Happy 100th Post!

Once again I feel like the hangover victim who wakes up after a wild night and swears "Never again." Only since I'm not a drinker, my hangover comes from writing about politics. Because this kind of hangover has no physiological side effects, it also takes a damn sight longer to go away.

Since her recent death from cancer I've been rereading Molly Ivins' "Who Let The Dogs In?", hoping to capture that special quality of whimsy in the face of politics which was her hallmark, and which should temper the more inflammatory impulses I must have gleaned from Carl Hiaasen. Perhaps I should also look into Sarah Vowell before I read any Christiane Amanpour.

I'm tempted to write about Eliot Spitzer next, but I need to marshal my resources more thoroughly before deigning to criticize another big liberal hero. Maybe I'll find a Republican to pick on next - that shouldn't be too difficult. Or else I need to visit my shrink, Dr. Panza, and investigate my need to tilt at windmills.

* * *

Further to that, things here in Pop Culture land are otherwise coming along swimmingly. I have just had tags explained to me - slowly and with the big words removed - so I will be hard at work this week adding tags to all my posts. I'm still a ways off when it comes to links, as well as posting audio, but I must remember my baby steps. It looks like video will be an easier thing to do, so look for that in the days ahead.

It's a fine line you tread when attempting comedy, and without a doubt when I'm wearing my Dayton's that fine line gets pretty well obliterated. But I want to be a better person and a better writer (most days even in that order) so it's back to work for me - only not just yet. I think I'll treat myself to an afternoon off while honing my smartass skills by watching one of my all-time favourite movies "Stage Door" (1937).

I Want Her Job

Blah blah blah Macy's Herald Square blah blah blah. Blah Elizabeth Hurley blah Jordache blah blah. Blah blah blah, MILF blah blah, blah circle jerk.

And Now For The Good News...

My First Scandal!

(The origin of this piece is a reply to a comment made on the previous post. Once published it was clear to me that the length the piece needed to be was going to be longer than suitable for the Comments section. Also, given the importance of the issues and their current place in the public debate, I made a unilateral decision to elevate them to a position of greater prominence - namely the front page.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I am honour-bound to report that earlier today I received an anonymous comment regarding the previous post, "Boring Old Sex Scandal". It was brought to my attention that I had inadvertantly published a factual inaccuracy: I said Gavin Newsom was married which he is not. Obviously, I immediately corrected the error, and (like I said the last time this happened, and will probably say the next time) I will endeavour to do better about fact-checking in the future.

The comment also mentioned that since Mr. Newsom is not married, he was not cheating. Once again, this is a matter of semantics. I say aiding and abetting a cheater is cheating. Had it not been cheating he also wouldn't have had to apologise. I will give the man credit though, since loads of people have done lots worse and never apologised at all.

The comment likewise took umbrage (albeit the gentlest kind) with my opinion of Mr. Newsom's character. I stand by my opinion of him, as well as my original assessment of the unlawful and heavy-handed way he approached the issue of same-sex marriage. Besides having to essentially declare San Francisco a city-state to do it, I believe his methods hurt the cause more than helped it. Given how touchy (and powerful) its opponents are, poking them with a stick won't win us any allies.

I also felt that he was using us - the gay male community - as a diversion for his real agenda of grabbing more autonomy for the city. That's fine, do that, I wish the entire world would devolve into city-states overnight. But I am sick of being made the villain - yet again! - because it happens to be both politically expedient and easily spun to satisfy liberal consciences.

Factual inaccuracy, enough tinder to start a raging debate on the nature of cheating, the rearing ugly head of a second even more politically charged issue, and a flamboyant character assassination; not bad for six sentences. In no time flat I'll be appearing before the Grand Jury having to explain why Renee Zellweger wants me dead.

Also, as much as I love receiving comments, I never publish them if they're anonymous. Nothing personal.

(As an aside to you, whoever you are: can I thank you for your manners, or should I thank your mother? It's such a terrible time now, with most discourse being reduced to so much ugliness. Your comment gave my post more honour than it deserved, since I will agree that, in the name of humour I may have been a tiny bit more outrageous than I needed to be. Probably if you'd been negative I would have gotten that way too, and that's where the problem arises, both personally and societally. I'd like to thank you, a total stranger, for helping me earn another little something towards my own self-actualisation. - MSM)