http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iCTYwnhjA

When Your War Has Been Won. Music and Lyrics by Steve Braun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFm1R2UUm-M

Dear Friends,

There's no way to say this without sounding crazy so I'll just get it
out: on October 24, 2008 my friend Nick Spano and I are walking from
Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Almost 300 miles through the desert. What's
more, we're going to try to do it in six days arriving at Las Vegas
Blvd five or so days before the presidential election. I suppose the
next obvious question is "why on earth would I want to do that?" At
this point let me stress that this was Nick's idea. He's crazier than
I am. But for me, this walk represents the final chapter of my involvement in
Barack Obama's campaign for president. The electoral map suggests
that California is all but won for the Democratic party. Nevada on the
either hand is a swing state and could go wither way. This walk is my
personal declaration to the people of Nevada that as residents of a
swing state the future of this country is in their hands. I need them to
know how important this election is to me. Beyond that, this walk is an
opportunity to raise money for and awareness about Sen. Obama's campaign.
And as I walk I will be calling registered voters in Nevada to talk to them
about how Sen. Obama will help this country.

We've mapped out and driven the route on which we will walk. It won't be easy.
And the desert has swallowed up tougher human beings than Nick and me.
Still, our goal is to walk between 30 and 40 miles a day. It will all
end in a final walk down Las Vegas Blvd.

So, how does this involve you? Well, the truth of the matter is that we
need your help and we'd love you to be involved. So far it's just the
two of us but everyone is welcome to walk with us on our journey.
Walk the whole way, or walk a couple miles a day. All are welcome
anytime. Aside from walking, we'll need volunteers at rest stations
and to drive support vehicles which will provide water every few miles
or so.

I understand that not everyone can take time off to be with us on our
journey. But if you'd still like to help I've created a personal
fundraising page through the Obama campaign. If you click on the link
below you'll have the opportunity to show your support for our walk by
donating what you can directly to the Obama campaign.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/stevebraunforobama


For more information email me or visit our official Walking The Walk
website at:


www. walkingthewalk300.com


Feel free to forward this email to anyone you'd like. Or join us and
write your own.


Thanks so much for your time.


--
Steve Braun
myspace.com/stevebraun

Jerry Falwell was a man of faith. He believed that God played an active role in our society at every level. Not only did God teach us and guide us towards the Light, He also took the time to smite us when we pissed Him off, when we acted in an unGodly manner. Jerry often publicly declared that a given calamity or other was the result of improper conduct by various people in our society. He also claimed that we as a society fall victim to calamity as a result of allowing our society to be over run with sin. And so, after hearing that he was found in his office without a pulse the apparent victim of bowel obstruction or heart failure (the cause was not known at my print deadline), I can't help but wonder which improper act, performed by whom, is to blame for this terrible turn of events. Why did Jerry die?

At first glance, it seems to me that it must be our treatment of the Blacks. The African American community has long been a target of blame by Jerry Falwell. In 1965 Jerry gave a sermon at his Thomas Road Baptist Church criticizing Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement referring to them as "The Civl Wrongs Movement." Until renouncing his position many years later, he was a segregationist (racist) who was in league with Lester Maddox and George Wallace. But it wasn't only Blacks in America. He didn't like Blacks in South Africa either. in the 1980's he was an outspoken supporter of P.W. Botha's Apartheid regime. He even called Desmond Tutu "a phony" but then later mentioned that he had misspoken. So, maybe the Lord got pissed off because we're letting so many formerly enslaved people run free, and even run for president.

Or maybe, it's our treatment of women, sex and sexuality and the Gays and Lesbians in particular. Maybe God took Jerry because we're letting them express themselves openly on TV and in films and everywhere else for that matter. And this is a pretty good guess because Jerry thought that God had a track record of laying down His pimp hand as a result of feminists, Gays and Lesbians, etc. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11th. 2001 Jerry went on national television and with a straight face said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are activley trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For The American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger at you and say, 'you helped this happen." Later Pat Robertson agreed with him (don't wait on the yearly physical, Pat). Jerry has also mentioned that "AIDS is the wrath of God against homosexuals." So, we know God doesn't like them. But would he actually take Jerry from us because we've let them get out of hand? Tough to tell. While I'm not sure that homosexuals had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, under the right circumstances I could see how one might blame a homosexual for Jerry's bowel obstruction if, in fact, that's what he died of.


There's one other obvious option. It could be that God is miffed at the Republicans and the Christian Right for failing to secure political footholds in the recent elections. God is pissed off at Republicans and the Christian Right for not doing enough to quell the Democratic surge. We all know that God hates Democrats. In fact, Jerry said that "God is a Republican" (and "Jesus was the First American).

That said, I must confess that there are probably a couple other options.

First, it's entirely possible that God had just had enough. He had enough of Jerry's hate. He had enough of Jerry's exclusion. He had enough of Jerry claiming to speak for Him in order to further Jerry's specific political or financial agenda. He had just had enough of Jerry. Calling the purple Teletubby Gay, calling the Prophet Mohammed a terrorist, saying that God doesn't' answer the prayers of the Jews; maybe God killed Jerry cause Jerry was an asshole.

And finally, it's entirely possible that Jerry's heart failure and/or bowel obstruction were caused by the fact that Jerry was fat. Jerry didn't take care of himself. He clearly ate too much and didn't exercise. He had a history of blood clots and viral infections. 73 years is probably all you can expect when you treat yourself (and too many others) with disrespect. He's lucky to get that many. So, for a man who had the audacity to claim to be the mouthpiece of God, he was, in his death, found to be no better than any of us- gay or straight, black or white, Christian, or Atheist. He had no special privilege, no amnesty from obesity and the subsequent heart failure. He was just an angry guy with a bad heart.

Truthfully, I don't think we'll ever know what did Jerry in or where Jerry is now, for that matter. They say The Lord works in mysterious ways. Our hearts and our bowels often do not. What we do know is that Jerry is dead. And by my estimation the world is better off.

And so, Jerry, towards your cold, rotting corpse I raise both middle fingers and calmly say, "Good. Fucking. Riddance."

s

...In the Calgary Airport Holiday Inn Lounge. Ugh.

Let's talk about expectations, shall we? Even as bitter and jaded as I am I still think somewhere deep down inside that maybe this New Year's Eve will be the great one. The one of legend. The eve of joy and fun that gets progressively more joyful and fun as Midnight approaches. And when it finally does the beautiful woman with whom I've been exchanging sexy-eyes all night takes a step backward at the same time I do. We bump. We turn. We face each other. Bam! Fireworks.

"Oh, look! Geri got a machine!", exclaims the decrepit, old blue-haired woman next to me upon seeing that someone has finally vacated a slot machine leaving room for her older sister Geri. I'm in a circa 1976 motor hotel lounge. There's a lot of smoke here ("fuck you Surgeon General! You don't own me!). A lot of people numbing their pain here. I'm the youngest one by 20 years. So my expectation is shattered again.

I had big plans for tonight. Big plans that didn't include a snow storm in Winnipeg that would delay my flight so much that i wouldn't be in Los Angeles in the first hours of 2007. Lady Winnipeg has hoofed me in the nards yet again. I hate that bitch and yet she is who I am so I have to love her. It's complicated.

But sitting here in hell has got me thinking about the year that was. As opposed to engaging one of these corpses in conversation (surely any meaningful engagement would quickly cause me to squirm and end the awkward silence that followed with "so, how 'bout them Flames?") I will take this time to discuss the year that was. This is The Year in Review. But since it smells like pee here in the Calgary Airport Holiday Inn lounge this is The Urine Review (a man to my right just toasted the New year and then broke out in a nicotine induced coughing fit. Here's to a cancerous future! Another woman just looked at my laptop and said, "oh, he's got a computer" which resulted in a collective shrug from the table. This is quite funny. Sad-funny).

THE URINE REVIEW

This year Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister of Canada, The Vice President shot a man in the face, Ariel Sharon went into a coma, the Steelers won the Super Bowl, Three 6 Mafia won an Oscar, Steve Irwin, James Brown, Saddam Hussein, Gerald Ford, Robert Altman, and too many Iraqis and Sudanese to count died, coups d'etate ocurred in Fiji and Thailand, the population of the US reaches 300 Million, blah blah blah.

Getting down to brass tax:

HOTTEST GIRL OF THE YEAR:

Its too close to call. But Kate Winslet is certainly on the list this year. And in one of the great paradoxes of life she is hot by allowing herself to be ugly. In Little Children she lets it all hang out with no trace of self consciousness. The antithesis of these flitty young things whose pictures we're bombarded with in the tabloids, sans underwear with their skirts hiked up two inches from breakfast. My kingdom for a girl with a nice ass and some wisdom. Is that too much to ask for? Honorable mentions go to actresses Indira Varma, Cate Blanchett, singer Norah Jones, and Lili, a waitress at the diner I like to go to. Oh, and Angelina Jolie, of course. She transcends lists. All talented, smart women who are really fun to look at. That's an equation that equals hot.

DOUCHE BAG OF THE YEAR:

It's a four-way tie between Donald Rumsfeld, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Paris Hilton. Rummy is a douche bag because he's stubborn, ineffectual and lacking evidence for claims he made which inevitably resulted in over a hundred thousand people dying and counting. Al-Bashir is the president of Sudan and is in league with Arab militias who are engaging in ethnic cleansing, attempting to rid the country of the African Christians and Animists in the Darfur region. Al-Bashir refuses to let a full UN force into the country and seems to be letting the militias rape and pillage- a real douche bag move. Ahmadinejad is douchie for denying the holocaust, declaring that he wants to wipe Israel off the map and attempting to acquire nuclear bombs. He's dangerous. What's funny is that if Rumsfeld and the US government had not gone into Iraq, Ahmadinejad would be in check and there'd be a sizable US force to deal with the genocide in Sudan. Paris Hilton is a douche bag because she found a way to achieve career success without merit. She's hurting Western Civilization and I wish it were appropriate for me to shove her to the ground. But I can't. Well, I can. But I won't. I don't think.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH WARRIORS OF THE YEAR:

Another tie. This time between Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Howard Stern. I will violently defend Mel Gibson and Michael Richard's right to say any word they so choose no matter how offensive to anyone so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's basic rights. That is one of the basic principles of a free society. The point is that no one body can regulate what a society deems to be worth censoring outside of those words that lead to phusical harm ("Fire!" from a crowded theatre). One man's hate rhetoric is another woman's stand-up act. Moreover I want people to feel that they can express themselves freely so that i can know which morons among me actually think that the Jews are the cause of all the wars in the world or who think it's appropriate to yell "Nigger!" at the top of their lungs at a comedy show (also so I can avoid paying to see Apocolypto and avoid paying for the latest season of Seinfeld on DVD). Let's get it all out on the table so we can realize that we have a bigotry problem that needs dealing with. There's no place for censoring morons in a free society. At the other end of the spectrum is Howard Stern, a man who has single handedly made driving in Los Angeles bearable for me. He is brilliant and hilarious and has been part of a media revolution...more on that later. With his uncensored honesty he is quickly killing my tolerance for the plastic smiles of low channel television and regular terrestrial radio.


(just went to the Calgary Airport Holiday Inn Fitness Centre. I figure if I die of boredom here tonight I want to look good for the open casket).



PENDULUM SWINGS OF THE YEARS:

(in no particular order)

1. In 2006 the American people realized that the most important lesson of 9/11 was not that we should embrace fear and division as the politicians suggested. The most important lesson of 9/11 was that when things are at their worst, Americans have the ability to rise above and be great. That in the midst of hate and terror, Americans could show unbelievable kindness and heroism. Moments before their demise the passengers of Flight 93 got word from the ground that terrorists were flying planes into buildings and that their flight would probably be doing the same. Facing the horror of their imminent end, those passengers mustered up the fortitude to do perhaps the most American of things. They took a vote. All those in favor of storming the cockpit and dealing with the terrorists no matter the cost, say "aye". All those opposed? Greatness in the eye of the storm. Moments before the Twin Towers collapsed fire fighters and police officers ran into the buildings, climbing to higher floors in an attempt to save more lives knowing all the while that they'd probably be climbing to their deaths. Unbelievable heroism. Somewhere along the line- Iraq, election campaigns, etc- that all got lost. The result was that the world went from weeping for America's loss to hating America's aggression. That started to change in 2006 and I hope some healing can happen in 2007. Obama '08, ya know what I'm sayin'?

2. More than any other year, the world woke up to the fact that we're fucking up our environment. Suddenly those hippies didn't seem so crazy. I foresee that 2007 will see a continuation of the trend. Will China, India and the US get fully on board? We'll see. But as the startling scientific evidence meets the economic and political fallout of abusing non renewable resources it might just make it undeniable. But watch out for snakes in the grass. Soon every product will be emblazoned with the word "GREEN" in bold letters, whether it's good for the environment or not.

3. 2006 saw the official beginning of the movement from Mass Media to "Intimate Media". When once we relied on three or four sources to tell us what was going on in the world first thing in the morning, again at noon and 5 and one more time at 11, now we get up to the second reporting on news weather, sports, entertainment from hundreds of millions of sources if we so desire (including John Q. Public who happened to be at a comedy show in LA or a hanging in Iraq). We're capturing images and reporting wherever we go- cell phones, PDA's, laptops- not just in the privacy of our homes. We can interact with each other like never before. YouTube, Myspace, Sirius Satellite radio, PerezHilton really underlined what had been brewing for some time. Media is completely changing. We can get it when we want it, how we want it and from whom we want it.

These three trends will play out in huge ways in 2007 and beyond.

Midnight approaches here at the Calgary Airport Holiday Inn. These old broads are starting to not look half bad so it's time to retire to my non-smoking room which reeks of smoke. So, no, there was no party for me tonight. No drama. There certainly was reflection (more hilarity...as I was about to wax poetic there, I heard a woman screaming on the phone to her husband/boyfriend down the hall. Upset that she's spending New Year's Eve at the Calgary Airport Holiday Inn. She's crying now. Yikes. She keeps saying "I should have gone home, I should have gone home." Given that she's now annoying me to no end with her screaming I quite agree with her. All she had to do was lower her expectations. Oh, the door just slammed somethin' awful. Not a happy woman. But she's not going to spoil my New year's Eve).

I've made peace with my destiny tonight. And frankly I don't feel the need to celebrate 2006 anymore. I don't owe it anything. I gave at the office, ya know? I layed it all out on the table in 2006. Nothing left to express about that year. I've already moved on. But I need to start kissing 2007's ass cause I fully intend on absolutely tearing it up next year.


Oh, there goes the countdown (by that I mean me in my hotel room counting down)...3...2...1...and done. And so it begins again.


Here's to an electric 2007.

s.

Ya, you read it correctly. This is my comprehensive plan to aid the crisis in Iraq. I know what you're thinking. Who the fuck does he think he is? How does he have the unmitigated audacity to presume that he has the answer? Well, I've been keeping score at home for a few years now and it turns out my record when it comes to analyzing this conflict is considerably better than Donald Rumsfeld's, Dick Cheney's and George W Bush's. The numbers speak for themselves. In fact, had they consulted me back in 2003 they'd be in a much better spot right about now. But alas, they didn't. So now I'm offering my opinion, invited though it was not.

Iraq is officially a clusterfuck. "Civil war" doesn't really cover it. As I see it there are at least four different factions warring in Iraq. You have the Iraqi Sunni Insurgents who are comprised of Baathist loyalists who support Sadaam. You got your Sunni Jihadists or Terrorists (al Qaeda included) who drift in from other countires. Then you've got the Shi'a militia (the Mahdi Army, etc) lead by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric. Last but not least, you got the US (or coalition) army and the Iraqi's they train. Follow me now- The Insurgents are fighting the US army, the Iraqi's they train and the Shi'a militia. Jihadists are fighting the US army, the Iraqi's they train and the Shi'a mlitia. The Shi'a militia is fighting the Sunni Insurgents, the Jihadists and the US army. And the US army has taken on the unenviable task of fighting the Insurgents, the Jihadists and the Shi'a militia. Deep breath.

Why are they fighting? Well, we know why the Jihadist don't like the Americans. Their support of the State of Israel, religious and cultural differences, seemingly imperialist tampering in Middle Eastern countries. As for the Insurgents, they're pissed off at the Americans because a foreign power violated their borders and ousted their leader. The Shi'a want to eff the Americans up for the same reason but add to that the same cultural and religious hatred of the West that the Jihadists have. There are two bigger questions. Why are the Shi'a fighting the Sunnis and why are the Americans fighting any of them?

First, the Shi'a and the Sunnis have been at odds pretty much since the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 C.E. After He died some supported Ali as his successor (the Shi'a)and some supported Abu Bakr (the Sunni). It's like the Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Christianity. It goes back so many years that the current fight isn't even about what started it. While Sadaam was in power, he held down the more religiously conservative Shi'a majority with an iron fist. And now it's payback time. Shi'a death squads are said to be picking Sunnis at random and killing them en masse. Both sides are bombing Mosques and it doesn't look like it's going to let up.

And what of the Americans? Why are they fighting? I think part of the problem is that it is less clear what they are fighting for. Disarming a regime with WMD? No. Ousting a dictator for human rights reasons? No. Removing a dictator and stablizing a burgeoning Democracy to act as an example for dictatorships and theocracies in the region? Probably. I think that was the ultimate intention of the neo- conservative architects of the war. As a result, the Americans have much less of a personal stake in the conflict. When an American soldier is killed we question what she died for. When a Jihadist is killed it is clear to everyone that he gave his life for his insanely extreme but firm religious belief.

So, that's why everyone's fighting. But given the dynamic nature of the conflict complete with a multitude of combatants with even more disparate interests, can the US win? What does "winning" even mean? The American people expect victory. Why wouldn't they? They were told they'd have it. But I think the definition of victory in Iraq as promised is a narrow one. I think free and fair elections and the forward movement of the Democratic process, however cumbersome, which leads to pro- Western leadership that can keep the peace would be considered a victory by American standards. Anything less would be a failure. It's not enough to oust Sadaam because another despot might be around the corner. It's not enough to have the Iraqis freely and fairly elect a theocratic cleric. And it's not enough to have pro Western leadership that can't end the civil war.

So, in order to be victorious in Iraq, the US must end the 1400 year old Shi'a-Sunni conflict, tame the Baathists probably by offering them jobs and security, and prevent the Jihadists from crossing the border from neighboring countries most of which are included in the Axis of Evil making diplomacy a touch awkward. Can it happen? Yes. The only possible way for the US to achieve victory in Iraq is to send in more troops. Right from the jump General Shinseki advised that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed. He was right. Sen. John McCain is one of the only ones calling for a troop increase now. And he's right, too. If you want that specific victory, you'll have to fill that country so full of troops the opposition won't know what hit them. But the better question is, should we want that victory at the cost of more troops? The answer is no. More importantly the American people won't have it. The US death toll would be much greater than it is now not to mention the enormous Iraqi civilian death toll. Such a large military presence might even piss off Iran more than it already is and they're not too far from being nuclear. It's not a viable option.

So, what's the answer? Simple. Well, not simple. But simpler than staying. Withdraw all troops today. Yesterday would have been better but today is all we have. The US is currently floating in Iraq. Another month, another year, another decade. And for what? It's not going to change the underlying fibers of the conflict. I'm all about peace but I truly believe that the Shi'a-Sunni conflict in Iraq is only going to be solved on the battlefield. Not that diplomacy has been used much by the Bush administration but no amount of it is going to ease the hatred. The same is true of the Jihadists. And speaking of the Jihadists, pulling out of Iraq will give the US a greater opportunity to deal with terrorist threats at home and around the world. I disagree with those who suggest that if the US doesn't fight the Jihadists in Iraq it'll fight them in America.

I think the best thing for Iraq at this point is to divide into three sections. To the North you'll have the Kurds, to the West the Sunni's and to the South the Shi'a. The US can spill more blood trying to make it happen by force but I suggest that the same result will occur if the US pulls out. Sure, there will be fighting and more loss of life. But I think the end result will be that general geographic picture. Is it possible that the Shi'a will over run the Sunnis and the Kurds? Yes. Then they would be in the position the US is in now, facing IED attacks and insurgency. Not much would change. Might Iran's President Ahmadinejad decide that it's the right time to invade Iraq and join his Shi'a brothers? Maybe. But then at least you could enlist the power of other Middle Eastern countries (Syria among others) to exert influence or muster a force to intervene and prevent Iranian domination. It's in their interests.

Every day that the Americans remain in Iraq is another day of pissing people off in the region. Every day adds another layer of hatred and resolve to the already deep rooted disgust of America and the West in general in the region. More importantly every day sees more soldiers and civilians die. Will America have to accept a "loss"? Yes. But what they gain by doing so is worth far more than the bitter taste of defeat. The square peg of Western style Democracy was forced into the round hole of a country fraught with tribal, religious and political nuances little understood by the American government. And guess what? It didn't fit. It's not going to fit. The US should pull out of Iraq today.

s.

...Same As The Old Douche Bags.


Oh, Joy! Oh, Bliss! The Democrats have taken control of both the House and the Senate! The Liberal revolution is upon us and America will be transformed. In the first months of 2007 we will see the sowing of political seeds which will blossom with the flowers of legalized gay marriage, the abolition of the death penalty, solid confirmation that it's a woman's right to choose, and free and open spliff smoking. What a glorious day!

Of course that's a load of shit. In fact the Democrats were elected to both arms of Congress not as a result of the American people moving to the Left but rather the Left moving over to the American people as well as the horrible state of affairs in Iraq and the discovery of rampant Republican corruption. These three factors have virtually nothing to do with positions held by the Liberal base of the Democratic party on social issues. Despite the new faces that will appear on The Hill in January America remains a socially conservative, Christian influenced country. Little has changed.

The Democrats learned a lot from 2004. John Kerry is very smart but he's not politicaly savy and he comes off as being boring as shit. He's the guy you want to avoid at a party lest you get stuck in a conversation about senate reform that's going to make you want to kill yourself. But beyond that, he's a flaming liberal. Or at least he was painted that way by Karl Rove's hit squad. He wasn't firm on issues. He made one choice and then upon further reflection changed his mind and made another. Whereas George W said he was invading Iraq and he stuck to it no matter what happened. Americans dug that back in 2004. That firm resolve made them feel safe. On top of all this, the rest of the high profile Democrats like Howard Dean were spewing East Coast, Liberal acid all over TV talk shows which alienated Mid-Western and Southern Americans. By election day the Evangelical Christians felt that the Democrats were not only ungodly but thought they were smarter than everyone else.

Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Shumer, the fellas in charge getting back the House and Senate for the Democrats, made sure that nothing of the sort happened in 2006. They made a point of recruiting candidates that were socially conservative but against the administrations handling of the war in Iraq. In fact they tried like hell to get as many war veterans as possible. The truth of the matter is that the win in November was due to folks like Senators-elect Webb, Tester, and Casey, and the hawk-cum-dove Jack Murtha, all of whom oppose Gay Marriage and are anti-abortion. We really didn't see much of San Francisco Liberal Nanci Pelosi or Howard Dean. They limited John Kerry's face time with the public but he still managed to find a way to fuck it up, botching a joke that made it seem like he thought the troops in Iraq were stupid. So is this a Liberal revolution? No. This is the Democratic party widening it's tent poles to include moderates and conservatives. Are these newly elected Democrats going to alter political life in this country dramatically? No.

The apparent corruption by certain Republicans was another factor in getting the Democrats elected. There was a sense that they lost the trust of the American people. That while they came to Washington to clean things up and bring morality back to politics after Clinton left his DNA all over the Oval Office, the perception was that they proved to be no better. Kick backs and financial schemes as orchestrated by Jack Abrahmoff revealed a network of corruption. Were the tax payers paying for a senator's vacation trips? How did a representative afford three houses and a Rolls Royce? That's to say nothing of the sexual scandals that came to light. Rep. Mark Foley of Florida was hitting on young page boys. How could the party of family values house a gay man? Who else was gay in the party? It was enough to keep the socially conservative Republican base at home on election day.

So now we have a new group of folks. Are they any different. I maintain that they are not. Jack Abrahmoff's influence is vast. Already Nevada's Democratic Sen. Harry Reid has been implicated in Abrahmoff's corruption scandal. Does it go farther? I bet it does. The truth is that by virtue of being in the power position all these years the Republicans were the ones who attracted the horrible combination of both the shady, lobbyist go-betweens and the spotlight. The corruption follows the power. It's not interested in a weak Democratic Representative. Allow me to play Nostradamus and declare with certainty that the Democrats will show similar signs of political corruption in the coming years.

But without question the main issue in the election was the war in Iraq. There's no question that folks were ready for a change. The arrogance of the Bush administration had taken it's toll. An absolutely criminal failure to listen to anyone save those who would bolster their preconcieved notions caught up with them. But their Iraq policy embodied this dysfunction more than anything else. And so, the electorate sent a message to the administration. The policy isn't working. It needs to change. Problem is, the Democrats as a party have no viable alternative. They can't officially declare (as Jack Murtha did) that they want to cut and run because that would make them "weak on terror." So the moderates in the party (or those like Hillary who need to move to the center to protect a presidential bid) call for "redeployment" or "a new strategy" without getting into specifics. At the same time, the Left-leaners of the party like Russ Feingold who advocate complete withdrawal asap are silenced because the party's new, moderate face lift doesn't allow for "weakness". Just like George W., the Democrats have no idea what to do about Iraq. Again, the faces will change but little else will change as a result of the Democrats taking control of Congress.

Perhaps the greatest thing about the results of November 2006 was that it made George W Bush eat shit. He got owned for a change. He and his insulated cabal were forced to admit that they fucked up. Rumsfeld had to eat it, too. And that feels good, no question. But it doesn't mean that the alternative is going to do any better. Might they listen a little more clearly to opposing views? Probably. Will they increase the minimum wage? Probably. But in order to achieve this victory and in order to avoid alienating the voters in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential campaigns, the Democrats will alter very little. They will run and hide from burning social issues that divide the country. A Liberal revolution it is not.

s.

Thank you all so much for coming. If I wasn't a complete asshole in my life I imagine that some of you may have even travelled great distances to be here. For that I thank you. (to the reader- I recognize that I actually may have been an asshole in which case the numbers in attendance are smaller than I now assume. If that is the case, the aforementioned will have been funny. So, pause for laughter.) First, let me say this with as much conviction as a dead man can muster. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REGRETS. Not one. Time and again I've chosen to walk paths that have led me astray. And I've also walked paths that have connected me to bliss. But in either case, precious understanding was the reward. And how can you possibly regret that? Plus, these choices, both good and bad, have led me to all of you. And my connections to you have been the Main Events of my life. I've known some pain and some heartache. But I've known so much more joy. An indescribable amount of it. And that joy was derived from each of you. So, with every atom of my being, I thank you. The lessons I've learned: 1. Learn everything about everything every chance you get. Never settle with the knowledge you have. Always grow. Anytime I've felt insignificant or insecure, education has always been my way out. These experiences gave me weight. They changed me in such a profound way. You must desire to learn all the time. And, my god, the teachers that I've learned from in my life. I have learned so much from so many. Violently intelligent women and men who possess volumes of wisdom and who are worthy of so much respect. And they certainly have always had mine. In fact, if I may be so bold (and it IS my funeral so why the hell shouldn't I be bold), one of my greatest assets was the ability to shut my mouth and listen and learn from these people. But that's probably a skill I learned from someone as well. My mother always stressed the importance of education and what she called 'life-long learning". What an unbelievable force she is. 2. While your head is one of your most powerful tools, you must follow your heart at least 80% of the time. This really isn't a dress rehearsal. This is the real deal. Bowing to expectation or anything else that derails you while on your journey to satisfy your heart's potential is death. Yes, there are times when you have to suck it up and work for The Man. But it must always be in the context of satisfying the goal. And the goal must always be to satisfy your heart. I shit you not, to ignore this point is tantamount to suicide. Except not as dramatic. Moreover it does the world a disservice if you deny the community the result of your heart's potential. And frankly, if you follow your heart and screw it up, the resulting lesson serves your head anyway as that knowledge will inform you when using your head the other 20% of the time. Figure out what you love, what moves you, in the depths of your heart and pursue it with everything you have. 3. And last- and I know some of you cynics in the audience will think this is lame (I know I would if I were sitting there listening to your letter from the grave, but here 'goes.)- the love shared between two people is the most important thing there is. Love. No one knows what that word really means because it is used so frequently and so fluidly. Like M. Scott Peck, I think it to be a choice. An act of will. It's work. But I maintain that whether you believe it is through the grace of God or because it is inherent in our DNA, we desire to share with other humans. Emotionally. Intellectually. Physically. We are social beings. And the ultimate form of that sharing is the intimate connection between two people who have made the choice to love one another. With that goal in mind, there are obstacles. Frankly, I don't want to see that horrible movie that my partner wants to see. But you do it. We compromise. Because you know that it's not worth losing a deep connection over. You older folks will know what I'm talking about but you young one's may not. You may not be looking for Mr. or Ms. Right but Mr. or Ms. Right Here On The Kitchen Table Right Now. But once you get that out of your system, I assure you you will come to the conclusion that a healthy, committed relationship that involves two very independent people who are interested in personal growth is the goal. But it requires work to get there. It requires killing the notion of perfection. No one is perfect and believe me you do not want to lose out on the greatest feeling in the universe because you thought she wasn't perfect. And having had perfect a couple times I can tell you that it's boring as hell. Don't miss out. Love is the Stanley Cup of life and it's there for you if you want it. Find a person who is well suited to you and make the choice to grow with that person. And it may not last forever. But you must try. Bliss is the result. Hard work and pain, also. But bliss. And that about does it for me. It really has been a great ride because of all of you. It's times like these when you understand that we are all one and the same. I realize now that I am because of you. You moved and I moved. My experience has been so affected by you all. Please feel that you are a part of me and in my affecting you I live on in you. So, for my sake, be kind to yourselves. Now what I need you to do is this: if you're going to be sad about me being gone, fine. I'm flattered. But what I really want more than anything is that you end up learning something from my life. Whether you loved me my whole life or hated me and are only here because of obligation or Mennonite/Jewish guilt, there must be something that I did that you can learn from. Think about that for the rest of the day and then change your life for the better. Even if it's only in a small way. With that done, I need you to go out and have a big party. Hopefully I had some cash set aside for it but if not, somebody better pony up for a big old bash. Really good people, really good music, some drink, some dancing. Do it up. It's what I would have wanted. With more Love than I know how to express, Steve

Dateline: Rome. As an April general election date closes in our well-soled, refined, Italian friends are in the midst of debating certain social issues. For instance, gay rights activists are going to demonstrate in Rome today in support of same-sex marriage which isn't yet legal in Italy. A local magistrate is set to preside over 10 same-sex "weddings", legally binding though they are not. One guess who's not happy with all this queeriosity. I'll give you a hint. His name stars with a 'P' and ends with an 'ope'.

Yup, responding to the subject Benedict XVI is all, "(dude it's a) serious mistake to obfuscate the value and functions of the legitimate family based on marriage by attributing legal recognition to other forms of legal union for which there is no real social demand." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4612802.stm). It's actually a really interesting sentence, that one. While there are hints at Divine Law (the assumption that there is a "legitimate" family standard) it seems that the Vatican is trying to reason with folks on a level outside of The Word of God. Benedict seems to be saying, "let's not confuse legal marriage by adding the gays when society as a whole isn't really asking for them to be included." There's no real social demand, he says.

What's interesting is that the Vatican is both a religious institution and a political one. Not sure who decides what hat it wears and when it wears it. But let's look at both their religious arguments as well as their political arguments for not allowing my dear friend Danny to legally marry his boyfriend if he so chooses.

By my estimation it's really three different places where the gay issue pops up in the Bible. Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and Romans. I will now do what all good Atheists do. I will quote scripture and verse. Let us begin with the Old Testament, shall we? Leviticus 18:22 wherein it is written: "You shall not lie with a male as a woman. It is an abomination" It is interesting to note that Leviticus basically lays out to Moses what constitutes proper or improper behavior. Don't eat blood or fat. Don't touch unclean animals. Don't mix crops. When a woman bears a child she's gotta remain unclean for seven days if it's a boy and two weeks if it's a girl and then bring the priest a lamb so he can slaughter it up to the Lord. Don't look at your family members naked. And, by the way, if you're a man, don't bang another man.

What's interesting is that we don't go as nuts about all the other laws. We let farmer Bob mix his crops, and God knows we eat fat in this country. But we look on with utter disgust if two men are holding hands. Seems strange if this text is the source of our objection. Furthermore, it says nothing of women. No mention of a woman lying with another woman. And is it cool for a male to lie with another man not as a woman but knowing full well that he's a man? It also says nothing of cuddling, sexless emotional love shared between two men, or dancing to Cher in some filthy club wearing a mesh shirt.

Open your Bibles to Romans 1:20-32. Here Paul writes a letter to his boys, the Romans. It gets pretty specific on our subject. He talks about how certain people who know God but don't worship Him as GOD were punished by God. In verse 24 Paul says that God "gave them up to uncleanliness in the lusts of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves." Further, he says that the men, "leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in them the penalty of their error which was due." So, here the Bible shows punishment for Brokeback love and later equates sexual immorality with "murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness" (v29). Paul calls these folks "haters of God".(v30)

Here the Bible clearly differs from what I know Italian society to believe. In any Italian town I've been to (besides maybe Vatican City) murder and homosexuality are not sins spoken in the same sentence.

Moving to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Here's where it gets even more specific. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites. nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God"

Hate to break it to you, Elton, but your inheritance does not include the Kingdom of God. But that said, The Kingdon is out of reach for Winona Ryder and thieves like her, Bill Clinton and adulterers like him, any straight or gay couple who engage in anal sex, anyone who worships a representation of God or Jesus (like a wooden Jesus) in place of God or Jesus themselves, and not to mention me and all the fornicators like me. It's a pretty comprehensive list and it seems to me if it's true, we're all fucked.

So, there it is. Three passages. The cause of centuries of repression and the source of the religious resistance to Gay marriage. Because it is assumed that these forms of sexual immorality go along with marriage.


And it this time it is also important to examine the authenticity of these words as those of God. Or Moses. Or Paul. It's reasonable to inquire about the text. In his book "Misquoting Jesus" author and Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman examines in detail just how close the version of the Bible that we read today is to the original texts. He traces the Bible manuscript by manuscript as far back as he can and finds something interesting. The manuscripts vary wildly from one to the next. A story that is included in one manuscript doesn't even appear in another. A text from the 2nd Century C.E. called The Shepherd of Hermes is included as one of the texts of the New Testament in one of the oldest surviving manuscripts, the famous fourth century Codex Sinaiticus but in tno other manuscript (p.47). The famous story of the woman taken in adultery found in John 7:53-8:12 which was included in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was not originally in the Gospel of John at all. The story is an add-on by Medieval scribes (p63). For centuries Medieval scribes who were charged with copying the Bible word for word for lack of any other method would, either by mistake or because it served a specific purpose in their community alter the text. So, I'm a scribe in some town in England and I want folks in my town to ease up on the issue of adultery. So, I throw the story in the bible and pass it off as truth. "Misquoting Jesus". It's a good book. You should read it.

The point is that this text that we read and from which derive truth, needs to be understood in it's historical context. Marriage has changed a great deal since Paul was writing to the Corinthians and the Romans. And West Hollywood has changed a lot since God talked to Moses. But still the Vatican fears change on the subject of marriage.

If fact, they feel that the purpose of marriage should still be to have sex for the purpose of making babies. Beyond the fact that more able hands mean a more prosperous farm (and if there's one thing we all need in 2006 it's more hands to bail hay), the Vatican likes the order of the family that marriage creates. There is a form to it. There is order in a family. A hierarchy. And the Vatican exists because of this notion.

The Vatican, like any political entity, relies on order. It is the essence of religion. There is a hierarchy in the world from the smallest worker ant all the way up to God. Closer to the bottom are blue collar shmucks like you and me. And closer to the top are Vatican officials and The Pope. Closer to God. The notion of "The Family" is imperative to that order. The man is the head (God) all the way down to the youngest daughter (the shmuck). The family is a microcosm of the world. It's practice for the hierarchy that we're supposed to respect in the bigger world. A child obeys his father and in turn that father obeys the priest and that priest in turn obeys a cardinal and so on all the way up to the Pope who only answers to God. The family is the front line of the battle to maintain that hierarchy. So no wonder the Vatican is worried about their specific family paradigm going out the window. If the order breaks down they're out of a job.

When women began to ask questions about the the bible describing how they must submit themselves to their husbands, the Vatican got scared. Woman are still prevented from being priests. Again, anything to not disrupt this antiquated order. And why? Because the order has them very near the top. Guaranteed they'd be pushing for change if they were at the bottom. Instead, my friend Danny is at the bottom of their hierarchy. In a drunken stuper, I can meet some broad at a club on Sunset blvd, fall madly in "love", drive to Vegas and get a marriage license that, upon traveling to Vatican City, would be recognized. Danny, who's in love with a man? Bupkiss.

And contrary to what Benedict XVI said in his statement people are now starting to stand up and call for change. There is a "real social demand". Perhaps he meant that the majority isn't demanding it. Well, we'll see in April if the Italians think it's an issue and vote for Prodi, the liberal candidate. But even if the majority isn't for it in their hearts it seems to me that gays and lesbians should still be able to get married. If a KKK Grand Dragon petitioned a city for a license to rally peacefully in a city Piazza, they would be granted a license because it's their right to express themselves peacefully. While my instinct would be to pour boiling acid on them, they still have to be granted the same rights that anyone has even if you don't like what they say. And so, whether you think gays and lesbians engage in sexual immorality or not, they should have a right to have a go at marriage like the rest of us.

My fingers are tired.