February 2007 Archives

View entire set.

Last Saturday, Kent and I went up to Molly Stark State Park in Vermont for a day of snowshoeing. We had a blast and it was the first time that either of us tried snowshoeing. But I have to admit that I enjoyed it (much more than cross country skiing).

We thought this would be a level walk because we didn’t realize that the trail we were on lead to the summit where the fire tower is. Honestly, we tired before reaching the summit and almost turned around and came back. It was quite steep. However, every time we stopped, someone had put a little message into the snow with twigs. The first one said, “Getting Close!”. So, we kept going.

Then, we thought about turning back a second time, and came across a sign in the snow that read, “You are almost there!”. We kept going. A short while later, we say a park sign that had this on it...

You can see the trail we took on the top. A short 575 feet more, and we were on the summit. It was a good day! This is the beginning of our trip.

Kent, almost to the summit

The view from the summit. You can see the road we started out from below.

View entire set.

“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage.” - Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told a crowd of about 175 people gathered at a private club.

Nursery rhymes? I guess this is a first for a presidential candidate to include in a speech. So, the married people who never have a baby are somehow dysfunctional? Or wait, you have to be married to have a baby?

The Army mobilized. Painters were deployed to cover the offending wall with a fresh coat of white semigloss. And television crews were invited in to inspect the result.

“Some of the paint is still wet against that wall, so be careful,” Walter Reed public affairs officer Donald Vandrey, standing on the bed in his socks, advised the film crews. “They just finished repainting it about 10 minutes ago.”

Mission accomplished?

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley thought so. After the media tour of Building 18, the Army’s surgeon general gave a news conference. “I do not consider Building 18 to be substandard....” (source)

Sometimes I wonder about people. Maybe it’s America in general. I’m not sure. Some things really are just common sense I believe. Take the renovations going on at Walter Reed Medical Center, for example. When we heard about the sub-standard conditions solders were living in last week, it hit the fan big time. It was a huge embarrassment to the military and to President Bush who has stated that we will do whatever is needed for our soldiers who come home wounded and shell shocked from being in war.

Well, the repairs happening at Walter Reed Medical Center have all the brilliance of the war plan that took us to Iraq in the first place. And I have to ask myself, what the hell is going on here? I’m not a construction-type person, so I have no idea what needs to be done. But common sense tells me that if you are standing in your shower and can see the bottom of a bathtub from the floor above you, simply by looking up through a hole (from rot), that it’s going to take a little more than paint to do the job. Wouldn’t you think that if it were your own home?

If it were me doing the repairs, I would deem the entire building unfit for human housing, and condemn it until repairs are made, and I’m not talking about paint here. I’m talking about taking the rot away, the mold, putting in new walls, floors, and ceilings, if necessary. It all has to go. This of course, if the building is even worth saving. Sometimes, you save money by starting from scratch.

See, I understand these things. Why they are applying paint to this building to hide mold is beyond me. It’s just going to come back. You have to fix the source of the problem. What a waste of time and money (OUR money), and a major disrespect to the soldiers.

Why is it that I have a feeling that in a couple of weeks, after the paint has dried, that President Bush will be standing out in front of Walter Reed, in front of a big banner that reads, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!”?

It’s time for the military to stop glossing over this issue, now that it’s out in the open, and get the job done. The men and women who put their lives on the line for this country deserve that!

Student Activism
This was kind of an interesting article from student Jay Richards from the Univ. of Utah. It’s nice to see enlightenment springing up here an there with young people.

People need to stop using the Bible to justify their bigotry. To purposefully and coldly deny a large group of Americans their civil rights based entirely on a book that justifies human slavery is ridiculous. (source)

And this....

A high school principal wants to tighten control of the student newspaper after a sophomore wrote an editorial advocating tolerance for gay people.

Woodlan High School student Megan Chase said she wrote the piece after a friend told her he was gay.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” Chase wrote in the Jan. 19 issue of the Woodlan Tomahawk. “I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you.”

After the article was published, Principal Edwin Yoder wrote a letter to the newspaper staff and journalism teacher Amy Sorrell insisting that future issues be subject to his approval. Sorrell and the students contacted the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group for student newspapers, which advised them to appeal the decision. [...]

“I didn’t think anybody would be upset about it,” Sorrell said. (source)

I know... hard to believe that people would be upset for advocating some tolerance. Go figure.

And again out in Utah, liberal capitol of the world, there’s this...

The House gave final approval today to a measure that bans gay-straight alliance clubs at public high schools. [...]

The key provision of the legislation bans any clubs that --- quote -- -“involve human sexuality” or threaten the “moral well-being” of students. (source)

Sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Barack Obama
I received a mailing yesterday from Barack Obama, asking for money, of course. I suppose Hillary’s will be coming soon. I’ve lost patience with politicians. They can be trusted about as much as prostitutes, in my opinion.

Instead of giving them money, I’ve gone to a new tactic. I make them live up to their words. For example, in his leaflet, Obama states, “Make no mistake. The people I’ve met in coffee shops and town halls still believe in an America where anything’s possible -- they just don’t think their leaders do.”

So, instead of giving him money, I wrote on the leaflet the following:

Dear Mr. Obama, I will make no mistake. So, in trying not to make a mistake by sending you money, I will simply say this... you state, “people I’ve met in coffee shops and town halls still believe in an America where any thing’s possible -- they just don’t think their leaders do.”

My question therefore is this. My partner and I have been together for 32 years. We live in Connecticut where Civil Unions are permitted, but we do not have access to marriage. So do you think it is possible (you did say any thing’s possible, right?) if you are elected President of the United States for the Federal Government to recognize civil unions and, of course, the marriages afforded to gay couples in Massachusetts, and give them access to all 1,049 federal-level-rights afforded to marriage?

Let me know. If you think you can pull that off and if you will work for that, I might send you money. But, I want to hear from YOU -- not one of your staff people.

I’m well aware that I may not be voting for President next time. I’ve come to a decision in my life about voting. I’m tired of voting for losers that I kind of like (you know, the “lesser of two evils”), but who will not go out on a limb for things gay Americans need, when they claim they will work for all Americans. They aren’t working for all Americans. Working for all Americans means that you work also for the little guy, you know, the one that nobody really cares for.

I’m sick and tired that in 2007 I’m still constantly hearing about couples being denied hospitalization for an ailing or dieing partner, gay people fired for being gay, soldiers being discharged from the armed forces for being gay, custody battles over children because the couple never had a way to legalize their relationship (denied access to the legal system), and for gay bashings that are still not taken seriously by police.

It’s time for this crap to stop. That’s what I want to hear from a presidential candidate. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man, or that Hillary is a women really isn’t enough. African Americans do know hardship in this country, and American history has not been kind to them. But that hasn’t translated into support from the African American community for the gay community with the issues of discrimination we face. Remember, George W. Bush relied heavily on the black vote to win his re-election. And for every woman out there who supports equality for gay citizens, there’s another one who goes in just the opposite direction.

I say all of this because there seems to be this notion in the gay community that just because someone is a minority, they should automatically pass our litmus test. I used to be that way as well. But then candidate after candidate turned right around and lied about what they were really about. Barack Obama says he wants the gay vote. Is he willing to go up against all those black social conservatives that believe there should be “civil rights” for everyone, except for gays -- the same people Bush relied so heavily on?

Not one of them, so far, would make me want to even cross the road in front of my house to vote for them. Not one.

I went to the capitol building today for Lobby Day, sponsored by Love Makes a Family. We started off at 10:00 with general information, and listening to a few of the legislators talk about the introduction of the marriage equality bill this year. Rep. Mike Lawlor gave probably the most passionate speech about the inevitability of marriage equality for gay couples. He said that Tuesday night to members of Greater New Haven Young Democrats, but his message this morning to us was the same.

With legislative battles yet to come on the issue of gay marriage in Connecticut, State Rep. Mike Lawlor told members of the Greater New Haven Young Democrats at a downtown gathering Tuesday night that approval of a bill instituting statewide gay marriage is “inevitable.”

Lawlor, who heads the legislature’s Judiciary Committee and represents East Haven, spoke alongside Tom Ude (pictured) of the grassroots advocacy group Love Makes A Family. He made clear his opinion that though gay marriage has again become an issue in Hartford, it need not be, simply for the reason that, one way or another, gay marriage will be a reality. “Either the courts are going to do it, or the legislature’s doing to do it,” he said. (source)

He’s right. Eventually, this will happen. He says it will happen within two years. Yet, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has stated that she will veto the bill if it should reach her desk. I recall last time she threatened a veto IF the current civil union bill advocated “marriage”, that she would veto the bill because she is “old fashioned about such things.” Pardon me, but isn’t that a rather lame excuse to put a class of people into second-class status? Shouldn’t you try to remove your own pet prejudices from the equation and see the arguments based on merit, instead of your personal prejudices?

So, my question to Betty Gallo, the lobbyist for Love Makes a Family was simply this... “The Governor has stated that when the marriage equality bill reaches her desk, she will veto the bill. Should we stop by to talk to her?” Betty said that it’s unlikely the Governor would meet with us, which is true, but I thought it might be good for her to hear that we are at least a bit peeved about it.

Well, I decided the Governor was probably not the best use of my time. I stopped by my representative’s office, along with that of my senator. In each case, they were in committee. I left my written statement to both, and left.

The really bizarre thing about the whole experience is that the “other side” - you know, the people who are trying to “protect” marriage from the likes of gay couples, were also having their lobby day today. This was no coincidence. When they heard that Love Makes a Family were doing this today, they scheduled theirs as well on the same day. It was strange to see them react to us. We had these big stickers stuck to our jackets that said,

So, every time I would pass one of them, I’d usually get this glare of contempt. I hissed at them, and moved on (but in a polite way). We were asked to be nice and polite, which I believe is the best thing for everyone. Will my legislator hear or care what I had to say? I’m not sure. I’m told they do care. We’ll see how they vote. One of the things suggested was to invite our legislators over to dinner. My representative is a Republican. Do I serve steak or fish? I’m thinking red meat.

I suppose if I wanted to be really creative, I could serve faggots, a rather bizarre British dish, that sounds rather disgusting to me. But it would probably not be very politically correct to serve that. I mean, how on earth would Miss Manners inform the guests about dinner... “We’ll be having faggots for dinner.”? Yup, that’s a show stopper.

I came across an interesting poll over on Outside The Beltway, that ranked candidates that Americans would be least likely to vote for. Here are the results.

Here are a few interesting comments that were left regarding this poll....

It saddens me to the core that over half of Americans won’t vote for someone just because they don’t believe in an imaginary creature. - Frank N. Stein

Many folks think Americans have already elected a homosexual President... And an atheist: Thomas Jefferson - Michael

I’m sitting in the TV room with Mimi, my cat, watching the snow fall. It’s a lazy Sunday afternoon.

This morning was different. We got up early and were going to go out for breakfast. But on our way to our usual Sunday spot, decided to drive into Hartford to go to Mo’s Midtown. It’s a place that does New Orleans-type cooling (spicy). When we lived in Hartford, we used to go there practically every weekend. We didn’t even know if it existed anymore because we haven’t been there for years. The staff that we knew are all gone and replaced by other people. Yet, the food was still great. We both had the “Rajin Cajun” omelet - very very spicy filled with their own jambalaya. And, I suppose I will be tasting it all day. Tonight, I’m thinking of making chicken marsala. Something simple.

We were watching Bill Maher last night. We enjoy him. He’s funny and most often has a very stimulating panel of guests. He had John Amaechi as a guest. He’s a former pro basketball player who came out of the closet awhile back and now has a new book, The Man in the Middle.

This has been met with some people who respect Amaechi as a person.

“We all have our little secrets. He had a big secret. And I can’t blame him. You can only imagine how he felt. He was terrified that his private life would become public, and it would cost him the job he loved. It doesn’t bother me that he kept it a secret. You never know how people are going to react. That’s the scary part about it.” - former teammate Ben Wallace

And then there were others who had utter disdain for Amaechi.

“You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.” - Tim Hardaway

The cool thing is, most people are condemning such comments in this day and age. Perhaps this is progress? But back to Bill Maher’s show. Bill pointed out to Amaechi that he was amused at what Amaechi said about the locker room. In the book, Amaechi said that the locker room was one of the “gayest” places around. He said that it was like a bunch of peacocks showing off and preening themselves -- making mention of one guy painting his toe nails (in season), and another guy plucking his eyebrows. And during all of this, Amaechi asks himself, “...and I’m the gay one?” (laughter) Point taken!

The only thing that I don’t care for so much with Bill Maher, is that at times, I feel he carries a joke too far, or jokes about something that simply should never be used in the context of a joke, or to garner laughter. For example, he made a joke about young Russian men recruited into the Russian army. This is what this issue is really about, and it’s not something to joke about.

One conscript, who had raised the alarm, told Russia’s Gazeta newspaper yesterday that older soldiers humiliated the others. “Sometimes they made us mop the floors all night ... The officers would beat us on the arms and legs. We were sent out to the park to earn money ... I was tortured with electric shocks.” Another conscript added: “At least 10 out of 35 of us would not spend the nights at the military base.”

The allegations involving St Petersburg’s unit of 3,727 personnel follow cases of abuse of conscripts. Last year there was national outrage at the gruesome fate of Andrei Sychev, 19, a tank academy conscript so badly tortured by his superiors his genitals and legs had to be amputated. (source)

Yet, here we are in America, making a joke about it. I wonder if it is something that Andrei Sychev will ever be able to laugh about. Sometimes, we forget our own humanity, all for a joke. Not everything is made to laugh at. I kind of wish Bill Maher would realize that. I’m not a prude or anything, but I think it is extremely distasteful to find humor at the expense of some human being’s suffering. That's all.

It’s still snowing, but tomorrow is supposed to bring sunshine! Actually, it’s kind of pretty. Next weekend, we are planning on going to Vermont snow shoeing. It’s a compromise for me. I suck at cross country skiing (which Kent loves), but I think I can do this. So, we will be able to do this together, which will be nice.

This morning at breakfast, I read two letters to the editor in the Hartford Courant. They concerned a satirical article published in the CCSU campus newspaper, The Reporter, by writer John Petroski, who published a satirical piece called “Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It.” The full article can be read below.

After the piece was published, on February 8, this came out:

The editors of The Recorder, in another statement released Thursday, said they regretted the harm the article caused, adding they would not have published it if they had realized how people would react to it. Yet at the same time, the statement defended Petroski as a gifted satirist whose intended message “fell on deaf ears.”

The statement said television news coverage of the controversy has been one-sided.

“John has been grossly misrepresented,” the statement said. (source)

Later, facing increased criticism for the article, Mr. Petroski, a 23-year-old sophomore history major, was fired from his position as the newspaper’s opinion editor. He finally apologized.

“When I hear about girls crying or feeling suicidal over something I wrote, it doesn’t make me feel so good,” Petroski told the gathering of more than 100 students and faculty who had turned out to discuss the issue. “I’m concerned about you, and I want you to hang in there.”

Petroski then addressed the victims of sexual assault who had been most damaged by the article, which appeared in last Wednesday’s edition of the student newspaper The Recorder under the headline “Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It.”

“I apologize sincerely,” he said to the group of women who, in the days since the article was published, had publicly identified themselves as rape victims in a show of protest against the article and the paper.

One student, Nicki LaPorte, had won a rousing ovation from the audience after tearfully condemning the article earlier during the forum.

“I am not a victim of rape, I am a survivor of rape,” LaPorte said. (source)

The paper’s editor, Mark Rowan, also stated...

“It’s definitely going to make me more sensitive to this issue,” said Rowan, a 21-year-old senior who hopes to pursue a career in journalism after he graduates. “Up until now, I had always seen the world from the narrow vantage point of a 21-year-old white male, but now I see that it needs to be broadened.” (source)

This all prompted me to send the following letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant.

This morning, I read two Letters to the Editor in regards to the “rape controversy” surrounding the satirical piece on rape composed by John Petroski, the opinion editor of The Recorder, the paper at CCSU.

In the first letter, “Nothing Funny About Rape”, Evelyn Berg rehashes some of the article’s main points, where Mr. Petroski tries to enlighten us to the “benefits” that rape has given to society; that it can be a “magical experience”; that it is a blessing to “ugly women” because, “If it weren’t for rape, how would they ever know the joy of intercourse with a man who isn’t drunk?”

Evelyn’s letter is followed by a letter entitled “Overreaction To Satire”, by Kenneth Dimaggio, Assistant Professor of Humanities at Capital Comm. College in Hartford. In his letter, Professor Dimaggio calls us the “illiterate mediocre masses”, who have overreacted to the article and states that we, being mediocre and all, simply cannot, or do not, understand satire. He then goes on to say that Mr. Petroski could possibly have done a better job, and ends up turning his little letter into a critique on satirical writing technique.

What is missing in all of this is something so simple that it apparently has eluded both Mr. Petroski and Professor DiMaggio. Rape is not a crime of passion, that will show “ugly women” the “joy of intercourse”. Rape is a vicious crime of hate and power. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexual desire, and it should be seen as such. As an educated man, I appreciate satire, but this crossed the line.

If Mr. Petroski and Professor DiMaggio feel differently, I would be interested to hear their opinions after both of them have been raped. My bet is they would tell a much different story from their experience and would both agree that perhaps, from a literary point of view, that “joy” was really a poor choice to describe the experience, and that it wasn’t so “magical” after all.

As for Mr. Petroski, The Reporter, and CCSU, they still don’t get it. Action should result in the firing of Mr. Petroski, and CCSU should be held to a higher standard, because this isn’t education. And, if I were a victim of rape, and found this article forcing me to relive horrible memories of the “joy” of rape, I’d most be likely be filing a lawsuit for compensation against my added suffering.

Maybe then, they would see the point? Probably not. But what do I know? I’m just part of the “illiterate mediocre masses”.

Bill Cannon
Coventry

Two points:
1) Satire is extremely difficult. It takes a gifted writer to pull it off. As one observed,

Professor Russell Brown, supervisor of studies for English at University of Toronto Scarborough, remarked that Petroski’s article made it difficult to determine intent until the final paragraph, while many students would have stopped reading earlier in disgust or confusion over poor arguments and offensive remarks.

“Simply, it’s poorly done. With good satire like Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, there is at least an underlying feeling of being impossible in seriousness, and here there was none of that ’till far too late.” (source)

2) Do we have free speech in this country? Yes, we do. Can you write articles that will, intentionally or unintentionally emotionally harm others, or incite violence against certain groups? Yes, you can. But, that doesn’t mean that there will be no consequences to doing that. I think that John Petroski has learned that in a very hard way. Let us hope that his apology wasn’t just done for show, and that he truly grows from this experience.

Click below to read the original piece published by Mr. Petroski, which has since been pulled from The Reporter.

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. - Adolf Hitler

It’s a strange world we live in where such profound truths come from such profound monsters.

We went to Valley Falls Park yesterday morning after breakfast. These are some of the wonders we uncovered.

View entire set

View entire set

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/12/2007, 07:02am:

Bryan,

First of all, this has nothing to do with drunk driving or condoning that behavior, BECAUSE we do not give 1055 Federal rights and hundreds of state-sanctioned rights to those who do not drive drunk. Your analogy is flawed.

Again, from the letter I sent you...

Bryan, the problem is, all you can see is “.... marriage is one man, one woman...”, PERIOD. You and people like you absolutely refuse to see any middle ground here. Indeed, you wouldn’t even allow for “civil unions”, or “domestic partnerships.” You want us to have NOTHING. Now honestly, how do you think we should respond to that? How would you feel, if I had the power to strip your marriage of any legal rights, to take away all the legal protections of marriage, and tell you, “If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.” How would you feel about that?

Think about that and then tell me which side is being hateful and divisive. You know, if you had advocated allowing gay couples in Idaho to have civil unions with full state legal rights of marriage, I would have bought your argument. But without that, you really lose your credibility with me. You want us to have nothing. Just admit it.

I’m not asking you to “condone” homosexuality. You are perfectly free to feel or judge it in any manner you wish. But, you seem to be totally unwilling to distinguish between what you want marriage to be, and what civil liberties this country has afforded to marriage. I’m not trying to belittle you, but I honestly don’t understand why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. The government issues these rights to marriage. The government therefore sanctions marriage with these rights. HOWEVER, the government is giving these rights to CIVIL MARRIAGE, not religious marriage. This is why when any minister, pastor, or priest performs a marriage, he/she MUST say something on the order of, “...by the powers vested in me by the state of...”.

As I’ve stated before, I have no desire what so ever of forcing a religious institution to do anything against their will (e.g. be forced to marry a gay couple if it is against their religion). However, as a tax paying citizen, I do expect that my state and national government put me on a level playing field with all other citizens. I have a very legitimate right in wanting that. If that’s not possible, then my tax rate should be adjusted to second class, right along with my second class citizenship.

Now, let’s talk about hate. There are different forms of hate. There are people who will openly attach and bash gay people, as has been done to me in the past. That is a form of hate. There are people who belittle gay people in the form of derogatory jokes, getting a laugh at the expense of gays. That is a form of hate. There are people who will talk about preserving the “sanctity of marriage”, and to do that, gay couples must not be allowed to partake in marriage. That’s not necessarily hate, in my opinion -- that is more a difference of opinion.

However, when groups of people actively lobby and pass bills that prevent families like mine from having any legal protections in law that other couples receive, that is a form of hate. You may not like it, but it is. You are basically doing everything in your power, by preventing the enactment of civil unions or domestic partnerships, for families like mine from being protected against all the things that I mentioned in my last letter. Bryan, that is hate. I will not give on this point because eventually, this issue will probably effect my family in a big way - and not in a good way. I ask you in all sincerity and honesty, do you honestly even care about the family that Kent and I have? Do you?

If the answer to that question is, “No, not really.”, well Bryan, I don’t know how else to say this, but that is a form of prejudice and hate. You may not “agree” with what we have, but that doesn’t mean that you have to legally bar us from any legal protections. That is taking it beyond the area of simply being an “honest disagreement.” That makes it personal.

Now to answer your question....

Once again, I ask you: is it possible for you to regard our differences on this matter is one of honest disagreement, or must you insist on accusing me of hatred for holding my views? Until you can agree with me that disagreement is not hatred, I’m not sure constructive, meaningful dialogue is possible.

If your group had been against full “marriage” rights for gay couples, but had recognized the need for some civil legal protections for families such as mine, I would be able to say to you that we have an “honest disagreement.” However, you didn’t stop there. The amendment makes no consideration for civil unions that would grant critical legal protections for gay couples. I assume that is just fine with you? So how on earth can I get to a place where I can say that we are having an “honest disagreement” when in fact, there is no disagreement. You simply, at the end of the day, do not want families like mine to exist.

AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT?

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/05/2007, 12:25am:

Bill,

The bottom line for you, as I read through to the end of your note, is that my position is not one of disagreement but of hatred. You accuse me of hating homosexuals because I do not think that homosexual behavior should be normalized and endorsed by society. I do not think drunk driving should be normalized, either, but that doesn’t mean I hate drunk drivers. I’m guessing you would oppose normalizing drunk driving as well, and would take umbrage with anyone who accused you of hating them. Your position would be simply that drunk driving is a kind of behavior that should not be endorsed by society.

Once again, I ask you: is it possible for you to regard our differences on this matter is one of honest disagreement, or must you insist on accusing me of hatred for holding my views? Until you can agree with me that disagreement is not hatred, I’m not sure constructive, meaningful dialogue is possible.

Once we can cross that bridge, then we can rationally discuss the nature of homosexual behavior and its consequences, and take an objective look at whether it represents behavior a thoughtful society should embrace.

Can you cross that bridge?

Bryan

I read this so long ago and forgot just what a little jewel it is. Thought I'd share it.

Cloths of Heaven

Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

A Michigan appeals court on Friday ruled that public colleges and universities in the state may not offer health insurance or other benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. The ruling said that a state ban on gay marriage, approved by voters in 2004, barred such benefits. [...]

According to the database of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, 11 public colleges and universities offer domestic partner benefits: Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Grand Valley State, Michigan State, Northern Michigan, Oakland, and Wayne State Universities; Lansing Community College; and the University of Michigan’s campuses at Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint. [...]

Mike Cox, the state’s attorney general, vowed to defend the position of the appeals court, which he said was consistent with what the people of Michigan wanted. “I am committed to protecting the will of the people,” he said in a statement. (source)

Well, you didn’t really think they would stop at marriage, did you? This has been their agenda all along. But I no longer get emotionally involved with this (no, I really don’t). I simply want to make a few points and observations.

First, this will also play out in other states who have passed similar amendments. This is only the beginning...

A Michigan appeals court ruling that bans public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance to partners of gay employees has alarmed gay rights advocates nationwide.

They fear the decision could encourage similar rulings in 17 other states whose bans on gay marriage could be interpreted to prohibit domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

Michigan last week became the first state to rule that public employers cannot offer health benefits if the benefits are based on treating same-sex relationships similar to marriage.

“It really is just a matter of time before we start seeing wholesale litigation in this area,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington.

In Alaska, the only other state to rule on the benefits given to same-sex partners of public employees, the courts ruled the other way, saying it was unconstitutional to deny them.

More than 20 other states have yet to decide how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.

Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University, worries that Michigan’s ruling will strip his partner’s health insurance.

The couple have adopted four foster children, one with a developmental disability, and Tom Patrick works part-time so he can care for them.

“If he has to go back to work full-time, that hurts our family. Or we have to pay for health benefits out of pocket, which hurts our family,” Dennis Patrick said. “To me that either demonstrates a lack of understanding of how this can affect our family or other families, or it’s just mean and cruel.” (source)

Second, it’s really quite simple as far as I’m concerned. Michigan Attorney General Cox stated that this is “what the people of Michigan wanted,” even though I would venture to guess that 98% of those people didn’t even read the wording of the amendment. I think it really is very simple. It think there are two things going on; the citizens couldn’t be bothered really studying this issue because for the most part, it doesn’t effect them directly. Therefore, they don’t care about it. Which mean, that it’s basically just mean and cruel.

If this is what they want, let’s give it to them. The effects of this will not happen through anger, but rather through practicality. If you are in Michigan and have a partner, and you lose your ability to have health benefits for that partner, what do you think these people will do?

If you are looking at a position at a Michigan university, would you take the position with this political climate? The majority of straight people, in my experience, at the university level, are turned off by an atmosphere of intolerance.

And if you are a single gay person, who hopes to someday have a partner, would you opt to go to a place where you would not have access to health insurance for that partner? Perhaps you would if it were your only job offer and you were fresh out of graduate school. But, I bet you would eventually leave, where there are better opportunities and a better climate to be creative and open.

This will all happen naturally. In time, Michigan will lose people because of this. And I would venture to say that as I write this, there are people out there who are (were) considering positions at institutions of higher learning in Michigan, who will now go elsewhere.

Let the will of the people be followed and heard. They wanted it, after all. And, let their institutions of higher learning become third rate. And down the road, say 15-20 years, they will realize that they simply aren’t attracting the best people anymore. Then, they will reverse this amendment, and spend the next 30 years trying to get back to where they were before the amendment was passed in the first place.

Sometimes it’s nice to be able to see the future.

Kent left for Washington, D. C. this morning. He will be gone until Wednesday evening. We got up early, spent some time together, then, on our way to the airport, stopped off at Charley’s Bagels where we always stop every single Friday morning. This morning, we had lox with cream cheese with tomato and onion, on a toasted sesame bagel, with coffee.

Then off to the airport we went. I dropped Kent off. On my way home, I was listening to Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 10 in E minor, Op. 93 -- a rather violent and depressing work, actually. It was released in 1953, the year before my birth, and the year of Stalin's death. For Shostakovich, this was the end of a repressive political climate, and resulted in the release of many new works, this symphony among them.

The symphony ends with a triumph, perhaps representing Shostakovich’s own relief from the repression of Joseph Stalin.

Shostakovich had many demons. He was a man of great complexity and conscience. He was fighting repression. One dictionary defines “repression” as, “the rejection from consciousness of painful or disagreeable ideas, memories, feelings, or impulses.” I’m left wondering if that is my issue.

It seems that I’ve come to a crossroads in my life. This is new to me. I have a need, perhaps a yearning, to play violin again. But why? Why now, after so long? Is it to immerse myself into something beautiful and wondrous, and lose myself in it? Can I regain my art? Should I try? Can my body do the things it used to do to create sound and art again? Kent feels that I should try. Otherwise, I will always wonder if I could do this. If I can’t, I can’t. But then it will be behind me. But it won’t be the same. I simply don’t have time to put eight hours a day into practicing, let alone giving it the kind of emotional involvement that I did years ago.

But the bigger question is, what am I hiding from? Is it repression? Is my reality of inequality any different from that of the repression that Dmitri Shostakovich suffered? He couldn’t express himself for fear of imprisonment or worse. In my reality, I realize that I’m but half a citizen with no way to gain full equality. He couldn’t express himself or be himself. What is the difference? Both of our souls have suffered. Why do I care so much about this, as I am here for such a short period of time? Yet, I anguish over this. People judge me who do not know me. Music does not do this.

I think I know how Shostakovich felt. Will there be a triumphant ending to the repression I feel, or will it outlive me? I suppose it’s futile and senseless to worry about such things. Many would say, “Enjoy life. Don’t worry about the fools.” It’s not that easy for me. Maybe that’s why music and art exists. We can place these displaced and painful feelings onto canvas or into performance, suffering along with it, and getting rid of it on that media, thereby dissipating the reality that it is all around, for some of us.

Now, onto Gershwin...

Our first snowfall this year, from our back yard. I love the way the morning sun was hitting the trees, turning them different shades of gold.

Boat Landing at Mashapaug Pond

Ice fishing at Mashapaug Pond

Icy Mist, heading back to the car. It was cold!

Usually, politicians at least try to look sincere, and hide their tracks a bit better. But this is just simply sleazy.

Former Senator Jeff Miller now wants to be friends to the gay community. This is the same senator who sponsored the “Marriage Protection Act” and spearheaded the drive to amend Tennessee’s constitution against same sex marriage. Oh, and he also has a gay brother, Gregg. Not that it makes any difference, but if my brother did something like that to me.... well, I can’t really say online what my feelings on that are. We’ll keep it a bit more civil here.

My issue is this. First, he has a brother who is gay. Does he know nothing about some of the issues that this minority faces? Second, he’s a hypocrite.

Brigitte Miller, Sen. Miller’s wife of 15 years, said he is having an affair with a legislative researcher and that he and the young lady accompanied the Millers’ three daughters to a November Martina McBride concert in Nashville.

“They’ve been seeing each other for a while,” Mrs. Miller told a Capitol Hill reporter. “Now he admits things. But he said it’s only been since he moved out. But I know better. I’ve got things that tell me differently.”

Their divorce suit was filed Feb. 25, 2006. After all of this, he openly opposed an amendment to his own bill that stated: “Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.” No surprise there, since it was apparently hitting a little to close to home for him.

So, now that he’s no longer a senator, he’s gearing up to be a lobbyist. By law, he has to wait one year before he can approach any legislator on any issue. But, he can try to garner future business. He’s been reaching out to many, among whom is the state’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, Tennessee Equality Project.

This was their response.

“I suppose he thinks helping pass discriminatory bills would make him an effective advocate for the gay, lesbian and transgender community,” Chris Sanders, Equality Project president told the Times Free Press newspaper.

Sanders said the letter was met with a “mixture of derision and hostility” and noted his proposal “is certainly not one that we’re going to follow up on.” (source)

Perhaps he just doesn’t realize just how offensive this is to some of us. At any rate, this was the letter he sent out.

January 23,2007

To Whom It May Concern:

Life has been putting the screws to me of late. I seem to be going through some issues with depression AGAIN. What the hell is wrong with this year? Geeez. Well, I’m holding my own with it. I’m working like hell, and actually, despite it all, getting a lot done. I’m splitting my time up from working at home, and occasional meetings at warehouses (for the company I work for), to make certain operations more efficient.

Monday was the worse. It was hard to put two thoughts together and I had zero motivation. I believe it started from Kent being down about something. Then, being in a vulnerable place for the depression to take off, it did, big time. That was Sunday. By Sunday night I was not in a good place. I got tired of it, and popped two Xanax that I occasionally take for anxiety. But another thing Xanax will do is to turn off depression. It does nothing to treat the depression, but it turns off what fuels it - your brain. And before I knew it, I was in dream land in the most peaceful sleep.

Monday morning... depression is back in full swing. I try to work. I have to get out of the house. I go to the warehouse to work with other people on specific problems. I leave with a new knowledge of those problems and come home to work through them. By 2:00, I give up. I lie down to sleep. I’m so tired. Depression is very exhausting.

Tuesday morning... a bit better today. I’m working more on the problem and making much better progress, but still fighting to keep depression at bay. It’s there. I can feel it. It wants to blossom out and take over. I’m thinking that I have to go out to UCONN to a concert that Joshua Bell is giving at the Jorgensen Center for the Performing Arts. The “Jorgensen Auditorium” would be more accurate. I hate the place. It’s basically a big box, with chairs in it. It looks as if it used to be an auditorium for basketball, and they converted it to a “center for the performing arts”. It has the worst acoustics ever.

Beyond all of that, beyond venturing out in the cold weather, which you know I love with all my heart, the concert was nice. Joshua Bell is a fine artist. There are a few things with his technique that I don’t much care for, but I would lose most of you if I analyzed what they are, and, who really cares anyway about violin technique. But the whole experience gave me a renewed interest in playing again. So, I’m actively taking the first step; finding someone who has the credentials to work on a violin made in 1750 from the Cremona School. A bit about it and the violin in my possession, which is a Gagliano...

The Gagliano masters were one of the most famous Italian dynasties. In the period of 1640 to the early 20th century, 20 Gagliano masters created their violins. Alessandro Gagliano was the founder of the dynasty. He came from Naples. In Cremona, he joined the violin-making class of Nicolo Amati where Antonio Stradivari was studying at the time too. When he returned to his hometown thirty years later, he founded the Naples school whose violins are known for their perfect tone. Experts say that some Gagliano violins even outstrip those of Stradivari. (source)

I won’t give more specifics about the violin I own, except to say, it’s wonderful to be privileged to have been part of it’s life. I will die, and it will go on, if I entrust it to someone who is worthy. But before that happens, I think I would like a few more years to share myself with it and to see what music the two of us can make together.

Wednesday morning... Feeling much better today. I went to the warehouse and spent more time working through problems, and made some wonderful progress. I’m energized again. The depression is not gone, but I’m back in control. I got a lot done on Wednesday.

Today, things are decent. I’m looking at the next phase of enhancing productivity for operations at the warehouses around the state. I have one final thing to do, and then I’m going to let this issue rest a bit and give people involved a chance to get used to the changes I have made. I also will need a mental rest from it.

I haven’t done much with photography lately. I’m reading more about RAW image changes and learning a lot. But, I haven’t applied the techniques to my own photos. It takes time to learn technique. I know that from my violin studies. One has to be patient. It will come in time.

And this happened yesterday...

Two years after Connecticut approved civil unions for same-sex couples, two leading state lawmakers said Wednesday they will introduce a bill to allow gay marriage.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, said they will introduce the bill before a Feb. 14 deadline for new legislation.

The proposal would make Connecticut only the second state to allow same-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts began allowing gay marriages in 2004, while Connecticut and Vermont allow civil unions. A New Jersey law allowing civil unions takes effect Feb. 22.

A spokesman for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions law, said Wednesday that she would veto a gay marriage bill. (source)

Yes, it seems that Connecticut is going to go for full marriage for people like Kent and myself, AGAIN. We’ve lived with “civil unions” for two years now. Well, not us. We didn’t get one. But the state has. And now, the same lawmakers who brought us “civil unions” feel that we should have full marriage.

I’ll help to every extent possible. I’ve already given money to the cause. But this probably will not pass this year. Actually, it was exactly the same way with the gay and lesbian civil rights law. We tried for years to get a law passed in Connecticut making it illegal to fire a person for being gay, and giving them equal access to public accommodations, etc.. It passed the legislature, only to be vetoed by the governor. Eventually, that governor left, and when the bill hit the new governor, Lowell Weicker, he signed it into law.

So, will we have to keep trying until Governor Rell leaves office? Possibly. The legislature could override her veto, but in the spirit of being politicians, they won’t do that. I’ll help as I can, but I can’t mentally afford to get too caught up with this issue. Basically, this nation is run by religious creeps who care very little about those of us they don’t like. But I’m not going to give them the satisfaction any longer of having much control over me. If the bill fails, I’ve lost nothing because we have no protections now. Nothing has changed.

I was saddened to hear of the death of Molly Ivins. I loved her writing. And, I admired her gift. She had the gift of looking at issues, some of which were really not very pleasant to talk about, and turning them on their head. You ended up laughing about her humor in it all. Later, you started to think about the points that she was making about the issue in a very serious way. Her gift, which I lack, was to look down upon it, without letting it become personal. I can’t seem to do that, and I envy her for that.

Molly Ivins, the liberal newspaper columnist who delighted in skewering politicians and interpreting, and mocking, her Texas culture, died yesterday in Austin. She was 62.

Ms. Ivins waged a public battle against breast cancer after her diagnosis in 1999. Betsy Moon, her personal assistant, confirmed her death last night. Ms. Ivins died at her home surrounded by family and friends.

In her syndicated column, which appeared in about 350 newspapers, Ms. Ivins cultivated the voice of a folksy populist who derided those who she thought acted too big for their britches. She was rowdy and profane, but she could filet her opponents with droll precision.

After Patrick J. Buchanan, as a conservative candidate for president, declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention that the United States was engaged in a cultural war, she said his speech “probably sounded better in the original German.”

“There are two kinds of humor,” she told People magazine. One was the kind “that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity,” she said. “The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule. That’s what I do.” (source)

One of her writings deals with “activist judges”. I’m copying a bit of it. Molly, you were truly one of a kind.

Another bee-you-ti-ful example of the right-wing media getting it all wrong. Here they are having the nerve to mutter in public about “activist judges” because Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has pointed out that spying without a warrant is illegal in this country -- so warrantless telephone tapping is illegal in this country.

Improbably enough, the first complaint of many of these soi-disant legal scholars is that Taylor’s decision is not well written. No judicial masterpiece, they sneer. Nevertheless, warrantless spying is illegal.

Did it ever occur to these literary critics that Taylor has a lay-down hand? The National Security Agency program is flat unconstitutional, and for those who insist this means Osama bin Laden wins, it’s also ridiculously easy to fix so that it is constitutional. Conservatives in this country have been yipping in chorus for years about “activist judges,” and frankly, like fools, many of you bought into the phony political rhetoric about those terrible jurists.

Somehow, activist judges are held responsible for gay marriage, Roe v. Wade and everything else Americans disagree about, as though Americans would never disagree without their encouragement.

Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don’t like.

As any liberal could have told you, the conservatives didn’t want a right-wing shift on the nation’s courts because of “social issues” -- that’s just a handy political ploy.

Honestly, people, haven’t you figured out what this is all about yet? Money. The conservatives are in a snit about “liberal courts” because of money. (source)