I just gave will take you to the report from the trip when I first saw the show off-Broadway).

Also glad "Spring Awakening" took home eight trophies, including Best Musical. Broadway needs to encourage risk-taking, creativity and the desire to develop a new audience.

Now, on to the other Tony. I'll keep this brief, as the blogosphere is filled with commentary about the show. At the very end of the episode, the very end of the series, Tony is meeting his family at a North Jersey diner (famed, apparently, for its onion rings). Tony, Carmela, Meadow and AJ are all arriving separately. Once Tony is inside, every person in the diner seems to be suspect in some way. Every time the door opens, we wonder if someone will enter who is going to whack Tony. There's a guy sitting at the counter who seems especially suspicious. Creator David Chase does a terrific job of establishing a sense of the kind of tension Tony must be feeling: who's a threat? Who's not? The suspicious guy at the counter walks past their booth...then goes into the bathroom. A foreshadowing of "The Godfather" when Michael Corleone retrieved the gun from toilet tank to off one of his rivals?

Then...darkness. No music. No sound. Just black for a few seconds, then the credit roll.

Here's where I think Chase displayed his greatest genius. Prior to the finale, Vegas oddsmakers were taking bets on whether Tony would be whacked or not. But with the ending Chase chose, a strong case can be made to say both that he survived to say that he was killed. In the episode prior, we get a flashback to when Tony and Bobby Baccalieri talk about what it would be like to be shot in the back of the head: "Everything goes black. You probably don't even hear anything." was the gist of their conclusion. So is that what happened to Tony? Did the guy come out of the bathroom and pop a cap in the back of T's neck? Or with Phil Leotardo dead, did Tony consolidate his power and continue on as boss? A strong case can be made either way, which leaves the Vegas boys with a bit of a conundrum.

Another Thing I Don't Understand

Why leaving Iraq should be considered defeat in the War on Terror. If this indeed a global war -- and every indication says it is -- why is Iraq the prime front? Other than the fact that we've made it one, I mean. Why not pull out, let the Muslims have their internecine conflict, and concentrate our resources on monitoring, intelligence, finding Bin Laden (and other terrorists) and securing travel? Leaving Iraq is not a defeat -- it's redirecting resources.

What Unites Us is Bigger than what Divides Us

Bill Clinton gave the commencement address at Harvard this week, with the main thrust of his speech centering around the fact that the sequencing of the human genome shows that, for all our differences, all humans are 99.9% the same, genetically speaking. Read it if you have a moment.

Missing the Finer Point

Click here for an interesting example of how a subtle but important point is missed in coverage of a speech by Barack Obama.

Un-Winning the Cold War

It seems that George W. Bush isn't happy with spending a trillion dollars on a misguided war in Iraq. Now he's starting to talk in ways that could reopen a war we already won -- the Cold War. Of course, he'll need Putin's help in heating that conflict back up, but Vladimir -- he calls him Vladimir -- is obliging, and we're now facing down the Russians over missiles once again. The Cuban Missile Crisis may now become the Polish Missile Crisis. But don't worry, if George restarts the Cold War, I'm sure he can find a way to un-win it for us.

Racism is Alive and Flourishing

Read this horrifying story of a small town in Louisiana where three black kids who broke an unwritten rule to sit on the "white side" of the schoolyard were greeted the next morning by three nooses hanging from the tree under which they sat. Note also the disparity of charges and punishments meted out to black children and white children.

Nominated...

for word that sound least like its meaning: "pulchritude." How can that mean "beauty"?

Whither Wie?

I don't suppose many of you are paying attention to Michelle Wie, the teen phenom golfer who was supposed to be to women's golf what Tiger Woods has been to the men's game: a true crossover superstar who expands the reach and popularity of the game. I've written about Michelle before. First here, where I discussed the possibility of her transforming the game. Then again here, when I suggested she give up trying to play in men's tournaments and concentrate on success on the LPGA Tour.

Now it appears as if Michelle may not be able to accomplish any of it -- including competing on the LPGA Tour. On Thursday, Michelle competed at her first LPGA tournament in over four months, the Ginn Tribute. She had been idle due to a wrist injury; an injury of which many in the golf world were skeptical. So, after months of rehabilitation, hours on the range and play in practice rounds, it was assumed Miss Wie was ready to take the stage again.

Hardly. After posting a +14 score after 16 holes, Wie withdrew -- and under a cloud of controversy: had she lost two more strokes to par on the final two holes, she would have shot an 88 and been banned from the tour for a full year. Although her handlers deny they considered that rule when contemplating the withdrawal, it's hard to believe it wasn't in their minds somewhere. With $20 million in endorsement contracts at stake, Wie can't afford to be barred from her sport.

One of the best things about golf has always been that players had to perform in order to be paid. A promising quarterback or shortstop could sign a multi-year contract and still cash checks even if they averaged six interceptions a game or batted .126. A pro golfer had to finish in the money to pay the rent. That's been changing over the years -- John Daly can't find his way to the bottom of the cup even with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other, but he still draws fans, so he still gets endorsement dollars and appearance fees. But it seems to have reached an apex with Michelle Wie -- she has won ONE important tournament (The U.S. Women's Publinks), and none since turning pro a little over a year ago. She had finished highly in the tournaments she did enter, but as the pressure on her as grown, the cracks seem to be growing, as well.

Today, Michelle Wie could be the next Anna Kournikova -- a promising talent who can't deliver and is forgotten before her endorsement deals expire. Let's hope Michelle can pull it together and give Lorena and Annika a run for their money.

When 3BR/2BA Just Won't Cut It

India's richest man is building his own personal skyscraper home. Sixty stories, including six just for parking. Oh, and a staff of six hundred for a six-member family. (I wonder if six, or multiples thereof, have some special place in Indian culture.)

Nature is not One-Sided

This amazing amateur video gives you a view on life in the wild I would wager you have never seen. Watch as the "king of beasts" learns what happens when one stands up to a bully.

Run Fred Run! (right to the dermatologist)

As has been suspected for some time, it's looking like actor Fred Thompson is ready to announce his candidacy for President. But here is his major problem...he looks like hell! I caught him on "Real Time with Bill Maher" last week and he didn't just have bags under his eyes, he had a matched set of steamer trunk, overnight valise and makeup tote. I'm not saying his worn-out appearance makes him unfit to be President, I'm saying it makes him unelectable. He's only 65, but on Maher's show, he looked like 80. The American Voter is very picky about things like that, and I just don't see how he can fight off handsome Mitt Romney, the uber-manager Rudy Giuliani or war hero John McCain.

Getting Off the Bottle

It was my sister who first told me about a movement to reduce the consumption of bottled water, with the reason being the environmental impact of creating all those plastic bottles, filling them, packaging them, shipping them and, most important, disposing of them. After all, we have a pretty efficient distribution and delivery system already in place. It's called "plumbing."

Today I read that several restaurants, including that trendsetter Chez Panisse, are eliminating the sales of bottled water in favor of tap water that is house-filtered -- and sometimes even house-carbonated.

I never order bottled water when I'm out. But that's because I'm frugal. It drives me bats that restaurants make most of their money on the profits from drinks that offer almost zero added value (cocktails are a bit different, but how much skill does it take to bring a bottle of water to a table, or even open and pour a bottle of wine?), while they lose money on the food, which takes tremendous skill to prepare. I guess I'm happy, all those people who order $8 Voss waters and spend $40 for a bottle of wine you could get for $7.49 at BevMo are partly underwriting my meal!

Because Good Help Is So Hard To Find

British authorities are rethinking their ban on creating chimeras, or biological entities that are part human-part something else. Money quote: "...human-dog drudges trained to cook omelets and happily perform useful tasks around the house, like changing the light bulbs."
(I searched for a photo to go with this post, but the best one I found was just too weird/disturbing to include!)

You Need Help to Suck THIS Badly

George W. Bush has become -- in the opinion of many people, myself included -- the worst president we have ever had. As Bill Maher says in this piece in Salon, "Nixon got in trouble for illegally wiretapping Democratic headquarters; Bush is illegally wiretapping the entire country. Nixon opened up relations with the Chinese; Bush let them poison your dog. Grant let his cronies loot the republic, but he won his civil war. For some inexplicable reason Republicans have taken to comparing Bush to Harry Truman -- a comparison that would make sense only if Harry Truman had A) started World War II and B) lost World War II."

So how does such incredible incompetence happen? You can't fuck up this badly, not on your own, not with a system of checks and balances in place. First, he needed the help of the American people, who failed (or refused) to see what a sniggering, self-righteous chimp he was and re-elected him. Then, the media joined in the fun by spending time covering Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith, giving Bush the cover he needed to engage in torture and suspend habeous corpus. Worst of all, we had a bunch of overprivileged, bribed, corrupt legislators who let his get away with all that shit. Even former presidents aren't using their remaining access to the media to call our national criminal to to the carpet. I used to have respect for Jimmy Carter (even met him once, in Geneva), but after showing a spine of tapioca after backing down from his "worst ever" quote like a puppy who peed in the wrong place and looked up and saw just how scary that rolled-up newspaper looked.

America needs help. We need to save ourselves FROM ourselves. Of all the culprits named above, the biggest is missing: the power players of the religious right. The ones who invoke a higher power and play on the superstitions (and hope and faith) of millions of otherwise good and honest (but frightened) Americans. Falwell is gone, at last, but Dobson and Reed are still in place. And what about the tens of thousands of ordinary preachers, the ones who don't make it on TV, but who have still fallen to their knees in obeisance of a criminal cabal simply because they mouth their prayers in the public square like modern-day Pharisees.

Conflating The Big Gs

If you want to see the spirit of God at work, staring into crimson sunsets or gazing up in wonder at the velvet belts of the Milky Way may not do the trick. No, if you want a fool-proof glimpse of the power of God (or at least that of His believers), the place to look is the American political scene, which is in great danger of being subsumed by a cabal that is using morality as a tool to manipulate people of faith into abandoning rationality to obedience.

For many people, their faith truly sustains them. It helps them deal with the chaotic, random nature of the world. For those people who are thus sustained, I say bully. To quote the philosopher John Lennon, "whatever gets you through the night, it's alright." In times as dark as these, when we seem on the brink of a permanent night (terrorists wreaking havoc in our world, mothers drowning their children, bees abandoning their colonies by the billions), having a benevolent personal god who knows the falling of the sparrow and sends angels to look out for you is a most compelling illusion.

Unfortunately for us, Karl Rove and his ilk realize this, as well, and have used it to their advantage. By seizing the mantle of morality, they use fear -- of atheism, homosexuality, equality (they will say they are all for equality, but only so long as you share the belief that their god is more equal than others) -- to win the support of people of faith. They have conflated one big G (God) with another big G, (George W. Bush). For many, belief in one is trust in the other, and vice versa.

That's why you'll find so many of the Bush core constituency walking in lockstep on issues such as torture and global climate change. In both those cases, I think the commonsense Christian position would be the opposite of what is seems to be: to oppose torture in all instances and to choose a path that exhibited proper stewardship of the planet they believe God created.

These people are only 20-30% of us, yet they have a stranglehold on power, simply because they are so committed to their faith. They love having a higher power to defer to, and now they have two: one G who talks to them, and reassures them, and the other G who they believe listens to them and cares for them. (And who the first G also talks with, according to his own statements.) This makes them a very formidable roadblock on the path to a more perfect union and liberty and justice for all.

Why This Blog is Called "The RATIONAL Feast"

Because it's about my hope that reason can one day achieve a position of prominence in American civic and political life, as Lincoln proposed: "Passion has helped us, but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason—cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason—must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence."

Al Gore lays out a similar proposal in his new book, discussed in part here by Andrew Sullivan.

Let 'Em At Each Other

Callous as it sounds, I'm not sure I disagree with this post.

Bats!

As I stepped outside tonight, just at sunset, I looked up in the sky and saw...well, you've guessed by now. Bats. I love bats. Love watching them. Think they are fascinating, helpful creatures. I remember when I was a kid, lying on the top deck of the houseboat at Trinity Lake, watching the bats come out as the sun went down. (One of my brothers, on the other hand, occasionally got out his shotgun and killed the buggers.) I remember a night in Kyoto, Japan, sitting between two bridges on the river and watching a quite spectacular bat emergence. And now, here they are, right outside my home. Very exciting.

A Great One from My New Favorite Blog

From openjesus.org comes "Ten Reasons to Believe in God.

My fave might be number four: "Heaven. It’s not just about the restaurants, the shows, the fishing, the BBQ’s God hosts, or the unfettered access to the lives of those on Earth. You’ll get to spend your days hanging out in a perfect jungle with Dad, where He’ll turn you into random animals and let you play around in their bodies, and your evenings will be spent with Noah, who is so freakin’ hilarious you’ll wonder why you didn’t just drink and drive to get here sooner."

Scenes from Cyberspace

Following is part of an exchange from an ongoing debate on the discussion board at The Golf Channel.com on same-sex marriage. The statements in quotes are from one of the cadre of the faithful of the religious right. The replies are not.

"Throughout the ages homosexuals have been shunned in just about every decent society. Many were put to death for this act of shame. "

It used to be that left-handed people were shunned. Some were put to death for being under the influence of the devil.

That bigotry remains in our langugage today -- "gauche" and "sinister" both have deeply negative connotations, and both mean "left." As recently as the last century, teachers would tie a child's left hand in a vain attempt to make them right-handed. (A left-handed person CAN force himself to write right-handed, just as a gay person can force himself to live a heterosexual lifestyle -- doesn't make the leftie a rightie or the gay man straight.)

I think we should be proud of ourselves that we are leaving behind discrimination based in ignorance.

"where the name "God" is now shunned in many areas of our daily life."

In most aspects of civil life, I think it's right to keep God out of it. I mean, really, don't you think it demeans Him that His name adorns our currency? God -- at least the one I read about in the Bible -- is SO not about money. I think the power of God in people's lives would be INCREASED if kept more in sacred places and less in public places.

But you're free to buy space on a billboard if you like and shout your testimony or raise your hosannas in letters eight feet high, if you like. And many do. As well as filling multiple television networks with 24 hours a day of Christian content, and publishing thousands of books and populating millions of web pages (and discussion boards like this one) with messages about faith. Not to mention all the invocations of His name during cold and flu season.

So this idea you have that the name of God is "shunned in many areas of our daily life" is patently ridiculous.

If you're saying that God doesn't get the respect He used to, that may be true. When the track record of Your professed advocates here on Earth is what it is (let's start with Copernicus, move to the Inquisition and end on Swaggart and Haggard - you can fill in the centuries between), you're going to have to expect these sorts of things. When you say "God says the sun revolves around the Earth" - and then stick to that position in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence to the contrary, You'd be an idiot not to expect that people might then wonder whether the position many of your churches take -- that homosexuality is an evil choice some people make and not one of the many variants of human behavior that is inborn -- is correct or not.

That doesn't mean we have to be any less ethical, nor should we stop teaching our children the Golden Rule just because we've realized no Lake of Fire exists. We can create our own hell right here on Earth -- and one quick way to do that is to judge individuals based on the stereotypes (often true, that's how they get to BE stereotypes) associated with a group to which they belong, and to treat those groups as second-class citizens because of something that is fixed at birth.

If you want to preach against homosexuality and call it "sin" or even remove yourself from the company of homosexuals when their presence is made known to you, fine. Knock yourself out.

But when it comes to matters of civil liberty and equal rights, I hope we can all behave like Americans and truly stand for liberty and justice for ALL.

Bold Statement from President Jimmy Carter

Shocking, I think, and perhaps unprecedented, former President Jimmy Carter calls the current administration "the worst in history."

Our National Crime

I read that waterboarding was first used in the 1500s, during the Italian Inquisition. For some reason, I can't figure out why that makes me so sad. Is it because we're using a torture method that is medieval? Or that it's obviously been proven effective over centuries of testing, so no matter how much people try to minimize it ("If it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives."*), it's clearly torture.

Part of the problem with waterboarding is that it works. To a certain extent. Apparently, if you have something someone wants to hear, Saran wrap your head, tilt back and have water poured over you to simulate drowning...and you'll give it up. Because of this, agents do get some of what they are after. Valuable information. The problem is...well, first of all, the problem is IT'S TORTURE! and therefore wrong and illegal...but the other first problem is that while you get valuable true information, you also get the significantly less valuable false and/or useless information. Information that might seem important because it was revealed only after the application of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It must be a fascinating (if macabre and creepy) dance between victim and torturer: the torturer assumes the victim is witholding. The victim knows the torturer expects him to withold. How much does the victim try to endure so that when he finally breaks, he can hope the torture will stop? If he gives in too early, does the torturer go on, certain there must be more valuable information to be had? Of course, if he gives in too late...

And from the torturer's point of view: how much do you continue to push after you've heard what your victim is claiming is everything he knows? After all, he's trying to keep things from you. But if you push too hard, you know he'll just start coming up with plausible information to get you to stop.

Maybe I'm off-base here. Maybe waterboarding never results in false or manufactured intelligence. Maybe it's so horrifying an experience no one can lie under its influence, and the terror of the victim is so great that any decent torturer can tell when the bottom of the well has been reached.

But ultimately I think what is making me sick is the core fact that we torture at all. That we have sunk so low as a nation. That I am actually writing about this and it's not fiction. In years to come will there be a time when I feel the need as a citizen of my country to apologize for the way we behaved during this war? How can I look at what Americans under the command of George W. Bush did at Abu Gharaib (and only imagining what went on where it was trained CIA officers and not Army grunts, as in the prisons of rendition) and not feel shame for even my miniscule role as a citizen who could not prevent his election or re-election?

It makes me sick at heart that my country would behave in this fashion - and that our president has, at the very LEAST, justifed the behavior, and quite possibly approved/ordered it.

*Actual quote.

More Evidence on Global Climate Change

Click here for a story from the Times of London.

A Marriage Proposal

OK, religious right, let's say you're right, and marriage is a sacred institution established by God. So you shouldn't have any problem with taking it out of government’s hands altogether then, right?

Here's my thinking:

Create a civil union law that is designed solely to provide civil benefits and responsibilities: taxation, survivor benefits, etc. Oh -- and shared financial responsibility. That one's important. When you marry a person, their debts are your debts. Make sure that is a part of civil unions, too, for it’s a strong motivation to keep an eye on each other, to make sure one’s spouse is mostly making wise decisions and taking positive actions. People who have made this commitment have someone to watch over them -- and vice versa. Isn't this one of the main reasons society rewards marriage? Because it promotes social stability? That’s especially helpful for families who choose to raise children – which gay people also happen to do. Not as regularly as heterosexuals, but it’s certainly not unusual. Society benefits from all relationships being more stable, even the ones that don't participate in creating the next generation.

As the Constitution provides, let the states work out the details. If South Carolina decides civil unions are for male-female couples only, let them have that. (At least until the Supreme Court steps in and declares that unconstitutional. Then, if they want to secede again, we’ll deal with that in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.)

Some states might make these unions available to any two people. Say two sisters have retired, share a house and want to receive the benefits of a civil union – I say let them, as long as they are willing to take on the responsibilities of same. Not only the debts, but the fact that you can partner with only one person at a time and ending a union is not easy or cheap. If civil unions are about civil benefits and responsibilities, I see no reason to deny them to any two people willing to follow the strictures.

This precedent is being set already. The Rev. Gene Robinson has decided he and his partner will have two ceremonies, one to satisfy the civil union requirements in New Hampshire, and a religious ceremony to celebrate their partnership in the eyes of God.

I imagine many churches would hold to the one man, one woman rule. Others might allow same-sex ceremonies but deny two sisters who thought their relationship ought to get not only legal, but spiritual blessings, as well. Others might say, “hey – if you’re willing to commit to such a deep level of mutual support, God can get behind that,” and let any two people marry. Again, each church sets its own rules.

If we get the government out of marriage entirely, and let them instead oversee civil unions which relate solely to civil rights and responsibilities, this would leave “marriage” as a totally religious act. How much more sanctity could they ask for?

They Hate Us For Our Hypocrisy

I remember when we were the good guys, the nation that stood above others in the way we dealt with prisoners of war. No longer. Now we might as well include ourselves in the "Axis of Evil," given the fact that we not only approved torture at the highest levels, we denied it at the highest levels. The fact that we, the most powerful nation that has ever existed on the face of the planet, have resorted to such despicable behavior literally sickens me. What's more, our leaders (and perhaps our next president [please, god, no], for only McCain among the major Republican candidates has come out foursquare against torture) have failed to recognize one of the lessons of history: that torture doesn't work. Torturing our enemies may bring some useful information, but it will also bring us false information that sounds like the truth. More important, our acts of torture will ultimately only harden the enemy, and assist him in his recruiting plans. They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our hypocrisy. They hate us because we venture off into the rest of the world pitching freedom and justice (and don't get me wrong, I love democracy and think it ought to be embraced everywhere in the world), yet when it suits our purposes, we're all too ready to justify and deny sadistic behavior or the suspension of human rights. I'd be pissed, too.

In this piece in yesterday's Washington Post, you can read what the former commandant of the Marines Corps and the former commander-in-chief of CentCom have to say on the issue.

PHOTO: Two billboards on a major highway in Tehran, Iran. The people of the Islamic world are well aware of what we have done, how our president has reacted to what we have done -- and I can't imagine they are happy about it.

Hitch Goes Off on Falwell

The new blogger software won't let me link directly to YouTube videos anymore, but here's a link to the always erudite Christopher Hitchens telling Anderson Cooper what he really thinks about Jerry Falwell.

Making Hate Crimes Laws Truly Equal

With all the uproar over the recent hate crimes legislation and President Bush's threatened veto, I wonder if there might not be a truly equal solution for the problem.

Instead of establishing certain protected groups, why not define a "hate crime" as any crime of violence for which the primary motive is the victim's being part of an identifiable group of people? Doesn't matter if you are black, gay, Asian, white, left-handed, a San Diego Chargers fan, a federal judge...if the attacker was motivated less by anything you as an individual did and more by the fact that you are part of a specific group, then a special sentencing guideline would kick in.

This solution appropriately punishes crimes motivated by hatred of a group, yet excludes no one. Most hate crimes would likely still be perpetrated against gay people and people of color, but judges and juries would have additional options for dealing with cases like the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, when some black people went on a rampage and took out their anger on white people simply because they were white, and they were at hand.

Seems fair to me.

Origins of Belief

An interesting interview with Lewis Wolpert, author of "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast."

Support the Kids

Last month in New York I had the privilege of seeing composer Jason Robert Brown in concert at Birdland. Several of the songs he performed came from "Songs for a New World," something that is called a musical, but is really more of a song cycle, loosely based around the idea of discovery: of one's heart, of others' secret motives, even the discovery that Mrs. Claus has some serious issues with her jolly husband. (In the delightful "Surabaya Santa," a Weill-esqe lament of the lady left behind.)

Brown's show is currently being staged at the Eureka Theatre in San Francisco by Ray of Light Theatre, a local production group. Although I have nits to pick with the show, overall it's well worth your time. There are some terrific songs in here, and the ticket price is low, so it's hard to go very wrong. My nits? The girls are stronger than the boys in terms of singing, and the band seems a bit clunky and heavy-handed in their playing. And the lighting design is almost non-existent.

On the positive side, Jessica Coker is delightful, a zaftig belter with a tremendous sense of comic timing. (It helps that she has two of the best, funniest songs, the aforementioned "Surabaya Santa" and "One More Step," an acid little number featuring a woman on a ledge, threatening to jump just to spite her cheapskate husband who won't come through with the fur she desires.) Lindsay Hirata has a lovely tone, expressive and emotional. Plus, she can act. (There is no dialogue in the show really, but her physical scenes, especially with Robert Lopez, are wonderful.)

Of the two men, Lopez is much weaker vocally than his stagemate DaRon Lamar Williams. Williams has a big voice (Lopez is certainly on pitch and in time, but his sound is thin and insubstantial, especially in his upper register) and isn't afraid to use it. Problem is, he seems to return to the same gospel-tinged inflections over and over.

I'm not going to criticize the score itself, but I will say it's a rather odd little show. It sounds like a collection of pretty good songs intended for some other show. "I'm Not Afraid of Anything" seems like it was pulled directly from "Little Women," or could be intended for any number of spunky Nellie Forbush-type characters.

Bottom line -- go to the Eureka Theater and support a group of young people who are working hard to create an entertaining evening, and mostly succeeding.

The Lord's Blog

When you need to know what Jesus thinks.

More Images of Chambers Bay

This is looking great. Here are more photos.

Bishop Gene Robinson Makes the Right Point

The Rev. Gene Robinson (whose selection as the first openly-gay leader of the Epsicopalian Church has caused a tremendous uproar) has decided that when he marries his partner after civil unions become legal in New Hampshire, they plan to have two weddings: one to satisfy the legal requirements of the state and gain the civil benefits which accrue therefrom, and a church service where their union will be celebrated and solemnized.

I think that's smart. I think that's the right way to position ourselves on this front in the battle for civil equality. It's OK for there to be a separate form of union, as long as EVERYBODY who wants to get married has to do it. That's truly separate but equal. If you want to secure the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage, you have to file paperwork with the state and speak your commitment in front of an official of the state. If you want to then go on and have a church wedding, that's between you and God. Maybe if you want a church wedding, you can do them both at once. The minister has to ask an extra question perhaps so you can tell the difference between a dual civil-religious ceremony, and one that is completely religious. (And that way, if people wanted to feel their church marriage wasn't available to just anyone, they could keep the state out of it entirely.)

I think it would be easier on everyone involved if they just opened marriage to any two people who want to live up to its legal responsibilities, but this feels like equality, too.

The FSM Strikes Again

They continue to fight the good fight.

Hate Crimes Hit Home -- Literally

As some of my readers know, for the last two weeks I have been spending most nights at St. Mary's Hospital, staying with Bob to help him through his recuperation from double total knee replacement surgery. Every two or three days or so, though, I go home to bring in the mail and check on things at the house.

When I pulled into the driveway this afternoon, however, I was greeted by this:

What you see is painted in some blood red substance on our garage door. It occupies a space approximately 2.5 by 3.5 feet. When I first saw it, my initial reaction was that it was some sort of code, that PG&E had marked the house "1-A9" for some odd reason. While I was trying to parse out what that reason could possibly be, the true meaning suddenly became clear: FAG.

In the 14 or so years that I have been out, I have never, until now, felt any overt hatred or homophobia. Even when evangelicals were protesting outside the Bette Midler show I went to in Oakland, it didn't even feel like hate; they sincerely thought they were trying to help us. So I've never had anyone treat me like a second-class citizen because of my sexual orientation. (Or at least no strangers; one of my brothers has some issues, but that's another story.) Until now.

When the realization dawned on me of what that juvenile scrawl meant, it was like a punch to the gut. I felt suddenly sick. Someone, probably someone in my neighborhood, vandalized my home to send a message that I was hated simply because of who I am. It may look like a prank, but it doesn't feel like one. It feels like hatred. Like ostracism. (And this happened in liberal Marin County -- imagine what gay people in Mississippi or Ohio have to go through!)

Before I came back into San Francisco, I spoke to three neighbors, each of whom voiced support for us and anger that this happened. My Iranian-born neighbor was especially incensed, probably because he can imagine what it's like to be despised simply for being who you are.

It's fascinating to me that my last two posts have been about hate crimes legislation -- which I generally oppose -- and now I find myself the victim of such a crime.

I reported the incident to the Marin County Sheriff's Office, and they took a report. I will update you with any additional news or information.

Muzzled at the Pulpit?

In my most recent post, I talked about President Bush's planned veto of a new bill coming from Congress that would create a new federal hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation, gender and disability, as well as the more traditional categories of race and religion. In that post, I mentioned that the Rev. James Dobson was in favor of the veto, saying the law would "muzzle" ministers from preaching against homosexuality.

Dobson stated that “the Hate Crimes Act will be the first step to criminalize our rights as Christians to believe that some behaviors are sinful," and that “pastors preaching from Scripture on homosexuality could be threatened with persecution and prosecution."

To which I say, Fred Phelps and his congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church (which is composed mostly of his extended family) regularly appear in public (lately at military funerals) and scream "God Hates Fags" -- without being prosecuted for hate speech. The First Amendment protects him pretty well, and I see nothing in this legislation that would prevent that in the future. So I have a hard time imagining why James Dobson (who must be at least marginally intelligent) would think this is even a minor possibility.

Then I read a quote from the assistant editor at CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family ministry, discussing the same issue: “It attempts to place sexual orientation on par with race, enshrining homosexuality in federal law as a civil rights issue.” Now it all comes clear -- if the bill passes, it could be seen as federal recognition that sexuality is fixed at birth and not a choice, as the Christianists profess. And that scares the shit out of them.

President Bush Joins in Gay-Bashing

I'm no fan of hate crimes laws. I'm of the belief that violent crime is repugnant, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator. However, I agree (as usual) with Andrew Sullivan, who agrees with me, but also feels a coherent position can be taken in favor of hate crimes laws. He puts it this way: "The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence."

It is ridiculous, however, to deny hate crimes protections on the basis of sexual orientation, especially since such crime can effect both gay and straight people. If a straight man is mistaken as gay, and beaten or killed because of it, the motivation of hate is still there. If a member of the KKK mistook me for a Jew (not likely, but work with me here), the crime could still be punished under hate crimes law, regardless of the fact that I am Gentile.

President Bush, however, doesn't see it this way, and has threatened to veto a bill passed by the house extending hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, gender and disability. Why? The administration gives no truly logical reason, stating that "All violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly." I'd like to ask the president that, if that's so, would he be in favor of the repeal of existing hate crimes law which allow for harsher punishment for crimes based on race or religion.

The Chicago Tribune's story on the threatened veto states that, "Under the legislation, a group of conservative House Republicans said in a letter to Bush, "religious leaders promoting traditional morality could be made subject to compulsory legal processes -- and forced into court -- simply because their religious teachings may have been misconstrued by a deranged criminal, particularly as prosecutors blur the line between what constitutes a 'hate crime' and what they deem as hate speech."" So if I claim to head a church that believes being born Asian is a sin against God, and I were sued for inciting hatred that led to a specific act of violence, I could also seek protection under the First Amendment right to free speech? I mean, just because your God says I'm a sinner doesn't give you the right to incite hatred or to seek protection for your hateful speech. And that's what these Christianists seem to be saying. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family says the "true intent of the legislation," is to "muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."

Back to Larry Kramer: what have we done to make you hate us so?

My Thoughts Exactly

Well, almost exactly.

Tacoma Here I Come

I've been wanting to get back up to Seattle; I love the city, and love seeing my niece and her husband and two boys even more. What's more, the Broadway-bound musical "Young Frankenstein," based on the Mel Brooks movie, is doing its out-of-town tryout at Seattle's Paramount Theater.

Tacoma, on the other hand, is a place I merely pass through on my way from the airport. I've heard the glass museum there is pretty amazing, but I've never made the trek. Now, with the imminent opening of Chambers Bay Golf Course (pictured above), I can hardly wait to get to Tacoma. This new Robert Trent Jones, Jr. course is getting some great early buzz, and it's managed by the same group that manages the courses at Bandon Dunes, which are the most amazing I've ever played. Here's more about the course.

(I wish the image were higher res, but it's all I could find. Hit the link above to see better pics.)

Need to learn something? Take a nap.

This article references some fascinating work on how the conscious and subconscious mind work at the tasks of learning and decision-making. I found this quote especially interesting:

"People often make better shopping decisions, at least when it comes to complex products, when they rely on their unconscious brain. Instead of consciously analyzing all of their options, consumers were most effective when they practiced "deliberation without attention," and let their unconscious brain digest the information while they were busy doing something else, like watching television or sleeping."

Ap Dijksterhuis, the researcher who published his work last year in Science magazine, summarizes the implications of his research:

"Use your conscious mind to acquire all the information you need for making a decision--but don't try to analyze the information. Instead, go on holiday while your unconscious mind digests it for a day or two. Whatever your intuition then tells you is almost certainly going to be the best choice."

Timetables are bad...except when they're good.

Two quotes from George W. Bush in 1999, when the then-candidate was criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for the exit of US troops from Kosovo:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." 4/9/99

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." 6/5/99

Glad you cleared that up, George.

Wall of Hair

Oh my god -- what happened to Phil Spector?

Has he been put to work in the prison static electricity generating plant? Or, perhaps more likely, he is in contention for the live action version of "The Simpsons." Question is, which character is he trying for? Sideshow Bob?:

Or Marge's sister, Selma Bouvier?:

Two Things

First, why can't more American cities (besides New York) have extensive, reliable subway systems, the way most European cities do?

Second, why can't they look like this?



These images are from the Stockholm subway system. Apparently, when they excavated into the bedrock, they decided to leave the bare rock exposed. I'm glad they did.

You can see more images here.

The Tantrum That Became a Nightmare

Although the author of this article from Salon engaged in some bad behavior, it certainly didn't warrant a two-month stay in one of Britain's most notorious prisons. What's worse, reading the journal, I think he left out some of the most horrific bits.