Thursday, February 11, 2016

The Most Important Issue of the 2016 Election


Dearest readers,

I'm not one to rant.1 Nor am I one who thrives on political controversy.2 But the recent negative tone of the Democratic Primary process in this country and the infighting between the good supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Colonel Sanders3 has caused me to come out of semi-blogtirement4 to make the following appeal to all the good folks on both sides of my side of the aisle:


Shut up! Broad City is back next Wednesday!!! That is literally5 all that matters.




1 that's a lie
2 also a lie
3 wait...Bernie's not the dude who came up with KFC? Lame.
4 not a thing
5 yes, I know what literally means. See statement above, beginning with "Shut up!"

Thursday, July 26, 2012

A couple thoughts on Boston, Philly, Chick-Fil-A and freedom

I need to say something...but before I start, take a step or two away from the torches and pitchforks. Maybe set 'em down a bit out of reach and pull up your favorite chair. Comfy? Good. This may not be pretty or popular, but let me get it off my chest then feel free to tell me I'm crazy or stupid or wrong. 

I'm concerned about the whole Philly/Boston Chick-Fil-A thing. Please don't get me wrong here, I'm as outraged by Dan Cathey's statements and Chick-Fil-A's political contributions as anyone. I'm just not sure I feel comfortable about government (state/local/whatever) stepping in to curtail some asshole's free speech. Yes, we should not support businesses that promote things we believe are wrong. Yes, we should be vocal in our disapproval of things we find reprehensible. And it could even be argued that the state has an interest in controlling what types of organizations can set up shop near public parks and landmarks, as is being done in Boston. But it really makes me uncomfortable when we start thinking it's okay for the state to jump in and denounce someone for their beliefs, reprehensible as those beliefs may be. It seems to me that the state has an obligation to ensure that the assholes have the freedom to be vocal...otherwise how can the state legitimately ensure that you and I have the freedom to be vocal and drown them out?

One more thought: how is the Philadelphia city council's public posturing against Chick-Fil-A any different than the 33 ineffectual "repeal Obamacare" public posturing votes in the US House of Representatives? Both are "message" votes that have no real legal implications other than to pander to a segment of the constituency. And both take valuable time away from the business of governing. Worse, one implies a state sanctioned curtailing of someone's free speech rights--to what effect? It seems to me it does nothing but give the bigots legitimate ammunition. Those spewing hate and homophobia tend to naturally undermine their cause with their closed-minded rhetoric. But when the state steps in to curtail their right to freedom of expression, suddenly they have a legitimate complaint.

No, I don't think this fight is one that's appropriate for our government to take up for us. I think this is one issue we need to handle ourselves. Gays and lesbians are being denied basic human rights and we can't win the argument by denying the opposition their basic rights. So let's be vocal and battle bigotry with truth and integrity and respect for EVERYONE's basic human rights.. The momentum is on our side anyway.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Mike Tyson, a cautionary tale

In an interview on The Today Show, Mike Tyson makes perhaps the most compelling case ever for becoming a Vegan:

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Vegan Mike Tyson
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

The moral of the story: Become a Vegan or you'll probably end up like Mike.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

S.S.D.D.

This editorial cartoon is nearly two years old.  The Ryan Budget 2.0 decimates medical and other programs for the poor and elderly, slashes grants and other forms of subsidies for students, AND cuts already historically low taxes for the wealthiest among us.  The Republicans refuse to even discuss corporate tax loopholes and multi-billion dollar government subsidies of the oil companies, which are currently charging absurdly high gas prices and reaping astronomical prices.  We're being screwed at the pump, screwed by the tax code...and your Republican congressman would rather waste time restricting access to contraception in this country rather than even entertaining a discussion making things more fair. 

How is it that the middle class isn't rioting in the streets?  Are we really that complacent/blind/stupid? Apparently so. Sigh...same shit (ahem) story, different day.


Tuesday, October 5, 2010

My dad

It's not father's day.  It's not his birthday.  Today is a random Tuesday and I feel like I need to take a moment to say what an amazing man my father is.

We don't agree on all the issues, but especially in the past 15 years or so, my dad has opened a line of communication that allows me to be completely honest with him.  No fear of judgment or reprisal, just an understanding that regardless of how wacky (or offensive) my positions are, he loves me without reservation.

I am truly blessed.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

I'm a slacker

Not September, 2010

Dear Loyal Readers:

How did I miss blogging in January, June, and September?  Clearly nothing important happened any of those months.  But I'm back-dating this post at least to cover September.

Love,
Brandon

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

A note to my conservative family - please read

Hey folks...I know you don't like it when I talk politics. I know you're not big fans of our President. I know you tend to support the Republicans that Utah has sent to congress. But this isn't me trying to pick a fight, it's just a comment on a very eye-opening event that happened this past week.  So even if it's just this once, please hear me out.

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a bill sending $26.1 billion in assistance to the states. The bill passed the Senate last week, and once the House passed it, it was a matter of hours before the President signed it into law. This funding is specifically for two things: to extend additional Medicaid assistance to states and to help states create and retain teachers’ jobs. According to one estimate, in the state of Utah alone this assistance is keeping 1,800 teachers employed.

You might ask, in this economy how can the country afford to pay for it?  What did Congress do to make this "budget neutral" as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office certified that it was? This bill is paid for in part by closing a tax loophole that benefited multinational companies. In other words, we're saving the jobs of our teachers by not paying companies to ship jobs to other countries. Sounds responsible, right? Sounds like a win/win situation, right?

It is. And every one of our Republican congressmen from Utah voted against it. The congressional Republicans called this a "bailout" of "special interest groups" by "raising taxes." I suppose this is technically true. But you know which "special interest groups" are being "bailed out?" Your mother (a school teacher.)  Your children. Your grandparents. Anyone with a child in school, anyone who teaches, anyone who relies on government medicaid subsidies for their health care.

Utah Congressional Scorecard:
Sen Orrin Hatch (R) - voted no
Sen Robert Bennett (R) - voted no
Rep Rob Bishop (R) - voted no
Rep Jason Chaffetz (R) - voted no
Rep Jim Matheson (D) - voted yes

The Republican position on this legislation is completely indefensible. There is no responsible moral reason to vote against retaining teacher's jobs by fairly taxing companies who choose to stimulate foreign economies over our own. None whatsoever. The only reason for voting no is a political one - Republicans don't want Democrats to "score a victory" in an election year. Our representatives in congress are playing a despicable political game with our teachers' jobs and your children's education. Period.

I'm disgusted and you should be too.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

A little population data

Accurate gay population statistics are difficult to come by.  In his 1948 study, Alfred Kinsey estimated that around 10% of the male population is gay.  Other more recent studies have put the number between 2 and 5%. In 2006, The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy estimated that there were about 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in the United States.

Gary J. Gates, a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute said, "That's the single question that I'm asked the most. The answer is unfortunately not simple. I'll respond with a question. What do you mean when you use the word 'gay'? If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it's likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure."  (link)


According to the LDS Church's website, there are currently 6,058,907 church members in the United States.  The most recent (2009) estimates from the US Census Bureau put the population of the United States at 307,006,550.  That means in the United States, Mormons account for a little under 2% of the population.  1.97%, to be exact-ish.

It's probably reasonable to use the Williams Institute's 2006 estimates.  So assuming that every one of the 6,058,907 LDS Church members is active in the church, the gays in 2006 outnumber the Mormons today by about 2,741,903.  Or in other terms, if you take the church population today and add 45%, you have the number of gays in the US in 2006.  For every 15 Momos there are 22 Homos...and that's not even considering the potential overlap!  If the 4% statistic holds true, there are nearly 250,000 gay Mormons.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make with this information, but with all the recent bitching about the court overturning the "will of the majority" it might be nice for our LDS brothers and sisters to remember that they're a much smaller minority than the gays. 

More thoughts on religious freedom and Prop 8

Okay, these may not be more thoughts...if you follow my blog with any regularity, they're probably just regurgitated thoughts you've already read.

Yesterday, Judge Vaughn Walker declared California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional - meaning that according to his ruling, the 2008 California State constitutional amendment defining marriage as "between one man and one woman" is a violation of the US Constitution.  Of course, this sets up an appeal that'll likely make its way to the US Supreme Court.

Upon reflection I have to wonder what all the fuss is about.  I know why the gays and their fair-minded supporters are all riled up, I mean what's all the fuss from the opponents of same-sex marriage?  Don't they realize that only somewhere between 2 and 5% of the population actually identifies as gay.  Kinsey said as much as 10%, but more recent studies put the number of actual honest-to-goodness homos at 2 to 5%.  Assuming that even half of them decide to get married, that's only 1 to 2.5% of the population that will get married.  It's a teeny, tiny percentage of the marriages that would be performed in the US that people would object to.  Completely statistically insignificant...unless you're gay.  As for disapproval, I'm guessing there's more disapproval from all the over-protective mothers who don't want their dear (straight) child marrying "that awful man/woman who is all wrong for you."  Maybe the "protect marriage" people should band together with the over-protective mothers of the nation to deal with the "all wrong for you" marriage issue.  I'm guessing the numbers suggest it's a much bigger problem.

The big argument against same-sex marriage is a fractured religious one.  If you get on the anti-equality websites, you'll see a litany of reasons, most laughably debunked in Judge Walker's ruling...which is an excellent read.  The "scientific" arguments are easily refuted.  Once all the dust clears, the only argument that remains is "Gay marriage is wrong because God says so."  And that's an argument that doesn't hold up in a country that values freedom of religion.  Just because you believe god says something that doesn't give you the right to impose that on other religious people who believe god disagrees.  Look at religion's track record of imposing dogma on other people.  Many of the bloodiest events in mankind's history have been in the name of religion.  But I digress.

Back to the subject at hand, the way I see it, in this country marriage is as much a civil (state) institution as it is a religious one.  If marriage is a state-sanctioned civil institution, then the government has no business discriminating against any pair of committed consenting adults.  If marriage is a religious institution (the whole reason the LDS Church claims it has authority to get involved) then state sanction of one religious practice over another is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.  Yeah, some people argue that "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution and that religion shouldn't be forbidden from getting involved in politics...that the principle of that separation is that the government shouldn't interfere with religious practice.  But that's a totally separate issue.  The problem here isn't one of governmental involvement in religion, it's one of religious influence on the state.  Once you start codifying your religious principles, your religion starts to become the "state" religion.  A country that favors one religious expression at the expense of another is a country where freedom of religion doesn't exist.  I value my freedom of speech and religious expression so much that I must allow you that same freedom.  Likewise, the minute you start curtailing my religious expression, yours is in jeopardy.  And if organization should be concerned about the potential ramifications of the establishment of state religion, it's the LDS Church.

Here's a thought: Joseph Smith advocated the teaching of "correct principles" and then allowing people to "govern themselves."  The LDS Church, in its 11th Article of Faith "Claim[s] the privilege of worshiping...according to the dictates of [its] own conscience," but then extends that privilege to people of other faiths (or lack thereof): "let them worship how, where, or what they may."  Tobacco is legal yet the LDS Church calls it a sin.  Alcohol, gambling, sabbath breaking, extramarital sex...all of these are legal and the LDS Church calls them a sin.  How do parents and church leaders deal with legal sin?  They teach.  Teach their version of "correct principles."  As long as this country is one that values religious liberty and is free of established state religion, the LDS Church can teach that booze and cigarettes and Sunday shopping are sins, while the people who subscribe to faiths that believe differently can smoke all the way from the church to the restaurant where their church group is having mimosas with their post-service Sunday brunch.  No law is required here.  And the LDS Church doesn't have to change their doctrine to facilitate legal expression of the dictates of another person's own conscience.

The same should be true of same-sex marriage.  Just like the LDS Church isn't required to perform "traditional" marriages in its temples for people the church deems "unworthy," as long as religious liberty exists in this country the LDS Church will never be curtailed from this form of worship "according to the dictates of [its] own conscience."  LDS Bishops, like Catholic Priests and clergy of all faiths, are currently able refuse to marry couples they're uncomfortable marrying.  How will this change when consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are free to marry according to the dictates of their own conscience?  It won't change at all.

So here's the scoop: Unless you're gay, gay marriage is no big friggin' deal!  In other words, to 95% or more of the population it shouldn't be a big deal.  You don't like smoking so you don't smoke. Don't like gay marriage?  Don't get gay married.  Teach your children to be homophobes and pray with all your hearts out that none of them turn out to be gay.  (Suicide is rampant among gay teens from intolerant homes and one in three homeless teens is gay.)  So worship how you will, teach your children how you want, marry as you please...but allow everyone that same privilege.  The big friggin' deal here isn't your definition of marriage...it's your religious freedom.  There are a lot of well-meaning Christians out there who are pretty intolerant of Mormons, and the minute we set a precedent for codifying one religious practice in favor of another, guess who they're coming for next.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Touched

I have long been a fan of Jeff Blumenkrantz.  Jeff is an obscenely talented musical theatre composer and actor.   A couple of years ago, he published a songbook and then invited a parade of big-name Broadway stars (his buddies) to sing the songs on a podcast.  Then, once he had run through the twenty songs in his songbook, he started periodically recording other songs of his.  Last weekend, he released yet another.

This morning I noticed the new podcast on my iPod and immediately dropped everything to listen.  I hope you will do the same.  This gorgeous song is a prime example of a master songwriter at the top of his craft.  And I dare you not to be moved.  Or should I say "Touched."

The Jeff Blumenkrantz Songbook Podcast: Special episode 9 - "Touched"

I'm gonna do my best not to gush.  Suffice it to say, Jeff's work is some of the most affecting musical theatre writing I know.  His songs range from sublimely hilarious to profoundly moving.  On the podcast, you'll hear Carolee Carmello frantically beg for help in overcoming her laziness so she can finish writing "My Book."  You'll experience Megan Mullally's heart wrenching "Lament" as a mother breaks the news to her young children of their father's passing.  Add to that Celia Keenan Bolger as the lovesick toll worker pining for the man in the beanie in the blue Chevrolet; Judy Blazer as the pragmatic grandchild-hungry mother of a gay son; Victoria Clark as a childless aunt filling her life with her siblings' children; and the incomparable Sally Mayes reprising her showstopping number from Urban Cowboy...among MANY others.  Many, many others.  Seriously, this is just off the top of my head.  In two minutes I'll be kicking myself for leaving out a dozen songs.

Jeff Blumenkrantz is a composer you NEED to know.  At least his music.  Go to http://www.jeffblumenkrantz.com/ and check it out.  On his site you'll find links to all his podcasts, information about how to buy (yes, own a LEGAL copy of) his music, and even a delightful romp through the Martha Stewart Cookbook!

Do yourself a favor and spend some time on  his website.  Then go buy his music.




Why are you still here?  Go!