Pass the Bill. Now.

This morning congressional Democrats are talking about killing their year-in-the-making health care bill because Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts. This would be the stupidest thing they have ever done.

Well, maybe not as stupid as spending months talking to Mike Enzi about health care reform. Or dithering until history could call Olympia Snowe. (I guess that was actually a wrong number.)

But it will be stupid nonetheless. A year ago, a generation watched as the president we elected pledged to change the nation. He brought with him sweeping majorities in both houses and a mandate to fix things. A year later, an entire generation is being told that our votes matter less than those of a few cranky Red Sox fans. The Senate health care reform is not perfect--far from it. But it represents a vast improvement over the status quo, and the willingness of Democrats to scuttle it over a single election--to give up Ted Kennedy's dream, essentially, because Ted died!--is shameful. If we cannot face down a few foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans, why should the American people trust us to face down tougher challenges?

Pass the bill. Do it today. Do it proudly, with heads held high, knowing you are on the right side of history. Campaign that way, never apologizing, praising the merits of the bill, reminding people of all the good it contains and all the problems it will fix. THAT is how you win elections. And even if we still lose in 2010...at least Dems will have done something with the mandate given in 2008. Something lasting. Something real. Something for the history books. Anything else will be a disappointment that a generation, ready and willing to be Democrats for life if only the party earns that loyalty, will not soon forget.

Unfit to Lead

Obama's new ad sums it up:

Congratulations!

Report: DeGeneres, de Rossi plan to marry - Celebrities- msnbc.com

Ellen may not have had any direct hand in yesterday's ruling, but her bravery a decade ago certainly helped kick off the sea change in attitudes about gay relationships we've seen since.

I hope she throws the wedding of the year. She deserves it, and seeing it will help a lot of people understand why gay marriage matters.

Tears of Joy

Gay marriage ban overturned in Calif. - msnbc.com

Funny how this doesn't seem quite as revolutionary as Massachusetts, and yet...it means just as much , maybe more.

And good news: "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."

Wow.

Putting a Hole in the Floor

Concerns over Economy Push George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval to New Low

According to this poll, his approval rating is 19%.

That's right. 19.

The previous low in this poll is 25; last month he was at 34. Can Americans really be getting smarter THIS quickly?

Gore on Gays

Remind me, again: Why is this man not president?

Drifting

Amazon.com: Homedics QRM-400H Therapist Select Quad-Roller Massaging Cushion with Heat: Health & Personal Care

When I got invited to the Amazon Vine program a few months ago, I imagined I would get a jump on all the exciting new books publishers wanted to get into the national consciousness ahead of their release dates. And the first month, that's what happened; the three books I reviewed are all coming out this month and it's been amusing to see interviews with the authors about a book that I, unlike almost anyone else, have already read.

But the second month in I didn't get any books, instead grabbing a British miniseries, an Australian band's third album, and clinical strength deodorant. (I've spared faithful blog readers my review of this last one; I doubt reading about me sweating does anything for anyone.)

And now things are completely off the rails. Amazon has limited Vine reviewers to a single item this month after being bombarded with complaints from people who were invited into the program but didn't get to review anything the first two months because most items ran out. (Obviously, I was part of the problem!) So, while I might have taken a book or two if I had multiple selections, given a single pick I chose the item linked above, a $150 massage cushion. (And grabbed it just in time; the supply ran out about four minutes after the new items became available for the month.) Perhaps this is for the best; I'm still plugging away at Doris Kearns Goodwin's doorstop about the Roosevelts during World War II and I start an intense seven-week course in less than two weeks.

In any case, I expected this program to expand my reading horizons. So far I've read three books I would have gotten around to anyway. But I don't think I'd ever have watched The Amazing Mrs Pritchard or listened to Augie March without Amazon Vine. And I'd probably never have bought myself the massager. Now I'm getting one for free! The quest for Amazon's top 1000 may be a bust (that link leads to the day I hit 2,990, and two years later I'm at 3,256), but something good has come of my obsession.

Craig, Continued

I'm not usually given to posting YouTube videos, but this one from SNL, mocking Larry Craig's decision to stay in the Senate after promising to resign, is a bit too funny to ignore.

You can visit my YouTube account (I know, I feel like I'm twelve saying that) to find this video along with several related to the continuing Luke/Noah drama on As the World Turns in my favorites.

British Political Fantasy

The Amazing Mrs Pritchard

This six-hour BBC miniseries tells the story of a grocery store manager who decides, after watching two candidates for Parliament engage in fisticuffs outside her store, that she could do a better job. As luck would have it, a TV camera catches her saying so, and soon she finds herself in the middle of a whirlwind political movement. She inspires other women to run for office, and many defect from their political parties to join her. Come election day, her party wins—and she becomes prime minister. (Forgive me—I’ve just told you how the first hour ends.)

But all is not so simple for Ros Pritchard, the titular star of the show (played with aplomb by Jane Horrocks). Her husband does not support her choice and urges her to refuse the job, fearful that his own secrets will come to light if she takes office. And within hours of her election, she faces the first of several crises that demonstrate to her that being a world leader is tougher than it looked on TV.

Ros rises to the challenge, though, and for four of its six hours this miniseries is a delightful fantasy about how the world would be if “the great British people” got behind a leader with common-sense ideas and a desire to effect real change. Supporting players generate much of the interest, with no one’s story more compelling and intriguing than that of Catherine Walker, a former Tory and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Catherine is the voice of wisdom and experience that Ros desperately needs, but as portrayed by the stellar Janet McTeer she is a woman with regrets that need working out, as well. Watching her work through her own issues while keeping the country running is a gripping experience.

I limit myself to four of five stars because the final hour of the series goes a bit off the rails. Without giving anything away, all I dare say is that the two days depicted in the last hour proceed as if the responsibilities of government have been temporarily suspended. And Americans, used to our tidy endings, probably won’t love the way the series concludes; the text at the end, which British audiences evidently did not see when the program aired on the BBC, seems to wrap things up in a bow but actually makes the conclusion less believable.

Despite that, this is a fine series that anyone with an interest in politics will heartily enjoy. Bonus points if you’re an Anglophile!

This review has been posted on Amazon.com. The Amazing Mrs Pritchard will be released October 30 and was provided for review early as part of Amazon's Vine program.

Big Gay Deal

YouTube - LukeVanFan

YouTube is good for many things. It taught me that Ricky Gervais is the funniest man alive, allows me to rewatch the last minutes of Six Feet Under (and cry, again) whenever I want, and made at least one of the 47 Democratic debates this year interesting.

But this week I have discovered its ultimate use. The link above leads to the video collection created by LukeVanFan, who has been painstakingly cataloging the evolving Luke/Noah storyline that's been unfolding on As the World Turns. Last Friday, that storyline took a brave leap forward, as out Luke was kissed by ostensibly straight Noah. The first gay kiss on daytime TV!

In bygone days, I'd either have to settle for reading about all of this or add another CBS soap to our DVR's task list--and I don't know if the poor thing can handle another frothy hour. But now, in the time it would have taken me to fast-forward through all the commercials and other plotlines on ATWT, I can keep up with Luke and Noah by watching their every word, their every awkward silence. Thank you, LukeVanFan!

Seeing Double

Los Angeles Times: Top of the Ticket: Politics, coast to coast, with the L.A. Times

I know I just said I didn't need to comment on politics anymore, but I do have my niche, and this falls into it:

It is a perennial complaint, heard election after election: Too many Americans don't vote. But based on a massive new survey, one segment of the population surely must be excluded from this rebuke --- gays.

The study this spring by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. found that an eye-popping 92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%.

By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate put the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006.

I can't imagine better news. But this must make the Republicans crazy. "No wonder we lost in 2006," they should be thinking. "We spent a decade demonizing people who vote at twice the rate of most people." Of course, they're not thinking that. But until they do, I'm sure I'm not the only gay man committed to maintaining our stratospheric rate of democratic (and Democratic) participation.

Four More Years

While I was flying home from New York on Sunday, this blog turned four. As the "Blogiversary" appointment on my calendar popped up that morning before I shut down my laptop for my trip home, I wondered: Do I still have something to say?

I do, of course, though I find myself less inclined to write about each upheaval in the political world. I didn't even write last week about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis--and I took that bridge to and from work every day for two years.

Two interesting things happened in the last two days. The first was my tryout for Jeopardy. I went downtown yesterday and joined 22 other people who had passed an online contestant test earlier this year in taking another test, playing a mock game, and being interviewed by the contestant-finding team. They didn't give any indication of who had done well or poorly, but I felt good walking out. At some point in the next 18-24 months, my phone may ring, and it may be Jeopardy calling to invite me to appear on the show. Anyone who knows how nervous I am by nature can imagine how I will be reacting to a ringing phone from now on...

The other interesting thing, which has more to do with the blog, is that I was invited this morning into Amazon's Vine program, which is starting soon. The program has a lengthy description, but it boils down to this sentence from my invitation: "As a member of this exclusive community, you will have free access to pre-release and new products, as well as the opportunity to be among the very first to review them."

I'm also allowed--encouraged, in fact--to post these early reviews on my blog. So, expect to see more reviews of new books, movies, and music in the future, and less political commentary. (I think you've figured it out by now, right? Gay marriage? Yes. Stay in Iraq forever? No. Democrats? Good, mostly. Republicans? Bad, mostly. Religious Right? Bane of my existence.) And, of course, you'll still see discussion of the plethora of TV shows I'll be watching again come fall. Though the jury is still out on watching the next season of Idol come January...

Nailed

Why Bush Is A Loser - washingtonpost.com

Has there ever been a better headline?

In the piece above, David Corn goes after Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and head cheerleader for George W. Bush, for a piece in the Post suggesting that Bush's presidency will be viewed as a success. It's a quick summary of everything that has gone wrong these last six and a half years, followed by this slip of the knife:

The Bush-Cheney years have been marked by ineptitude, miscalculation, and scandal. A successful presidency? Bush will be lucky if he gets a public elementary school in his adopted hometown of Crawford, Tex., named after him. He has placed this country in a hole. Yet Kristol, with shovel in hand, points to that hole and says, Trust me -- we're about to strike oil!

The time of the crazies like Kristol is coming to an end. And even with all the harm they've done, isn't it fun to watch in their death spiral?

Health Care, Gay Marriage--and War?

New Poll Finds That Young Americans Are Leaning Left - New York Times

I'm a bit confused by this poll on the attitudes of people my age. Apparently, Americans ages 17-29 are "more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion."

What? So young Americans can read the writing on the wall regarding the failure of private health insurance, are fair-minded enough to allow gay marriage, and feel more charitable than I do about letting people into the country (although the pollsters didn't ask about illegal immigrants, because the NYT apparently pretends, as a habit, that this distinction makes no difference). And yet young people think the war is going well? This revelation made me curious about the actual numbers behind the article assertions, so I dug a little deeper.

And the data buried beneath this supposedly meaningful story aren't as pretty as the headline. On gay issues, for instance, the left-leaning young are surprisingly illiberal. More youngsters believe being gay is a choice--43% to 34%--and 70% of them think that most people they know wouldn't vote for a gay or lesbian for president. (74% think the folks they know wouldn't vote for someone who has used cocaine--maybe they haven't heard of Barack Obama, not to mention our current president.)

Results like these make me glad to be aging out of the constraints of the survey soon. Sadly, the people whose opinions are reflected by this survey are the same people I'll be working with and living around for the rest of my life.

Think of the Children

Scholars urge Bush to ban use of torture - Politics - MSNBC.com

This story makes me smile:

President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

Imagine that. In their moment of triumph--being honored for their achievements by the man who holds the office that makes him the most powerful person in the world--these students had the wherewithal--and the chutzpah!--to present him with a letter that contained these words:

We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants.

America's adults appear not to care that Bush and Cheney have thrown our moral high ground out the window. Heartening to know at least a few of our children don't feel the same.

Wrong Issue

During last week's Republican debate, Wolf Blitzer asked any GOPer on the stage to speak up if he supported changing the military's don't ask, don't tell policy to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. His invitation was left unopened; nary a Republican, even Ron Paul, spoke up. Meanwhile, every Democrat, when offered the same invite, raised a hand to indicate that he or she favored a change.

It's nice to know who our "friends" are, I suppose, and who would prefer that we be shot down for holding hands in public in America rather than defending our country in uniform somewhere else. But I have to ask: Why is this the issue on which Democrats have decided to unite in our favor?

I know, I know--the ability to serve in the country's military is a cherished opportunity to serve. But shouldn't the nation deserve our defense before we rise to provide it? It's all well and good that Democrats have finally decided that a gay man or lesbian is fit to defend the country. But why should we decide to do so?

They've put things in the wrong order. The first step to first-class citizenship isn't being offered the chance to take a bullet for the team. It's being made an equal member of the team, one who can't be fired from a job, military or civilian, simply for being gay. It's being offered the same rights and privileges as other Americans, including the right to form a lasting relationship that the government will recognize. It's knowing that if you leave a partner behind when you serve, he or she will receive the same benefits as anyone else's left-behind spouse, both while you're overseas and in the unfortunate event of your death. Until these basic rights are guaranteed, I don't care whether we're asking or telling: I am telling you, I am not going. And neither should other gays and lesbians. When a Democrat brings forward serious legislation to end don't ask, don't tell, he or she should, at the very least, include:

• a repeal of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that forbids the federal government to recognize gay marriages, along with a requirement that it recognize any marriage or marriage-like institution into which states allow their citizens to enter, and apply that recognition to the tax system, Social Security, etc.;
• the full provisions of the employment non-discrimination act, with protections for housing as well;
• hate-crime language that makes gays and lesbians a protected class along with racial minorities;
• and language that would create parity between the immigration law for same and opposite sex couples.

Is this so much to ask before we serve the country?

Out, Out

‘Grey’s’ says so long to Isaiah Washington - Television - MSNBC.com

It's a bad day to be a homophobe! First Isaiah Washington loses his job on Grey's Anatomy, and while he may be "mad as hell," I'm pleasantly surprised. Combined with T.R. Knight's pay raise this week, Grey's has sent a very positive message.

And just now it's being announced that Peter Pace, who compared being gay to committing adultery, is losing his job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The reason given was that after six years as chair or vice-chair, Pace's re-confirmation hearings would have been contentious and focused on the past, and I'm sure that's true. But still, to see him go so soon after his buffoonish comments is pleasing.

What gay-bashing prominent figure will be next?

Oprah's On

Last night I did something I haven't done since college. I watched Oprah.

I had recorded the show to see Cormac McCarthy talk about The Road, but as luck would have it Michael Moore was also on the show, and I got to see several clips of Sicko. I'm paid not to like insurance companies very much, but Moore's argument that there is no place for a profit motive in health care should prove compelling to a lot of people.

Oprah's interview with McCarthy, however, wasn't very compelling. In fact, I was surprised to discover that for all her cultural primacy, Oprah isn't especially good at what she does. Her speech included several bizarre accents, as if she were reading from a teleprompter and didn't know the words she was reading. And the interview itself was quite odd. When McCarthy told Oprah that he hadn't minded being dirt poor for part of his life, and that he didn't care much how well his books sold, the billionaire striver in her seemed not to know what to do.

She also didn't really get into the book at all. I understand that she can't assume everyone watching has read it, but other than getting McCarthy to recollect a moment years ago that provided the impetus for his writing, Oprah pretty much left the book itself alone. She touched on a few themes, sure, but I would have liked to see McCarthy talk more about the levels on which it can be read. He also might have pushed her off the ledge of specificity; my reading of the book was that much of what went before and all of what comes after it are meant to be somewhat opaque. I am sure, though, that the movie version, already in the works, will insert all manner of detail and thus get the mood of the thing completely wrong.

In any case, despite her flaws as an interviewer I have to give Oprah credit. She may not be the best at discussing books, but she often makes bang-up choices. Her next pick, Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides, is one of my top ten books of the new millennium (along with The Corrections, another Oprah pick). If you haven't read it, now's the time!

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

In this exquisitely written and often hilarious book, Hitchens provides comfort to those of us who have parted ways with the comforting lie of religion. To lose one's faith is a difficult thing, as Hitchens, who recalls in the book his former faith in an ideology he no longer espouses and the occasional pangs he feels having left it, knows. But it is, on balance, far better to face the truth.

In this case, that truth is that the religions of the West are based on rantings of desert dwellers thousands of years ago, in what Hitchens convincingly labels and explains as the childhood of our species. The major religions have twisted and turned to fit new discoveries into their antiquated prisms for viewing the world, but over the course of 280 pages Hitchens argues that we know enough today to know that we can view the world without such prisms. We can see it for what it is. Indeed, our survival may depend on being willing and able to apply reason, rather than faith, to our interactions with one another and with our planet.

Hitchens has shown himself to be capable of churning out a book a year and to write on almost any topic with wit and precision. But I, for one, hope that he takes up the topic of this book as his cause from now on. The U.S., especially, needs to have a debate about the role of religion in our political system. Hitchens provides those of us who would speak against mingling church and state with a stockpile of weapons to use in making our argument. But so much the better if he carries on making it himself!

In sum: An excellent, entertaining read. It may not convert the faithful, but those on the fence will find much to think about and those already with Hitchens will enjoy the way he makes his case.

This review also appears on Amazon.com.

Last Lileks

Daily Quirk: See you in the funny papers ...

Even if you've never lived in Minnesota, as I did for two years earlier this decade, it seems like a lot of people have heard of or read James Lileks. I've been reading his column pretty faithfully for more than six years now, since before I decided to move to the Twin Cities, and I can remember quite distinctly the feeling of skipping to the Star-Tribune's metro section to see if it was one of his days. I also loved to read Kim Ode and Al Sicherman while eating my breakfast. And now all three of them are gone, one voluntarily moving to new things, another retiring from the game altogether, and the third, Lileks, unceremoniously bounced from column duty to straight news in what Dave Barry called the equivalent of the Miami Heat pulling Dwyane off the basketball court so he can keep stats on the sideline.

Those in the know may realize the irony in me being sad for Lileks, whose happy-talk column in the Strib was the friendly face of a man whose online work and Newhouse columns often stood for things to which I am opposed. And I suppose if this demotion of his makes the happy warrior's outlook a bit bleaker, and thus he becomes less funny, and thus his message is less appealing, well, that's one for "our side." But I'm sorry to see him go out like this.