Wil Wheaton was a dick. For many years, that's what I thought, even though I'd never met him. I'd seen Stand By Me when it showed up cable. I'd even seen him on Star Trek: The Next Generation, even though that was only while flipping past whichever channel was airing it. But I knew. I knew it because it mattered that some guy, some actor, on the other side of the country was a dick. Gossip is the coinage of teenage youth. Besides, no tabloid magazine was necessary. I had a first-person account.

A few months ago, I wrote about my high school friend, John Aboud, and how he was part of the group of friends with whom I ate lunch every day. Also among that group was Grady Weatherford. Grady was a Junior that year, my Senior Year. I don't remember how we added him to our group, but we did. And he was an actor. And during that year, he landed a role in Toy Soldiers, playing the all-important role of student. I had an "in".

Never having worked on a movie, we quizzed Grady any day he was in school during filming of Toy Soldiers. I don't remember who first brought up Wil Wheaton's name. I didn't even care about Wil Wheaton. I just wanted to learn the truth about Gordie Lachance, a.k.a. "TV's Wil Wheaton".

In what was inevitably a throw-away comment, we learned that Wil Wheaton was a dick. Who needs to question that? That knowledge was good enough for me. And my life continued happily for years.

While in graduate school, I spent the summer between my first and second year staying up late, playing on the new-fangled Internet, and watching random movies on cable. One night, I saw a movie called Pie in the Sky. I'd never heard of the movie, but it starred Josh Charles. Since I'd enjoyed his performances in Threesome and Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, I stuck around when it came on.

So I'm watching and enjoying the movie when "that guy who I heard was a dick" showed up on screen as Jack, Charlie Dunlap's (Josh Charles) best friend. I'm not going to describe what happened in the scene because you should watch the movie, but this is important: I laughed. So I thought "That guy's funny. I wonder if he's still a dick...". Over the next few years, I watched Pie in the Sky enough to memorize most of the dialogue. Every time I watched, I always laughed at "that guy who I heard was a dick but seems to be funny".

On November 25, 2002, I read Whitney Matheson's Hip Clicks in USA Today. This is what she wrote:

The Onion A.V. Club interviews Wil Wheaton this week. The star of Stand By Me and Star Trek: The Next Generation also has a great Web site; if you haven't checked it out, you should.

"Hey! It's that guy," I thought. I wanted to know what he might have to say. There was no investment in clicking, just satisfying a curiousity. I clicked my way to WIL WHEATON dot NET.

I first recognized that his site was set up like this new internet phenomenon I'd heard about called a weblog, or "blog" to the kids in the know. I started reading. The first post I read included this paragraph:

A few months ago, I made this major decision in my life: I would stop applying a singular focus to getting work as an actor. I would continue to accept auditions as they came along, but I wasn't going to break my back, or sacrifice time with my friends and family to play Hollywood's game.

"Dicks" don't sacrifice their career for their family. Do they? I read more. And more, until I noticed a theme. He'd lived his life, faced struggles, and transformed himself into a family man/writer/actor who was not a dick. Having never met him, I couldn't be sure that he wasn't a dick, but I could sense enough from his writing to assume the best about him. My old uninformed opinion fell away.

I bookmarked his site and checked in multiple times a day, waiting for each post. Last summer, he self-published a book, Dancing Barefoot, which I bought and read and enjoyed. When I bought Just A Geek, I jumped into the pages immediately and found a writer with a skill few writers possess: he made me laugh, out loud, while riding the subway. (I recommend Just A Geek. For a little more depth in a review, consider reviews here and here.) When a writer can do that, allow me to paraphrase a quote from Richard Bach: I hope Wil Wheaton makes a million dollars from Just A Geek.

As I said, I've never watched Star Trek, yet Danielle and I added an extra day to our vacation in Las Vegas when we learned that Wil Wheaton is signing autographs and performing at this weekend's Star Trek Convention. We've already purchased our admission and autograph tickets, so after this weekend, besides striking Star Trek Convention from my Crazy Things I Never Thought I'd Do™ list, as I did with the Miss America Pageant, I'm anxious to confirm that Wil Wheaton is not a dick, that he's just a geek.

(Was that too much Hallmark to be David Sedaris?)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

President Bush spoke these words yesterday:

"This broad agenda we will carry into the new term comes from a basic conviction: Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush said. "Yet government can and should help citizens gain the tools to make their own choices and to improve their own lives."

A censor's fat pen and a political party's Constitutional amendment are tools, I guess, but they don't strike me as empowering President Bush's sudden epiphany...

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last week, Danielle and I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. Everyone who has read RollingDoughnut.com knows or can decipher the basics of my political philosophy. I've been clear about my feelings regarding the upcoming election, so no one is surprised that I believe President Bush isn't fit to be President of the United States. I knew going into Fahrenheit 9/11 that Michael Moore wouldn't change my mind because I already "agreed" with him. He's aiming for those undecided voters who can be swayed. Like I said, not me. I went into the theater hoping that Fahrenheit 9/11 would sway undecided voters away from President Bush.

Too bad Fahrenheit 9/11 is a piece of shit.

Walking out of the theater, I felt as though I'd been treated to a live-action Jackson Pollack painting. A dab of red here, a dollop of blue there, a dose of yellow on top of all of it. This isn't what a film should aspire to... lots of pretty pieces but thematically incoherent. No individual part added to a single, obvious revelation. President Bush is "stupid" and "arrogant" and "corrupt", but what does that have to do with soldiers not knowing why they're fighting and dying? I can make the connection, but I shouldn't have to work extra hard to do it with the presented information.

I'm going to ignore the factual misrepresentations and lies because I don't know the validity of Mr. Moore's truths. I've read enough information on both sides of his arguments to understand that Mr. Moore slants the facts with misrepresentations and/or lies. This is a shame, because I think he could've made a great film. At least one that would withstand even a minimum level of scrutiny, which is what I hope anyone would apply when seeing a political propaganda film.

Before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I'd had friends and various media recommend it as important. When deciding which movie to see (we also considered Before Sunset, which we saw tonight), a man came up to us and asked if we'd seen it. We said no, so he told us we didn't need to think any longer, that we needed to see it. His reaction was exactly what I expected from the "I don't question facts, I only see something that confirms my view" crowd Mr. Moore panders to, especially with this film.

Mr. Moore's thematic failing with Fahrenheit 9/11 is obvious. The movie consists of three "acts", with no glue to hold each act with the one before or after. First, he opens with Election 2000 in an effort to show that Al Gore won the election but Bush became president because of influential friends on the Supreme Court. Next, he considers the war in Afghanistan. Last, he addresses the war in Iraq.

I know that Mr. Moore's theme is supposed to be "the failings of George W. Bush as president", or something similar. What he shows is anecdotal evidence that President Bush is a puppet for Saudi Arabia, that President Bush didn't use enough force in Afghanistan (Mr. Moore opposed this war), and that America is a bully to innocent Iraqi civilians. Mr. Moore ignores anything that supports a different view of his beliefs and doesn't bother to discredit opposing views. To his credit he doesn't claim to be "fair and balanced" so that he can sway you away from President Bush. That doesn't make his film's failing excusable.

While waiting for something compelling to wrap up the movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 lost me when Mr. Moore started Act 3. His presentation of Iraq in Fahrenheit 9/11 is manipulative. He never attempts to put the buildup and eventual war in Iraq in any context. What he does is show U.S. soldiers as militant mercenaries; callous, unfeeling human beings who listen to rock 'n roll before going into battle. We are to believe they take glee in shooting and killing innocent civilians. Mr. Moore intends for us to hate them and laugh at them for being lower life forms.

A few minutes later, Fahrenheit 9/11 shows dead soldiers as Mr. Moore introduces his tale of a mother who taught her children that the military is the viable option for getting out of lower class life. From the beginning of this segment, we know that her story will not turn out well, so she's the victim of President Bush's "crimes".

I might accept that if Mr. Moore hadn't followed this with images of soldiers disrespecting Iraqi captives. Again we're shown that soldiers are bad. We're supposed to hate these vile soldiers but feel bad for the poor mothers left behind. That doesn't work for me.

Fahrenheit 9/11 left me feeling incomplete. I knew what I was supposed to believe, but if I'd just flown in from another planet, I wouldn't understand why I'd sat for two hours watching scene after scene thrown at me. Fahrenheit 9/11 is like an Italian chef who throws boiling spaghetti (real Italians bend and taste the spaghetti) against a wall to see if it'll stick. When something sticks, it's done. Until then, keep boiling and throwing.

Michael Moore throws, but none of Fahrenheit 9/11's spaghetti sticks.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

From today's weekly radio address by President Bush:

As yesterday's report shows, we are making progress in changing the culture of America from one that said, "if it feels good, do it; and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else," to a culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.

That line is in the middle of a paragraph, so I admit that I'm extracting a piece of his speech to prove a separate point. But I'm not twisting the meaning. President Bush said that and it applies.

How am I trying to apply it to another issue? The CIA offered inaccurate evidence to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which led to the war in Iraq on a false pretense. When the prison abuse scandal appeared, President Bush swept it away. Everyone in his administration took a "get over it" posture.

I'd give more examples, but that's enough in the recent past to prove what I'm about to say. I'm not saying President Bush lied to America because I'm not privy to any information that would make me think that. I don't think he's sinister and evil as many others believe. He's human and makes mistakes like the rest of us.

I do believe that, as the Commander-in-Chief, he is responsible for what happens within the government. By acting on the information from the CIA, he accepted it as truth. When it became clear that the CIA was wrong, President Bush did nothing. When we learned that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident, President Bush did nothing. (On both examples, when I say "nothing", I mean "nothing public with any substance".)

I offer a wiser example of presidential responsibility with this quote from Harry Truman:

"The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

That applies to the consequences of his decisions, as well. While admitting mistakes as a politician can be dangerous to a re-election, as the President, George W. Bush is granted an amazing power over the reputation of the United States. He must represent that well, regardless of the personal outcome to himself. President Bush can't encourage teenagers to accept responsibility for their actions when he won't take responsibility for his own. If he wishes to be the true leader of "traditional values", he'll teach through his example rather than his rhetoric words.

(For the full speech that contains the above quote, click here. Please decide for yourself.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here's an interesting opinion column from the New York Post. The key quote for me is this:

The Republicans have put themselves on the wrong side of a generation gap. And it won't be easily papered over as today's young voters age into older voters — who are more likely to show up at the polls.

When it's one of your first presidential elections — as it is for me — it's no trivial matter that voting Republican means a vote for a party catering to the worst prejudices about our brothers, sisters, friends from high school, college roommates, co-workers, bosses, drinking buddies and the like.

I'm not sure I can do it. And, if it weren't for the War on Terror, I know few for whom it would even be a question.

As much as this focuses on the Republicans, it also speaks to the Democrats. Democrats must aknowledge that national security is the main issue in the election. Do not pretend that it's the economy or education or the minimum wage. The war on terror is what voters most care about. It will decide this race.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

President Bush is looking out for us. Even though the FMA is "dead", our president believes that this issue must continue. Consider his statement from yesterday:

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added.

"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said.

Pass this amendment, even though the Senate has already shown that sufficient support doesn't exist? As opposed to focusing on real issues like national security? Worry not, though. Anyone who is fretting that Republicans don't have an alternate plan, they do. It's called HR 3313 IH, and it passed the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. It states:

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.

Do you read that text the same way I do? Let me offer a statement that sums up my interpretation:

"This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

This is hypocritical. While promoting a Constitutional Amendment, Republican leaders have stated that we, the right-thinking Americans, can't trust state-level "activist judges" to continue defining marriage correctly. By extension, they claim that the Defense of Marriage Act isn't safe. Yet, now that the FMA is on life support, Republicans wish to eliminate all federal jurisdiction over marriage? What about those "activist judges"? Won't they do exactly what we've been told they'll do?

Oh, wait... I know why... They're using HR 3313 IH to remove any association of the "full faith and credit" clause with marriage. It's good to know that they're looking out for me. This will be a great precedent that Congress can abolish the federal judiciary from considering any argument I might make that one state won't honor a contract entered into in another. Good idea.

Given the obvious fallacy of this legislation, I suspect it will not hold up. I guess I should be cheering, but I'm not. Congress is playing politics with our law. While this is not new, it's hard to recall such a blatant attempt to redefine American democracy into something less than itself. That is my fundamental problem with the way our leaders are undertaking this "debate". This is shameful, but it's not going away.

Consider:

Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.

In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.

At least this issue is not politically motivated, as critics have suggested.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

The first insightful statement I heard this morning is that I'm no longer on the cusp of my thirties, that I'm now "in" my thirties. Yay me?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

How a situation can change in just a few hours. I was going to post at lunchtime, but decided to wait until this afternoon. Now, of course, the FMA is dead for the year. In a 48-50 vote, the FMA failed to get the necessary 60 votes to reach the floor of the Senate. Too bad...

But I do offer Senator Rick Santorum's latest quote during the debate, just because it highlights his agenda:

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

Unbelievable.

(Here's the original post, since this debate isn't going away.)

Beware the rhetoric regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now that the Republican leadership in the Senate realizes that it won't win passage of the FMA. Despite my joy at the potential for political suicide undertaken by the religious wing of the Republican Party, I'm still frightened that a United States Senator could make this statement and believe it.

"If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

This proposed Constitutional amendment is not about marriage. If it were about marriage, there would be one sentence in the wording proclaiming marriage as between one man and one woman, but that's not what it says. There is a second line eliminating any potential rights for same-sex couples from civil unions or other such arrangements. This is about stopping the implied homosexual master plan to "redefine marriage".

As for Senator Santorum's facts, I'll offer an alternate viewpoint about the history of marriage. Consider Andrew Sullivan's responses to President Bush's Saturday radio address, which focused on the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Then there is his second premise: that allowing gay people to enter into civil marriage would "fundamentally redefine" marriage. In fact, of course, gay couples want to enter marriage as it is currently defined. And the fundamental redefinition of civil marriage to which the president refers occurred decades ago--when contraception became widely available, severing the link between procreation and civil marriage; and with the advent of women's equality, ending the notion that civil marriage was a way in which men affirmed domestic control of women. If civil marriage is therefore not procreative and not based on distinct gender roles, on what grounds is the admission of gay people a "redefinition"? In fact, under the current definition of civil marriage, the exclusion of gay couples is a blinding anomaly.

And...

But it is simply a fact that marriage is "an evolving paradigm." For the first millennium after Christ, Christianity didn't even recognize marriage as a sacrament. It was regarded as a purely secular matter of property ownership. Marriage also once meant the ownership of women by men. It was once permanent, and no divorce was possible. It was once restricted to couples of the same race. The notion that it has never changed is simply untrue. The only relevant question is whether the current change is a good one. The president doesn't answer that question. He simply asserts it, based on nothing but bad history and ignorance.

I've made it clear that I support legalizing same-sex marriage as a civil arrangement because the different-but-equal aspect of civil unions is absurd. (Don't even get me started about the nonsense going on here in Virginia concerning private contracts between same-sex couples.) Not everyone is going to agree with that, and I respect that. But that doesn't mean an amendment is the right option. I'm happy to see that many conservatives are agreeing and intend to vote against the FMA for the correct reasons (marriage is a state issue and this amendment would damage the Constitution). Insert pithy, feel-good ending here... Isn't democracy great?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The British may claim that Americans don't really speak English, but perhaps the British don't speak English either. When I logged on this morning, AOL offered this exciting opportunity:

Even I, the crazy Yank who doesn't always speak the Queen's English, can recognise the mistake.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

The Senate begins debating the viability of the U.S. Constitution this week as it considers the Federal Marriage Amendment. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until this proposed amendment is dead: regardless of your opinion on same-sex marriage, a Constitutional amendment is not the answer.

For more than 200 years, we've relied on Federalism, the notion that, while all states are connected into one nation, each state retains its fundamental right to decide how its citizens will govern and be governed. This includes contracts. Marriage, as a legal institution, is a contract.

We have Senators who do not believe that protecting the centuries-old foundation of our nation is more important than pushing a religious social agenda onto the nation. Consider Senator Orrin Hatch's recent statements:

Next week, the Senate will vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment. In a series of hearings in several different Senate committees, witness after witness confirmed what the American people already know. Traditional marriage is the single best arrangement for raising children and forming citizens. For that reason, government may certainly select this time-proven institution for special preference and protection and a high burden exists for those who would introduce radical and untested substitutes. And it should be the American people who make such choices, not judges imposing their own preferences without the people's consent.

The American people are not making this amendment choice; it's the Congress. Granted, they are elected by the people they govern, but they are not the people. I have a point to make about "activist" judges, but I'm going to hold that until the end.

Now consider

As a senator, my oath of office requires me to defend the Constitution and the system of government it established. That oath means supporting the only solution to this crisis that threatens to undermine not only the vital institution of marriage, but the fundamentals of democracy as well. Protecting marriage requires amending the U.S. Constitution because we simply cannot wait for, or tolerate, further judicial corruption of both marriage and the Constitution. As our experiences with abortion, criminal rights, and religious liberty demonstrate, it is nearly impossible to correct Supreme Court decisions once made. "We the people" established the Constitution, but if we leave this issue to the courts, same-sex marriage will be here to stay whether we like it or not.

Judicial corruption of marriage? The Constitution? How is granting rights to more citizens a corruption? If the judiciary is corrupting the Constitution, how do we define what the Congress is doing to it? And that last sentence... Sometimes "whether we like it or not" isn't a sufficient argument. A majority of the nation felt that only white men with property should vote, but that didn't make it right. The majority is entitled to an opinion, but the majority doesn't automatically win. That's why we have a court system. Checks and balances exist for a reason.

Now consider:

Our opponents' objection that the Constitution has always been amended to extend rights tells only half the story. The Constitution's amendments have generally served to extend the right of citizens to govern themselves, and to be able to make final decisions on issues such as marriage. The people in the states have already spoken on this issue, and the FMA will protect their fundamental right to democratic self-government — a right being eroded by an unaccountable judiciary.

The Constitution has not been amended only to extend rights. It was also amended to enact Prohibition, but that was repealed for legitimate reasons. The real argument from Senator Hatch's opponents (Hi.) is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is meant to protect the citizenry from the government. This amendment fails that test.

As for the right of citizens to govern themselves, this argument is so weak that it's laughable. Just because "the people have already spoken on this issue", the FMA will not protect our right to democratic self-government. The FMA would restrict the right to democratic self-government because future generations couldn't change this without another amendment. How does that return the decision to the citizenry?

Now consider:

For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years. Society has an interest in the future generations created by men and women. Decoupling procreation from marriage in order to make some people feel more accepted denies the very purpose of marriage itself. And such a radical transformation should not be imposed by judges upon people who would not choose it for themselves. Yet absent a constitutional amendment, that is precisely what we face.

Same-sex marriage does not decouple procreation from marriage. Individual freedom did that. Imagine this, if you will, that in every marriage contract, this new line is inserted: "By entering this marriage contract, you agree that you will procreate within a reasonable amount of time. Without procreation, this marriage contract becomes null and void." Is that how we wish to define marriage?

Finally, the "activist judges" are not imposing same-sex marriage upon people who do not choose it for themselves. I haven't heard of the "You Must Marry a Same-Sex Partner Day" imposed by any judge, so correct me if I'm wrong. This notion is absurd.

I'll wrap up with this: the rhetoric with this issue is "activist judges". With so much said about them, it sounds like that's the problem facing Congress, not a redefinition of marriage. (I do not believe this, but I don't bitch about "activist judges".) If that's the problem, deal with that problem. Adopting the FMA as the solution for "activist judges" is like cutting off your nose because you sneeze too much. Would you make that choice?

Contact your Senator and let them know that they've been told to defend the Constitution, not to undermine it.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

At some point in the recent past, Danielle pointed me to the fine comedy stylings of The Sneeze. I'm grateful. Over the last month or so that I've been reading the site, I've laughed out loud. Catching up on the archives, I laughed. With each new post, I eagerly anticipate the joke. When there is no intended joke, I marvel at every interesting turn of phrase. In short, it's good.

This morning, I checked for an update. When I saw the title "Reviews You Can Use: Identical Twins", I laughed in anticipation after reading the first line. I quote:

The concept of identical people is an intriguing one.

Being an identical twin, I laughed. In a few paragraphs, a short list, and a final assessment, he mocks every person who has ever treated my brother and me as one person. People are always "shocked" when they see us together, until they get to know us. Then they realize how easy it is to tell us apart. Because we're not "identical".

I recommend The Sneeze. Too bad he doesn't know that every cheeseburger my brother eats dumps another pound on my gut.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Walking by newspaper vending machines yesterday, the headlines struck me as informative, highlighting the journalistic approach of each newspaper's editorial board. Each had its presentation of John Kerry choosing John Edwards as his running mate. Consider:

The New York Times reported the story to imply that Senator Edwards is a skilled politician. Hidden clue: Vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because they're smart. And those other guys are dumb.

The Washington Post reported the story to imply that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are focusing on what matters to Americans. Hidden clue: Vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because they care about what you care about. And those other guys don't.

The Washington Times reported the story to imply that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards have much in common with each other. Hidden clue: Vote Bush/Cheney. Because they're the right guys with real values. And those other guys are vapid, out-of-touch liberals.

Reporting the news is essential, but doing so with an editorial slant is wrong. I don't like reading marketing material on the front page of a newspaper. While I believe that speaking of "good hair" in the front page headline is the most egregious error of the three, all three are bad. Whether liberal or conservative, bias is bias. I'm concerned about how much worse it's going to get before November 2nd.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Guess what? Just when you thought I was over the Federal Marriage Amendment, I'm back to discuss it again. This time, I'm going to offer communication with one of my Senators, Senator George Allen. Since the Senate is going to consider a Federal Marriage Amendment next week, it's important to me that I make my opinion known. So I sent a letter. Again. This is Senator Allen's response:

Dear Tony:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and a Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.

As a United States Senator, I will support and protect the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. While it was my hope that the existing Defense of Marriage Act could accomplish this goal, I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage.

To that end, I will vote for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the Senate considers one in July.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain

Sincerely,

Senator George Allen

You know I won't just throw my hands up, roll my eyes and leave that alone. So I responded. Consider:

Senator Allen,

Although I'm thrilled to learn that you've developed psychic powers allowing you to know the results of future court decisions, I fail to see how voting for a Constitutional amendment will fix this. Perhaps if you could offer case names and majority opinions from those future court decisions, I could better appreciate the perils facing our nation. Until you're able to forward me such informative details, you are wrong in your support of any Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

The amendments up for consideration do not support American ideals. The U.S. Constitution is our most sacred document. It should not be desecrated to remove rights from the people. It's most glorious achievement is that it protects the people from government. Any marriage amendment does not meet this ideal. It eliminates the idea of federalism and the right of the people of individual states with respect to marriage. How will you "protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage" by removing any option for the people to define the institution of marriage for themselves?

As long as we believe in freedom, the people have a right to make decisions for themselves, however immoral you may believe those decisions to be. With marriage, the only concept open for debate is what will the government of the people allow. Since we believe in equality, the government must not eliminate rights from citizens, despite a presumed majority opinion to the contrary. The government must recognize certain rights, whether or not the churches of the nation support them. The legal definition and the religious definition of marriage may differ, but the legal definition must provide equality.

Based on your support for any potential marriage amendment, please know that you do not serve me in the United States Senate.

Tony

P.S. Since you have psychic powers, you can serve me by providing me with this week's PowerBall numbers. Thank you.

Whatever your opinion of same-sex marriage, a Federal Marriage Amendment is not the solution. The U.S. Constitution is sacred and should not be altered at the whim of a repressive social agenda. If we abandon American ideals with this amendment, this is the true slippery slope that concerns me. Please, regardless of your opinion, let your Senators know that this amendment is wrong.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Now that I've been gone from my previous employer for more than three months, I'm offering an update: I have zero regrets. No "Why did I leave?" thoughts pop up during the most trying moments of being my own boss. The great moments are better and the idiocy of professional life is amusing instead of frustrating. I don't think of that company often. It's sweet.

But I get occassional reminders of how happy I am that I no longer work for them. Today, I received an email from them about company stock that is vesting in a few weeks. The email reminded me that the date is approaching and included a link to the website to view my account. When I clicked the link, I received this message:

Your current browser is not supported by this site. This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer Version 5.0 and greater.

This is a good indicator of my previous employer's view of the world. My using Mozilla Firefox is too far out of the "normal" range to be considered. Forgive me. But the best part of today's e-mail was this disclaimer:

Note to Former Employees: You are receiving this email at the address registered with XXXXXX’s Employee Alumni website. If your email address has changed, please update your profile on the Alumni website.

If my e-mail address has changed, how would I get this e-mail that tells me to update my information? Any guesses why I don't work there anymore?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)