Hello, (Gay) Young Lovers, Wherever You Are

Yesterday and the day before, while riding public transit in Ottawa, Canada, I've seen the same couple of twentysomething gay men openly displaying affection at the front of the bus -- leaning their heads on each other's shoulders, embracing, giving each other a peck on the lips.

I wonder if they realized the two middle-aged men next to them were also a gay couple, even though we did not engage in such an open, public display. I wonder if they realized that, at their age, to have done so might have put us at risk of being expelled from the bus, or verbally and physically harassed and abused.

I came out in 1974, five years after the Stonewall riots. I have been involved in the gay liberation movement, mainly in the mid-1970s and the late 1990s. I legally married my partner in 2005.

But, to this day, I do not feel comfortable holding hands with my husband in public -- let alone exchanging a kiss -- except in a darkened cinema, or the safety-in-numbers of a Pride celebration.

On the hit television show Glee, Chris Colfer is the poster boy for gay teens. He gets to be outrageously, screamingly, flamingly gay. His blue-collar father supports and goes to bat for him. But I notice that, even in the 21st century, poor Chris still doesn't have a boyfriend or a lover. Glee is about as realistic a portrayal of gay life as Queer as Folk was a decade ago, which is to say not at all.

Equal rights and same-sex marriage are laudable goals. But real equality, real freedom, will not come until gay men and lesbian women can walk down the street, arm in arm, hand in hand, and hug and kiss like any straight couple would do, without blinking an eye.

The words of the poet Robert Frost apply admirably to the gay rights movement:

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

100% of Herman Cain Is Stupid

Herman Cain says 50% of America is stupid. Has this man never read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Apparently not. My immediate reaction to his comment was, "Gee, I wonder which 50% Herman Cain belongs to?"

Ditto for Newt Gingrich. Why on earth is he allowing Cain to stump for him in Georgia, or anywhere else for that matter? After Cain's campaign self-destructed, I would have thought he was surely damaged goods. But I guess birds of a feather stick together. Perhaps Gingrich could get Tiger Woods to stump for him, too.

Of course, Mitt Romney's not much smarter, getting Donald Trump to endorse his candidacy. Really, Mitt, you wear jeans and you ditch the jacket and tie, to promote a populist image -- and then you cosy up to another multi-millionnaire like yourself. Way to go, Mitt!

On a brighter note, an Iowa poll showed Ron Paul as beating out Barack Obama and the other Republican candidates. Too bad Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination.

No wonder things are looking better and better for Santorum...

Testing ... 1, 2, 3

Testing ... 1, 2, 3

Governor Christie: The Real "Situation" in Jersey

Move over, Mike from Jersey Shore. There's a situation even worse than you in Jersey, and his name is Governor Christopher James "Chris" Christie.

Gov. Christie has shamefully and shockingly flouted the democratic process and turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people, by vetoing the state assembly's vote in favor of same-sex marriage. (You could say Gov. Christie's motto is, "If they've got it, flout it.")

Meanwhile, Gov. Christie wants to fly flags at half-mast for Whitney Houston's funeral. (He lowers the flag for Whitney, he lowers the boom on gays. Go figure.) Yes, sir, this guy's definitely got his priorities "straight" (pun intended). Funerals and honoring the dead, good. Weddings and honoring the living, bad. Uh-huh.

Maybe Mike "The Situation" ought to run for Governor of New Jersey. He's certain got the brawn -- and, judging by recent events, he probably has a heap more brains than the current incumbent of the position.

Vote Mike. Veto Christie. Enough said...

Last Stand in Arizona: A Debatable Decision

The buzz today (February 16, 2012) on Twitter is that, after the GOP debate in Arizona on February 22, there may be no more such events.

That would be a real shame. Personally, I have found the debates the best way to assess and compare the candidates. They have provided some psychological insights into their characters, how they behave under pressure (the glare of the camera, the crossfire of their opponents), how they deal (or fail to deal) with the issues. I may be a Canadian but, if I were American, I would vociferously object to the elimination of this venue or forum for public political discourse.

Does this mean that the candidates will now be surrounded by a bubble? That prospective voters will have access only to their pre-packaged thoughts, with no room allowed for spontaneity?

When things come to such a sad, sorry state, it's bad news for democracy.

In Politics, Words Matter

In politics, as in life, words matter. They mean precisely what they say, not necessarily what we mean them to say. Once they are uttered, once they enter the public domain, they cannot be unsaid. All the explanations and clarifications in the world are of no use. Words take on a life of their own.

This morning (February 15, 2012), CNN trumpted a "surge" in support for Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. Yet the gap between them is only 2%. This is a surge?

CNN also raised the specter of "class warfare" because Santorum is the favorite by a wide margin among blue-collar voters, whereas white-collar voters prefer Romney. By the same token, gender warfare could be said to have erupted between the two camps (men for Santorum, women for Romney).

Meanwhile, Santorum himself says he is a "full-spectrum conservative". This could be interpreted as meaning that his base is wider than merely Tea Party patriors and white evangelicals. But it can also be seen as an attempt to please everyone at the risk of pleasing no one. At least he's not "severely" conservative as Romney claimed to be at CPAC.

Santorum has previously said that he "cares about 100% of America". This is patently false. He clearly does not care about pro-choice advocates, or about lesbians and gays who want their relationships to enjoy the legal status of marriage.

CNN and Santorum, how about a little truth in advertising? Let's take the rhetoric down a notch, shall we?

Santorum is the Next Washington? By George!

I'm beginning to feel like a late-night comic. Rick Santorum keeps supplying me with fresh new material. The latest ammunition in my arsenal is the news of his ad claiming he's the next George Washington. Santorum had better get himself some new copy writers. This is a gag just waiting for a punch line. (Insert your favorite one here.) I can well imagine, for instance, what Saturday Night Live will come up with.

I sort of know where Santorum and Co. were going, or trying to go, with this. After all, Washington was "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen", and he couldn't tell a lie. All good stuff.

But he also had wooden false teeth and a powered wig. And he lived more than 200 years ago. Come to think of it, I'm not surprised Santorum would make such a comparison. His understanding of the Constitution is stuck in the 18th century. He doesn't realize that the Constitution is a living document, not a dead letter.

Will Santorum make it to the White House? Maybe. At this stage of the game, anything can happen. If he does, let's hope the place doesn't burn down over his head. Because then -- like Washington, in effigy at least -- he'd have to rely on Dolley Madison to rescue him from the flames.

Santorum Surges ... But Is His Base Too Narrow?

According to the New York Times website yesterday (February 13, 2012), two polls -- including the Pew Poll -- show that Mitt Romney's commanding lead over Rick Santorum has dwindled to a slim margin ... among Tea Party patriots and white evangelicals. As Shakespeare would say, "Ay, there's the rub." Is that base of firmly committed conservatives enough to keep Santorum's presidential aspirations alive? That remains to be seen. The New York Times also suggests that Barack Obama would edge out either Romney or Santorum if an election were held today.

Meanwhile, also yesterday, CNN's Political Ticker contemplated a number of different scenarios as the Republican primaries and caucuses move forward to Super Tuesday and beyond. The site offers visitors the opportunity to experiment with allocating various combinations of delegates to the four candidates.

But, to quote a well-worn phrase, the only poll that counts is Election Day. And that's a long way off.

Whitney Houston: Her True Legacy

In the days since the untimely passing of Whitney Houston, we have heard much about the legacy she leaves behind: her music, her voice.

Except that we will hear only the faint, distant echo of Whitney's voice, like the Echo of Greek mythology: a disembodied spirit. After a while, even that echo will fade. "I will always love you," we fervently say now. But always is a long, long time, and love dies like everything else in this imperfect world.

Whitney's true legacy is that she serves as a powerful reminder. Beauty, talent, wealth, and fame -- none of these shield and protect us from the stark reality of death. Even if we are surrounded by friends and family at the end, in the face of death we are utterly and inevitably alone. And no matter what great things we may have accomplished in life, in death we will ultimately, sooner or later, be forgotten.

For Whitney, "love" and "always" now have another, different meaning. Whitney, wherever you are, I hope you have at long last found Someone who will truly "always love you". I wish you joy and happiness. But above all, I wish you love.

Is Santorum's Richie Cunningham Jumping the Shark?

Sweater-vest-wearing Rick Santorum has been compared to Richie Cunningham of "Happy Days" fame. Santorum doesn't see any problem with this, saying that a little Richie Cunningham wouldn't be a bad thing for the old USA.

Maybe. Perhaps we should be thankful Santorum wasn't compared to Opie Taylor of "Andy Griffith", played by the same actor (now director) Ron Howard. Just a thought...

Santorum's Smooth Speech to a CPACked Audience

Wow... I'm a Canadian, can't vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses, much less the US general election in November. But I sure would have liked to be at the CPAC conference this past weekend.

I did catch Rick Santorum's speech live on CNN Friday morning, and was pleasantly surprised. He looked more presidential, lost the cowboy tie, aced his quote of the Declaration of Independence (no stumbling over the word "Creator" this time), and even managed to make a joke.

By the way, loved the joke just before Santorum's speech: A conservative, a moderate, and a liberal walked into a bar. The bartender said, "Hi, Mitt!" (I told that joke over dinner on Saturday night. They didn't get it. Their loss...)

Santorum was no doubt buoyed by a recent trifecta/hat trick of wins in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota. He definitely had the wind in his sails. (However, Mitt took Maine, despite Ron Paul skipping CPAC to focus his efforts in that state. CPAC also gave Romney its reluctant blessing over Santorum.)

P.S. - I didn't see Sarah Palin's speech but I read about it in the newspaper. (Yes, even here in Ottawa, Canada -- the other capital.) I think her line about Obama turning a shining city on a hill into a sinking ship was not the most appropriate metaphor. Couild the Tea Party be accused of jettisoning cargo overboard, like its namesake of the revolutionary era? Just a thought ...

Yes, We (Republi) Can!

CNN's Political Ticker (February 9, 2012) suggests that conservatives -- that is, Republicans -- face an uphill struggle to win the White House. They are not "setting the Thames on fire", not kindling enough interest to get the vote out on election day in November. They are unable to state their message in a nutshell. (CNN's Political Ticker advocates no more than three sentences, as opposed to a 20-page document.) Their message has so far been negative and anti-Obama, instead of proposing a positive vision of their own.

I commented that three sentences seemed pretty simplistic. I wondered aloud whether political ideas must necessarily be conveyed in primer English, and if Americans were not perhaps smarter that.

Yet most of the Republican presidential candidates have, to some extent, captured their campaign themes in fairly succinct slogans and rhetorical devices.

Mitt Romney says this election is a battle for the soul of America. Newt Gingrich uses opposites, like pay checks versus food stamps. Rick Santorum's slogan speaks of the courage to fight for America.

(Mind you, Santorum seems to be something of a Miss Malaprop. After his "trifecta" win in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, he declared that the race was now a "no man's land". I assume he meant that no one candidate had it all sewn up or was destined to be crowned at the convention. But "no-man's land" is a term heavy with negative connotations, referring to a kind of demilitarized zone in wartime.)

Barack Obama was no slouch himself in 2008, when his "Yes, we can!" was chanted by enthusiastic crowds of supporters. "The Audacity of Hope" isn't too shabby, either, as a mission statement. Obama was carried to the White House on a tidal wave of hopes for reform and change in Washington. Unfortunately, the hopes were far too high to be met by any mortal human being, even the President of the United States.

We've come a long way since "A chicken in every pot" and "Happy days are here again", although Ronald Reagan's "It's morning in America" came pretty damn close. (And Reagan has been nicknamed The Great Communicator. Obviously, he said something Americans wanted to hear.)

CNN"s Political Ticker is right that candidates need to stand for, and not against, someone or something. Whether they can develop a positive vision that resonates with voters is one thing. Whether they can state that vision in three sentences is entirely something else.

Intrusive Coverage: Media Meddling in the Republican Race

As a Canadian, I had two main reactions to Rick Santorum's "trifecta" in the Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota caucuses. (Here in Canada, we'd use a well-known hockey term, and say that he scored a hat trick.) In particular, I was horrified by the media's role in giving his campaign a much-needed nudge.

Are the Media Shaping the Narrative?
CNN is my information source of choice, but I must admit I have some qualms and reservations about its methods of gathering and sharing information.

CNN is obsessed with technology, pushing buttons and resizing images in a manner eerily reminiscent of Tom Cruise in Minority Report. CNN show countless pie charts, breaking the electorate down into various different segments (including religion, which would be verboten here in Canada). CNN is also fond of exit polls as a finger-in-the-wind indicator of how events will play out.

In Canada, public opinion research firms are not above "push polling", that is, asking survey questions worded to elicit a predetermined answer. I can't help wondering whether media coverage of the Republican primaries and caucuses is similarly shaping the narrative.

We've already seen the trial by public opinion of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich for their private failings and transgressions. This media moralizing had a direct impact on their respective campaigns. Cain fizzled and faded. Gingrich went into attack-dog mode and garnered public sympathy (in some quarters, at least), which probably helped him in South Carolina.

CNN was clearly spoiling for a story last night (February 7, 2012) and kept raising the specter of an upset. When the numbers came in from Missouri and Minnesota, favouring Rick Santorum, CNN couldn't wait to post the first trickle of results from Colorado, which indicated a similar win for Santorum in that state.

Figures less than 20 translated into percentages ... It was kind of pitiful to watch, actually.

Lights, Camera, Distraction!
That brings me to my second major concern about CNN's coverage. What was with the roving reporter in Colorado -- Stillwater or Castle Rock, I can't remember which -- roaming around and butting into the proceedings in the caucus room itself? I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, he would have been unceremoniously escorted from the premises, if not told outright to take a hike and get lost.

But no, this guy blithely asked those attending the caucus how they intended to vote, and looked over the shoulders of those counting the ballots. Where I come from, that's a no-no on both scores.

Both the reporter and Wolf Blitzer waxed lyrical about how this was "democracy in action". Excuse me, but I thought the secret ballot was the rule in conducting election procedures. The privacy of the voting booth and the polling station, free of political influence -- and, I might add, media meddling -- is a right hard won over the course of history.

To violate that right of privacy is, in my view, "democracy in traction". Shame on CNN for poking its nose where it doesn't belong.

The Republic(an) for Which We Stand

The primary season is well under way for the Republican Party in the United States, and the field of candidates has been whittled down to four. There are two main contenders vying for the presidential nomination, and two others still alive and kicking. It is debatable whether the two minor candidates, and even one of the two main contenders, will make it to Super Tuesday or beyond.

As a Canadian, I have no say in the matter. I cannot vote for any of these four men. That does not mean I cannot have and express an opinion -- albeit my own humble opinion -- on their respective merits and qualifications to become President of the United States of America.

My view of the Republican presidential candidates is largely shaped by what I consider pivotal moments during the campaign thus far -- moments when I felt something of their character (or lack of character) showed through in their words or deeds.

Here, then, is my admittedly personal and subjective response to what I shall waggishly dub "The Fanatic Four", with a nod and a wink to Marvel's comic-book hero quartet.

A Mitt, But No Catcher

During one of the primary debates, George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney a rhetorical question -- a trick question, perhaps, a cleverly laid trap reminiscent of the kind the Pharisees and Saducees concocted in an attempt to stump Jesus of Nazareth.

Stephanopoulos asked whether a state could hypothetically outlaw the sale and use of contraceptives. Romney danced around the question and sought to avoid giving a direct answer. He argued that it was a moot point, since no state would ever take it into its head to do such a thing. I found Romney's evasiveness somewhat disconcerting.

Moments later, Ron Paul (another of the candidates) gave a calm, reasoned, logical answer to the same question. He cited laws governing trade and commerce between states. There was absolutely no hesitation on his part, and indeed the other three seemed to defer to his superior judgment in constitutional matters.

This incident continues to underlie my misgivings about Romney -- the man who, at this stage of the game, seems likely to be crowned heir apparent to Barack Obama's "throne".

With Libertarianism and Justice for All

This brings me to Ron Paul, the candidate toward whom I feel most strongly drawn. What appeals to me about him is that he seems the best versed in law and the U.S. Constitution, although the others often cite the Constitution as the basis for their political beliefs. They talk, but he clearly knows what he is talking about.

He doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, of course. Of the four, he alone has not yet "won" a primary or caucus. I don't know how much longer he can survive.

Physically, he is unprepossessing. He is the oldest, I think, and has a somewhat nervous look to him. He is also the folksiest of the four, which may make him a nice guy, but Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces? I don't think so.

Let Him Who Is Without Sin Among You, Cast the First Ballot

Then there's Newt Gingrich. He's been the focus of a lot of negative ads. His own ex-wife has provided some of the ammunition for these attacks designed to impugn his character and personal integrity.

There is perhaps a subtle moral distinction between Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment of women, and Newt Gingrich's serial infidelity to his wives. If Cain was deemed unworthy of being President, should the same be said of Gingrich? Likewise, Cain denied up and down that he had been guilty of sexual harassment. Gingrich could not gainsay his own transgressions, but that doesn't prevent him from cloaking himself in a mantle of sanctimonious indignation.

Yet it was an electrifying moment when Gingrich chastised CNN's John King for kicking off a primary debate by mentioning the erstwhile Mrs. Gingrich's allegations. At that moment, I was almost converted to Newt's cause. Almost.

Santorum's Slip of the Tongue

That leaves Rick Santorum. I found it rather interesting that, when he quoted the most famous phrase of the Declaration of Independence, there was dead air for a second at the word "Creator". Was he temporarily unable to remember it? Was he loath to utter it in a sudden fit of secular political correctness? Something weird happened, because he got the rest of the quote right.

Someone said of Rick Santorum, "He's like a chicken running around with his head cut off. Everybody knows the chicken is dead -- except the chicken." A mean-spirited comment, perhaps, but with some semblance of truth. It is only a matter of time before Santorum is forced to bow out of the GOP race, for lack of support (both warm bodies and cold cash). He may then have the "Courage to Fight for America", but not the wherewithal.

Four, Three, Two, One

The countdown begins, as exciting as any at Cape Canaveral, and which stakes just as astronomically high. A year from now, one of these four men could be the leader of the free world, if Barack Obama proves to be a lame-duck president unable to win a second term in office.

Which choice would you (or will you) make as an American? The field may not be as attractive as you or I would like it to be, but this is what's available. This is as good as it gets.