Why I'm Voting For Barack Obama

 Ah.  Election season. 

Not my favorite time of year, mostly because it brings out a lot of tension in people.  Facebook has been so full of political talk by friends both conservative and liberal.  I think the old adage "Never talk politics or religion" is apropos.  I've seen a lot of heated talk from both sides, and to be honest, I'm getting weary of it (although I do admit to taking part in it from time to time).

I'm home with Jonah for the week (yea!) before my next gig, and one thing that's been nice about being home is that I haven't been on Facebook as much nor have I watched the news or read the newspaper as often as I regularly do.  As a rule, I very much like to keep informed about news and politics, and for once, I'm a bit behind the curve because I am concentrating on other things.  Quite frankly...it's been nice.

But next week when I am back in Utah for my next show, I intend to get back on the news and politics bandwagon, as is my normal custom.  But this mini-vacation from politics has been kind of nice.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm still somewhat informed on political issues.  I have been following the story about Mitt Romney and the leaked video where he essentially calls 47% of Americans a bunch of entitled freeloaders (my word, not his) playing the victim card who aren't going to vote for him anyway, so he's not worrying about them.

I actually get his point, and like everything else, context is important.  My guess is what Romney meant was that there are 47% of Americans who aren't going to vote for him anyway because his policies don't appeal to them, so he's only worried about those undecided voters that will help him win this election.

And yet...

I think the real test of a man's character is what he says or does when he thinks no one is listening or watching.  In his own words, Romney says that those 47 per cent of Americans who don't pay income tax will automatically support President Obama because they "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it".

He goes on to say, "My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." 

"There are 47 percent who are with [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.  And they will vote for this president no matter what."

You can read the full story here and here.

First off, I think Romney is making assumptions that may not even be correct.  Second, this just kind of reiterates something that I have thought about Mitt Romney for a long time: I just don't feel he even really understands what it is like to be lower- or middle-class.  It's not his fault.  He was born into wealth and became wealthier, and so that is the only life he knows.  But as his critics espouse, I do think that makes him somewhat out-of-touch with the average American, and statements like the ones said in this recent video don't do much to allay that perception.

My biggest problem with Mitt Romney, however, is that I just don't really know what he stands for.  In my view, he seems like someone who will say whatever needs to be said to get elected.  I feel like he says whatever he feels the group he is speaking to wants to hear.  Certainly all politicians do that to an extent, but I feel like Romney isn't terribly honest.  Ambitious, yes.  Honest, no. 

I don't even necessarily think Mitt Romney is a bad person; I just think he really wants something (in this case, the presidency), and will go after it at the expense of actually stating up front what he actually believes.  Again, I suppose all politicians do this to some extent, but Romney just seems more interested in winning the presidency than in the people who will elect him.

I consider myself a social liberal, but a fiscal moderate.  I actually think both parties have done a lousy job at handling the country's money.  I don't believe the government is the answer to all problems, and government bureaucracy often creates more problems than good.  On the other hand, government does some things very well, and I certainly think it has an important place in our society. 

While it's been slow going, I do believe the economy is getting better, and I feel like if Obama is able to implement more of his measures, the country will recover eventually, but it will take time.  I think a lot of the policies that were in play during the Bush administration got us into this mess in the first place, and I think a Romney administration will only bring more of the same policies that caused a lot of our economic troubles.

That being said, I think both parties have been irresponsible stewards of our country's finances, and both parties have borrowed from funds that were not really theirs to borrow.  No matter who is our next president, we have a long economic road ahead of us - one from which we may never fully recover.

I think a lot of people voted for Barack Obama with the illusion that he was going to wave a magic wand and get us out of the messes we found ourselves in after the Bush administration left office.  I was never under that illusion.  If it took at least eight years to make the mess, one can't expect it to get all cleaned up in just four.

I think one of the biggest problems to our country's progress is the constant gridlock in Congress.  It seems that if one party proposes an idea, the other party will shoot it down simply because it came from the opposite party.  There is too much polarization and partisanship and not enough working together.  I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but it seems that the parties are much more interested in power than in helping the people they supposedly represent.  The biggest factor that prevents us from progress is that I think both parties want similar things, but don't agree on the methods for how to accomplish those goals. 

Certainly I would assume that both parties want the economy to recover, for example, but neither can agree on the way to accomplish that.  And one of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama the first time around was his diplomacy and willingness to work with both sides, but that has also turned out to be a weakness in that sometimes that diplomacy prevents him from finding ways to unite the parties to a common cause.

I believe there are good people in both of the major political parties, and I believe there are a lot of good people in some of the parties that, unfortunately, are less viable choices.There are things about Mitt Romney that I find disappointing. Likewise, there are things about Barack Obama that have disappointed me. 

The political leaders of this country are flawed individuals. Some are good flawed men, and some, unfortunately, are self-serving flawed men. I have many conservative friends and many liberal friends, and I love them both. Granted, I do not always agree with some of my friends' opinions, but I respect their right to believe what they believe and their right to voice their opinions even when I disagree with those opinions and when those opinions frustrate me.

As far as the two major parties are concerned, I think there are many instances when they actually want the same thing, but disagree greatly on what it takes to get there. I certainly don't think either party is perfect, and there are times when both parties do things the greatly frustrate me. Nor do I think any president is perfect, nor do I expect them to be.

We all have different perspectives on the issues that face our country, and we all have different assumptions on what needs to happen to solve (or at least lessen) our problems, and we will often disagree on what is required. I don't think the election of either of the two major candidates is going to destroy our country. Our country has weathered many challenges and difficulties; we have had hard times and trials that may have even seemed insurmountable at the time; but we have always come through. We have always prevailed. Some roads have been far rougher than others, but neither of these candidates will destroy this country no matter how much the fear mongering hyperbole would have you believe it.

Certainly these two candidates have very different visions of what is best for this country, and depending on your perspective, one candidate will lead you on a more desirable path that adheres to your point of view.

As for me, there is no question that the vision of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party most closely aligns with my own vision and point-of-view. Perfect? No. Without challenges? No. But the way I see life and this country and how I view my fellow citizens, my own perspective and way of thinking convinces me that re-electing Barack Obama is the choice that most aligns with my personal beliefs.

 

And I know that many of my conservative friends think that's crazy and that President Obama will take us in an undesirable or even disastrous direction, just as I feel a Mitt Romney presidency would take us in a direction that I don't wish to go. And that's fine if people disagree with me or can't comprehend why I feel the way I do. But is IS how I feel. When I look at Barack Obama and the Democratic Party's policies and belief system (with some exceptions, of course), they align much more closely to my own than Mitt Romney's and the Republican Party's as they currently stand.

But I think one of the great things about this country is that we do have so many great people with different opinions about how to succeed and make this country better. I would never cut off friendship with anyone just for having a different opinion than I have, and actually I enjoy hearing opinions that are diametrically opposed to my own (even if they sometimes drive me crazy) just because it gives me another point-of-view to consider and keeps me more well-rounded. I love and respect so many of my friends, whether we share the same opinions or not, and I am glad they have the same privilege I have of casting their vote in whatever way they deem fit to help make this country better according to their own perspectives and beliefs. As for me, I'm voting to re-elect Barack Obama, and here is why:

 

I actually think Obama understands me better than Mitt Romney does.  Obama is rich, too, but he didn't come from that, and I don't think he has forgotten his hardscrabble days or struggles, and I find him more relatable than Mitt Romney.

 

I think Obama has a genuine desire to help all Americans, not just the ones who are like him.  I don't sense that from Mitt.  Again, it's not necessarily Mitt Romney's fault, but I do feel like he's in his own bubble and doesn't fully understand the plight of the average American.  He seems more interested in helping corporations and rich people than in helping people like me.

 

I, frankly, don't relate to a lot of the stances of the Republican party, in general.  While I do relate to their need to be fiscally responsible, it's hard to take them seriously when they spent trillions of dollars on a war that I always felt was unnecessary and which we rushed into without exploring all diplomatic channels.  It's hard to take the extremists of the party seriously with all their "pro-life" talk when they seem to be most apt to go to war or are unwilling to compromise on gun control at all.  It's hard to take their cries of "keep the government out of my life" when they are so willing to use the government to prevent people like Jonah and me from marrying or control a woman's decision regarding unwanted pregnancies.  I feel like some Republicans feel they have the market on religion and patriotism, and I don't think that's true, and it only makes them look like hypocrites.  I feel (and this is just my perception) that the most extreme elements of Republicanism (which, unfortunately, seems to be the face of the Republican party lately) are more interested in money than they are in helping people.

Certainly, I think the Democratic party sometimes helps people too much, and thus enables the abusers of the system to take advantage of welfare and the like.  And, yes, Democrats do too often throw money at problems to try and fix them, and that's not good either.

But I am more interested in people than in financial wealth, and in spite of all the lambasting of Barack Obama's "You didn't build this" speech, I do believe that none of us gets where we are on our own.  We had great teachers or mentors that educated us or we borrowed money from a bank to start a business or someone helped us get an opportunity.  Obama often uses the mantra, "We're all in this together," and I agree with that philosophy, and that is not something that resonates with me when I listen to Mitt Romney or the Republican party, who, by the way, don't seem all that excited by their candidate in the first place, so that's not a real booming endorsement, either.

I don't see that Mitt Romney has many solutions, either.  I feel like his only talking point is whatever it takes to repeal "Obamacare" or that Obama's policies regarding the economy aren't working, and even though he says he has a plan to fix things like health care and the economy, he never seems to share it with us other than to say Obama's policies aren't working.  I at least feel like Obama has a plan, whether you believe it's working or not.  Romney's only plan seems to be to get Obama out of office without any concrete solutions.

I don't think either party believes abortion is the best solution, but I don't think the government has any right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.  I also believe that comprehensive sex education is key to educating young people so that unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place, yet Republicans in my own state of Utah are certainly against that.

I believe in marriage equality, and I am grateful Barack Obama is the first standing president to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.  

 

 

I believe in the strength and power of unions, and I belong to a union myself - one that has helped me achieve better pay, better working conditions, greater opportunities, and good health insurance and retirement benefits.  The Democratic Party and Barack Obama seem to be on my side with protecting unions.  Certainly unions have their problems and weaknesses, too, but I support them overall.

I believe in protecting the environment and that as stewards of this planet we all share, we should do our best to protect it and find ways to become less dependent on oil and gas.  I also believe in climate change and believe that we as humans do affect our atmosphere by what we pollute it with.

 

I do believe in universal health care and applaud Barack Obama's efforts to help give the citizens of this country better and more affordable health care.  If anything, I don't feel the Affordable Health Care Act goes far enough, but much of that is due to Republican obstructionism and compromise.  

 

 

Having lived in a country with government-run health care, I can say that while there were challenges and problems as well, there were many great benefits to universal health care.  And I think if health care is affordable, more people will be willing to go to the doctor for preventative health measures and thus avoid the financial headaches that come with diseases that could have been prevented in the first place.  Again, I believe in the adage, "We're in this together."  I am perfectly willing to pay higher taxes if it means my fellow man can be treated medically without worrying if they are going to lose their home due to astronomical medical bills.  I find it absurd that we are one of the greatest industrial nations with the most expensive health care.

 

I believe in programs like Social Security and Medicare.  Without them, my own mother would be up a creek without a paddle.  

 

 

I am grateful for unemployment benefits, especially in my field of work, where jobs can be sporadic.  I am grateful that the taxes I pay provide me with such benefits as firemen and policemen to protect me.  Government does do some things well.

Defense is understandable, but I also believe in greater gun control, and think that some of these assault weapons that are so easy to come by are ridiculous.

And, yes, I believe grants and loans to help those who can't afford college.  I think a good education for today's youth is good for all of us in the long run.  After all, these are the people who will be running the country when I'm old and decrepit.

I believe in equal pay for women.  I believe in amnesty for illegal immigrants born in this country and believe that if an immigrant works with the government to be legal and pays taxes and contributes to our society, we should consider giving them citizenship.  After all, so many of these people do some of the jobs no one else wants to do just to give themselves and their families a better life.  

I believe the wealthy get too many tax breaks while the middle- and lower-classes struggle.  I don't believe in "trickle-down" economics.

 

 

I think Barack Obama is more concerned with diplomatic relations with our foreign neighbors than Mitt Romney is and is more liable to keep us out of unnecessary wars.  I also think Mitt Romney hasn't always shown very good judgment.  I have more confidence in Obama than I do Romney.

It's clear to me that as far as my core values and beliefs are concerned, Barack Obama most closely aligns with them than Mitt Romney does.

 

And finally, Barack Obama is just a cool, compelling, charismatic guy.  Mitt Romney is stiff, stodgy, and kind of boring.

 

Vote for who you believe will lead the country in a direction you desire, but as for me, "Barack, I've got your back."

Past Me And Present Me

We had the missionaries over the other day.  My niece and nephew had invited them over and invited mom and me to join them for dinner.  I wondered if my sexuality or excommunication would come up.  I was prepared to be completely honest about my standing in the church if they brought it up.

I needn't have worried.  First off, both missionaries were at the end of their missions, so they didn't have that same eager fire to convert every person in their path as they might have had at the beginning of their missions.  Secondly, they were pretty much in and out.  Some dinner, some light conversation, and a little spiel about missionary work, and they were gone.

They were both nice kids.  One was from Hawaii.  The other was from Kansas.  When it got to the point of asking us to share the gospel with our friends, I thought about how most of my friends are either active Mormons, are no longer practicing and don't wish to, or are anti-Mormon.  In any case, none are particularly good candidates for joining the LDS Church.  But before they could extend a personal invitation to me, my sister-in-law and brother showed up and caused enough of a distraction to allow me to excuse myself, and I let my niece and nephew talk to the missionaries.

I did think about where I am now and where I was when I was these kids' ages.  I remember when I was a missionary myself teaching an investigator (or maybe he was even an inactive member - I don't remember now) named Joey, who was openly gay and had great difficulty reconciling his sexuality with Mormonism.  It was clear which path he wanted to be on, and it wasn't Mormonism; not if he couldn't be gay.

I remember feeling sad for him that he couldn't overcome his sexual attractions and find the truth like I had (ha ha) and I worried about the welfare of his soul.  But there was also a part of me that was kind of jealous that he was able to choose a path that I had once wanted to take myself (and that I would later still want to take).

And now that I'm in Joey's shoes myself, it's interesting to see the world in much the same way as he might have, and it made me think how different life's perspectives are when we're in different shoes.  Certainly if I have the opportunity to deal with missionaries or home teachers or church leaders or other members, I am respectful and welcoming, but I also know where I stand regarding my sexuality and the choices I have made regarding it.  Having been in the missionaries' place, I know people probably feel sorry for me or worried about my eternal salvation or secretly yearn for me to "choose the right" and be rebaptized.  It's not going to happen, and I hope people know that I am very happy with where I am in life and that my relationship with my Heavenly Father is terrific.

Even if the LDS Church accepted gay unions, I'm not sure if I would choose to be rebaptized or not.  I would have to see.  I have learned more and more as I have been out of the Church that I am quite happy where I am, and I'm not sure I see the need to change that.  The point is moot right now, anyway.  I'll cross that bridge when and if I ever get to it.

A Great Day And A Confirmation

I went to the most beautiful and love-filled wedding ceremony on Saturday.  My friend Rick and his partner Doug invited me about a month ago to attend their ceremony.  They've been together for seven years and recently were legally wed in New York, and this ceremony in Utah was to commemorate that.

The ceremony was actually in a part of Salt Lake City on the east side that I don't typically frequent.  It was gorgeous over there.  There were beautiful homes, and the area felt kind of secluded.

While I don't know Doug very well, I've known Rick for about five years now.  We've done several shows together, and he is someone I connect with well.  We've become good friends over the years, and I was so touched and honored to be invited to his wedding.

I found it ironic that parking for the wedding was in a nearby LDS Church parking lot.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, approved that, but I liked it.  From the parking lot to the wedding venue was a trail of red and white pine cones to helps guests find the property where the wedding was being held.

The wedding itself was on the property of one of Doug's relatives (who, as far as I know, are actively LDS).  It was a huge, forested area and was decorated so nicely.  There was a trail leading to the wedding area.  At the head of the trail was a harpist playing music. and the trail itself was lined with banners containing photos of Doug and Rick as well as mementos from their relationship such as love letters and inspiring quotes.

The yard where the wedding was held was massive.  The chairs were all nicely lined up in a wooded area decorated with Chinese lanterns, and there was a nearby area where tables were set up for dinner, and there was also a covered area where the caterers were set up and where desserts and beverages were laid out.  There was also a nearby creek and a couple of Port-o-Potties.

A few of my friend showed up about the same time I did, and we chatted before the ceremony started.  The weather was overcast, and it looked like it might rain.  I hope it wouldn't.  I didn't want my friends' day tarnished in any way.

Soon a Reverend showed up (I think he was from an Episcopalian domination) and welcomed us.  Then he rang a gong to signal the beginning of the ceremony.  Rick and Doug walked hand in hand together while a bagpiper played behind them.  I was crying immediately.  After their trek to the wedding area, they greeted their parents, all of whom are active Mormons as far as I know.  It was so sweet how Doug and Rick were with each other's parents as well as their own.  I know Rick's parents are going through similar things as my Mom, and he is so sweet with them.

After the Reverend introduced the grooms, Rick and his siblings sang a jazz version of "When I Fall in Love," which was quite nice.  Then there was a prayer, and the Reverend talked about why Rick and Doug had chosen to marry.  Rick's dad read some beautiful thoughts about love by Martin Luther King Jr.  I wish I could find the specific quote because it was so lovely.

Then one of Doug's relatives (I think) read some thoughts on love from the Bible.  Two of my friend sang "The Power of Two" by the Indigo Girls.  Then the Reverend gave my friends a charge and my friend recited their vows.  I so wish I had copies of their vows because they were beautiful.

Rick and Doug absolutely beamed, and it is so abundantly clear that they are deeply, deeply in love, and I thought to myself, "Anyone who thinks that a same-sex relationship between two individuals who truly love another is wrong has never witnessed this kind of wedding."  I felt God's spirit and his blessing upon my two friends, and I am witness to the great love that was present there, and where love is, God is there, also.

Rick's sibling and two of Doug's relatives offered words of support and love.  Then my two friends exchanged rings, after which two other friends say "For Good" from Wicked.  And then there was a beautiful benediction.  It was so lovely and touching, and I was so moved.  But even more, I was reminded of my own deep love for Jonah and how much I miss and love him.

As I said in my last post, after my next show I am going back home to Jonah.  The rational, practical part of me is worried about the financial ramifications of unemployment and worried that I am compromising my career at a time when it seems important to stay connected with the theater where I often work when I am in Utah.  But Rick and Doug's wedding only reaffirmed that going back home is the right thing to do, and that I have to trust God to take care of us.

Dinner and dessert was great.  The food was catered Mediterranean cuisine, and desserts were all sorts of baked goods from a gourmet bakery.  It was quite a nice (and delicious) spread.

 Rick and Doug couldn't have looked happier.  Like I said, they've been together seven years now and have made it through some trying times, but it's clear that this event meant a lot to them, and I anticipate they will be together until one of them dies.

I loved a dedication in their program: "Thank you to our amazing parents...for teaching us just how wide hearts can open, the transcendent power of radical acceptance, and that love, while a pleasant emotion, is more so an action."

Amen!

A Very Sad Day And A Big Decision

I was so, so intensely sad on Friday.  Not a normal feeling for me.  I'm generally a very optimistic, positive person.  But I guess we all have blue days from time to time.  I guess what was so different about this was how so badly I felt like crying and how intense the sadness was.  I've not felt anything like that for years, and I thought to myself, "Oh, my gosh, this is how people who suffer from depression must feel all the time," and it really made me feel empathy.  Certainly, my momentary fit of sadness, which has now subsided, is nothing compared to true depression, but it was such a deep feeling, it actually scared me a bit.  It was the kind of sadness that were I to feel it all the time, I would seriously consider seeking therapy.  Fortunately for me, I don't feel such intense sadness very often.

I actually have few reasons to have even felt so sad.  My relationship with Jonah is great, I'm actively employed in a career I love, I've been able to spend time with my family, I have some great opportunities coming up.  Things are good.

I actually think my sadness was a combination of many things.  I've been away from Jonah for a while now because of my job, and we miss one another terribly.  I've been helping care for my mom, who has dementia, and that can get stressful at times.  And even though I am acting, I'm ready to close the show I'm currently doing and spend a couple of weeks with Jonah before my next gig. 

I think Mom's dementia is the real culprit.  She's actually not doing terribly, although she's certainly not at her best, either.  And, really, nothing specific happened on Friday to plummet me into this deep sadness.  But I am aware that when it comes to my mom's illness, I am generally a pretty stoic rock who's able to handle her issues with grace and humor.  I was bound to have a mini-breakdown some time, and I guess Friday was the day.

My siblings and their families are great in dealing with Mom.  We all try to take part in caring for her so that one person isn't burdened with the load.  But I am kind of her primary caretaker when I am here working, and for some reason she seems to respond best to me.  My siblings jokingly (or not-so-jokingly) call me the "golden child."  As such, Mom has grown quite dependent on me and has actually become a bit needy, and there are days when it overwhelms me. 

Because I am with her probably the most often, I see first-hand how bad she is becoming, and I guess I am mourning the loss of who my mom once was.  Of course, I love her and still enjoy spending time with her, but I do miss the person she was before dementia took hold of her.  I miss the deep talks we no longer seem to be able to have.  I miss how sharp she once was. And I mourn the loss of independence she is losing day by day.  Like me, Mom has always been very independent, and it saddens me that probably within a year or two, she will probably lose some of the ability to manage her own life and affairs.

I am thankful she no longer drives because I think she would be a danger to both herself and others if she did still drive, and I know she would get lost.  She sometimes has gotten lost even on foot in areas that were once familiar to her.

Her short term memory is shot.  She repeats the same questions and stories over and over, often within seconds of when she last asked or told them.  She gets disoriented or confused by things, and he awareness and judgment are often questionable.  Even her long-term memory has been compromised.  She mis-remembers events or creates events that never happened at all.  In the last year, she's told me stories of how she's been skydiving or on trips to India, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (none of which is true).  She's told me that her mother died in a cemetery and that her ashes are scattered there or that her dad died when she was a teenager (neither of which are true) or how she lived in an apartment with a friend after my dad died (not true) and she thought my father died when I was a little kid (I was 21).  Her memory, in general, has become unreliable.

Without my constant watching out for her, she would likely forget to take her pills, measure her blood sugar level, pay some of her bills, eat, and she would likely go out and about on adventures and get lost and eat all sorts of unhealthy things and send money to every charity on the planet.

I worry about her.  And maybe that's what's part of what was making me sad.  I assume that eventually she will be unable to care for herself.  Maybe that will be in ten years.  Maybe five.  Maybe one.  But eventually she will be unable to manage her affairs without help.  As it stands, I don't think Mom can ever live alone again.  In any case, I don't relish the idea that one day Mom will probably have to leave her home and live in some assisted-care facility.  It may be a ways off, but unless she dies unexpectedly, I think it is in her future, and she will not understand why we think she can't take care of herself, and I do not relish that day or that conversation.

And I worry about how Mom will manage when I am gone.  As I said, my siblings are great, but Mom has become very dependent on me and gets very pouty and  sullen when I leave (even if it's just to go to work; but when I go back home to Jonah, it's even harder).  I am also not good at delegating, and even though I know my siblings will take care of her, there is always this feeling that if I'm not here to do it, it won't get done or get done right.  That isn't true, but it's how I think, and so I feel guilty when I leave Mom.  But I also feel guilty for leaving Jonah months on end as well.  And, again, that's probably where a lot of this sadness I was feeling came from.

I guess there's this very selfish feeling of "Who will take care of her when I'm gone?  Who will watch out for her?  How will she manage without me?, etc."  The fact is, my siblings and nephew and niece can help her, and if the time comes, some facility can help her.  But I do have these weird feelings that no one can take care of her quite the way I can or that she won't respond to others the way she responds to me.  That sounds so self-centered.  I don't mean it to sound that way, but that's what I've conditioned myself to believe because of how she behaves around me.

And then there's the other part of me: the worn-out, frustrated, exhausted, overwhelmed part of me that feels like he's caring for an overgrown child - a child he loves, but a child nonetheless.  Mom gets so distracted and she's so slow and unaware at times.  Sometimes it really feels like I'm taking care of a kid or a drunk person.  It's hard sometimes and emotionally draining.  There are times when I retreat to my room like some hermit to get away from it, and there are times, too, when I admit I have wished my mother an early death just so she and her family don't have to go through the pain of watching her mentally deteriorate or lose her independence. 

And I know these are natural thoughts for a caretaker.  I've read lots of literature about it.  I'm certainly not the first to feel that way, and I won't be the least.  But of course, it still makes me feel guilty.  Anybody who knows me knows I love and adore my mother, and it's because I do love her so deeply that caring for her and watching her "disappear" is so incredibly trying at times.

And maybe that's why I had my mini-breakdown on Friday.  At my show, a close actress friend could tell I was having a difficult die, and when she asked me about it, I just started crying, and later when I talked to Jonah on the phone about the feelings I was experiencing, I was sobbing.  I'm not the most emotional person, but I guess it all just came to a head.

But, really, what can I do?  I love my mom and will continue to help and care for her as long as I can and as long as it is possible to do so.  And, really, she's not much trouble.  She's grown needy and dependent, but she's still able to do so much on her own still, and as long as she can, I will let her.

I followed her to Sam's Club the other day to give her the illusion of independence, but also to make sure she didn't get lost.  She had no idea I had been following her.  She doesn't know that I throw away all her junk mail so she won't donate more money to charities than she is able.  She doesn't know that I go through her pill box and fix it when she puts in the wrong doses of medicines.  She doesn't know how stringently I keep track of her fiances to make sure she isn't overspending and that she is paying her bills.  In her mind, everything is hunky-dory, and I guess it's nice that she thinks that.

But thinks aren't hunky-dory.  She is extremely forgetful and her judgment and awareness are impaired.  I'm glad my siblings and I are so honest because it would be so easy to take advantage of her if we weren't, and I think about the other senior citizens out there suffering from health issues who maybe have children that aren't so honest or truly looking out for their parents' well-being, and it makes me sad.

I have made a huge decision.  Jonah and I have been apart more during our relationship than we have been together.  I have worked successfully as an actor out-of-state for some time now, and I have finally decided to come home for a while even if it means putting my acting career on hold for a bit (although ideally, I hope to have both Jonah and a good career at the same time).  After my next gig ends the first week of November, I will go back home to Jonah for a while, and this will be the first Thanksgiving we have spent together in quite some time. 

I do not know what will happen career-wise, and there is also a chance Jonah and I will both be unemployed at the same time, so it will be a little scary (although we have enough in savings to last us a few months), and leaving Mom will be hard, too.  But I have prayed a lot about it, and I need to go home for a while.  It feels like the right thing to do.  I hope my siblings and niece and nephew can keep my mom safe and happy while I am gone.  It's a hard thing to leave her, and maybe that, too, is why I was so, so sad.  But my husband needs me, and I need him, and this is the right time to go home for a while.

KSL And "The New Normal"

Facebook gets me in trouble sometimes.  Jonah is always warning me to be careful what I say on Facebook because sometimes it creates some drama between friends.  Actually, one of the the things I like least about Facebook is that you find out that some of the people you know, love, and respect have opinions about political and social affairs that sometimes make you respect them a little less.  I never unfriend anyone for their beliefs.  I think keeping people around who espouse all sorts of points-of-view keeps me well-rounded and informed.  I also think it reinforces what I already believe.  And I may not agree with what you say, but I wholehearted support your right to say it.

I tend to allow myself to get caught up in discussions (which sometimes, unfortunately, become arguments) about political and social affairs, and that's where I sometimes get into the trouble that Jonah warns me about.  Yet, I also feel it is necessary to discuss things that are important to me.  I do want people to know how I feel about certain issues.  The political climate has gotten so heated and confrontational lately, though, that I've resolved to try harder to stay out of political conversations (especially ones that are not generated by me in the first place).  Especially during this very tense and polarizing election season, I just feel I need to stay out of the arguments, especially when they are between people who have no hope of swaying one another to their points-of-view.

The other day I did make a comment about a new TV sitcom that NBC has picked up called "The New Normal."  It's a show created by Ryan Murphy, the producer of such shows as "Glee" and "American Horror Story."  Evidently, NBC's affiliate here in Utah, KSL (which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) has made the choice not to air it because, as Bonneville International CEO Jeff Simpson says, "For our brand, this program feels inappropriate on several dimensions, especially during family viewing time."  You can read the full story here and here as well as a comment by a reader applauding the decision.

Anyway, I posted a comment on my status that read as thus: "I haven't seen 'The New Normal' and have no idea if it's any good, but I do find it a bit hypocritical that KSL feels a show like 'Law and Order: SVU,' which has aired for years and deals with violence and sex crimes, fits their brand, but that a show about two gay men in a loving relationship wanting to raise a child together is 'inappropriate.' The show may suck, and I suppose KSL has every right to not air it, but it seems such a double standard to me."

This caused some conservative and liberal friends to start arguing this issue and also involved one unfortunate attack on the Mormon Church that I felt crossed a line (my friend later apologized for the remark).

One conservative friend said, "This is not the first time KSL has chosen not to air a show with gay issues. Another channel like KJZZ usually does instead. If every public channel was choosing not to air the program, then I could understand the argument. There are plenty of channels airing programs that I view as 'inappropriate', but I simply choose not to watch those channels instead of creating a thread of fruitless argument on fb. SO WHAT if those who support a more conservative view choose not to air a certain show, its the shoe-on-the-other-foot concept!"

It is true that this is not the first time KSL has chosen not to air a TV program.  Just last year they chose not to air the eventually canceled "The Playboy Club," and they haven't aired "Saturday Night Live" for years.  They also wouldn't air "Coupling" or "God, the Devil, and Bob" (both canceled as well).  So, yeah, they have a track record of not airing things they find to be objectionable.  But as I told my friend, that's really not my issue.

I said,  "I guess my point is not so much whether KSL chooses to air it or not. They can air whatever they choose to air. As a gay person, though, it bothers me that people are more offended by a gay couple wanting to raise a child together than they seem to be by violent sex crimes or people eating pig scrotums as part of a competition ('Fear Factor'). And while it may seem 'fruitless' to discuss such issues, they are issues that are important to me.

"Yeah, a conservative station can choose not to air a show that goes against its image, and yeah, someone else will likely pick it up. [KJZZ probably will.] That's their prerogative. I guess I'm just bothered by what the conservative affiliate chooses to be offended by. It reminds me when Larry H. Miller declined to show Brokeback Mountain because it was offensive, but didn't seem to have any issue with Hostel which was basically torture porn. Again, it was fully within Mr. Miller's rights to do. I'm not arguing that. I just find it interesting what people find offensive. I guess torture, violence, heterosexual sex, and pig scrotums are fine, but heaven forbid what will happen if we show a gay couple wanting to raise a baby together."

My brother-in-law and another friend also made similar comments about shows like "Two and a Half Men" (the long-running CBS show) and "Mike and Molly" (also CBS).  About "Two and a Half Men" my brother-in-law said, "I saw a commercial for it that made my blood boil. It promoted that show had 'new family values' then cut to a scene with Jon Cryer surrounded by scantily clad women, himself wearing just whipped cream stating how sexy he felt!"

My other friend said, "It's the beauty of America where 'Two and a Half Men' and 'Mike and Molly,' which are filled with misogynistic jokes as were as other questionable humor, are deemed ok, but 2 gay guys are 'not appropriate.' One question, does KSL carry ads for JCPenny? Now that would be hypocrisy."

Never having seen "Mike and Molly" or "Two and a Half Men," I can't judge the content of those shows, but I think my the points my brother-in-law and friend have stated are valid as far as what is deemed to be offensive.

And this is an argument I have in general.  People get all up in arms about Kate Winslet's nude scene in Titanic, but no one is the least bothered by the violent deaths suffered by those who were killed in that disaster.  People freak out when Janet Jackson's nipple accidentally makes an appearance during a Super Bowl halftime show, but no one seems offended by some of the misogynistic or homophobic ads I've seen aired during the Superbowl.  Again, my issue is not really with what any affiliate chooses to air, but with what they deem offensive.

And I think it boils down to what one commenter said in response to the Deseret News letter I linked above:

"To those on here who are using 'Law & Order:SVU' as a tool to justify 'The New Normal': Yeah, 'L&O:SVU' is a bad show in my opinion, I agree. But that doesn't in any way justify 'The New Normal' as a harmless show.

"And there's a critical difference between the two shows: while 'L&O:SVU' may portray a lot of brutal crimes on the screen (which I don't like), they are at least also shown to be evil and are prosecuted as crimes. 'The New Normal', while maybe not as directly explicit as 'L&O', portrays something far more damaging in the long run: it will show gay marriage and homosexuality in general as harmless, normal and morally acceptable. That's likely where KSL's judgment call came from. Yes, showing explicit violence isn't good, but describing harmful and deadly behavior as harmless and normal is far worse even if you don't actually show it."

So that's what it really boils down to, I guess: "Law and Order: SVU" is okay because the sex crimes and violence are portrayed as bad.  "Fear Factor" must be okay because people eating testicles and cow bile and bobbing for chickens' feet is just all in good fun.  "Two and a Half Men" is okay because the sexual exploits and promiscuous activity  of the two leads is heterosexual.  But because a loving and monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex is seen as sinful and evil, but is being portrayed as normal and acceptable, that somehow makes it more inappropriate.  

If KSL really wants to adhere to the family values they supposedly espouse, they shouldn't air half the stuff they air.  I've seen enough adultery and off-color jokes on KSL to write a book.  Just admit it: it's a double standard, and KSL certainly isn't the only entity in the world guilty of it.

All this having been said, I had a chance to preview the pilot episode of "The New Normal" this morning, and I found it more offensive for its stereotypes and lack of good humor than I did for anything else.  There were a few touching moments, but I found the show "meh."  I'm not sure why gay people are so often portrayed as snarky and catty.  (Well, I take that back: I know a lot of gay people who are exactly that, but it doesn't represent me.)  I also found one joke about abortion kind of unnecessary.  I felt it made light of the subject a little too much, but that's just my opinion.

The jury's still out, but while there were a couple of moments I liked, overall the show didn't impress me much.  It was only the pilot, though.  Maybe it will get better.  But currently it's not a show I would go out of my way to watch - not because it portrays a gay couple in a positive light, but because I just didn't find it all that entertaining or funny. 

Andrew Rannells and Justin Bartha make a cute couple, though.

This Anti-Gay Culture Has To Stop!

Sorry I haven't written in a while.  I've been busy with acting projects and some freelance writing I've been doing for an online marketing company.  I guess that's a good thing that I am busy and working, but I just have been too exhausted to blog.

My current acting gig ends in three weeks (and, yes, I am counting the days) which means I will soon get too weeks with Jonah, after which I have another six week gig.  It's great to be working, but I sure miss my husband, which is why I actually decided not to audition for any Christmas shows so that I can actually spend the holidays with Jonah for a change.  We'll both be unemployed, but I really feel it's what I need to do, and I'm keeping faith that we'll be covered financially

What I really want to talk about today is this culture that leads people to believe it's wrong or a bad thing to be gay and the damage that it does.  This week I found out something about a friend of mine that I went to high school with.  When we went to school together and I was deeply, so very deeply, in the closet, I always thought my friend seemed gay.

We lost touch after high school, and years later when I worked as a substitute teacher I reconnected with him when I substitute taught for him.  He was, by all accounts, a very popular and well-loved teacher.  He still seemed very gay to me, so I was kind of (sad?) to discover a photo of him and his wife and kids.  He'd followed the traditional Mormon path, and I wondered if he was happy and fulfilled, but I shrugged it off.

This week I discovered that after 12 years of teaching at the same school, he'd resigned a few months ago after the police questioned him about some inappropriate texts he'd exchanged to a male student soliciting sex.  The police also discovered pornography unrelated to the texts on his school computer.  The pornography in and of itself was not illegal, but because it was on school property, it was.

I have little doubt my friend is guilty of the charges.  Interestingly enough, I also have a friend who's in my current show who was once my other friend's student, and he said he, himself, after he had graduated, was a recipient of an inappropriate text from the teacher asking my friend to perform a sex act on him.

My actor friend, who's straight, but who liked and admired my teacher friend very much, was not offended by the text, but was concerned that my teacher friend was acting out in an unhealthy and potentially damaging way, and when he text back telling my teacher friend that he should talk to somebody about his sexual inclinations, my teacher friend wrote back and tried to dismiss the whole thing as a joke or a misunderstanding.

My actor friend also said he was not surprised by the allegations concerning my teacher friend, saying that my teacher friend had always been maybe a little too chummy with some of his male students.

That being said, I don't think my teacher friend has ever crossed the line beyond innuendo or inappropriate communications with his students.  I mean to say that, as far as I know, he's never had a sexual relationship with any of his students.  Still, as a teacher, he should have known better than to even send inappropriate messages to any of his students.

But I guess my point is that it makes me sad that my friend has risked his career, his reputation, and his family because of his actions, and I wonder if being gay was considered a normal, acceptable life in LDS culture if my friend would have felt the need to marry his wife at all or to seek out ways of satisfying his same-sex cravings.

This week I also came across a fellow gay Mormon blogger who wrote of possibly committing suicide, and a day later another gay friend of mine who grew up Mormon posted similar thoughts on his Facebook status.  At this time, I don't know how either of them are or if they are alive and well.  And I am worried. 

Jonah was worried enough about the blogger that he felt inspired to write Josh Weed, who I have talked about before, and Josh wrote a very heartfelt plea to the blogger and many of Josh's readers have sent words of encouragement as well.  Hopefully, our blogger friend is okay and will find the help he needs.

My Facebook friend has had a history of drug problems and has had a difficult relationship with his mother and, like I said, I don't even know if he's still alive.  I wonder if all these issues could be avoided if there wasn't such a stigma in LDS culture (as well as other religious cultures) over being gay or acting on gay feelings.

Another dear friend of mine was telling me a story the other day about a gay friend of hers who went to Seven Peaks water park with some friends simply to have a good time.  Instead they were bullied by some homophobic guys who called them names and physically threatened them.  My friend was so upset by this, and while she wasn't blaming the LDS Church for what these homophobic guys did, the incident did make her tired of being so passive about defending gay rights and made her second-guess her membership in a church culture that creates antagonism against gay people.

My friend hasn't been active in some time, and gay rights issues has been a large reason why, but now she is considering formally resigning from the Church, and I feel sad that the Church loses a lot of good people because of this issue.  My friend even expressed anger that the Church had excommunicated someone like me.  She said, "You're somebody who actually makes Mormonism look good to me still, and yet they kicked you out, and that pisses me off."  I know Jonah feels the same way.

I have another friend who's family kicked him out because he was gay.  He now doesn't even seem to believe in God.  And he's no exception.  I know many friends raised in the Mormon Church who have antagonistic feelings toward their families, religion, and God because of the way they have been treated with regard to the issue of homosexuality.

I have another friend who's active in the Church, but losing faith in it largely because of the homosexual issue.  She's really struggling between wanting to remain an active member and how she feels about gay rights issues.  She is also bothered that her tithing is going towards an organization that actively fights against gay marriage.  Will the Church lose her, too?

Because of this issue, too many good people are losing faith in God and faith in religion.  Too many families are being torn apart.  Too many young people are homeless or taking their own lives.  Too many people are acting out in inappropriate ways - doing drugs, engaging in dangerous or promiscuous sex, drinking too much, viewing pornography, hooking up behind their spouses' backs, etc.  Too many people are entering into marriages hoping it will fix their problems, and then so many of those marriages are left in heartache and destruction.

It has to stop!  I've seen more problems than good result from the Church's stand on this issue, and I fail to understand the "sin" in monogamous gay relationships.  I really don't see it.  Heaven knows every gay person I know, including myself, feels that being gay was never a choice, and that trying to not be gay caused more problems and damage than coming out of the closet and embracing their homosexuality has.  Unfortunately, what has happened is that their experiences within the Church have left the residual consequences of damaged self-esteem, a lack of belief in (and sometimes a hate) for religion and God, depression, family estrangement, and acting out in unhealthy and destructive ways.  Anti-gay people sometimes put the blame on being gay, but I think a lot of it comes from how the gay person's religion and culture has treated them and what they've taken away from it.

I've been lucky in many ways.  I had very good and compassionate religious leaders and a supportive and loving family, but many of my friends have not been so lucky, and while many are happy, religion has left a bad taste in some of their mouths, and I think it's sad that the very people and organization that are supposed to be loving and nurturing them have left them feeling empty and unloved.  And I, too, have certainly had my years of depression, self-loathing, angst, and feelings of suicide.

There is nothing wrong with being gay or two people of the same sex loving one another.  I fail to see the sin.  I don't see how mutual love can be wrong or wicked, and as I've stated many times in my blog, I am much happier where I am now than I was when I was trying to fight against my sexuality.

The sooner we stop believing homosexuality is wrong or evil, I think the healthier gay people and their families and relationships with God and religion will be.

How 'Bout A Side Of Civility With That Chikin?

I've pretty much had it with this whole Chick-fil-A brouhaha.  Hordes of people lining up for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.  Gay people holding kiss-ins.  Employees, both gay and straight, caught in the middle of it all.  Vitriol and name-calling from both sides.  It's gotten ridiculous.

Oh, and then there's this douchebag, whose supposedly on my side, harassing this poor employee who's just trying to do a good job and support herself in this crappy economy and who shows far more dignity and grace than this self-righteous blowhard:

 As a gay man who is very much in support of same-sex marriage, I am enormously offended by this ignoramus and his actions.  Harassing this employee does more harm to our cause than good and just makes gay-rights activists look like a bunch of insensitive jerks.  I can assure you that this particular man does not represent or defend who I feel I am as a gay individual (nor do the graffiti artists who vandalized a Chick-fil-A in Torrance, California with a picture of a cow scrawling the words, "Tastes like hate").  I believe in mutual respect and civility, and Adam Smith and the vandals in Torrance showed neither, in my opinion.

While I strongly disagree with Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's views on gay marriage, I also believe he has as much right to voice, share, and own his own views on the issue as I do.  I also think he must take responsibility for the consequences of those views, whether positive or negative.  I also believe that those who don't wish to give their money to Chick-fil-A have every right to boycott them and those that do want to give their money to Chick-fil-A have every right to patronize that business if they so desire.  Some of my fellow gay brothers and sisters may disagree with me on this, but I also think if somebody wants to buy a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, it doesn't necessarily mean that they hate gay people.  It might mean that they like chicken.  However, If they do love gay people and thoroughly know and understand the anti-gay causes to which Chick-fil-A donates money, perhaps it will make them think twice about giving their money to that business.  But if they do want to continue to eat at Chick-fil-A, I'm not going to unfriend them on Facebook or in real life as some of my other friends have chosen to do.  I hardly think I'll be building any bridges of understanding that way.

I do think the name-calling and disrespect and generalized misunderstandings and assumptions and stereotypes on both sides of the issue need to stop.  They are counterproductive.  I think people can disagree on issues without being disagreeable, disrespectful, or rude.  I don't think you can ever sway someone to your side of the argument if you treat them in an uncivil and unkind manner.

Believe it or not, not all Christians hate gay people.  I'm a Christian and gay, and I like myself very much.  Not all people who disagree with same-sex marriage are homophobes or hate gay people.  I have many friends who don't support same-sex marriage (a couple of them who, in fact, are gay themselves), and I still very much feel their love for me even if we disagree on this issue.  Not all gay activists are intolerant (although some certainly are as intolerant as the people they're railing against) nor are all those who are troubled by the idea of same-sex marriage intolerant.  And not all people who eat a chicken sandwich or work for a company that produces chicken sandwiches are "haters".

I know this is an emotional issue that causes feelings of anger and resentment on both sides, but I don't feel we will ever make progress in understanding each other's views if we resort to name-calling, stereotyping, and vitriol rather than healthy dialogue and showing more love and compassion towards one another, even when we disagree (especially when we disagree).  Allowing emotions to override reasonable discourse will never be successful at swaying someone to your side.  It is admittedly challenging, but I think when we get so locked into our own mindset that we fail to try and see things from another's point of view, we do ourselves a great disservice and progress between opposing factions is stifled.  Before we ask what the other side needs to do to change, we should ask ourselves what we can do personally to foster an atmosphere that will be more conducive to progress.  We can and will disagree, but even in doing so I think we can at least try to be more understanding and compassionate.

Just my opinion.

On the lighter side, here's Jon Stewart's take on the debate:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
ast Feud Nation - Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

I love his last quote: "Take solace in this.  Gay marriage is happening.  Like many drive-through window lanes, it ain't going backwards, and your bonus is this: You get gay marriage, and all your political opponents are going to get is type-two diabetes."

I Don't Suppose Mr. Lamont Ever Asked To Be On That Pedestal

I had this teacher in junior high.  He was actually one of my favorite teachers in junior high and, really, in my scholastic life.  We'll call him Mr. Lamont.  Mr. Lamont made learning fun, but also made us work hard.  He cultivated creativity and rewarded excellence.  He did not put up with mediocrity.

You have to know that in junior high, I was kind of a weird kid and very much a nerd and an introvert (all of which are probably still true).  Mr. Lamont was my first period of the day, and I would show up easily a half hour before class even started and just hang out in Mr. Lamont's room.  He would let me read his Far Side books and is actually the person who introduced me to the genius that is Gary Larson and The Far Side.  Sometimes Mr. Lamont would listen to his short wave radio.  I really liked him and am always grateful that he reached out to a somewhat socially awkward kid like myself.

Besides the Far Side and the shortwave radio, I have some very distinct memories of Mr. Lamont.  I remember his class was social studies, and we learned a lot of geography in his class, and actually his class gave me a great interest in geography and geopolitical affairs.  I remember he would ask us various questions about topics we were studying, and if we answered correctly, he would throw us candy (or one day it was oranges (Cuties, I guess they were - the small ones)).

I remember an assignment we were given to create a commercial for something, and I did one on cereal that I was so proud of and which also was kind of brown-nosy, and he was unimpressed and said it was a typical commercial and that there wasn't much in it that was different from regular advertising.  At the time, I was kind of crushed by his assessment, but the truth is, he was absolutely right, and it taught me to be more creative and visionary.

I remember he was a super BYU football fan, something in which I had little interest.  But I remember some teachers who were Utah fans "kidnapping" a BYU teddy bear he kept in his closet, and he was not amused.

I remember my brother had gotten illegal cable from a friend of his, and I happened to mention this to Mr. Lamont, and he got pretty serious about the legal ramifications of it, and I was so afraid I had gotten my brother in trouble.  Mr. Lamont didn't do anything about it, but it did teach me about the importance of ethics and following the law.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Lamont's class, and I still consider him one of my favorite teachers and felt he was very effective and influential in my education.

I was kind of excited when I came across him about three years ago on Facebook and messaged him to let him know just how much he had influenced me and what a great teacher I felt he had been to me.  I was pleasantly surprised when he messaged me back and was even more surprised that he remembered very well who I was.  In his words, I was "kind of an odd, but likeable kid."  True, that.

We became Facebook friends, and I discovered that we couldn't be on more opposite sides as far as our political ideologies and personal interests.  That's fine.  I have plenty of friends on both sides of the political spectrum as well as in between, and I try not to get too wrapped up in letting it affect our friendships.

Well, I guess the other day he said some things that caused some of his more liberal friends to attack him.  I have no idea what was said, but I do get the impression it was in relation to this business with Chick-fil-A's CEO's comments against gay marriage.  I really haven't gotten involved in the Chick-fil-A brouhaha.  I don't eat there anyway, and the owners and runners of Chick-fil-A can believe what they want, and the people who don't want to support them can do that, too.  It's no skin off my nose either way.  I have bigger battles to wage than whether one ought to boycott Chick-fil-A or not.

But in response to his liberal friends' attacks, Mr. Lamont's posted a rant in which he said the following:

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? AND MORE TO THE POINT, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Let's recap, shall we?

1. Chick-fil-A president says he supports the Biblical version of marriage (a man and a woman) and that he does not view "same-sex 'unions'" as marriage.

2. Every idiot in the US with nothing to do except get their views from Bill Maher and Louis Farrakhan immediately screams, "HATER!"

3. My point remains the same: why is it that when someone that is NOT black, or hispanic, or homosexual, or violently liberal, or transgender,or an albino mutant lesbian with webbed feet, states their VIEWPOINT, their OPINION (in other words, exercises their constitutional right to FREE SPEECH): why is it that when someone like me, that really understands what tolerance means, when we express our opinion, and it doesn't EXACTLY "toe the Party line", why are we "haters"? When you cretins on the Left side of the aisle told me, on a daily basis, how stupid George Bush was, or when you tell us in the media, on a daily basis, that white Americans are racist and intolerant and homophobic (another laughable term), why are we not allowed to disagree? Yet if I say that Obama was (and is) too inexperienced to be President, I am instantly branded a racist. When I say that I do not agree with the idea of same-sex anything, I'm called a homophobe. (Parenthetically, what could I possibly be afraid of? That I would get nailed with a man-purse?)

When labels ("Hater!" "Racist!" "Homophobe!" "Right-winger!" and so on) because the only answer you have for someone else's viewpoint, you have lost the ability, no, the WILL to reason and think on your own. You have now entered the world of animals: yeah, some of you are as cute as the dickens, but you're not any smarter than the dog next door. I love dogs, but I learned a long time ago that the conversations with them are fairly one-sided. (See Exhibit A, below).

 If you wish to communicate or get in touch, please, by all means, use my personal email...But don't look for me on Facebook. To quote Howard Beale (Network, 1976): "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Now I don't care if he's against same-sex marriage or if he supports the Chick-fil-A CEO's right to disagree with same-sex marriage.  Truth be told, I think the CEO has a right to believe whatever he wants to believe and that the company has a right to support whatever causes they want to support.  It's a free country.

Nor do I disagree with Mr. Lamont's right to exercise his freedom of speech or in his right to believe that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be an effective president.  I also agree with his perspective that when people disagree with each other, they often toss off unfair labels or generalizations or cause their arguments to become ineffective due to their name-calling or regurgitating someone else's talking points as their own.

All of that is fine.  No, what bothers me about Mr. Lamont's post (which, admittedly, was written in a fit of annoyance or anger) is his assertion that he is somehow more tolerant than the people he is railing against.  His argument loses credibility when he tosses out the same generalizations and stereotypes he is supposedly railing against.  But I guess it's okay for him to do it since he is defending his own side.

So those who disagree with him are "idiots?"  Those who have a different viewpoint than him only got there because they're getting their information from the likes of "Bill Maher and Louis Farrakhan?"  And while I think the terms "racist" or "homophobic" are thrown around too much in situations that probably do not warrant them (just because someone disagrees with same-sex unions or makes a politically incorrect observation about race doesn't necessarily make them racist or homophobic (although they may well be)), at the very least my former teacher has shown a great deal of insensitivity to race and homosexuality and liberalism in his post.  I don't think terms such as "violently liberal" or "albino mutant lesbian with webbed feet" or "cretins on the Left side of the aisle"  or calling the term "homophobic" "laughable" or the use of such a cheap stereotype of a joke as "what could I possibly be afraid of? That I would get nailed with a man-purse?" (I cringe re-reading it) or accusing those who disagree with him because they throw out such labels as "Hater," "Racist," "Homophobe," and "Right-winger" as having the intelligence of the lower animals of the world help buoy my former teacher's credibility.  

How does his doing exactly what he is accusing the same people on the liberal side of doing helping his argument?  It isn't.  He's no better than the people he's railing against because he's doing exactly the same sort of name-calling as those he's upset with.  He's sunk to the same level.

Again, I don't care that Mr. Lamont believes what he believes.  I don't care that his viewpoints are diametrically opposed to my own.  I don't argue his right to disagree with me or his other liberal friends.  I don't even disagree with his assertion that the attacks and name-calling from his liberal friends are counterproductive.  No, what disappoints me is that he sunk to the same level as them in doing the same thing, and therefore his rant has just as little weight as the very attacks he is decrying.

At the very least, he comes off as insensitive and intolerant; at the most he perhaps does betray feelings of racism and homophobia.  I don't know that Mr. Lamont is either racist or homophobic, but this rant doesn't do anything to defend the accusations that he might be.  

His own nephew wrote in response to his rant: 

I am completely shocked and somewhat speechless. Tolerant?? You have insulted SO MANY minority groups with this post, including the one I belong to. That is NOT tolerance. You believe that I, your sister's son, do not deserve the same rights as my friends and family who identify as straight? That is fine and dandy, you are entitled. But don't call people who disagree with you Idiots, and don't say that we lack the ability and will to think on our own. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed with anyone on my mother's side of the family as I am right now. 

I kind of echo the sentiment.  Mr. Lamont still remains one of my very favorite teachers and I will always be grateful for the influence he had on my education.  I never wanted to lose respect for him.  But I have.  I once had such admiration for this man.  Now I just feel disappointment - not because of his political or social views; not because we disagree on certain issues; not because he believes different things than I do - no, I am disappointed in his hypocrisy and in his being the very intolerant and name-calling type of individual he is lambasting in his post.

"Hey, Kettle.  Pot called.  You're black."