Fiona is the greatest

I'm visiting my niece Fiona and we're learning how to blog.

Pride and Prejudice

The irony of the 2008 election is that while America has elected its first African American President signaling a major step forward towards what many refer to as a "post-racial" era, if you are Gay or Lesbian in America it still feels a little like 1962. Americans in three states passed ballot measures which amended state constitutions to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. This eliminated the right for same sex couples to marry in those states, and potentially overturns the legitimacy of existing marriages between same sex couples which occurred in California between June and November of this year. Through Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida, and Proposition 102 in Arizona, citizens of these states are in point of fact writing discrimination into their state constitutions so that one group of people are denied equal protection under the law.

Separate but Not Equal

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legislation of this nature was referred to as Jim Crow. Jim Crow refers to the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to second class citizens. Jim Crow legitimized anti-Black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that Whites were the Chosen people, Blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation. Jim Crow supporters stated, among other things, that sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America.

Americans who support bans on same sex marriage say that there is no comparison between the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the current debate. But it is important to refer back to the prior debate because the arguments being made by the proponents of the aforementioned amendments are remarkably similar. The legislated segregation prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 operated under the premise that black Americans could be separate but equal. But these laws relegated them to second class status in society with limited rights. In the current debate, those who support banning same sex marriage will often refer to Civil Unions as the separate but equal path available to Gays and Lesbians, suggesting that civil unions allow same sex couples to all the rights of marriage, without redefining the term -- which belongs exclusively to the union of one man and one woman. But there are key differences.

Legally, marriage is a means of establishing kinship outside of bloodline. This concept of kinship permeates society, and is embedded in Western common law as well as the laws of every nation (including more than 1,000 federal laws in the United States). Kinship conveys rights and privileges, as well as duties and even restrictions which are recognized nationally, even globally. Civil Unions provide state level protections often not recognized outside of the state, and do not offer federal protections provided to married couples. Additionally, since Civil Unions are a relatively new concept, they do not instruct business, the courts or other agencies how to apply kinship-related law to these arrangements, so these relationships inherently take on a second class status relative to legal marriages providing unequal protections.

In addition to the central problem that protections provided by civil union are not recognized from state to state, a few key differences between marriage and civil unions include:

• A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
• Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
• The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

The Bill of Rights, by its nature, was designed to clearly define the inalienable rights of the citizens of the United States; to prevent oppression and the violation of civil rights by the government. To amend state constitutions to restrict the rights of a class of people seems counter-intuitive to the intention of these documents and to the principles under which our nation was founded.

An Argument of Semantics

When you ask most people, they will tell you (if occasionally somewhat begrudgingly) that they have nothing against Gays and Lesbians, and that they support providing Gays and Lesbians the same rights proffered by marriage. They just don't want the term "marriage" used for these legal or ceremonial arrangements, often because in there mind, marriage throughout history has been defined as between a man and a woman. And they want to protect the sanctity of marriage. This argument inevitably takes on a religious tenor, sourced from biblical scripture and tied to the unique ability for a man and a woman to procreate. Because marriage is both a religious sacrament and a legal status, its important to separate these two issues when it comes to establishing the law. And the separation of Church and State should protect U.S. citizens from having any religious doctrine impede their rights as citizens.

Additionally, if the debate at its core comes down to the use of a word, then there is no debate at all. Unfortunately because the word marriage, as previously mentioned, is so embedded into secular law, it's almost impossible to separate the term from the rights associated with it. So to attempt to create a new term (i.e. Civil Unions) to impart those same rights to same-sex couples is illogical and impractical. The denial of the use of the term marriage for Gays and Lesbians is by its nature a denial of the legal rights imparted with that term.

Throughout history, marriage has represented an act of economics as much as, and perhaps more so, an act of love. And while it has also been recognized as a religious sacrament, it has also always carried legal rights independent of religion. The definition of marriage has evolved over the ages and adapted to societal changes. If we believe that all our citizens are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, then how can we deny this right to same sex couples who pursue the bond of marriage primarily as an expression of love and commitment.

Sanctioned Discrimination

The issue of same sex marriage is just one front on the fight for equal rights for Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexual and Transgendered citizens. The right to openly serve in the military provides another front on which we sit back and accept the denial of basic rights. And even our most enlightened politicians skirt the issue, seen by most as a political non-starter. But you either believe the GLBT community deserves equal rights and protections or you don't. And to cede any of these rights is to be complicit in the discrimination and prejudice against these members of our citizenry. As with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it will therefore take action from the citizenry, led by those most oppressed, to bring change. And from this election a new, re-energized movement will be born.

A More Perfect Union

It's 11:03 p.m.

Barack Obama has just been elected President of the United States of America.

And the city of New York is cheering. Literally (as Joe Biden would say) you can hear the city cheering out the window.

God Bless America. God Bless Barack Obama.

Too Graphic for Some Viewers

Thank God for CNN. You see, I'm a very busy person. But I'm also interested in what's happening in the world around me. But I just don't always have time to read up on all of the news, or actually listen to thoughtful discussions on the issues. So it's refreshing that this 24 hour cable news channel works so hard to make my life easier.

The choice I make in this year's election is perhaps the most important vote I will ever cast in my lifetime. At least that's what everyone on TV keeps telling me. So I did make a concerted effort to set some time aside to watch the first two debates. One between John McCain and Barack Obama, and one between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. But as I said, I'm a busy guy. I got a lot going on. And the moderators were asking lots of, uhhh, questions and stuff. There was a lot of, errr, talking. So thank God for CNN. They made it all so much easier for me.

You see, by watching CNN, I didn't even have to think. All I had to do was watch what everyone else was thinking. I mean, yeah, I kinda heard what the candidates were talking about (while I was ordering take-out, and checking email) and I know one guy wants to "End the War responsibly" and the other guys wants to "Win the War in Iraq -- or on terror"...which is it again? Anyway, there's that War stuff, and apparently the Economy which has been sucking eggs for pretty much all of this year, just got way worse and has now swallowed the whole chicken. I think that makes this economy a real cocksucker (which in this economical metaphor is very bad, in case you were wondering). And both candidates think we need to "stop the greed" and "fix Wall Street," and stuff. And both plan to cut taxes, or raise them, well okay maybe both. And they want to reign in that spending...except neither party can state what they would stop spending on (except for that nice Biden, fellow, who said that one place to start would be by stopping the War in Iraq...but not on terror, I think).

So what to make of all this? Well, with CNN on my 32 inch Sharp Aquos Flat Screen in HD, I don't have to navigate who said what, or who was actually stating facts. See they have a score card right there on either side of the screen. And really smart and objective people who are probably much smarter than me score the debate for me...as its happening. And just in case I don't trust those elite media types with their fancy degrees and expensive suits, a whole bunch of common folk, like me, who can barely articulate why they consider themselves an Undecided voter, are also twisting a little dial to indicate whether they like what someone is saying or not. And right there on the bottom of the screen, little colorful lines swing up or down during the debate. Up means Good. Down means Bad. It's like they are playing "Hot or Not" during the debate. So if it's too hard to add up all the little score cards on either side of the screen, I can just look at the bottom of the screen to see what the common folk are thinking. Folks just like me. Oh, Sarah is talking, and the lines are going up...something about energy. Up is Good. Sarah is Good.



I don't have to think at all. I don't even have to listen, really. I can just stare glassy eyed at the screen and watch numbers tick away in the pretty blue and red boxes, and follow the colorful lines swooping up and down at the bottom of the screen. The Green line means...umm...well I don't know what the green line means, but the yellow line means...ahem...I'm not sure about that one either, but they both kinda moved in the same direction the whole time anyway.

And even better, after all is said and done, I can just add up the scores and find out who won. But if that's too much work, CNN will tell me who won. All ten of those objective journalists will tell me who won. So I don't have to worry my pretty little head. It's kinda funny, though, but obviously those journalists are really busy too, because it seems they are barely paying attention to the debate themselves. They're all checking their emails and blackberries too -- right on TV. Maybe all those smart media elite types just watch the squiggly lines running across the bottom of the screen like I do. See, they are very busy people. They don't have time to think either.

The Better Left Unsaid "Stream-of-Consciousness" Index
CNN...Debates...Chicken...Sharp Aquos...Hot or Not...Media Elite

The Bank Job

Why is that wrinkled old man frowning in the corner? Well...the long predicted housing bubble has burst. Wall Street is in utter disarray. Financial giants Lehman Brothers (bankrupt) and Merrill Lynch (sold on the brink of bankruptcy to BofA) are history. Washington Mutual (the nations largest savings and loan) is rumored to be in danger of collapsing as well. And who is considering a bid to acquire Washington Mutual? Citigroup -- who narrowly avoided their own collapse ten months ago resulting from the sink-hole in the sub-prime mortgage market through a $7.5 billion dollar bail out from the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

And to stem the riptide of financial calamity, the Bush Administration, which has already taken control over Bears Stearns ($30 billion dollar bailout of one of the world's largest investment banks, securities trading and brokerage firms), AIG ($85 billion dollar bailout of the world's largest Insurer), and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the nation's largest mortgage lender), proposes a $700 billion dollar rescue package under the guidance of Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson. By buying up all of these bad loans and investments, the Secretary of the Treasury will directly manage these assets and hopefully resell then at some point for aprofit or reduced loss.

Where is the money to support this roughly trillion dollars in financial bailouts coming from? In large part from new debt we are taking on by borrowing money from foreign governments and non-U.S. financial institutions. We've borrowed an additional two trillion since 2007 alone and our total foreign debt stands at thirteen trillion dollars. Ultimately this is debt covered by U.S. taxpayers. The same U.S. taxpayers already on the hook for funding the two trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I recently said that perhaps the biggest thematic angle of the upcoming election was Energy Policy. And without hesitation events conspired to bat that supposition aside and tell me, "No, it's still the Economy, Stupid."

Economists and financial advisers constantly warn U.S. consumers that you have to start saving, you have to establish a budget you can stick to, you have to learn to live within your means and borrow responsibly. Yet our consumption society continues to plunge into deeper debt. And our government too ignores this advice and does the very same. Neither party has established a position of thought leadership on this issue, but it is somewhat ironic that the Republican party, whose mantra is less federal regulation, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility, is forced to a reckoning with their own reckless spending, deregulation of banking and financial markets, and now is creating massive new government institutions and agencies to attempt to recover from this mess.

How did we get here?

If people are looking for a scapegoat, more and more eyes are turning to Alan Greenspan. Yeah, Alan Greenspan. The guy we all felt had such a steady hand of the wheel of the economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman who served for eighteen years under both Republican (Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush) and Democratic administrations (Clinton). Core to Greenspan's philosophy was deregulation. Deregulation spawns financial growth in the markets. But it also spawns higher financial risk. And leaves the institutions and markets more vulnerable to corruption, fraud, and malfeasance. How many folks remember that Alan Greenspan also pushed for and helped obtain banking deregulation on behalf of Lincoln Savings & Loan, which was at the center (perhaps the worst offender) of Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980's and early 1990's during which more than 1600 savings and thrift institutions failed. The cost to U.S. taxpayers to bail out the insolvency of those institutions...$125 billion dollars. John McCain was implicated in that scandal and reprimanded by Congress.

But even if Greenspan played a significant role is creating the mess we're now in, it's not helpful to simply point blame. Perhaps we got what we asked for. In 2002, in a speech in London before being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, Greenspan said, "The extent of government intervention in markets to control risk-taking, is a trade-off between economic growth and its associated potential instability, and a more civil but less stressful way of life with a lower standard of living." His point..."You want win big, you have to risk losing big and the stresses and instability that go with it. You want safe and steady, then you can have a civil life, low-stress life, but a lower economic standard of living that goes with that."

The thing is, if that "win big" policy never changes, you will eventually lose big. In 2006, Greenspan walked away from the table, but he also left the entire U.S. Economy there gambling on black. The roulette wheel just stopped on red. Greenspan bet that the nation's tolerance for risk was high. Is it? If you are a twenty-seven year old MBA grad, yeah, perhaps it is? If you are a retiree on a fixed income, I doubt that's true. And our boomer nation has skewed more heavily to the latter category for the past two decades. Hindsight is twenty-twenty. And plenty of Americans have benefited from the economic boom experienced during the 1990's under Greenspan's leadership of the Federal Reserve. But I'm not sure Greenspan ever stated his policy philosophy so clearly to the American people, as he did in that speech in London before the Queen.

So how do we get out of this mess?

Well, to start with our politicians have to stop talking in absolutes -- "Regulation bad"; "Taxes bad"; "More government bad". I'd like to think that the American people are smarter than that. And the current administration and a bipartisan Congress finally stopped bickering and now say, "It's going to take more regulation, more government, and new debt (read future taxes) to get out of this mess." There government may have had no choice but to step in and bailout these firms to prevent an even more devasting financial collapse, so I'm not questioning those decisions. I do question the decisions and policies over the past twenty years that allowed things to get this bad. And as for the massive new debt we are now taking on as a nation, if you don't think that your taxes have just been raised, you're kidding yourself. So the next time you hear a Republican shout that the other guy wants to raise your taxes, think about this moment.

The Better Left Unsaid "Stream-of-Consciousness" Index

Wall Street...Financial Calamity...Foreign Debt...Deregulation...Alan Greenspan...Savings & Loan Crisis...Taxes

Energy Crisis

It occurred to me last night while watching the endless hurricane coverage that there was something slightly karmic about Hurricane Ike laying waste to a swath of Texas which serves as home to the oil industry, and which of course is the state of origin to our current President. The same President who fumbled the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Before Ike had even made landfall, gas prices were spiking upwards of fifty cents a gallon. I half expected the Hurricane itself to stand on that stranded oil tanker being buffeted off the coast of Galveston, Texas and declare, "Mission Accomplished!"

The 1992 election between George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton was best summed up by the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." And my instincts tell me that this year's election should be summed up by the phrase, "It's the energy, stupid." Because the candidate who has the right energy policy can improve our nation's standing on multiple fronts. Energy diversity and energy independence will enhance our national security; stimulate new industries which will help our economy; are necessary to protect the environment and respond to global warming; and as much as we talk about releasing our nation from the tightening grip of foreign oil producing nations, we equally need to release the tightening grip of oil companies on the operations and policies of our government. And the next President's energy policy will be central to changing that dynamic.

To give a sense of how bad things have gotten, perhaps you too saw the news a couple of days ago about an Interior Department investigation of it's own Minerals Management Service (MMS) -- which issues the offshore oil drilling leases Republicans are clamoring for. The Interior Department uncovered that the government employees of this agency were frequently partying, accepting free gifts and trips, using cocaine and other drugs, and having sex with the oil company executives who were seeking the licenses they issued. And that a culture of promiscuity and ethical failures had consumed the agency. Drill, baby, drill indeed.

But I'm facing an energy crisis of a different kind at the moment. See, a good friend of mine was visiting recently and accidentally knocked over a cup of coffee on my remote control. Remember the Pepsi Syndrome? Think of this as the Starbucks Syndrome. Coffee and a remote -- good. Coffee on a remote -- not so good. The central nervous system of my multi-media existence is in meltdown. Put another way...I have to get up and go to the TV to change the channel. Let me repeat. I have to get up off the couch and walk over to the TV and push buttons on the top (or maybe it's the bottom, I forget) to adjust the volume and change the channel. And in my high definition, cable access, 700 channel universe that is painful. I don't have the energy to be walking to the TV every time I get bored with Larry King. Which means I now rarely change the channel. I live with what happens to be on. And suffer in quiet dignity. I'm watching COPS right now. In quiet dignity.

Maybe I too need a new energy policy. Maybe I too need to identify alternative sources of...uhhh...mental fuel. Or maybe I just need a really long stick that will reach the channel changer on my Sharp AQOUS.

The Better Left Unsaid "Stream-of-Consciousness" Index
Hurricane Ike...It's the Economy, Stupid...Energy Diversity...Minerals Management Service...Pepsi Syndrome...COPS

Shrill, Baby, Shrill

I was up on Cape Cod over the Labor Day weekend spending a long weekend at the beach. I saw no Television. I read no newspapers. And I only found out in passing that John McCain had picked some woman named Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate -- and that she shortly thereafter had to hold a press conference to announce her unwed teenage daughter was pregnant, leaving the media and both parties dumbfounded.

Upon getting back into New York on Tuesday, and catching up on the media coverage, I like many people wondered, "Who is this woman?", "Will she buckle under pressure?", and "Has the McCain camp made a massively huge miscalculation?" All would be told when she delivered her big convention speech.

Bottom line...Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park. She passed the first test. She was poised, confident, humorous, feisty, and grounded. It was clear that she successfully reached her audience. That is if you are a small town, white, heterosexual, Republican. Whether you agreed with her points or not, you had to admit she delivered her message really well; that you were witnessing a new Republican star being born -- in much the same way Barack Obama's star was born when he delivered his big convention speech four years ago.

That aside, I found the tone of the Republican convention to be disconcertingly divisive and shrill. It's difficult for me to discern whether this is simply due to my own bias. I'm a Democrat. So of course, much of the Republican message is not going to speak to me. But given that this was John McCain's convention, I guess I expected something different. I wondered if any of the speeches would stir hope in me, the way they did the week before from Denver. They didn't. The Democrats were criticized by pundits for not tossing the delegates enough red meat. The Republicans on the other hand were having a ground chuck food fight. And in the midst of this was a jarringly out of synch speech by Joe Lieberman. You felt the unease in the room as Joe preached his message which seemed to criticize both Democrats and Republicans. You could feel the delegates hesitancy. "Should we be clapping?" they seemed to be asking themselves. And you could almost hear a collective sigh from the McCain Camp behind the curtain which said, "Thank God we didn't let Lieberman happen."

At both Conventions big impressions were made and rousing speeches delivered. Personalities emerged. For the Republicans, Mike Huckabee reminded people that strong character, natural charisma, and warm charm can produce compelling leaders. But Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Lindsey Graham went for blood through very personal attacks on Barack Obama. And Sarah Palin lived up to her VP role as attack dog with some pretty sarcastic digs herself (not all of them grounded in fact).

But perhaps what was most unnerving was the personality that emerged from the party itself. The Republican delegates sounded less like an energized party and more like an angry mob. It's a little uncomfortable seeing hockey mom's shouting "Hit him again!" when their sons get into a fight on the ice. But that's what this convention felt like. The overwhelmingly white delegates persistent chants of "U.S.A. - U.S.A" conveyed a disturbing partisan jingoism that I did not sense at the democratic convention the week before. There was a guttural quality to their chanting like they were conspiring to hit the streets of St. Paul and turn over cars and pick fights with the first foreigners they encountered.

And what was with all the signs and buttons declaring "Drill, Baby, Drill!"? Are they serious? Is this the clarion call the Republicans really want to win over the American people? Drill, Baby, Drill? Drill off our shores. Drill in Alaska. Drill wherever we think we can suck up more oil. Put more billions into the hands of big oil. Global warming, global schwarming. Who are they talking to?

If they come away with anything, they certainly come away firmly establishing John McCain as an American hero in a big way. It may be well known that John McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War. But the story has never been told so frequently and so well. And McCain's war story was told at least five times, including by McCain himself.

I don't know. You tell me? One Party declares, "Yes, We Can!" The other Party declares "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Which one do you think speaks to a more hopeful, forward thinking future?

The Better Left Unsaid "Stream-of-Consciousness" Index
Cape Cod...Sarah Palin...Joe Lieberman...Angry Mob...Drill, Baby, Drill...John McCain

Freedom of Speech

Are you watching Day Four of the Democratic Convention? I am.

I confess I can be a bit of a political junkie. I love getting up early on Sunday mornings with a cup of coffee and the paper and settling down to "Face The Nation," "Meet The Press," "Hardball with Chris Matthews," "This Week with George Stephanopolous," and "The McLaughlin Group." So four nights of political speech-making (while daunting to some) is something I get excited about.

As a Democrat, I'm obviously inclined to get even more excited about the Democratic Convention. But I will admit that days one and two had me worried. Monday night was saved by the unexpected, yet deeply moving, appearance of Ted Kennedy. And the remarkably powerful speech by Michelle Obama. This woman has presence. And I am very excited at the prospect of having her as our next First Lady.

Day two was also somewhat lackluster, until Hilary Clinton took the stage. Whether you love her or hate her or fall somewhere in between, there's no denying the fact that she is a major leader in the party, a historic figure herself, and she did exactly what she promised and what she needed to do to pull the party together.

Day three featured four outstanding speeches, in my book. First, was former President Bill Clinton. He too did everything the democrats hoped for and a little more. He underlined Hilary's sentiments and put an exclamation point at the end of them. Next came John Kerry. The crowd seemed non-plussed by his appearance, and did really respond to his opening remarks. But Kerry let loose the toughest indictment of John McCain the delegates had heard all week, and suddenly the convention hall came to life. Kerry won them over. An unexpected surprise was Beau Biden's introduction of his father Joe. Beau gave a deeply heartfelt and emotional introduction of his father which spoke to his values and his character in a way that held the audience riveted. The evening closed with Joe Biden's acceptance of the Vice Presidential nomination. Joe's speech was praised by some commentators and chastised by other as disappointing. For me, as a viewer, it hit all the right notes, and provided a strong close to the evening. It may have been a bit rough around the edges. But so is Joe. It was earthy, personal, strong, energizing, and emotional.

Tonight we were treated to Al Gore and Barack Obama. I found it quite telling that Barack shared his stadium platform and his national moment with Al Gore and not Bill Clinton. Al was quite commanding. His speech, though somewhat rushed, covered a lot of ground, and hit the Bush/Cheney/McCain party hard. In fact, Al was the first person I heard who directly wove the disastrous Dick Cheney (arguably the architect of the disastrous Bush Administration) into the dialogue and debate. I also found it impressive that Al's speech was quite cerebral for a stadium audience, yet held the crowd. The message wasn't dumbed down to platitudes. It respected the intelligence of the audience.

Those are some impressive speakers to follow. And having already given several memorable speeches, the pressure was on for Barack to step up once again and deliver big. He did. There was concern that this outdoor arena, and the pageantry of the presentation would potentially feed into this idea of the Obama celebrity. But Barack took the stage with confidence, not cockiness. He was commanding, not egomaniacal. And from moment to moment as a viewer it would flash that I was witnessing an indelible moment in history. I sat with my friend and we drank up that moment. And simple words like Hope, Change, Purpose, Integrity and Unity took on deeper meaning. And the recognition hits that the responsibility to make this change happen is not Barack Obama's. It's mine. It's yours. It's ours.

The Better Left Unsaid "Stream-of-Consciousness" Index
Democratic Convention...Michelle Obama...Hilary Clinton...Bill Clinton...John Kerry...Beau Biden...Joe Biden...Al Gore...Barack Obama

A Heartbeat Away

Okay, I have to admit, I'm not sure I get the point of blogs. Certainly not this one. Yeah, yeah, blogging is now all the rage. Everybody's blogging. Anderson Cooper and his pals at CNN are blogging at this very moment, I'm sure. He keeps telling us they're blogging during his newcasts. "We're blogging during the break!" Ummm, why don't you spend more time fact-checking instead of blogging your opinions. Your a newscaster, friendo.

But I digress.

I'm not sure what form this blog will take. At the moment these are my opinions. The opinions of a 45 year old man living in New York. Wow. That sounds pretty depressing. Who gives a shit what a 45 year old New Yorker thinks. Seriously. At 45, I'm too old to be an influencer of pop culture. But, then again, if that's my goal -- influencing pop culture -- you might say I'm aiming low. Today it's Myley Cyrus and The Jonas Brothers. In my day it was Leif Garrett and The DeFranco Family (The Heartbeat - It's a Lovebeat, baby). There's no accounting for taste in any generation, apparently (all due respect to Tony and his siblings).

I actually just turned 45. And when that event suddenly dredges up references to The DeFranco Family you know your mid-life crisis has officially begun. Okay, maybe I'm being a bit generous to myself by calling it a mid-life crisis. That means I'm confident of hitting 90 doesn't it? Well, I do think the pharmaceuticals and medical procedures will be there for us folks born in the early 60's. The question is will any of us be able to afford them.

Another guy who just had a birthday is Barack Obama. We were born on the same day (only two years apart). He just turned 47. And is running for President of the United States. Me...well, I'm beginning to think I peaked after being elected Vice-President of my Senior Class in High School. And speaking of Vice-President's. Barack announced Joe Biden as his running mate today. Meaning of Barack is elected, Joe will be just a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and my DeFranco Family reference completes its planetary loop!). I've always liked Joe Biden. I think I relate to him a bit. He's a straight shooting, common sense guy who sometimes gets into trouble for saying too much. Much like me. And that's what worries me. Here's hoping he knows when and how to hold his tongue over the next few months.

The Better Left Unsaid Stream-of-Consciousness Index
Blogging...Anderson Cooper...The Jonas Brothers...The DeFranco Family...Mid-Life Crisis...Barack Obama...Joe Biden