Blog

Gay Marriage, Climategate & Afghanistan Walk Into A Blog…

1) GAY MARRIAGE

If civil unions afforded completely equivalent benefits as marriage, sans the actual title, would gay people still feel unequal?  I think this is a legitimate question.  The argument against that is that the separate but equal classifications creates a second tier of citizens, a la Brown V. Board of Ed.  But is that really true in the case of gay marriage?  If the benefits are identical, why is the term marriage so inherently valuable?  People will use the term married if they want (I doubt a couple would say “we’re united civilly”) and listeners will respect or disregard the usage of marriage in accordance with their own personal beliefs, regardless of what name the state confers upon a gay couple.  For centuries marriage has meant one thing in our culture and language.  Without stating whether this is right or wrong or getting into religious beliefs, my question is is it the word or the benefits or both?  

But make no mistake, it is heterosexuals and our overstimulated culture that ruined marriage, not homosexuals. 

Perhaps the gay lobby simply needs to re-vamp its marketing.  Maybe pay off some of the more attractive homosexuals to get married.  Every time I turn on a protest it’s some ugly lesbian couple or some fat pair of dudes that want to get married.  No one wants to see those people marry and imagine them having sex, whether gay or straight.  So get the happy gay people out of the clubs, gyms, and coffee shops and get them to sign on.

Bizarro villain from Smallville and Bizarro Kato Kaelin want to get married?  Ewwwwwwww.
Bizarro villain from Smallville and Bizarro Kato Kaelin want to get married? Ewwwwwwww.

2) CLIMATEGATE/POLLING AMERICANS

After “Climategate” Americans’ belief in global warming is going down according to polls.  My questions is why do we poll the American people on complex issues (not that climate change’s veracity is really a complex issue)?  I especially enjoy it when they poll Americans to know if they approve of the President’s handling of the economy.  I have a law degree from Georgetown, an undergraduate degree from Williams College and I don’t understand sh*t about economics (a B in my only economics class).  I also have a blu ray dvd collection that does not speak to fiscal responsibility. So if I feel inadequate to speak on economic issues, and the economists and bankers in charge have helped ruin our economy and they are the experts, why do we ask average Americans what they think?   They can have an opinion obviously, but most of the time it will be useless, which is what 77% of the people I asked this to thought.

Sir, sir do you approve or disapprove with the President's handling of - are we seriously going to ask this guy?
Sir, sir do you approve or disapprove with the President's handling of - are we seriously going to ask this guy?

But what if climate change is some elaborate hoax (Dan Brown’s next novel?)?  So what?  Why are goals of cleaner air, cleaner water,(i.e. healthier people) and better usage and replenishing of our resources not enough to motivate people and governments?  But of course, climate change is real.  The opponents of climate change urk me, but none more than the group of Republicans/”Democrats” who describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  They love to preach about science to the religious communities on social issues, but when science indicates climate change this is the first group to question scientific findings.  I do not enjoy the politics of this group of people because often the issue they care about is money.

3)  Afghanistan

I think if I had more courage I’d volunteer to go to Afghanistan (I still get scared while playing Modern Warfare 2).  I support Obama’s troop increase into Afghanistan, but it makes me nervous.  In my first year of law school I thought that perhaps the fight against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was my generations WWII and that I might be wrong for not participating.  But then President Bush gave me a moral out by waging war in Iraq. 

But it saddens me that the resolve of the American people seems to be swayed by their boredom with war almost as equally as by the facts of war.  When W. was waging war the country was more behind him for various factors; proximity to 9/11, less time invested in the war and lies to name a few (and by the way W. had one thing going for him – he delivered war speeches better than Obama.  When W. spoke on the war and the threats he really did believe with his whole heart that he was doing the right thing, as evidenced by the fact that these were the only times he could speak with clarity and confidence.  I think Cheney had more nefarious motives, but from all I’ve read Bush really may have been more incompetent than malevolent – more Fredo than Hitler).  During that time our country’s independents/centrists/moderates had no problem being supportive and would disregard evidence to the contrary.  Now they are all too willing to back away from Obama.  No one knows for sure whether we will succeed or fail in Afghanistan, but our societal ADHD should not play a favor in the decision making and I am glad Obama did not let it.

A friend of mine actually said around 4 years ago, “the soldiers volunteered for it” as if it justified the cause (in Iraq) while more recently this same friend tried to play the sympathy for military members and families against me for my support of sending troops to Afghanistan.  We are front runners in this country and it does not just apply to sports teams and celebrities.  Perhaps the surge won’t work.  After all I once bought a puppy to act as a romance surge in a failing relationship.  A month later the relationship was over.  I hope the troops have better luck and I feel that the cause is just.

Good luck.
Good luck.

4) Why does health care for poor people get some people angrier than any of these things?

That’s all I got today.

Blog

Despite The Nobel Peace Prize, The World Needs Obama…

In light of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize I must encourage him to engage in a newer and more muscular form of international and domestic governance.

(warning – you need a working knowledge of the first two Godfather films to fully appreciate)

Afghanistan

New plan that should satisfy everyone.  After consulting my advisers (NY Times, my uncle, my mother, history books) I have come up with a plan.  Several years ago a jingoistic and bellicose colleague of mine at the Bronx DA’s Office had suggested nuking the entire Middle East because you could not reason with that part of the world (most likely save Israel, lest his parents become upset with him as a military advisor) And I thought he was nuts, primarily because invading a country that you had no business invading (Iraq) and then claiming them to be unreasonable savages when they fight back is hardly conclusive proof of a people’s inability to use diplomacy.

But Afghanistan has proven a clearer quagmire (giggity giggity) if that makes any sense.  They attacked us and we half-assed fought back because Bush and Cheney had dumber and/or greedier ideas.  My advice to Obama is simple on Afghanistan.  I believe that is the real front on terrorism and that leaving it alone will only foster another 9/11 perhaps 10 or 15 years from now.  But at the same time the corrupt leaders of Afghanistan are more than willing to talk out of both sides of their mouths, letting America fight for it, while badmouthing America and all the while not preparing and securing their country as best they can.  So my solution is simple.  We leave.  Pack up everybody. 

But at that point Obama should play Vito Corleone to Hamid Karzai’s Barzini, Tataglia, Strattchi and Cunio (seriously, who the fu-k was Cunio?).  We will denounce their heroin production as a dirty business which Karzai will insist on keeping among the dark people because they are animals anyway.  But then on to more serious matters – this Bin Laden business.  Obama should just stare at Karzai chillingly and tell him we are leaving and will let them do what they want, but if any harm comes to the United States in any form; if we should be attacked by terrorists finding safe haven in Afghanistan;or if our troops are harmed in another part of the world; or if Americans are struck by a bolt of lightening then this we will not forgive.  And we will literally erase Afghanistan from the map (I’m talking nuclear), or at least blow it into the 12th century, which may actually be an improvement in some respects.   But until that day we swear on Bo Obama that we will not be the ones to break the peace. 

Perhaps we need some measure of Corleone diplomacy.
Perhaps we need some measure of Corleone diplomacy.

The Senate

The Senate, except for a few members, is a group of whores and prostitutes.  They have been turned out by corporations and industries and are no better than the women who date investment bankers (I feel the crack whore stereotype needs to be updated).  Health care reform, gun control, environmental legislation and a myriad of other issues are blocked, not by the minuscule consciences of the Senators, but by their corporate pimps.  So, what the country needs now is term limits for Senators.

Someone once wrote to me that we do have term limits; they’re called elections.  Not when we have allowed money to infect and dominate every part of the process we don’t.  The longer you stay in the Senate, the more corporations want your ear because of your seniority and influence.  The corporations buy your money and then give you more money to keep it, which allows you to advertise more and gain a stronger and stronger foothold for re-election.  Your constituents gain from your seniority in the form of small pork projects so they remain pacified.  The cycle continues until you are a big, bloated fat (sometimes both literally and metaphorically) whore of a Senator.  The ironic thing about men like Ted Kennedy was that he was able to be a champion of the people because his money and legacy did not come from, or at least was not reliant on, an industry pimp.  He did not rely (though I am sure he used) the wealth of soulless companies and lobbies to get him re-elected so he had the rare luxury of actually prioritizing people over companies. 

Would the NRA really be the biggest lobby if Senators could only serve 12 years?  Think of how much more would get done for people if the Senate was not a de facto lifetime appointment. 

Needless to say this might require more of a Michael Corleone approach, more aggressive than the diplomatic Vito.  After all, Michael put Senator Pat Geary of Nevada in his place, so if Chris Dodd or Max Baucus wakes up in a sorority at Oregon State with a dead co-ed, I assume Joe Biden will be there to assure them that they are lucky it happened there because that’s President Obama’s Brother-in-law’s place.

Get tough with the Senate President Obama.
Get tough with the Senate President Obama.

Saturday Night Live

Make a call to Lorne Michaels and have Fred Armisen removed from impersonating you.  Yesterday I received a call from my brother.  My 2 1/2 year old nephew had seen a picture of Obama on the computer and said, “Uncle J-L”.  One of three things is possible:

  1. My brother has shown my nephew my YouTube clip way to many times.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAyUoDEX0GE
  2. Obama is leading a double life.
  3. Fred Armisen needs to step aside.

I think the answer is #3.  Make the call President on all of these things.  Especially the SNL thing.  Lorne Michaels, I think you know what happened to that producer Woltz.

Noooooooooo! Not Keenan Thomspon's head! Nooooooooo!
Noooooooooo! Not Keenan Thomspon's head! Nooooooooo!