$569,000

By Bud Koenemund

  $569,000. By government standards, it's not much; not when compared to our national budget. It amounts to less than two/tenths of a cent for every American. Indeed, it's barely a drop in the bucket when compared solely to the defense budget.

  $569,000, or thereabouts, is the cost of one Tomahawk cruise missile – reportedly the weapon of choice for our upcoming attack against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The attack is, according to many in the media, a foregone conclusion. One report speculated dozens, even a hundred, of the missiles may be used in the assault.

  I said thereabouts when referring to the price because the true cost per missile could be as high as $1.4 million. But, just for laughs, let's go ahead and believe the government is currently getting the low end price; presumably for models without a CD changer, power windows, and a rear defroster.

  Considering the sheer number of missiles, and the cost (in dollars and lives), think about how much good could be done with those dollars.

  For $569,000 (remember, the cost of just one Tomahawk), we could:

  Through UNICEF, feed 1,138,000 children for a day. Or, feed one child for 1,138,000 days.

  Pay for a school term for 284,500 Ethiopian children.

  Buy equipment for 11,854 classrooms in Afghanistan.

  Pay for a year of schooling for 16,500 girls in Afghanistan.

  Build 334 wells in countries around the world.

  Provide 2,076,850 meals for kids in India.

  Buy 38 generators to provide power to entire rural communities.

  Provide a year of schooling for 22,760 Tanzanian children.

  Run 52 street children's hospitals for a year.

  For the price of just nine Tomahawks, we could do everything on the list. And, if the true price of each missile is the higher number I quoted, we could do more than twice as much. We could even save some elephants in Kenya, and maybe a whale or two.

  Now, some will say, "Why should I care about kids in Afghanistan or Tanzania? We have our own problems right here."

  You're right. We do. I used examples from around the world because we're going to expend those missiles overseas. But, we have bridges falling down, roads crumbling; all kinds of infrastructure that could benefit from having more dollars available for repairs.

 There are still people losing their homes because the housing bubble burst. Any number of schools and hospitals right here in the US could use that money.

  That money could be used to help fund national healthcare, or help pay college tuition, or help fund the arts – there are hundreds of theater companies starving for the funding which would enable them to continue providing culture to people at little or no cost.

  Of course, there are political considerations. But, you must realize Syria is a no-win situation for the United States. We will be damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If we attack, the US will be criticized for bullying yet another Middle Eastern country. If we don't intervene, the US will be criticized for allowing men, women, and children to die.

  But, we've been doing that all along. There are people dying around the world, right now! They were dying long before Bashar al-Assad. They were dying before Saddam Hussein began filling mass graves with 15,000 of his own people. They were dying before Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, and many other dictators around the world.

  Whether our Tomahawk missiles remain in their launchers or not, people will continue to die, because poverty kills more people each year than any of these men could ever hope to.

  The answer is not killing foreign leaders – merely allowing the next strongman to step up – or destroying what little infrastructure these countries have. The answer is more education. It is access to food and clean water. It is access to medical care. It is exposure to cultural events which teach we're not all that much different from each other.

  The United States can help provide these things, and for surprisingly little cost when you look at it in terms relative to what we spend to kill people.

Routine

  He washed away the excess shaving cream, rubbing his fingers together under the weak stream of hot water. His father had tried to teach him, of course.

  "You only need a little bit," he'd said. "It goes a long way."

  It'd been foam back then; not the expensive, moisturizing, sensitive skin care, cocoa butter-infused gel he slathered on now.

  This stuff was supposed to help his complexion, or so the writing on the side of the can promised. In truth, it only served to remind him of what William Shakespeare writes in Henry V: "The elder I wax, the better I shall appear: my comfort is, that old age, that ill layer up of beauty, can do no more, spoil upon my face."

  At 44, he'd been shaving for 25 years.

  "More than that," he sighed. "Closer to 30."

  In all the days of his eclectic, though admittedly incomplete, education, he'd somehow missed learning about Newton's law regarding the dynamics of gel expansion, of that he was sure.

  He still used too much. Well, if he hadn't figured it out by now…

  He looked in the mirror as the remains of the glycerin goop slipped down the drain. The blue eyes looked the same – his vision the only part of him, it seemed, not yet compromised by age. The face itself had changed; the skin looser; he had a wrinkle or three, and a couple old scars.

  Raising his glance, he again read the two quotes he'd long ago taped at the top of the glass – one a Latin phrase, the other he'd read in a Tom Clancy book.

  "Memento mori;" Remember you will die. He'd intended it as a motivational tool; to make him write by reminding him his time on this planet is limited.

  Each morning, it made him feel guilty when he thought about how little he'd accomplished the day before. And, too frequently, it elicited an empty promise to do more today.

  He noticed the slowly increasing number of gray hairs on the sides of his head…and the quickly decreasing number of hairs on top of it.

  Shades of gray, he thought.

  "Today you can be a man of honor; or you can not," the second quote read.

  It wasn't that easy, he knew. When he was young, everything had been simple. To a kid it's all black and white; good and bad. You're either G.I. Joe or Cobra; cowboy or Indian.

  But, a man's world is full of grays – colors that had to be dealt with, and consequences to be endured. Decisions often had to be made without the luxury of experience or knowledge. Best possible choices made in a moment, and years of memories lived with.

  Is this what it means to be a man? he thought, making the first pass with his razor. To struggle forward, while always dwelling on the mistakes of the past; trying to accept things that can't be changed.

Satire and "The Line"

  As a writer, I am always leery of passing too harsh a judgment on other writers; especially when it comes to attempts at satire. As George Carlin says, "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."

  I've written my share of satire. I've toed – perhaps even crossed – that line more than once. I've made word choices for effect. But, what The Onion did last night during the Academy Awards – what they called Quvenzhané Wallis, a nine-year-old child – was well over any possible definition of "the line."

  While I certainly am not the final judge of what is or isn't funny – at least not for anyone but myself – I think any rational person would be offended by The Onion's insulting remark regarding Ms. Wallis.

  Because she was seated at the Oscar ceremony, waiting to find out if she won the award for Best Actress, I'm sure Ms. Wallis did not see the Twitter post from The Onion. And – though it may be naïve of me – I hope she does not see the apology they posted soon after. I hope no one has to explain to a nine-year-old what The Onion said that required – that demanded – an apology.

  I believe in the First Amendment. The Onion has the right to write whatever they please. I, however, am not forced to agree with them. Nor, am I obligated to continue following them on Facebook, Google+, Tumblr, and Twitter.

  I have, therefore, expunged The Onion from each of the social media platforms I use.

Shakespeare the Critic

Hmmm, great indeed! "So we beat on..."

I thought this was about last night's wine-fest! Oh, my poor head!

This dude scares the $#!^ outta me! Ed, let's go get a drink and talk about it!

Well, maybe not the complete plays. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

This one writes pretty well...for a chick!

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was an age of wisdom, it was..."

 Blah, blah, blah!

Seriously, John?! As they say (or, will say in the future), less is more!

 Have you thought about trying a sonnet? Come on, 14 lines...

The American Family Association is Unpatriotic and Ungrateful

Arlington National Cemetery (photo from Army.mil)

I rarely comment on the things I post on What Are You Really Afraid Of? (http://whatareyoureallyafraidof.tumblr.com/) The stories and pictures I choose usually illustrate the bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance of the "anti-gay rights" movement better than my words can.

Today, however, I must sound off.

The American Family Association (AFA) is angry that gay soldiers might be buried in the "hallowed ground" of Arlington National Cemetery.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/american-family-association-gay-couples-buried-arlington-national-cemetery_n_2678325.html)

 

First, I find it sad that the leaders and members of the AFA have nothing better to do with their lives than trying to deny honor to people who fought and died for their country; to people who fought and died for the AFA's right to even exist and espouse their ridiculous beliefs!

 

Second, I find it funny that the AFA doesn't realize there are already gay people buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Our country's fallen heroes have been buried at Arlington since the Civil War. Gay people have been around since the beginning of time!

 

Does anyone truly believe none of the gay people who have served in our military were killed and buried with honor at Arlington?

 

Now, I challenge the AFA to look at the rows of headstones lining the rolling hills of that cemetery, and tell me which of the fallen were gay! And, then, tell me why it matters?

 

In addition, I challenge them to look at those who visit the graves and tell me what their relationship to the fallen is? Is it a father, a mother, a brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, best friend, lover, comrade?

 

Is the sacrifice made by a gay soldier somehow less than that of a "straight" soldier? Is the pain and loss felt by those left behind any less for a same-sex mate?

 

I served in the U.S. Army. In Basic Combat Training, by the simple logic of the Army, the man in the bunk next to mine was my "Battle Buddy." He and I became fast friends. We endured the physical and mental tests of BCT together. After training, I went to Panama, and he went to South Korea.

 

Years later, after we'd both left the Army, we found each other on Facebook. That's when I found out he is gay. You know what? It doesn't matter. I don't care that he's gay. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me. He remains my friend and battle buddy.

 

How does who a person loves affect the honor they receive for serving their country? For giving -- in the words of Abraham Lincoln -- "the last full measure of devotion" to the United States.

 

The AFA is not only bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant, but also unpatriotic and ungrateful for the sacrifice made to protect their freedom.

North Pole Announces Job Cuts

Santa's workshop "underwater" as Kringle appears before Congress

 

By Bud Koenemund

6 December 2012

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Disassociated Press) – Though surrounded by frozen wasteland, the North Pole has long been immune to cooling economic climates. Now, however, the world-wide financial crisis has reached into the icy expanse above the Arctic Circle.

  Santa Claus Incorporated today announced plans to cut more than 20 percent of its elven work force, and nearly 25 percent of its flying reindeer staff. The cuts come less than three weeks before Christmas – traditionally Santa Claus' busiest season – and were made in an effort to save money and streamline business operations, a North Pole spokesman said.

  "Decades of increasing production and delivery costs, as well as steadily rising elf and reindeer wages and health care costs have compelled us to downsize our workforce," said Yukon Cornelius.

  In an additional statement, SCI revealed the mortgage for Santa's workshop is underwater – the sale value of the workshop and surrounding property is worth less than the amount remaining on the mortgage.

  "SCI tried to re-finance this loan, but property values this far north have never been high, and it's difficult to make mortgage payments when you give away toys for free," said Cornelius.

  As the job cuts were being announced, Kris Kringle, CEO of Santa Claus Incorporated, appeared before the Joint Congressional Subcommittee for Supercilious Affairs to request a nearly $250 billion corporate bail-out package.

  During questioning by Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA), subcommittee chairman, Kringle admitted that Santa Claus stands in the growing shadow of a financial crisis.

  "Without a substantial aid package from Congress, Santa Claus could very well cease to exist," Kringle said. "We need an infusion of capital to sustain us while we re-vamp our operations."

  Frank pressed Kringle on the wisdom of his current business model and on repeated calls for cuts in management compensation.

  "From time immemorial, we have provided toys to children around the world, in exchange for nothing more than good behavior, stale cookies, and warm milk," Kringle said. "And, despite years of parental threats, we have never left a single child a lump of coal in their stocking. But, rising costs are forcing us to re-examine this generosity."

  "We must re-tool our plants and our workforce in order to produce toys more efficiently and at a lower cost, while at the same time, restoring the world's faith in Santa Claus," Kringle said.

  Committee member Senator Joe Lieberman (I – CT) questioned Kringle regarding the status of his mortgage.

  "Years ago, Chase – aware of our business model; our limited collateral and earning potential – approved our loan. They assured SCI real estate prices would continue to rise, and that there would always be more money available," Kringle claimed. "Now, we're drowning and they want to hand us a cement block.

  The International Brotherhood of Elves quickly responded to the announcement of job cuts and Kringle's statements before Congress.

  "Despite decades of poor treatment by management, especially a lack of dental care, the Elves have offered SCI several contract give-backs in an effort to preserve jobs," said a union leader who gave his name only as Hermey. "But, the problems at SCI extend far beyond our contract."

  "For years, SCI has been steadily cutting our workforce as they've outsourced more and more work to China and Korea in an effort to increase corporate profits. Unfortunately, toy quality has suffered and now consumers are turning to other sources for their Christmas gifts," Hermey said.

  Hermey cited SCI distribution of Chinese-manufactured toys containing lead-based paint as the primary factor for the decline in demand.

  Representatives of the Federated Union of Reindeer could not be reached for comment.

  At the White House, President Barack Obama said that he is watching the crisis closely.

  "We must not underestimate this crisis," Mr. Obama said. "If Santa Claus goes under, his suppliers and their employees will suffer as well."

  Several economic experts have warned ripples of SCI's fall could spread globally; even as far as Hanukkah Harry Industries – the largest competitor of Santa Claus.

  Rep. John Boehner, (R – OH), Speaker of the House of Representatives, is among several members of Congress opposed to a bail-out of Santa Claus.

  "This is not our crisis to solve. The North Pole is not U.S. territory and Mr. Kringle is not an American citizen," Boehner said. "He should petition Canada, Norway, or Russia; or perhaps even the United Nations for the emergency funding he needs."

  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) seconded Boehner's rejection of aid.

  "We are not in the business of giving handouts to the 99 percent of individuals claiming to be in danger of losing their homes or small businesses in this economic crisis," he said.

 

  Kringle warned that without the bail-out funds, "Presents may not be delivered this Christmas Eve."

This is Not Politics; it is Human Rights (2012)

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

– Martin Niemoller

 Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington;

 

  On November 6, you will determine whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in your states. Very simply, I hope you will choose the correct path and end discrimination against a group of your fellow citizens.

  Don't fool yourself, my friends, it is discrimination. You can quibble about the definition, but when you allow one person or group the right or privilege to do something, and then solely and purposely exclude another person or group from that right or privilege – that is discrimination.

  When you allow a white man to sit at a lunch counter, but not a black man – that is discrimination. When you allow a man to vote, but not a woman – that is discrimination. And, when you allow a "straight" person the freedom to choose – within age and consensual limits – who they wish to marry, and deny equal freedom to a gay person – that is discrimination.

  In the long history of the United States, we have fought for freedom – our own and that of others. But, we have also discriminated against many different peoples. Black people and women fought for decades to win equal rights. Jews, Slavs, the Irish, the Chinese, Cubans; as each new wave of immigrants has landed on our shores they have endured discrimination, and fought for acceptance – for equality.

  Sadly, even in 2012, there are people who must fight to be treated equally. They are American citizens. They are teachers, doctors, firefighters, police officers – the list goes on and on. And, in a large percentage of the country, they are being denied a basic human right.

  It is, and should be, a right to choose the person you wish to marry, whether that person is another man, another woman, a Jew or a Gentile; whether they are black, white, yellow, or red.

  For all the bluster and name-calling, when you get right down to it, the issue of same-sex marriage is a simple matter of civil rights – the basic right to be treated equally.

  Of course, opponents disagree with this view, and they come to the debate with a slew of "talking points," statistics, quotes from The Bible, and outright lies, which they use to stir up fear in others and convince them that it is OK to discriminate against those who are different.

  Supporters of this discrimination claim that it is vital in order to protect the sanctity of marriage. This is absurd and insulting to the intelligence.

  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov), in 2008, there were 7.1 marriages and 3.5 divorces per 1,000 Americans. That means that the divorce rate in the United States is nearly half the rate of marriages. Almost 50 percent of these "straight" marriages end in divorce!

  In another study, Pew Research Center found that the state of Maine – where discrimination toward same-sex couples was reestablished in 2009 via the passing of Referendum 1 – has the nation's second highest percentage of divorced people; second only to Nevada. Pew found that, among Maine residents, 15 percent of women (compared to a national average of 12 percent), and 12 percent of men (compared to nine percent nationally) are divorced.

  In addition – again, according to the CDC – the rate of divorce in Maine is half a percent higher than the national average (4.6 vs. 4.1 percent).

  Another interesting fact uncovered by the CDC report: the rate of divorce in Massachusetts – the first state to allow same-sex marriage – is the lowest in the nation.

  Perhaps we should look to Hollywood to find the sacred bond of marriage that opponents speak of. Let's consider Anna Nicole Smith and the 89-year-old J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married on his death-bed (surely a marriage based on true love), or Elizabeth Taylor, or any of the countless Hollywood "couples" who have married and divorced with alarming regularity.

  Or, maybe we could look to our political leaders as the shining examples of this marital sanctity. John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Rudolph Giuliani, Ronald Reagan…all divorced. Arnold Schwarzenegger? Separated, and on the way to being divorced. Of course, there are some politicians whose marriages have survived; Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer spring to mind.

  It seems to me that if we truly wanted to preserve marriage we should campaign to outlaw divorce and stiffen the penalty for adultery, not fight to deny marriage.

  Opponents argue that the "right" to get married is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States – for gay people or straight people. "Therefore," they claim, "to deny two people of the same sex something like that is not an infringement of such."

  As for the first part, I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Nor should it be. Two consenting adults should not require the sanction of the state in order to get married. I would, however, ask you to look at another document – one just as important to our nation – and read these simple words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…"  All men. Not all "straight" men. All men!

  In response to the second part of the argument, I ask two questions: If the right/privilege/ability of a same-sex couple is not being infringed, what are we arguing about? If no infringement is present then, logically, a same-sex couple should simply be able to walk down to the local courthouse in any city, in any state of the Union, and get a marriage license…just like any "straight" couple, correct?

  Unfortunately, that is not the case. In fact, in a majority of the country, a same-sex couple cannot receive a marriage license. How is that equality?

  Perhaps the most frequent tactic used is quoting of the Scriptures. Opponents of same-sex marriage love to point out The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. And, to be honest, it's my favorite tactic to observe.

  "Why," you ask?  I like it because when you challenge "God's Word," they get indignant, or feign being insulted, and then usually say something like, "Well, if you're going to turn this into an attack on Christianity, I'm not even going to debate you."

  This is, of course, simply not true. In actuality, the only thing under attack is the use of their beliefs to limit or deny the rights of people who do not share those particular beliefs.

  You see, the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution is fine with many of them, as long as it means they can worship as they please. But, when you point out that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion – freedom from having the beliefs of others thrust upon you, or their beliefs being used to deny equality – then watch out.

  Unfortunately, despite all this professed belief in the Scriptures, words like compassion, charity, and love seem to have been lost in the mire. And, many people seem to have forgotten "The Golden Rule" that Jesus himself gave us in the Book of Luke: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

  "The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination," they'll say. Indeed, it does…in some interpretations. But, in addition to telling us what is not permissible, The Bible tells us what is. According to The Bible, slavery, beating your wife, and even human sacrifice are allowed, and in some cases, demanded. Luckily, we as human beings have evolved to a point where those practices are no longer considered acceptable or legal.

  The truth is, The Bible is full of allegorical stories that can be interpreted in a number of ways. It was written by men – fallible, imperfect human beings, each with his own agenda and his own prejudices. In addition, it has been passed down through generation after generation, translated, re-interpreted, changed (can anyone say Council of Nicea?), and changed again. No one can truly say that The Bible we read today bears any resemblance to what was originally written.

  Of course, if you still believe that The Bible, literally translated, is the final word on the matter, I'll just ask this: If The Bible tells us that God made man in his own image, wouldn't that include gay human beings too? And, if that's so, who are we mere humans to question God's design?

  I don't understand where this fear of same-sex marriage – of gay people in general – came from. When I joined the United States Army in 1990, I was asked – twice – if I was, or ever had been, a member of the Communist party or of any organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. I was asked if I was, or ever had been, gay, six times. Six times! Are gay people three times more likely to devote themselves to the destruction of freedom? Are gay people three times more likely to be bent on bringing about the violent overthrow of the government of the United States? To think this, even for a moment, is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

  I know several same-sex couples. These are not men who haunt dark parking lots outside of adult bookstores. They are committed, hardworking Americans trying to make a living. And, they are as devoted to each other as any "straight" couple I've seen.

  During my time on this planet, I've learned that on most issues there are many points of view. Often, there is more than one "right" answer – more than one way to believe; "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," as William Shakespeare tells us.

  In this case, however, the simple fact is this: same-sex marriage should not be a political issue. It is a human issue about justice, equality, and ending discrimination against a group of American citizens.

  Too often, this argument revolves around hate and fear, when it should revolve around love. We spend – if we're lucky – 70 or 80 years on this little ball of dust before we "shuffle off this mortal coil," so why not try to be happy – and allow others to be happy – while we're here?

  I ask opponents of same-sex marriage to consider a few more simple questions: Does denying the happiness of others make you any happier? How does the marriage of two other people – no matter their genders – affect your marriage? Does defeating same-sex marriage make your own marriage – or any other marriage – stronger?

  The truth is, the only people who affect the sanctity of your marriage are you and your spouse. The couple next door – whatever their gender composition – doesn't change your commitment. And, couples across the street, across town, or across the country have absolutely no control over the strength and validity of your marriage!

  No one is telling you that you have to be gay. Nor is anyone saying that you have to like gay people or their lifestyle. But, that doesn't make gay people any less human than you are. It doesn't make them any less an American citizen than you are. And it certainly doesn't give you the right to discriminate against them. They are not asking for special treatment or privileges, only for equality. They want – and deserve – the same treatment and respect that every other American citizen receives, no more, no less.

  This issue is not important only for gay Americans; it is important for all Americans – gay, straight, black, white, Democrat, Republican, believer, atheist, and everyone in between. You must realize that once you deny equality to one person, or one group of people – once you see them or treat them as something less than you are – you make it that much easier to see everyone as something less than you are. And, eventually, someone will do the same to you. Someday they will come for your rights as well…and there will be no one left to speak out for you.

  Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington; I sincerely hope you will find the courage to end discrimination against your fellow citizens by voting to allow same-sex marriage in your states.

  In Maine: Vote "Yes" on Question 1.

  In Maryland: Vote "For" Question 6.

  In Minnesota: Vote "No" on Amendment 1.

  In Washington: "Approve" Referendum 74.

  Thank you,

  Bud Koenemund
  4 November 2012

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past

This is my entry in the 2012 Short Short Fiction Contest sponsored by Esquire magazine and the Aspen Writers' Foundation. The story had to be exactly 79 words - to celebrate the 79th anniversary of Esquire.

I have included the photograph - a still taken from a 2011 YouTube video of an Occupy Wall Street march - that inspired the story.

When I saw the blonde woman toast the protesters, I immediately thought about the attitude and words attributed to Marie Antoinette - "Let them eat cake!"

I recalled the warning of George Santayana - "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I thought about last year's protests and uprisings in Greece, London, Rome, and throughout the Middle East. And, I thought, if it can happen there, it could happen here as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past

By Bud Koenemund

  The insatiate gathered above Wall Street, on gilded balconies overlooking the rabble – the indebted; those without jobs; those left homeless by the housing bubble – the self-proclaimed 99 percent. They laughed, took pictures, and mocked the people; toasting the disaffected with champagne. They were among the elite in a world of margins and algorithms; puts and calls; dollars and cents. But, insular in their greed, they could not feel the heat of a fire whose glow already lit the horizon.

Antonin Scalia and the Right to Marry

  Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, apparently believes that no American – gay or straight – has the right to marry. Yes, you read that correctly – no one.

  As reported by David Badash of The New Civil Rights Movement, during a recent book signing in Washington, D.C., Scalia said, "for him, it is 'easy' to outlaw same-sex marriage."

  Interesting. A man who goes to work in a building bearing the motto, "Equal Justice Under Law," finds it "easy" to discriminate against American citizens.

  Scalia's pronouncement is especially troubling because several appeals regarding same-sex marriage rights are pending Supreme Court review.

  But, according to an article from The Huffington Post:

  Scalia calls himself a "textualist" (which is also labeled an originalist), meaning Scalia believes that if the exact words – text – do not appear in the Constitution, the right to it does not exist. In a Scalia world, there is no right to same-sex marriage.

  The fact is, marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution – not same-sex marriage; not heterosexual marriage; no marriage – not a single mention. This is, one would think, a fact of which Scalia is well aware.

  Obviously, if we follow Scalia's beliefs as a "textualist," this means no one – gay or straight – has the right to marriage in this country. If the exact words do not appear, "the right to it does not exist." Right?

  So, how do you go about blocking the right of someone else, when you yourself do not have that right? Or, if you argue that you have that right, how can you deny that right to others?

  Given his publicly stated beliefs regarding same-sex marriage, can we believe Scalia will fairly and impartially weigh the evidence of whichever – if any – case the Supreme Court hears?

  Or, may we assume, since his belief in discrimination toward these American citizens is so strong, he will recuse himself from ruling on any case relating to same-sex rights?

  Hypocrisy and discrimination, or recusal – take your pick, Justice Scalia.

Tortured

For TK

Inspired by Jack, Neal, and Allen

We could see the darkness and were blind in the light. We stood, dumb, as a vomit of colors, and words, and numbers whirled around us. We were everything, and everywhere, not with each other, but within everyone; enveloped by a stream of power, drowned and reborn. It was beautiful. And, more beautiful because it was not limited by any form or definition. The waves swept away all thought of past or future. There was only the now, and we were it, and it would never end. It was an explosion, like the birth of the universe, and the death of everything all at once. We wielded energy, pure and liquid, against a roiling sky of neon. We were omnipotent within the world of our minds; and yet powerless to save ourselves. Our minds burned with the fever of knowledge; knowing everything, comprehending everything, thirsting for more, even as it all fell away as quickly as it came. A hurricane raged around us, stripping away our doubt, revealing in chaos: order. We reached out to touch it, to embrace it, and somehow pull it back within us before consciousness blotted it from our brains; struggling to save some small fragment of it. But, it could not be. It could not live beyond this dream, and so much was lost as our eyes opened, once more blind in the light of day.