THE DOG THAT MOOS
This site – and the five moo-ing canine TV commercials it leads to – is worth a few minutes of your morning . . . whether because you need to be enlightened (which I highly doubt) or because you know someone who does (possible) or because it’s interesting to consider whether this ad campaign, running in Colorado Springs, will be effective.
(Or simply because it’s fun to hear a dog moo.)
After the animated clip, you’ll find a small ‘Norman on TV’ link at the bottom of the screen that takes you to the five clickable TV commercials.
BEING STUPID IS APPARENTLY A CHOICE ALSO
From Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch:
I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed. I think it is a transgression against God’s law, God’s will.
– Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, running for Governor
☞ In other words, if God had meant for men to fly, He would have given them wings; and if he had meant for them to be gay, He would have wired them to be attracted to people of the same sex.
Oh, wait. He did.
(He also wired some people – perhaps Ken Blackwell – to fall close enough to the middle of the sexual orientation spectrum that, for them, it really can be a choice how to lead their lives. They deserve respect and equal rights, too. But in my experience, at least, most of us are wired to be essentially or entirely straight or gay.)
For those of us who believe dogs that moo should have rights to pursue happiness equal to the rights of any other dogs (if they pay their taxes and don’t pee on the sidewalk), there was good news last week. Not the defeat of Ralph Reed (although that, certainly, too) – the defeat of yet another attempt to write discrimination into the United States Constitution, this time in the House of Representatives.
Voting against the Republicans to defeat the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment were 159 Democrats. Voting to pass it were 34 Democrats.
Those 34 Democrats fall into two groups:
- Those who actually believe granting Charles and me equal Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, and such, will somehow threaten their own marriages.
- Those who know it won’t – who know that encouraging stable relationships discourages promiscuity and strengthens the social fabric – but who feel they have to vote this way because their constituents would fire them if they didn’t.
With Group #1, we simply need to have continued respectful conversations. With time, attitudes are changing.
I’m not saying that to know us is to love us – Charles can be demanding and I drive people crazy asking them for money – but in general, when you get to know gay couples, especially gay couples who have been caring for each other for ten or twenty or thirty years – sometimes longer and more faithfully than even you and your own spouse may have done – you come to see this as harmless or even good. And as Americans, you are proud our country allows people to pursue happiness in almost any way they choose, so long as it does not impinge on the rights of others.
With Group #2, we need to recognize that pragmatism is part of getting things done. Especially because those 34 were not needed to defeat the Amendment, should we really be too upset by their votes? Isn’t it more important to take back the House of Representatives than to defeat the Amendment by an even wider margin (much as I would have liked to see that)? The whole point of the House vote, after all – since the Amendment was already dead, having gone down in the Senate – was nothing more than Republican political gain. The reasons the Republicans scheduled it were three, I think, and only three:
- Stoke the Republican base, who agree with Ken Blackwell (who would have been quoting Ephesians – ‘Slaves, obey thy masters’ – in an earlier day).
- Defeat incumbent Democrats by turning their ‘pro-gay marriage’ votes into attack ads in October.
- Deflect attention from the soon-to-be $10 trillion National Debt ($8 trillion of it racked up under Reagan, Bush and Bush) and stem cell research and Katrina and global warming and corruption and torture and our having weakened our Armed Forces and turned most of the world against us – and on and on and on and on.
If your attention has not been deflected, click here to find or host an event Saturday.
Quote of the Day
If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation.~The Old Farmer's Almanac
Request email delivery
- Aug 4:
But First . . .
- Aug 3:
Swimming To Israel On EVLO Cap Gains For Norman Lear’s Birthday
- Jul 31:
How To Tax Wealth — Your Feedback
- Jul 28:
How To Tax Wealth
- Jul 27:
Newsweek: Teachers Union Has Become A Public Menace
- Jul 26:
Moses . . . R.I.P.
- Jul 23:
PRKR, COVID, CLIMATE, AND MORE!
- Jul 22:
Macron and Maddow
- Jul 21:
Field Of Dreams
- Jul 20:
Waste Not, Want Not; A Truly Great Man
- Aug 4: