Inaugural

When I was 6 years old, I confused the word "inaugeration" with "assassination". I couldn't understand why Nixon would attend his own inaugeration. Mom straightened that out for me. If you recall, assassination was a hot topic on the news in those days.

In keeping up with my blog reading, I saw that one blogger was heading to DC for Bush's inaugeration and was going to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with the initials "FUGWB" I remember my first beer.

Yes, it's really impressive to tell the President of the United States "fuck you", let's face it, I flipped off Bill Clinton every time I saw him on TV after 1996.

This particular blogger was steamed because the POTUS is against gay marriage. I say to her, and to others who disagree with the POTUS (whether it is Bush, Clinton, Nixon, etc) "Run for congress." In fact "Run for congress as a Republican".

Am I nuts?

No. If you want to make changes in our country, you need to subvert and convert. To borrow from an old "West Wing" plotline, if 2 million gun control advocates joined the NRA and called for a vote at the next convention, what will happen?

As a supporter of same sex marriage (SSM as I call it), I think it's time to make a rational strategy. First of all, you have to understand your opponents and their shopworn arguments. Someday, when I run for congress, I hope someone asks me where I stand on SSM. Here's my answer:

Thanks for asking me that question. Now watch how artfully I dodge your question with several questions of my own. Who cares where I stand on SSM? Don't my positions on healthcare, social security, education and taxes have a greater impact on the day-to-day lives of my constituents than who is qualified for marriage? Shouldn't the question be "What's my position on marriage?" Where should I draw the line? If I'm against SSM, shouldn't I be even more against infidelity, abuse and divorce? Where is the line drawn? Is it okay for a man and a woman to be married if only for convenience but it's not okay for a woman and a woman to be married because they are committed to each other forever? It is somehow okay for a man to beat his wife as if she were chattel but it is not okay for a couple of men to be legally recognized as a family? Is it just fine for a woman to engage in extramarital affairs and still be considered as a "married"woman, with all the "respect" and "privileges" that are somehow accorded on her as such? If I'm against SSM because it is somehow "not right", shouldn't I be more opposed to all the horrible things that some heterosexual couples foist upon each other? I'm for MARRIAGE.

It's so much more fun to jump into the pool of rhetoric and quote biblical passages, spit out hate speech, and talk about how much more better you are than "those people". But I wonder if the people who are afraid of SSM would be welcome to a culture that outlaws divorce, infidelity and abuse. "Gosh, we can't outlaw divorce. We should be allowed to be MARRIED TO WHOEVER WE WANT TO BE MARRIED TO."

Anyway, this is a rant is actually about the pointlessness of wearing t-shirts that say "fuck you" to the POTUS. If you want to to change his mind, you have to exert a lot more effort. Wearing a T-Shirt that intimates an expletive doesn't get your point across, sister. All you are doing is giving the people who are against your position more reason to be against your position. "See those awful lesbians, they're telling the president to fuck off".

If you are interested in making SSM a real issue and not a martyr, then let's commit to put a real face on the issue. Let's show the non-believers that REAL people are REALLY impacted, and that these REAL people are entitled to the rights that we all enjoy. Telling the large number of people who are against you that they are idiots isn't going to cut it.

Pride before a fall

My wife was asked to join a group of local gals who host a monthly card game. Not Poker, sadly. It's a game called "Bunco" and I have no idea how it works. All I know is that the few times Jill has "subbed" for a regular player in another group, she has enjoyed it for the most part. As of Friday night, she is now officially in a Bunco group, and we'll be hosting a Bunco game at our home in March.

With the exception of one or two others in this group, the women live in large homes outside of town. That's not to say that I (or we) are any less financially capable than the others, rather we have chosen (after years of grueling self-examination) that living in our modest home and paying it off soon is more important than having a large house on an acre+ of land and waiting an additional 15 years to own it. Of course, I fully expect Jill to decide that now that she's hosting Bunco, why don't we plop down an additional $150,000 and upgrade to a larger home...quick, before March 11.

Jill isn't superficial. For the last three years I wrestled with the idea that the size and cost of my home should reflect my level of career success. We have the money, why not? Jill has always reined me in. However, in the last couple months, she has become embroiled in a personal struggle. If we (meaning me at this moment, but we collectively over the next 15 years) are working so hard to earn this really nice paycheck, shouldn't we have the digs that reflect it? Afterall, real estate is the best investment you can make, right? We looked at a few larger homes and even made an offer on one, but the seller was a little nutso and wouldn't look at our offer until we sold our house.

I was surprised and amused that Jill was wrestling with this. I had always perceived her as immune to this type of materialism. So, more grueling self-examination is called for. You know the kind of self-examination I'm talking about. Like a double-amputee checking himself for testicular cancer. It hurts to check, even if you don't find anything.

As of RIGHT NOW, our position is that we stay in our house and spend our money on travel and fun things. Things can change, though, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.