Speaking of Cement

Online polls, I’m not sure why, but I just love them. I don’t know how accurate they are, but they seem to satisfy some perverse need to either ally myself with those superior others who share my opinion or to arrogantly scorn those who don’t. Either way, they serve a purpose. I can take an online poll and no matter what the result, I can claim something good about myself. Either the vote has been so closely aligned with my own that I can say, “Well, see, it really is so obvious; almost everyone can recognize it,” thus I nestle comfortably into the fold of those other astute souls out there in the ether. Or if I appear to be out of sync with the mainstream (a not uncommon occurrence) I can rail self-righteously, “Oh, my god! I can’t believe those people are so stupid!” (compared to me, of course). I do understand that numbers do not always, or even often, reflect the truth, but I still engage in this small act of self-deception whenever I am presented with any kind of online poll or survey. I find them irresistible.

Awhile back, I took one rather lengthy survey at a site to which my husband had sent me a link. It’s called the Political Compass, and, like others of its ilk, it places you on a scale according to how far to the left or right you are, but it also shows where you fall on a north/south axis that represents with what level of government control over your life you are comfortable. This is represented by the terms Authoritarian (north, much government control) or Libertarian (south, little government control). You submit your answers, all this information is processed and the resultant report places you somewhere on a grid. They also show you the charts they did on some famous persons (living and dead) to whose politics you can then compare yours. This survey revealed me to be to the left (liberal) and south (libertarian) of both Gandhi and Mandela (and everyone else they charted). I don’t know what exactly that says about either my politics or my grip on reality, but I do recognize that it places me somewhat outside the mainstream, no matter who is defining “mainstream.”

While I’m waiting for the rest of the world to catch up to my politics, I continue taking part in online polls. I recently took one that asked if I thought the Democrats are being “fair” to the White House about the Karl Rove affair. And after I clicked on “Yes,” then they asked, “Why?” That’s something I’ve rarely seen in an online poll. Usually they just ask you to select one of several options, but they never ask why you selected that one. So I typed into the dialog box:

“Bush’s assertion that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger was a lie. That was one of the lies that he used as an excuse to take us into a WAR. Many of our young men and women are dying and being maimed, and we are made to look like imperialist fools to the rest of the world; we have more enemies than ever because Bush got away with lying to us. Mr. Wilson tried to warn us before we’d gone to the precipice and they went after his wife in retaliation. The Democrats are being more than “fair,” they are being mushy; they should be screaming the lie from the rooftops.”

That was nice; they actually cared why I thought what I thought… my humble opinion mattered. I was flattered.

They also asked what the White House should do with the person who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame:

“They are the ones telling us we are in enough danger that we must give up our civil rights for protection. In such a “dangerous” time, one who leaks information on national security issues should be fired, if not hanged for treason.”

It’s really too bad I don’t get to make these decisions for real; I’d be so good, don’t you think? A. Yes, I think you should be the one making decisions for everyone. B. I think you should be allowed to make some decisions, but only about things like what you will have for dinner. C. You are clearly crazy and should be locked up.

Thank you for taking our survey.

Is Karl Rove already old news? Two days ago, Bush has a seemingly fatal problem in his White House staff, a problem bad enough to cause a meltdown in his presidency, that should spell the beginning of the end, and just when it looks like the country will finally be made to face the truth about this man and his war, he announces a nominee for the Supreme Court and all of a sudden Rove is off the radar screen? Where is the “liberal media?” It seemed like when Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to reveal her source the press corps was finally waking from their White- House- press- release-induced coma and starting to actually ask some tough questions. Then Bush dangles a court nominee and they just lose concentra… Ooohh, shiny! Read the rest of this entry »

Just a quick comment tonight: Chief Justice Rehnquist announced that he does not have plans to retire. When he finally gave a statement that many thought would be his announcement that he’s leaving the bench, what he said instead was:

“I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.”

The reaction from the White House was reported as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

So it turns out it was Karl Rove who outed Valerie Plame. I wonder if anyone will care. This is sort of like the old TV serials, where at the end of each episode a voice would ask the burning questions the audience was supposed to be pondering at that point. Will Sweet Sue escape from Dastardly Dan? Will Hero Harry find her in time? Will it bother Americans that this arrogant ass revealed sensitive information having to do with our national security to a reporter whom he knew was sure to make that information public? Will enough Americans understand the significance of what happened that there will be a strong enough public outcry to force an investigation, Senate hearings, any response? Will they be outraged that the White House put the life of a covert CIA agent and those of her contacts in jeopardy to get back at her husband for telling the world that the reasons Bush was giving for attacking Iraq weren’t true? Will the Democrats finally find their voices and actually accuse the White House of misdeeds? Read the rest of this entry »

I seem to recall a claim being made by Bush that went something like, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” I wonder what they’re telling themselves in London tonight.

About a year ago, someone wrote a letter to the editor saying he could “not understand why Americans don’t see the necessity for the actions Bush has taken in Iraq and why it’s imperative that we stay strong.” I don’t know why it’s so hard for people like that to understand why those of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq did so. Read the rest of this entry »

Lee died today. Jeff asked Tom to call me with the news. There will be a memorial service soon. I feel so bad for Chuck. They’ve been together 21 years. Tom said tonight is the first night in all that time that Chuck will be alone. I’m guessing that they are both in their sixties (sorry if I guessed high on that one) and I can’t imagine losing your soulmate at that stage of life.

Mike and I have only been working with the Task Force for a little over a year now, so I don’t know them that well, not nearly as well as those who have been privileged to know them for a much longer time. Even so, I was greeted with smiles and hugs and, “Howya doing, Sweetie?” Where’s Mike? He’s such a nice guy.” When I brought my mom to the church to look through the stuff at the rummage sale, I introduced her and she, too, was met with hugs — not phony hugs, but “I am genuinely glad to meet you” hugs. Lee and Chuck are just two authentically nice people and I understand fully why they love each other.

You could see that love in the gentle way they joked with one another, in the smiling eyes when they looked at each other, in the arm draped comfortably, lovingly over a shoulder, in the easy familiarity they display with each other, while they never seemed to take each other for granted; even in a crowded room, they seemed to be aware of each other. Their relationship did not seem to have an imbalance of power; they seemed to form a true partnership. I understand this; it is what my husband and I have. To have such a partnership is a treasure of the heart. I’m glad that Chuck and Lee had that; I am sorry for the loss.

I have two regrets this evening as I write this. The first is that I didn’t get to know Lee better. We both work with groups through the church, but different groups and so we see each other infrequently. The other is that the group with which I work did not accomplish its mission in time for Chuck and Lee to marry.

Twenty-one years should be enough time for any couple to demonstrate their deep commitment to each other. Twenty-one years is a lot longer than many couples, if not most couples, stay together. Twenty-one years together is usually met with the admiration reserved for any couple that has managed to hang on to the roller coaster ride of a committed relationship. Twenty-one years…now that’s love.

In memory of Lee, I vow to continue to work with the Marriage Equality Task Force, to advocate for the right of same-sex couples to marry. If any couple ever deserved that, Chuck and Lee did.

July 4, 2005

It’s been about 13 years since I’ve stood up and said the Pledge of Allegiance. Around that time, I became convinced that this country speaks lofty words, but they are hollow and I regretfully decided to simply stop mindlessly repeating them.

Shortly after making that decision, we moved to a small town (about 7,000 people) in northern California. On July 3rd that year, there was to be the annual fireworks display and what seemed like nearly the entire town gathered on the football field at the local high school. Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the right of states, using the doctrine of eminent domain, to take private property from one person (at fair market value) and give it to another if the new owner could make better use of it by turning it to some function that would generate greater tax revenues for the state. The Court deemed this a “public good.” Oh, the outrage! How dare they take someone’s private property and allow someone else to decide that they know better how to use that property? What colossal nerve. And yet… Read the rest of this entry »