I ain't proud.

Let's just make that clear right from the get-go. Because I'm not.

But Jesus Christ on a Cracker, I'm enjoying my current guity pleasure.

Currently, I'm in season two of The Show Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered (for fear of inspiring derisive giggles) and I defy anyone to NOT enjoy this scene.



Oh, fine. Go ahead and judge me.

Khalood Bojanowski of Washington Township, Michigan, is living in fear.

She wants the local police, at taxpayer expense, to protect her on the night of December 16, which is when she fears her words will come back to haunt her.

And it's all Ryan Seacrest's fault.

See, Bojanowski and her son, Jojo, will be featured in the premiere episode of the Seacrest-produced reality series "Momma's Boys" in which over-protective mothers "help" their sons find love. When asked about the type of woman she would -- and would not -- approve of, Bojanowski made her feelings known.

 

"I cannot have a black one," she said to the cameras. "I can't have an asian one. I can't have a fat-butt one."

More importantly, she wants her son to stay far, far away from any girls with a Jewish background. "Nooo! No Jewish  girls! No way, no way! I cannot stand them! I'm sorry, but I can't handle them. It has to be a white girl."

In a later episode, she declares, "I swear, I'm ready to kill someone!" after spying Jojo in a liplock with a black woman.

Local police claim to have gotten a call from not only the woman, who is concerned how neighbors will react to her blatant racism, but a "concerned" producer.

Of course, if the producer were that concerned, he could simply edit out the footage rather than turn it into a publicity-garnering "news" story.

And if Mrs. Bojanowski is worried about her words... well, perhaps she should have thought twice before saying them in front of a camera.

As a blogger, I put a lot of words out there into the universe... and I do so willingly, with the understanding that I am responsible for those words. Mrs. Bojanowski needs to realize that she, too, has to own up to the hateful words -- and the very real anger they might stir up -- that she opted to share, all for the sake of 15 minutes of Reality TV fame. Perhaps the words represent her genuine feelings. Perhaps she spoke them in a misguided attempt to make herself a more interesting "character" for the show.

But no matter the circumstance, she is not a victim... and should not be treated like one. Not by viewers, not by the police and not by anyone else. Instead, she needs to be treated as the owner -- proud or otherwise -- of both the words and the consequences they bring about.

 

The SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE skit practically writes itself.

After pardoning a turkey as some heads of state do at this time of year, Sarah Palin granted an interview with a reporter... while directly behind her, a less fortunate fowl met his maker. "You need a little bit of levity in this job," she says as some very unfunny business is unfolding behind her. "We'll probalby invite criticism for even doing this too, but this was fun!"




Where is this woman's support staff (or at least a friend who can follow her around and offer up little tidbits of advice like, oh, I don't know, "Um, Sarah, maybe we should move this interview away from the turkey-beheading machine.")? I would say "heads are gonna roll", but... um, at least one already did.

There's no denying that Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown is a die-hard liberal blowhard.

But I defy anyone -- go ahead, call your most conservative, Bible-thumping pals and tell them to come over here -- to give a sound, reasonable argument to what I'm about to post below. Because they are his words, from the end of his broadcast two nights ago. And they so eloquently and beautifully say what I have repeatedly, with much less success, attempted to express.

Keith, if you please:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

Good night, and good luck.

 

Afford me a moment of clarity.

According to election results from around the country, we are a nation that will turn out in droves to support the right of a woman to have an abortion -- and make no mistake, I'm 100% pro-choice -- but at the same time, we will deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Seriously?

The same country that sent a powerful message by electing an African-American man to the highest office in the land trembled in fear at the notion of two men fighting for the right to do what millions of people take for granted.

The same country that is willing to declare war on other countries and proclaim that they "fear our freedoms" is somehow terrified that two women exchanging vows will tear apart the very fiber of our society.

In newspapers and on televisions around the world, much is being made of Obama's election and the symbolic victory over hatred, fear and racism that it represents. Many African-Americans -- some of whom were convinced this day would never come -- are filled with a renewed sense of hope, as if for the first time, when they tell their children, "You can grow up to be anything you want, because this is America," it might actually be true.

And millions of Gay Americans are taking those seats in the back of the bus that their black brethren were forced to ride in for so many years. We're not exactly ready to hear talk about the healing power of this election, or how it was a reflection of how prejudice is being wiped out in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

 

You think you know people.

Then, one day, you're just kinda checking out the various websites you visit on a daily basis. Swing by Myspace, then go over to Facebook to update your status and see what your pals are doing.

And there it is.

Staring you in the face.

A friend whose Facebook status indicates they are "afraid for this country is Barack Obama wins."

Now, we're not talking about someone like Bryce or El Supremo, whom you expect to be waving their freak (read: republican) flags. But rather someone you... well, would never expect it of.

Don't get me wrong... this works both ways. I'm sure both bryce and Supremo are shocked by the stance some of the people they know and love are voting. Like, they wouldn't be surprised to find out that I'm voting for Obama, but imagine if... I don't know, Supremo found out that his girlfriend was supporting the socialist instead of the crazy old guy.

It's odd wondering "How was I so wrong in my thinking?" when you just sort of assume another person is on the same page as you and then they reveal, accidentally, as it were, that they aren't even reading the same book.

It's like finding out your mom used to be a lesbian hooker. You don't love her any less, but you can't help but wonder how you missed the signs.

"I am tolerant."

So said Sarah Palin during the vice-presidential debate a few weeks back. She spoke of supporting, to a degree, the rights of gay Americans, as long as they didn't attempt to taint the sanctity of marriage by trying to make their own unions legal. Heavens forbid anyone try and muddy the waters of Holy unions by, say, forcing their pregnant teenage daughter's boyfriend to do the right thing.

But, um, yeah, let me just say that I'm not particularly thrilled by her willingness to "tolerate" me and the millions of others who comprise the homonation.

Especially since, during her much-lauded stint as Governor of Alaska, Palin proved her willingness to "tolerate" gays by attempting to pass legislation which would overturn a ruling by that state's Supreme Court which granted employees in same-sex relationships insurance benefits.

And this week, despite McCain declaring -- or, under the circumstances, perhaps I should say claiming -- that he would not seek to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Palin told the Christian Broadcasting Network that she would fully support such a move.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman," Palin told the interviewer. "I wish on a federel level, that's where we would go."

So much for that whole "all men created equal" thing, let alone the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Apparently, there's a fairly important caveat to that which reads, "unless, of course, you happen to practice something I don't believe in."

Ironically, Palin later voiced her displeasure on another topic involving personal choice. "Faith in God in general has been mocked in this campaign," she said, although it's worth noting she cited no examples of this occuring. "And that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit."

Afford me a moment of clarity, Governor.

It breaks your heart that people are mocking your personal beliefs, which are, I might point out, protected by the Constitution. And yet you would use the highest office in the land to promote an agenda which would deny a huge portion of the populace the right to get married simply because they, to paraphrase you, "share a bed and choose to love their partner in whatever private manner that they deem fit"?

Governor, for the record, actively working to deny people something because they hold a different belief system than you is not how most people would define the word "tolerant." But never fear. There are words which you can easily slip into your stump speeches which will make your position on the matter a bit more clear.

Try "I am prejudiced."

Or maybe "I am a bigot."

But do us all a favor and stop offering to "tolerate" me. Because trust me on this, I have absolutely no interest in or intention of tolerating you.

Here, there and everywhere...

*First up, a posting I ran across on Craigslist this morning that cracked me up.

Are you the adorable Christian guy in times square today holding a sign about the end times are near and god hates fags? You have a great smile! That was a big sign and your arms were really bulging. You kinda had a Jesus look going on, which is freakin hot and just a bit creepy. we looked right at each other but i couldn't tell if that was lust or zeal in your eyes...

* My new favorite show? LIFE ON MARS. If you're not groovin' to this time-tripping cop show, I understand... or did until I tuned in. Aside from Law & Order, I've never really been a big fan of dramas that work the police beat. But man, this show has everything (including fantastic performances from Harvey Keitel and my new crush, Jason O'Mara).

*"A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." So says Warren Buffet, who is buying stocks left and right, of the current economy. That philosophy hasn't exactly hurt the guy...

* Anyone else find themselves more interested in watching old shows -- whether via Netflix or on Hulu.com, etc -- than the ones the networks are currently airing? Among the things I'm currently watching on the computer screen as opposed to TV: Upstairs, Downstairs (season four), One Tree Hill (season one), The Edge Of Night (circa 1981, via aolvideo.com), Babylon 5 (season two)...

*This week on All My Children, a tornado hits Pine Valley and the show has spent a lot of time and effort doing some special effects/CGI work that is pretty impressive given the restraints put upon the industry. But here's my question to soap fans: Do stunts work? Are you drawn into a show when it does things like a tornado, the Metro-Court Hostage Crisis (GH), the Clear Springs building collapse (Y&R). If you're a lapsed viewer, does this work in getting you to tune back in? If you're not normally a viewer of a show (maybe you watch another soap) but learn about some big event, do you switch over to see it?

* President Bush is going to make another of his "buck up, America! We can get through this!" speeches today. What I really wish he'd say is the truth: "Look, things are going to be bad for a while. The stock market is going to be wilder than any roller coaster ever built, and it's not going to right itself for a while. But the worst thing you can do is panic."

* ABC just announced that they've cancelled the game show Opportunity Knocks. Now, I'm not saying that was a great offering, but do we really need another hour of Dancing With The Stars? Because that's what they're replacing it with. A "recap" show which will precede the results show (which is, in and of itself, a glorified recap show).

*With Halloween coming, it's time to break out the scary movies. Any good suggestions for something OMC and I need to see? Keep in mind, we've seen (and hated) most of the "major" fright flicks and tend to like older stuff that is more creepy (or even campy) than gory. Among our recent faves: Behind The Mask (which is truly a modern horror masterpiece), the remake of Black Christmas (which was SO much better than the reviews would have led you to believe), the mocumentary Zombie Nation (think Blair Witch meets The Office), The Ruins, The House That Dripped Blood...

*I'm so pissed that David Letterman softballed it with McCain last night, allowing the guy to go on and on with the same stuff he's said time and again but not taking advantage of the chance to ask him to actually answer some of the tough questions. Yes, Letterman scored a good moment with the Liddy/Ayers comparison, but too often, he let McCain slide. Frankly, I want someone to sit down both McCain and Obama and ask them the hard questions... and actually get answers. Stop them when they start bashing their opponent or simply relying on buzzwords. Get actual answers. It's insane that the American people have to go into this election with both candidates evading more questions than they have actually answered.

 

Sometimes, all it takes is a voice of reason crying out in the night to shine light upon the darkness and open our eyes.

Children, I have finally seen the light where Barack Obama is concerned, and it's all thanks to a woman who speaks for her people.

Ladies and gentlemen, introduce my new political sensei and allow your eyes to be opened.

 

Someone tell me again why you don't have to take a basic IQ test in order to be allowed into the voting booth?

Folks, we've got trouble.

Right here in River City.

Trouble with a "T" and that rhymes with "P" and it stands for politics.

Last night's debate was, for me, the last straw.

I'm tired of seeing the two men who each want to run this country pointing fingers at one another and saying "He's to blame."

I'm tired of the lies. And let's face it, kids, when both of them are standing there claiming "What he just said is wrong, here's the real truth"... well, they may not be out-and-out lying, but they might just as well be. All they do is muddy the waters.

Hey, here's an idea: Debates should be about the issues and nothing else. In fact, I'd like to suggest a new rule: During debates, neither candidate can talk about what their opponent stands for. They can't talk about the other guy's voting record, stances, policies, beliefs or gaffes. They can only address their own stances, policies, beliefs and gaffes.

A predetermined list of buzzwords will also be forbidden. No "my friends" or "maverick" or "four more years of the same" allowed.

To enforce this, each time a buzzword is uttered, the offending candidate automatically loses an electoral college vote from an all-important swing state.

Maybe that would keep things on point.