CubsTracks: In the Beginning Edition

I have known for quite a while that Father Time was not a man with which to trifle, given what I have found out over the past few years he can do to your joints, your hearing, and your ability to digest double-pepperoni-mushroom-and-extra-cheese pizza after 9 PM.

But, turns out that he's a veritable Sylvia Fowler as well; try to keep the fact that your birthday was this week a secret, for instance, and he whispers hints into waiting ears that lead to remarks about how they thought Steely Dan was "more your era".

With that said, I now launch a recurring feature, titled "CubsTracks"*, in which the deep dark secrets of my iPod shall be revealed (if they haven't been already) in an attempt to counter Clock Daddy'z malicious gossip and convince people that yes, I AM still closer to thirty than I am to forty. (Not a word, Jamie.)

Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it.

And, because I worship at the altar of Steve Jobs ("Our Father, who art in Cupertino, hallowed be thy brand"), you too may find these songs on the soul- and wallet-sucking DRM-encoded vampire monstrosity we call....iTunes.

Before we get started, the California mandatory warnings about my musical tastes and the effects of listening:

• My iPod is officially banned from the communal speaker dock at work -- not because of obscenity but because, as my boss wryly put it, "We already provide free espresso."
• (okay, maybe a bit of obscenity. Just for effect. Really. I mean......)
• This is the serious bass department. Subtlety is upstairs, next to the fitting rooms and behind tube tops.
• Playing any of these may get you drug-tested (or an invite to the next rave, depending on your coworkers)
• That repeated knocking and screaming you hear down in the pit of your stomach is normal; it's your inner drag queen trying to escape.

For our very first theme, I tried to narrow it down to two or so singles in my regular playlist that seemed most apropos of me, how I think, and how I act -- if for no other reason than to stimulate comments discussion ("WHAT? Are you CRAZY? That's nothing LIKE you!"). With that in mind, here they are:

1. Beautiful Life, Ace of Base
2. Little Bird, Annie Lennox

Listen. Discuss. Berate.

(*No, it's not clever wordplay. It's the only combination of spellings that didn't confuse me with a grade-school newspaper. I get enough weirdo searches as it is.)

Do As I Say, Not As I Did and Said I Didn't

Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards proves many things, not the leasts of which are that shellac makes a perfectly passable coiffure control mechanism and that a candidate's wife can be fully her spouse's equal in pandering.

But the number-one thing Edwards proves, in my opinion, is just how stupid Democrats think voters really are.

Or, as he blithely states:

Asked Friday if his investments damaged his image as a poverty fighter, Edward's said: "No. Everyone knows I am completely committed to eliminating poverty in this country. I have the strongest national predatory lending proposal. These are things I will pursue."

Then again, the fact that Edwards has any supporters at all for his rhetoric, given the $400 haircut, the Versailles-size mansion, the job with the offshore-tax-sheltered hedge fund, and the $55k/hour rate for a speech on poverty.....he may be right.

Peace, Love, and Larceny

The only amazing thing about this is that Secretary of State Governor Thrice-Failed Presidential Candidate Failed US Senate Candidate California Democrat Party Chair Oakland Mayor Attorney General Moonbeam didn't try to blame it on global warming.

Your Handy Field Guide to Homo Ursus, Part I

First off, for those of you who got here through a Google misfire, the type of "bears" to which we will be referring in the next few paragraphs have nothing to do with endangered species, salmon, Knut, Gund, or anything that anyone under the age of 18 should be reading out of idle curiosity.

In other words, we're talking adult topics, and I don't mean mortgages and 401(k) plans (although those can be pretty dirty too).

Anyway, with that warning done, we now return you to your irregularly-scheduled diatribe.

With the addition of young, handsome, and virile QuakerJono of Forgotten Beatitudes to a certain....um, pleasure-oriented....portion of the Interwebs, the question has arisen in numerous forums.....what, exactly, is a bear?

I have pondered for several days on this one, having previously been working under a definition similar to that of Justice Potter Stewart's opinion on what constituted pornography: "I know it when I see it." But, given that you aren't me (a fact for which you should probably be extremely grateful), that probably needs to be fleshed out significantly (as befits a bear) for public consumption.

With that in mind, I have settled on the following -- sort of like if the Minnesota Multiphasic Behavioral Inventory and Jeff Foxworthy banged naughty bits and produced a love child.

YOU MIGHT BE A BEAR IF:

1. "Wax" has two meanings - a noun indicating the stuff candles are made of, and a verb indicating what you should do to your car twice a year.
2. You shop at Old Navy, and you don't care who knows it.
3. "All you can eat" is a challenge, not a description
4. You won't answer the phone on Saturdays because it's people asking you to help them move
5. You tried a cosmopolitan once, but that was just to find out what Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha were talking about.
6. In shopping for furniture, "comfort" takes precedence over "matches the wainscotting".
7. Your drag act is a tribute to Nell Carter, Ethel Merman, or Kirstie Alley pre-Jenny Craig.

YOU ARE EMPHATICALLY NOT A BEAR IF:

1. You know what color the rash is when you overdo the Nair.
2. "Mercedes" is German for "would make a good boyfriend"
3. Flannel is fit neither for wearing or sleeping upon.
4. Your coffee order includes more than "sweetened" or "room for cream".
5. You might have been able to change your own flat tire, but why take the risk of making the manicurist cry?
6. "Beer bust" describes, not an event, but what you think of the beverage in question.
7. You couldn't find your last date when you came back from the bathroom because he was standing behind a lamppost.

And here you thought this was complicated.

I Say Jehovah, You Say Je-Allah.....

Um.....right.

Personally, I'm all for making sure we're on the same page, but in this case, we're jumping books, people, and a few thousand years worth of history to get there.

Merv Griffin Should Have Died of AIDS, The Bitch

Which is the gist of Mike Signorile's The Gist.

Words frankly fail me at this point.

Especially given this rant.

First off, Griffin's closet kept him shockingly silent while he had access to the president of the United States as his own people were dying. This man was intimate with the Reagans (and Nancy Reagan in particular) during the height of the AIDS epidemic in 80s, with few treatments available and fear-mongering having gripped the media. Griffin's gay brothers -- his friends, his lovers, his people across America, around the world -- suffered and met horrific deaths. And yet, because he was closeted it is highly unlikely he ever made the connection for the Reagans (between himself and those who were suffering and dying), pointed out the government negligence, or even talked openly as a gay person.

As I have pointed out previously, blaming the Reagan administration for the spread of HIV is roughly akin to blaming them for your purchase of parachute pants; the timing is right, but the correlation is way more dependent on your individual actions than on theirs.

What makes Signorile's rant in this case sadly hilarious and ironic is how he blasts Griffin for supposedly being closeted and promiscuous -- but can't explain how Griffin lived to be 82 and died of prostate cancer. He argues that Griffin's "lovers" were all dying of AIDS, but never bothers to explain how Griffin, who he claims was f*cking everything on two legs, so magically avoided it.

In short, Signorile's argument shows that closeted gay men avoid AIDS and die of old-age diseases, wealthy, satisfied, and respected, while out men die young of AIDS, poor, unhappy, and ignored.

It would be funny if it weren't so tragically misguided.

In my opinion, this is the main reason that the AIDS epidemic is now well into its second quarter-century and entrenched to the endemic stage in the gay population -- so much that 15 to 19 new infections in San Francisco per week, all of a disease that is almost completely preventable, is considered an improvement.

In short, it's because Mike Signorile and his ilk would rather blame the behavior of dead straight people than deal with that of live gay ones.

The Power of Love

The case of Cecil Sinclair, a gay man whose funeral High Point Church in Arlington, Texas refused to host after they found out about his sexual orientation, has brought the usual howls of outrage from the usual suspects -- which, as QuakerJono succintly notes, seems inconsistent with their usual disdain for living gay people being associated with any church.

The best reaction I have seen, though, comes from the partner of the deceased himself, Paul Wagner.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided.

If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil's remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

Now that is personal faith, turning the other cheek, and selflessness.

And it also drives home the wisdom of Proverbs 25:21 - 22 (and repeated in Romans 12:20):

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. With your words, you've made the most powerful argument that one possibly can: the ability to respect and show love to those who have rejected you.

The very definition of "Christlike".

Stop Hitting Yourself

It's been a rough week in Newark, NJ.

In a city where gun violence has become an all too common part of daily life, these shootings were enough to chill even the most hardened residents: Four young friends shot execution-style in a schoolyard just days before they were to head to college.

Three were killed after being forced to kneel against a wall and then shot in the head at close range Saturday night, police said.

Talk about your effect on the community.

"Anyone who has children in the city is in panic mode," Donna Jackson, president of Take Back Our Streets, a community-based organization. "It takes something like this for people to open up their eyes and understand that not every person killed in Newark is a drug dealer."

But now, the plot thickens with the arrests of suspects.

Details about Carranza's background emerged Friday as police looked for three more suspects.

Carranza had been using a bogus Social Security number, Sheriff Armando Fontoura said. Carranza is an undocumented immigrant from Peru, his lawyer acknowledged in court.

Oh, but it gets better.

Carranza had been scheduled to appear in court Monday to answer two previous indictments. One accuses him of sexually assaulting and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend's child. Another charges him with an array of assault and weapons offenses.

Caveats, of course; Newark's police could be doing their roundup of usual suspects, and it seems quite obvious that they know this guy fairly well. Besides, why does it really matter?

Because Newark is a sanctuary city, in which its ordinances specifically prohibit law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or cooperating with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Which is likely why this guy, despite having been indicted for numerous other crimes, was still walking the streets, free as a bird, versus being detained and deported, as US immigration law requires.

What I really don't get is why a police department like Newark, which is by all accounts overwhelmed in a city where crime is surging, is not using the fact that los Federales are more than willing to get these people, whose very presence is breaking the law in the first place, off the streets and out of the country. And it's not just about keeping "rich whites" safe; it would be the height of inanity to argue that people who would allegedly commit these sort of crimes outside their ethnic community are not doing the same or worse inside it.

After all, Colorado, for one, didn't waste any time passing a law explicitly blocking cities and other legal entities from passing laws or formulating policies to stop police officers from doing exactly that -- although, granted, that was after two police officers were killed by an illegal immigrant who, thanks to Denver's sanctuary policy, had been previously stopped for traffic violations multiple times without having his immigration status checked and who had worked under false documentation at a restaurant owned by the then-mayor of Denver.

But, until more people start speaking up, people will be in the amusing (or sickly ironic) situation like I am, stuck in a metropolis where the City Attorney and so-called "progressives" are trying to use all sorts of quasi-legal machinations to stop gang activities while ignoring the obvious -- that merely checking and acting upon immigration status for the ones the SFPD has already arrested would give him the means to instantly imprison and get rid of a large chunk of the worst offenders.

But then they'd lose votes, both from the community and the ones they purchase, and we can't have that now, can we?

We Demand the Right to Repeat the Mistakes of Others

The interesting paradox of the French Revolution is that it began with the toppling of the autocratic Bourbon monarchy in the name of freedom, democracy, and liberty.....and then, a mere decade later, signed away all three to the even-more autocratic Napoleon.

In a similar fashion, we now have the spectacle of gays who have agitated against workplace discrimination and sexual harassment now giving it the OK when practiced on others.

Both general state and Federal employment law are very clear: you are not allowed to require a person to take part -- or punish them for refusing to participate -- in activities that they consider offensive unless it is a business necessity and no other reasonable accomodation exists. Furthermore, California law is even more explicit that a person cannot be required to work in situations in which they will be exposed to sexual materials, gestures, or language that could be construed as offensive -- and a manager who orders them to do so is legally liable.

Perhaps what boggles the mind the most is this statement:

Solution to problem:

1. Roll up windows in fire truck
2. Turn on the A/C
3. Talk amongst yourselves and/or turn on radio
4. Ignore cat callers
5. Collect payckeck

Now, imagine that being told to a female driver who complains about men making catcalls and sexual gestures at her when she pulls into a warehouse, and you get the point.

Hopefully this lesbian fire chief is smarter than the last one.

UPDATE: And now, courtesy of Ex-Gay Watch frequent commentor Timothy Kincaid, we learn that it's the firemen's fault for being offended -- and they should be fired.

These particular firefighters found themselves unable to treat all citizens with respect and dignity and they were unable to supportive and responsive to the needs of city government. Clearly they can't do their job and should be replaced by someone who can.

One wonders if he's going to fire the first female employee who complains to him about her coworkers making sexual remarks because she doesn't work well with others.

UP-UPDATE: And yet another Towleroad commentor, "Edina Monsoon", puts up the best nominee for most clueless statement yet.

I mean, come-on! It's sad to see how insecure these guys are in their masculinity.

Read that again; for daring to exercise their legal right to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, he insults them in a sexual fashion.

UP-UP-UPDATE: The comments section at JoeMyGod has to be seen to be believed.

Basically, an entire community of gays is defending the idea that gays have the right to sexually harass whomever they wish and that straight men should just shut up and take it.

And, by the way, for those who are trying to argue that the San Diego Fire Department can't be held accountable for the behavior of bystanders, please note: California law, specifically Assembly Bill 76, passed in 2003 as a clarification to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, specifically states that employers are liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment of their employees by customers or clients when they knew or should have known that such harassment, catcalls, or exposure to images and actions that would be considered overtly sexual and offensive was likely to take place.

And to argue that no one could expect any of that of a Pride parade is a comedy routine worthy of Jerry Seinfeld.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Now Timothy Kincaid is writing, over at Box Turtle Bulletin, that the firemen are responsible because they didn't just shut up and play along.

Had they been friendly or waved at the people who pay their salary, they might have had a different experience. Few citizens respond well to hostility and arrogance from city employees.

So remember, the next time you see that hottie down at the government desk, feel free to say whatever loud, lascivious, and perverted comment you like to him or her.

After all, the taxpayer is always right -- and they have to take it, or they'll lose their jobs.

Out For The Weekend......

and I betcha can't guess where I'm going.......

The Best Example of Hypocrisy Yet....

John Aravosis whining and crying about the comments posted on other peoples' websites.

One can only imagine the screams of "Bushitler fascism" that would come down if his commentors -- or Kos commentors, for that matter -- were subjected to the same level of investigation and scrutiny that he is demanding the Secret Service do for O'Reilly.

What makes it even funnier is that he is chortling about supposedly affecting Bill O'Reilly's advertising revenue.....but begging at the top of the page that he needs money because "ad sales have fallen dramatically the past few months".

Gee, one wonders why.......really.

As posited before, this blogger is no fan of editing or deleting comments, but there are certain lines.

O'Reilly's commentors crossed them and justly deserved said scrutiny; Aravosis and company, given their long and storied track record of encouraging same, deserve even worse.

A Good Argument For Pseudonyms

As if gay leftists weren't bad enough, now it seems we have crazy naval personnel moving their online feuds into everyday life.

Money quote:

“I’ve worked plenty of arson cases, but never one as bizarre as this one,” (McClellan County Detective James) Pack said. “Most are committed for money or getting back at somebody. This one he blames on the computer. Tavares said if it wasn’t for the computer, this wouldn’t have happened."

Oh, it would have happened; it just wouldn't have been this guy's trailer. There's a big difference between causing bad behavior and simply being the means by which it was precipitated.

And hence the usual problem with democratization of power; it falls to both those who use it wisely and those who do the 180-degree opposite.

As a Resident of San Francisco......

tell me something I don't know.

How Much Does Free Healthcare Cost?

Take a guess.

Add to that the fact that, if Wisconsin employees are anything like my Canadian, British, and other employees, they will still demand that employers provide health insurance -- once they find out that the promise of "everything covered" depends on you defining "everything" as "only on certain things using very conventional treatment, and only if you can find a doctor to do it at our fixed price, provided s/he can fit you in within the next year or so".

As I have said elsewhere, the fastest and best way to ensure universal coverage in this country would be to make insurance premiums tax-deductible -- for both businesses and individuals -- either directly, or through tax-deferral mechanisms on incomes like health savings accounts (HSAs).

Better yet, if you grouse about having to go to bat with and even sue your health insurance provider to get them to pay for things now, imagine what it'll be like when the same people who run such paragons of accuracy and customer service as the IRS and DMV are the ones you have to convince -- and how far your lawsuit against them is going to go.

But again, the point is not insurance coverage; it's using an emotional issue to allow governments to set up yet another program where they tax you today for benefits that they may or may not pay tomorrow, depending on how they feel about it, and which are subject to change at their moment's notice, especially if actually paying you back might cost them with another constituency.

Just like Social Security.

Better Living Through Complete Confusion

The words of the 14th-century logician William of Ockham, "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate," can be paraphrased succintly as, "The simpler, the better".

Obviously, this is not something with which VoteYesMarriage.com is extraordinarily familiar -- as becomes apparent when one reads the wording of their proposed California marriage amendment.

Take a deep breath.

Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.

Yes, these people have entirely too much time on their hands. And you read it right; they are out to ban domestic partnerships.

That fact becomes far more apparent in their preamble (emphasis mine):

The People of California have a compelling responsibility to protect the essence of marriage by ensuring that the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman is not redefined, abolished, or diminished. The People find that marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government decreases statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or when government requires private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or when government bestows statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals.

Now, one could grant some reasonable logic in this, if the point is to say that the incentive to marry is lost when one can get its benefits without taking on the full responsibility of it. Since the commitment and structure of marriage is good for society as a whole, it does provide strong argument that there should be some incentive for couples to enter into it that goes above and beyond what they can access on their own.

However, when applied to abolish California's domestic-partnership law, that argument makes zero sense. Registered domestic partners do in fact have all the same rights and benefits as a spouse under state law, but they also have exactly the same responsibilities -- including the fact that they are subject to divorce law, versus simply being able to dissolve the partnership. Furthermore, all the state laws this group cites as "requiring" this or that for domestic partners apply only to registered domestic partners.

In short, this amendment isn't about the dilution or diminishment of marriage. It's about a tragically-misinformed belief system that has convinced itself that the essence of marriage -- the commitment expressed by two people to spend a lifetime together and in support of each other -- is somehow conferred by government mandate and is somehow lessened when anyone else is allowed anything even remotely similar.

I am of the mind that the gay community, perhaps more than any other, has had the opportunity to demonstrate that the essence of marriage works quite independently of the legalese. And I think it horribly ironic that both sides in this debate -- the "Equality" California versus VoteYesMarriage.com -- are making the same mistake; they confuse that legalese with that essence.

Little Butch Coupe

Some people have a weakness for spirits, some for tobacco, and some for barely-legal boiz.

In my case, it's four wheels and an engine.

Ever since moving to California, I've wanted a convertible; however, buying a new car when your current one is barely broken in makes zero sense unless you run in circles far more prone to alcoholism and eating disorders than do I.

The solution: a second car. But not just any second car; a convertible that can climb hills like a mountain goat, is reliable, can get into our downhill garage without leaving its exhaust pipe on the berm, and that doesn't cost enough to require a car payment. And, while we're dreaming, it has to be fuel-efficient, parkable in a postage-stamp space, and not look like Skipper should be sitting in it waiting for Barbie to come out of the dress shop.

Ergo, my new baby.




A Geo Tracker, to be teddibly precise.

Yes, as you might expect, it's noisy, it's as fast as eighty horsepower gasping through a California emissions system cannot be, and at 2,189 lbs, it has only slightly more resistance to wind gusts than Nicole Richie. But it hauls up Twin Peaks like a trouper, it glides into the garage with ease, and at 142.5 inches -- a full three inches shorter than a Mini Cooper -- it fits anywhere.


And there's the fleet. With the Tracker to pull around-town and fun duty, the Mazda3 gets all rested up, ready to be turned loose for some serious speed on the open road (or as euphemistically "open" as the 101 ever gets). Best of all, since the Geo is more efficient in the city and the Mazda on the highway, I have actually increased my net gas efficiency as a whole, thus doing my part for Mother Gaia and Manbearpig.

But the jury is still out on the whole Skipper thing.

Cooks In Hours, Not Minutes!

Or so I said when I read this recipe.

Of course, you could save about forty-five minutes, a whole set of salad bowls, and the energy of running the oven if you were just to serve this hot out of the skillet over the tortillas and top it with the lettuce and tomatoes you were going to use for the green salad.

Therein lies the difference between the haute set and cooking Philistines like myself.

Much Ado About Worse Than Nothing

Having recovered from what shall be known as the Noe Valley Hemorrhagic Red-Nosed Dizzy Death virus, it seemed about time to comment on the Human Rights Campaign's circle jerk masturbation session debate candidate forum. For the back story, please refer to The Malcontent's excellent summary and blog roundup.

With that in mind, here are a few truisms.

1. The Republican candidates are not coming -- nor should they.

"Why" should be patently obvious to anyone who saw a) saw HRC's advertisements for the 2004 Presidential campaign , b) has ever heard Melissa Etheridge or Joe Solmonese, who cannot finish a paragraph without bashing Republicans, or c) noticed HRC's own admittance that their primary goal is "to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats -- more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group".

The Swift Boat Veterans should not be surprised when John Kerry turns down an invitation to their Veteran's Day picnic; neither should HRC be surprised that Republicans view them like pimples on prom night.


2. The event is fifteen months prior to the elections.

As our mothers used to advise us, when you are invited to someone else's house for supper, it is polite to clean your plate. Rather than offending your hostess by refusing to touch her liver-flavored Brussels Sprouts Surprise, eat it first and get it over with; your hostess will be happy, and you can enjoy the rest of the meal with a clear conscience, knowing that you can refuse seconds without offending her.

The same theory applies here. The candidates are showing up to eat their broccoli, as it were, knowing full well that they can say anything they want from this point forward and the "LGBT community" will still be happy.

But it has to be quick or they'll be late for their 700 Club appearance.


3. There was a reason the "little people" weren't invited.

Mommie and Daddy didn't want it.

Now that HRC has apparently reversed itself and decided to allow even those with less chance than Krusty the Clown of being nominated, let alone elected, to come to its circle jerk masturbation session debate candidate forum, this makes only one thing certain: there will be more softballs thrown at this event than at a lesbian picnic. HRC has never been accused of intelligence in managing media, but even they are not stupid enough to let nutballs who would let people marry cows if they thought it would get minorities to support their campaigns have any chance to upstage those who have been chosen by the DNC for HRC to endorse -- and for gays to unquestioningly support.

That, and if they did, Mommie would get really angry with Joey and Mel.


4. The final nail will be driven in the coffin of HRC's relevance.

People, we're talking about an organization whose leaders endorse and support FMA supporters and who drop tens of millions of dollars on candidates who push state constitutional amendments that it allegedly opposes. They have already stated their only use for gay issues is as a means to channel funds and support to Democrats. They insist that we squander time and effort on things like abortion, opposing Social Security reform, raising taxes, antiwar protests, bashing the religious, and innumerable other things which are not only beyond the ability of even the worst cosmopolitan-and magic-mushroom trip to link to "gay rights", but on which gays can and do legitimately hold multiple positions.

With this circle jerk masturbation session debate candidate forum, one thing will be made clear; HRC is a Democrat political action committee, and that of the most loony-left kind.

And thus, since they claim to represent all gays, we will inextricably be linked with the loony left.

Everyone Hates Mimes....

but they love memes, which come from exactly the same root word (mimeme, which means "something repeated", obviously not adding "to the point of horrid, grating, incessant pain").

All right; hopefully, that was semi-intellectual enough to justify QuakerJono blessing me with his latest "Thinking Bloggers" whatever (thank you, sir; you will be receiving a package from "Plagues2Go.com" shortly).

I don’t agree with NDT all the time. In fact, it’s rare enough that I remark on it mentally whenever it happens. That’s not a bad thing, though, because even though we disagree, I know his positions are well thought out and rarely simple knee-jerk reactions. Occasionally he descends into shameful partisan hackery, but who among us is 100% not-guilty of that? Plus, he’s like the one person I know who’s been banned from multiple blogs for ideas and not just pointless trolling. Part of me thinks if you’re pissing off people that much, you gotta have a viewpoint worth considering.

I'd say that's a pretty accurate and reasonable way of putting it -- and it avoided the use of the term "stubborn jackass", so I suppose we're getting somewhere.

I still think the best description of me came from a previous job, where I was compared to our ancient, donated, retired-from-Southwestern-Bell, not-maintained, and mystically-cursed-by-untold-numbers-of-malevolent-disgruntled-customers food transport van: "Hard to get going, but even harder to stop".

Since I must serve the meme once again and give you five blogs that qualify as Thinking, here goes.

1. Army of Mom. Brutal, wonderful testimony from a bright and talented woman with a wonderful family, a gorgeous husband, and huge.....ummm, tracts of land. The best of solid American family values for which you could ever ask.

2. Lab Kat. Simply the best phrase-turner on the planet. Kat has a take on life that is either completely and inhumanly brilliant or the result of an out-of-control glue sniffing habit. Your call.

3. See Jane Mom. To say she "tells it like it is" ranks right up there in understatement with Noah's weather report calling for light showers and drizzle.

4. Jimbo.info . Likely he won't answer this meme either, but he's one of the sweetest, most uniquely-balanced individuals I have ever met; merely being in his presence makes you feel more intelligent and meaningful. I thought it impossible that dinner with someone could rescue a business trip to the steambath that is DC in late summer for a client who redefined "surly", but he somehow managed it. WOOF!

5. Jack Malebranche. Read and prepare to be annoyed, insulted, amused, provoked, and forced into highest dudgeon. And that's just his introductory paragraph.


(Yes, they DO look almost identical to my last meme. Sorry; brain cells are taking a while to regenerate from the megadoses of Advil I've been taking this week.)

The Man Is Crazy

At least, that's what they said when Mark Cuban was buying the Dallas Mavericks, and we all saw how that turned out.

Now can he do the same for baseball's most loveable losers?

Add Internet billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to the list of potential Chicago Cubs buyers.

"I submitted an app," Cuban said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Interested parties must submit an application to Major League Baseball to examine the team's finances. Cuban told the Chicago Tribune he sent in the application last week, although he wasn't sure of the date.

Honestly, this sounds right up his alley. Buy a team that languishes on the field, but has brand cachet and support, pump some serious cash into it, bid for the best players, and then work on getting thrown out of games.

Unfortunately, Major League Baseball already has one of those, and his name is "Steinbrenner".

Many people are saying that MLB would never let this go through because of its fanatical devotion to revenue-sharing and salary caps, neither of which are likely to bother Cuban much (or Steinbrenner, once Cuban gets going).

But given the number of online petitions that have already sprung up begging Cuban to do it and lobbying for him to be allowed to do it....people really, really like the idea.