AdamSmith

1. We don't know yet. Kennedy (or even Roberts, the Easter Island-head enigma) could be the tilt. 2. Thank the gods they ARE unelectable. Can you imagine what semblance we have of justice coming from otherwise? Same reason the Federal Reserve is insulated from the political class, to the extent it is.

One thing that emerged today is that Solicitor General Verrilli needs to be replaced as soon as practicible.

That was odd -- Kennedy (I think) musing out loud that maybe they shouldn't have taken the case.

Transcript of today's session: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2013/03_march/scotus-transcript.pdf

Because, as I said, he was a tease. In the kindest way possible! His girlfriend always suspected he and I slept together at some point, but alas we never did.

Hito! In college I knew a guy (I was in love with him but he was straight, etc.) who had a pair of underwear with a mood-ring-type patch on the crotch. He loved showing it off. Tease!

Fervently to be hoped... Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' News • supreme court • News • ISSUE 49•13 • Mar 26, 2013 WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.” “Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?” “Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?” Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter. Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be fucking kidding me,” under his breath. “I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time.” “Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?” Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. “I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the fuck are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?” Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly. “Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two shits what you do.” “C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

The Time For Watered-Down And Effectively Meaningless Gun Laws Is Now Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 49•12 • Mar 20, 2013 By Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Yesterday, I took immediate action in the ongoing gun control debate by removing from a proposed firearms bill a provision banning assault weapons, all but ensuring that such a restriction will not be signed into law. In taking this bold step, I have effectively ensured that millions of deadly, military-grade firearms—much like the type used in recent mass shootings in Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook—will remain legal and easily accessible to all Americans. But it isn’t enough. In spite of these bold measures, there is far more work to do if we are to enact regulations that achieve marginal, virtually nonexistent progress on gun control. And so today I say to my fellow senators: We must pass through a watered-down and ultimately meaningless package of so-called gun law reforms, and we must do so now. The challenge, as it stands, is clear. Under our current laws, there exist virtually no rules preventing assault rifles and other deadly weapons that serve no legitimate purpose except to kill human beings from falling into the hands of anyone who wants them. And while it may not be politically convenient for them to do so, lawmakers must be willing to step up, band together, and go to work on a diluted, insubstantial bill that will do essentially nothing to address this problem. Moreover, once they’ve drafted such a bill, they must ensure it is torturously wrung through the Congressional legislative process until it bears virtually no resemblance to the law that was initially envisioned. Now, ratifying such a useless piece of legislation will not be easy. With the NRA and other special interest groups standing in stark opposition to gun control reforms, it will be up to Congress to stick to its convictions and draft a comprehensive bill designed to put a stop to the sales of assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and other killing implements, and then completely neuter that draft into an insubstantial husk that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. After all, a majority of Americans—not to mention the President of the United States himself—have voiced their support of comprehensive gun reform measures, and so it is up to our elected officials to take the most hesitant measures possible, provided such measures won’t risk angering these lawmakers’ constituents and won’t possibly diminish their reelection prospects or, you know, alienate corporate America in any way whatsoever. The people of this country deserve no less. Remember that the stakes here could not be any higher. It was only three months ago that we learned of the senseless murders of dozens of Americans—including 20 children—in Newtown, Connecticut, a massacre made possible by the shooter’s free access to the very same weapons we today must make a half-hearted effort to ban before ultimately doing nothing of any lasting value. We owe it to these children, and all other children, to immediately pass through a futile law that does nothing to remove them from danger, so that we can look them in the eye and say, “We barely sort of fought for you.” And once we do pass such a weak, impotent, piece-of-shit, garbage, why-did-we-even-bother law, further challenges await for us to buckle at the first sight of. Our gun regulations today contain numerous flaws and oversights that make deadly weapons available to some of society’s most dangerous and mentally unhinged individuals. Until comprehensive background checks, mandatory mental health screenings, and an end to the gun show loophole are half-heartedly proposed and then immediately discarded at the merest glimpse of a political obstacle, our laughably ineffective work will not be done. But such future challenges are talk for another day. Today, it is up to us, as duly elected representatives of the American people, to put forth a historically insignificant bill that accomplishes nothing and makes the people of this country no safer, while also conclusively demonstrating to the NRA that even Congress is incapable of stopping them. That’s the kind of legislation we must pass through into law. Assuming it even makes it out of the Senate, that is. http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-time-for-watereddown-and-effectively-meaningle,31751/

I Get To Determine Whether Gay People Can Marry Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 48•49 • Dec 11, 2012 By Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Last week, the Supreme Court decided to take up a pair of cases related to gay marriage, cases that will for the first time determine the constitutionality of laws denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. As a member of the nation’s highest court for the past 21 years, I can remember few rulings of such consequence as these two, which will affect the lives of so many people. So as the time approaches, I ask all Americans to think long and hard on what these decisions will mean for the future of our nation, and also think long and hard about the fact that I, Clarence Thomas, will get to determine whether gay people can marry each other. That’s right, me: an embarrassingly undistinguished justice with a history of ethical misconduct who hasn’t spoken during an oral argument in almost seven years. I get to rule on whether gay people should have basic human rights. Pretty crazy, right? I’m one of only nine Americans in a position to decide, in a matter of months, whether our democracy values the right of a group of human beings to get married. Now, if you’re having a hard time wrapping your head around that one, you’re not alone. If you had told me in 1991 that I would one day have the power to decide the basic rights of millions of people, I would have laughed in your face. Back then, I was a 43-year-old appeals court judge with a flimsy record on civil rights and abortion who thought affirmative action was a form of “social engineering”—not exactly the kinds of views you’d expect in a jurist destined for the Supreme Court. Yet lo and behold, that same year, despite accusations that I sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill, my appointment to replace retired justice Thurgood Marshall was confirmed. Soon enough, I was abstaining from oral arguments for years at a time and failing to disclose my wife’s sources of income. I’ve spoken maybe two times in the past decade, for Christ’s sake. Think about that. That’s hundreds and hundreds of cases during which I’ve sat silently and twiddled my thumbs as my colleagues actively interrogated lawyers and posed tough questions about the scope and applications of laws—cases to which I barely paid attention, sometimes appearing to nap on the bench. And I get to have a say in deciding on a constitutional level whether or not all adult members of the human race have the right to recognize their unions? That historic judgment falls on my shoulders? I’m not trying to belabor the point here. I just want you all to be fully aware that the future of gay and lesbian citizens in this country comes down to the opinion of nine people, one of whom—me—fell asleep during the inauguration of the first black president and believes states have the right to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant. Speaking of, here are some other things I believe: felons have the right to bear arms unless the state explicitly forbids it, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, corporations and unions should be permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, and those campaigns should not be required to disclose donors. Oh, and in 2003 I dissented in the court’s decision to strike down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual acts. Yet in six months, in the year 2013, I’ll have the opportunity to decide whether hospitals can legally bar gay people from visiting their loved ones. Take a second and think about the gay people in your life. Your best friend, your mom, your dad, your teacher, your coworker, your partner, you. I get to decide whether these people face institutional discrimination. The same goes for bisexual people, transgender people, and anyone else whose right to marry may be prohibited at the state or federal level. They are all searching for happiness, and their happiness all depends on the opinion of a man who once asked if someone put pubic hair on his Coke. You want to hear something even weirder? Antonin Scalia gets to decide all this too. So before these two judicial decisions are upon us, take a moment to reflect on what they mean for the future of our nation. As the tide of history turns and decisions of tremendous importance reach the highest court in the land, I will be there to judge them. Now, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life. http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

Uproarious. Accurate. Bitter, but good satirists are self-hating misanthropes anyway... The top 10 gay movie cliches After spending last week at the BFI's festival of short gay films, Jack Cullen feels qualified to list the top 10 cliches of the genre – from the ironing mother to the very long shower scene … Jack Cullen The Guardian, Monday 25 March 2013 15.40 EDT Is it time for some gratuitous rage? A scene from Beyond the Walls Photograph: Matthieu Poirot-Delpech Artistic shots of treesNothing conveys the gay psyche like a bleak sky glimpsed through a dizzying rush of distant poplars – the type gay boys stare at longingly from the homophobic inferno of the school bus. It's fairly cheap and easy to capture, too: best shot from a moving Peugeot 207, with the camera balanced on the sill of a half-opened side window. The short film Sunshine Sparkling in My Eyes has plenty of this. The ironing mother She is angsty, sombre, frayed, yet just a tiny bit fabulous. Think of a fat Joan Rivers cast in a John Osborne play. She's probably 30th in line to being the next Sheila Hancock. She needs to be watching a massively crap chat show or a feckless daytime TV quiz. She should shout at the TV as if it can hear her and she will definitely shout at her gay son when he comes in from school. At first, her dialogue revolves around schoolwork, nagging her son to wear a bike helmet and complaining about his (erotically shot, of course) piles of dirty socks. Later, she will ask if he's gay, then feign shock at the answer. But let's face it, she's already spotted the cock ring and poppers in his bottom drawer. And then there's that Eurovision wallchart ... Working-class mothers are generally the best, but a rich bitch can work, too. is a tremendous example.Scenes of gratuitous rage How dare that boy call me a faggot!? How dare my dad suggest he wants me to be straight like him and everyone else he's ever known!? It's time for a moment of rage! Throw your mobile on the floor so that the battery pack smashes! Cycle furiously while bent over your handlebars with a deep frown! And don't acknowledge Mrs Friendly Old Bitch who lives next door when she says hi. Pick up a brick and chuck it off a provincial bridge into a dried-out river and imagine what your body would sound like slamming against those … oh God, now we're quoting Björk lyrics. We're on to a winner here. Some of the better gay films acknowledge that lovers are capable of hating each other at the same time, and expressing it beautifully: see the Heath Ledger/Jake Gyllenhaal "I wish I knew how to quit you" rage scene in Brokeback Mountain. The long and unexplained shower scene The main character takes a shower, as most people tend to do on a daily basis. For some reason, this has to be included in the film. Unlike most showers, it goes on for quite some time. With plenty of lather. Some shower scenes ( , ) get it right. But mostly, they're just baffling. Beautiful eyes staring into the distance Mesmerising peepers – as deep, blue and mysterious as a lake – will often be captured on the point of tears, before being clenched tightly shut to indicate intense feeling. The heartwrenching piano score Preferably by Sibelius – not the Finnish composer, but the affordable software programme that lets anyone become a bedroom Beethoven. At some point, you will need restless chords to communicate the misery of realising that one is gay. If in doubt, use Dial-a-Violin. For summer scenes, use something playful in a major key; in winter, try the deep end of a glockenspiel but use very sparingly. Remember: your audience's musical knowledge will tend to stop at Donna Summer. Anything without a beat is essentially classical. An introspective fag break It's all getting a bit much for our hero Tyler/Ricky/Brent/Hugo: his secret longings, his stubborn parents, that boy in the swimming team, the imminent school poetry contest. What better way to communicate this inner turmoil on a budget than to have Tyler/Ricky/Brent/Hugo pop out for a cigarette and look tremendously introspective while he's about it. Smoking is phallic and all directors think they are the first to realise this. The other advantage of a long fag-having-a-fag scene is that it makes the protagonist appear slightly older, so you'll feel less pervy about fancying him. Cigarettes and homosexual longing have been closely related ever since Jean Genet made his short film Un Chant d'Amour in 1950. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yLjaZvujMVU The generic clubbing scene The T-shirts are white, the music is thudding, the lasers are green, and the night is hot, hard, deep and relentless. We don't want faces, we want a feeling of anonymity and collective isolation – in other words, lots of shots of smooth tanned necks filmed from behind. Wait, who's that over there? A face is emerging from the muscly crowd. Could this be the introduction of another character in the … Ooh, look, he's noticed you, too! And now you're kissing! Cut to the bedroom. TV series Queer As Folk understood this right from the very start. Look up scene one, episode one of the US series if you want a textbook guide. A male body filmed very slowly in close-up The softly pulsating ribcage that looks like pale fingers grasping a mug of tea. The erect, quivering nipple. A single chest hair. Goose-pimples. Back dimples. Lots of titillating pans southwards: following the curve of a shoulder blade down to the spine, leading to that big lolling wave of arse; from the enclave of the belly button to the taut, tanned abs, and then – gulp – into cock country. Intersperse with shots of sad, beautiful eyes (see above). Alternatively, rather than an architectural survey of the young male body, you could, like director Xavier Dolan, . His film is a short, and so are his audience members' lives.Complex acknowledgements When you're Gus or Lars, you can dedicate your entire film to your pet owl if you like, but the gay short film-maker will have some dues to pay. Ideally, the end credits should be about the same length as the film. The more charities, sponsors, authoritative-sounding organisations, obscure archives and volunteer van drivers the better. Remember: this isn't just a gay short film. It's a moral marathon. Lengthy credits also give the audience a chance to fire up Grindr and scour the auditorium and/or work their 3m-long scarf into the double-loop ascot wrap. • Jack Cullen writes for Gay Times, So So Gay and French magazine TÊTU. He also writes a blog called Jack of Hearts and can be found on Twitter @jackcullenuk http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/25/top-10-gay-movie-cliches?zehtg=2

Same source: It's pretty simple: President Clinton signaled his support for and then signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 to get the issue off the table during his reelection year. Gay-bashing was a wildly popular political tactic in the 1990s, and Clinton rode the wave to victory. Clinton has since denounced Doma and come out in support of gay marriage, now that those stances are politically popular. Look: there's no use in pounding politicians forever over each moment of moral impurity and opportunism; it's how things generally work. But that doesn't mean we won't roll our eyes and feel severely nauseous reading credulous accounts like this, in today's New York Times, of how poor, burdened Bill Clinton felt so sad about signing that law and could barely even sleep, so... so troubled was his conscience: He had just flown across the country after an exhausting campaign day in Oregon and South Dakota, landing at the White House after dark. But President Bill Clinton still had more business before bed. He picked up a pen and scrawled out his name, turning a bill into law. It was 10 minutes before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, 1996, and there were no cameras, no ceremony. The witching-hour timing bespoke both political calculation and personal angst. With his signature, federal law now defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it. For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters. Spare us.

The Guardian's live blogger is appropriately salty. That we are even having to adjudicate this shit... ...Over the next two days, the court will hear arguments over state and federal constitutional rights for same-sex couples – and possibly overturn a terrible gay-bashing law that Bill Clinton signed in the 90s for modest, personal political gain. Today's first session concerns Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in the California state's constitution – overturning the state supreme court's recognition of same-sex marriage just a few months earlier. This left thousands of couples who'd already exchanged vows suddenly unmarried. A legal battle ensued, with a US district court striking down Prop 8 on equal protection grounds, and a federal appeals court upholding the court's decision under a less sweeping rationale. These various rulings, along with a number of tiresome procedural concerns accumulated over the years that the supreme court will first need to sift through, mean there's a vast, confusing array of possible outcomes for the Prop 8 case. Chris McGreal explains all of this, and more, in his long and detailed preview that you'll want to keep nearby for the next 48 hours. Wednesday's arguments will concern the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a truly awful and mean-spirited law from another era (the 1990s) that most controversially denies married gay couples the federal benefits offered to married straight couples. We'll talk more about the Doma case as the day goes on and into tomorrow, but the legal eagles' consensus is somewhat clearer on this one: there's a strong chance the Supreme Court, like lower courts, will find the law unconstitutional on obvious-from-the-start federalist grounds and finally get this noxious crap off of the government's books. In the Proposition 8 legal action, the supreme court could decide: • There is a constitutional right, under the equal protection clauses, for gay couples to wed, in which case the laws in 30 states prohibiting same-sex marriages are overturned. • The Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage is constitutional, leaving states free to decide the question for themselves. • That once California permitted gay marriage, it could not then take that right away. That would have no impact in the majority of US states that are determinedly against gay marriage, at least for now. • To uphold the Obama administration's position that California cannot go on recognising same-sex civil partnerships, with the same rights and burdens as marriage, without permitting gays to marry. That would also force seven other states that allow civil unions to introduce same-sex marriage but, again, have no impact on those states that ban gay nuptials. Your trusty Guardian live blogger's musings will be supplemented by dispatches from our able-bodied warriors in the field. Chris McGreal will be reporting inside the chamber. Adam Gabbatt will be surveying the scene outside the court, where lines began forming before the weekend. He'll try to meet some of these devotees – or perhaps the unfortuante people they paid to serve as "placeholders" over the weekend and freeze to death in their stead – and whoever else shows up for the circus. Let the fun begin. We will be covering every aspect of it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-live

Older and better! (I am older than you so I can get away with saying that. )

PORTMAN: Coming out By Will Portman Guest Columnist Yale Daily News Monday, March 25, 2013 I came to Yale as a freshman in the fall of 2010 with two big uncertainties hanging over my head: whether my dad would get elected to the Senate in November, and whether I’d ever work up the courage to come out of the closet. I made some good friends that first semester, took a couple of interesting classes and got involved in a few rewarding activities. My dad won his election. On the surface, things looked like they were going well. But the truth was, I wasn’t happy. I’d make stuff up when my suitemates and I would talk about our personal lives. I remember going to a dance in the Trumbull dining hall with a girl in my class and feeling guilty about pretending to be somebody I wasn’t. One night, I snuck up to the stacks in Sterling Library and did some research on coming out. The thought of telling people I was gay was pretty terrifying, but I was beginning to realize that coming out, however difficult it seemed, was a lot better than the alternative: staying in, all alone. I worried about how my friends back home would react when I told them I was gay. Would they stop hanging out with me? Would they tell me they were supportive, but then slowly distance themselves? And what about my friends at Yale, the “Gay Ivy”? Would they criticize me for not having come out earlier? Would they be able to understand my anxiety about all of this? I felt like I didn’t quite fit in with Yale or Cincinnati, or with gay or straight culture. In February of freshman year, I decided to write a letter to my parents. I’d tried to come out to them in person over winter break but hadn’t been able to. So I found a cubicle in Bass Library one day and went to work. Once I had something I was satisfied with, I overnighted it to my parents and awaited a response. They called as soon as they got the letter. They were surprised to learn I was gay, and full of questions, but absolutely rock-solid supportive. That was the beginning of the end of feeling ashamed about who I was. I still had a ways to go, though. By the end of freshman year, I’d only come out to my parents, my brother and sister, and two friends. One day that summer, my best friend from high school and I were hanging out. “There’s something I need to tell you,” I finally said. “I’m gay.” He paused for a second, looked down at the ground, looked back up, and said, “Me too.” I was surprised. At first it was funny, and we made jokes about our lack of gaydar. Then it was kind of sad to realize that we’d been going through the same thing all along but hadn’t felt safe enough to confide in each other. But then, it was pretty cool — we probably understood each other’s situation at that moment better than anybody else could. In the weeks that followed, I got serious about coming out. I made a list of my family and friends and went through the names, checking them off one by one as I systematically filled people in on who I really was. A phone call here, a Skype call there, a couple of meals at Skyline Chili, my favorite Cincinnati restaurant. I was fortunate that virtually everyone, both from Yale and from home, was supportive and encouraging, calming my fears about how they’d react to my news. If anything, coming out seemed to strengthen my friendships and family relationships. I started talking to my dad more about being gay. Through the process of my coming out, we’d had a tacit understanding that he was my dad first and my senator a distant second. Eventually, though, we began talking about the policy issues surrounding marriage for same-sex couples. The following summer, the summer of 2012, my dad was under consideration to be Gov. Romney’s running mate. The rest of my family and I had given him the go-ahead to enter the vetting process. My dad told the Romney campaign that I was gay, that he and my mom were supportive and proud of their son, and that we’d be open about it on the campaign trail. When he ultimately wasn’t chosen for the ticket, I was pretty relieved to have avoided the spotlight of a presidential campaign. Some people have criticized my dad for waiting for two years after I came out to him before he endorsed marriage for gay couples. Part of the reason for that is that it took time for him to think through the issue more deeply after the impetus of my coming out. But another factor was my reluctance to make my personal life public. We had decided that my dad would talk about having a gay son if he were to change his position on marriage equality. It would be the only honest way to explain his change of heart. Besides, the fact that I was gay would probably become public anyway. I had encouraged my dad all along to change his position, but it gave me pause to think that the one thing that nobody had known about me for so many years would suddenly become the one thing that everybody knew about me. It has been strange to have my personal life in the headlines. I could certainly do without having my sexual orientation announced on the evening news, or commentators weighing in to tell me things like living my life honestly and fully is “harmful to [me] and society as a whole.” But in many ways it’s been a privilege to come out so publicly. Now, my friends at Yale and the folks in my dad’s political orbit in Ohio are all on the same page. They know two things about me that I’m very proud of, not just one or the other: that I’m gay, and that I’m Rob and Jane Portman’s son. I’m grateful to be able to continue to integrate my two worlds, the yin and yang of Yale and Ohio and the different values and experiences they represent in my life. When you find yourself between two worlds — for example, if you’re navigating the transition between a straight culture and a gay identity — it’s possible to feel isolated and alone, like you don’t fit in with either group that makes up a part of who you are. But instead of feeling like you don’t belong anywhere, or like you have to reject one group in order to join another, you can build a bridge between your two worlds, and work to facilitate greater understanding between them. I support marriage for same-sex couples because I believe that everybody should be treated the same way and have the same shot at happiness. Over the course of our country’s history the full rights of citizenship have gradually been extended to a broader and broader group of people, something that’s made our society stronger, not weaker. Gay rights may be the civil rights cause of the moment, but the movement fits into a larger historical narrative. I’m proud of my dad, not necessarily because of where he is now on marriage equality (although I’m pretty psyched about that), but because he’s been thoughtful and open-minded in how he’s approached the issue, and because he’s shown that he’s willing to take a political risk in order to take a principled stand. He was a good man before he changed his position, and he’s a good man now, just as there are good people on either side of this issue today. We’re all the products of our backgrounds and environments, and the issue of marriage for same-sex couples is a complicated nexus of love, identity, politics, ideology and religious beliefs. We should think twice before using terms like “bigoted” to describe the position of those opposed to same-sex marriage or “immoral” to describe the position of those in favor, and always strive to cultivate humility in ourselves as we listen to others’ perspectives and share our own. I hope that my dad’s announcement and our family’s story will have a positive impact on anyone who is closeted and afraid, and questioning whether there’s something wrong with them. I’ve been there. If you’re there now, please know that things really do get better, and they will for you too. Will Portman is a junior in Trumbull College. http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/25/portman-coming-out/

Townie makes a good point that Amurricans aren't the only boors on the planet. In places like some of the Caribbean islands where lots of Europeans vacation, it is fun to compare and contrast the different styles of national rudeness.

A bit more on the get-your-ass-into-the-office flap... ...Recently Ms. Mayer made a highly controversial move. She banned working from home for Yahoo's employees. However, contrary to what most people seem to believe, this was not done on a whim. After checking VPN records Mayer confirmed what was a widely held secret inside Yahoo!. Most remote working employees were abusing their privilege and were systematically slacking off. As Business Insider reports: [...] we've just heard from a former Yahoo engineer who tells us Mayer is making the exact right call. "For what it's worth, I support the no working from home rule. There's a ton of abuse of that at Yahoo. Something specific to the company." This source said Yahoo's large remote workforce led to "people slacking off like crazy, not being available, spending a lot of time on non-Yahoo! projects" "It was a great way to get Yahoo! to pay you while you put in minimal work and do your side startup" And the best part of it was that according to another BI source this was well known to previous CEOs but they didn't have the courage to stop it. Specifically the source said: She's turned out to have a lot of courage. She's dealing with problems no one wanted to deal with before... Whole article here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1297291-marissa-mayer-is-the-best-thing-that-happened-to-yahoo-in-a-long-time?source=email_tech_daily&ifp=0

Fortunately for us lefties, a sense of humor seems a rarity among the right wing.

Ze euro iss an artificial creature whoss demise vass vritten into its cvreation. Zso?

I thought poisoned veal was what was used to off JP I.

I think that place is better termed your "rosebud." That leaves "asshole" free for these other, highly appropriate uses.