Iron GM - What Does It Take?

Iron GM lurks a scant 13 days from now, hidden among the reeds and shrubs that is GenCon 2011; I stalk it from here, watching, waiting, inching closer with held breath and beating heart. All I need is one shot and it's mine...

What actually goes into that 5 hour, 100+ person "one shot"? There are 19 other GMs, some who won regional qualifiers as I did, others who have already earned the title Iron GM (at least competitor has done so twice), still other so emboldened by their skill (and ego) that they bought entry into the contest; hat will it take to trump their efforts and claim victory?

Perhaps starting with what type of experience will earn that vote? The story MUST be fun for the players- there is no two ways about it. But it also must be fun for the GMs, and in that balance lies the first pitfall: find your own source(s) of fun in running games and find ways to share that joy with the players! If you love colorful combat descriptions, then use them every time and involve your players. After one or two rounds of combat, after a particularly successful roll, pause for a moment and see if the player picks up on the cue; if not start the description but focus on the player and lead them to take the reins.

This is a two-way street, however; quickly observe what the players enjoy and run with that - infuse massive energy into those game elements. That way, both you and your players are getting copious amounts of what they love in a game. A great way to tell what's important about a character to the player is to ask for a 1 or 2 sentence description. Race, class, and gender will obviously come out, but there may be nuggets of what make that character tick. Seize those and incorporate them into your adventure.

Second, the story must start quickly, move forward, and END (preferably with a bang). I started my last session in combat - the players were still noting details about their characters while we started walking through an oppressively humid rainstorm in a jungle. I described a quick outburst of activity and asked the fighter was he was doing - no initiative, no PC placement, no map. Just start - BANG! Grab player's interests early and hold on for dear life.

Don't be so in love with your own story that you won't cut it to get to the end; I don't care how compelling the plotline, an unfinished chronicle faces nearly insurmountable odds in claiming victory. If anything seems to be in the way of completing the story, kill it like a plague-baring mosquito. Any encounter running long should be shorted or ended as quickly as possible; players won't know the exact number of hitpoints or feel cheated that they didn't do all 104 points of damage to your rotting creeper; they WILL resent not playing out the last battle or revealing the identity of the traitor to the king.

The last encounter should be monumental - incorporating fantastic and/or exotic terrain, large numbers of foes to deal with in one way or another, some emotional payoff, and a REAL threat of failure. If you leave any trick in your arsenal out of this fight, you've missed a golden opportunity. Make the players sweat, give them real decisions with repercussions for mistakes or bad luck, and bring the heat.

By this time two weeks hence, I'll be writing about my own Iron GM experience.v And I'm confident that my players will remember it for some time with fondness.

That means I win.

Quran Burning, Islamic Centers, and What The Hell Happened to America?

Can we, as intelligent Americans, stop hiding behind double standards and bigotry and tell it like it is for once? I find myself beyond frustrated that folks in the U.S. say one thing, mean something else, and obfuscate behind a third thing. Case in point #1 is the Quran-burning Florida pastor.

If you remove the religious context and the faux patriotic fervor surrounding the incident, it sounds a LOT like blackmail: "I/we are going to do 'x' unless you give us/do 'y'." I will burn these copies of the Quran unless you move your planned Islamic Center away from the former site of the World Trade Center." To me, this is a clear case of blackmail and hateful behavior; let's explore this in more detail, shall we?

Let's start at the beginning: does Reverend Jones have the right to burn the Quran? I believe he does under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long argued that individuals have the right to burn the U.S. Flag; in Texas v Johnson 491, U.S. 397 the sharply divided (5-4) court indicated that this act was symbolic speech and, thus, protected under the First Amendment. However, does the burning of a religion's Holy Book violate a practitioner's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion? There's a fine line here, and I could argue both sides of the argument. However, I will presume for the moment that Reverend Johnson is legally protected in his pyromaniac-state and examine this act from two alternate perspectives.

How does a Christian promote the desecration of something sacred to someone else? Except in very rare circumstances, this simply should not happen. Heck, if a FRATERNITY can understand such a simple concept, how can one of the most populous religions on the planet get it so terribly wrong? (We believe that the essential elements of true brotherhood are Love, Charity, and Esteem... Esteem, that is respectful to the honest conviction of others and that refrains from treading upon that which is sacred to spirit and conscience...) Burning the Holy Book of a religion is not charitable, it is not loving, and it is not just; it is an act of cravenness that seeks to benefit from people's cherished belief systems by threatening something very dear to them.

Perhaps a simple way to explore this is to reverse the situation. Imagine if an Imam from a small mosque in, say, Seattle, were to threaten to burn copies of the King James Bible unless the Islamic Center were allowed to be built at the proposed location? I cannot imagine that folks would not be OUTRAGED and DEMAND justice? Assuming that would be the case (and I am VERY comfortable in betting on that outcome), then we have to ask ourselves "Why is it okay to threaten to burn the Quran to obtain a particular outcome when threatening to burn the Bible to obtain an outcome would be very NOT okay?" There are three answers to this question.

1. The Bible > The Quran. This perspective should be self-explanatory. There is no rational justification to rank or quantify the relative importances of religions. Therefore, the Bible is no more nor no less important that the Quran, and neither deserves protection nor denigration more or less than the other.

2. Moving the Islamic Center away from "Ground Zero" > moving the Islamic Center towards "Ground Zero". I believe this argument flawed for so many reasons, but at least this is not so obvious as to be self-explanatory. I'll discuss this more below.

3. It is NOT okay to burn the Quran (or the Bible, or the Torah, or the Tripitaka, or the vedas, or anything else sacred) in order to achieve political aims. I believe this to be THE one correct answer, and I invite any who disagree to discuss with me why they disagree; please post a comment and I will answer in kind.

Now, on to the real issue here: the Islamic Center planned for New York City (perhaps near the former site of the World Trade Center, perhaps not). I'll start by asking why SHOULDN'T there be an Islamic Center near "Ground Zero"? Here is the most common answer I've heard:

• The area is "Hallowed Ground" and that putting an Islamic Center there would insult and dishonor the memories of the victims of the 9/11 attack.

How so? 45 Park Place (the proposed location of the Center) has belonged to Marty's Shoes, Inc. and, before that, to the Burlington Coat Factory; neither makes me think of saintly turf. Nearby is the Dakota Roadhouse, a couple of other small restaurants, and the New York Dolls Gentlemen's Club. Really? We are fighting to preserve the sanctity of fast food, bars, and strippers?

No; what folks are referring to, and afraid to say because they know how bad it sounds, is that having an Islamic Center so near the location where so many people lost their lives at the hand of Islamic terrorists offends them. So why is this? Do people really believe that the terrorists' behavior reflects the tenants of Islam? If so, then people need to get out and read more. The Islamic Faith no more promotes that type of behavior than the Bible does; how many folks perpetrate horrific deeds in the name of God? How many of those people are actually carrying out God's Will?

Having the Islamic Center 2 blocks, 6 blocks, 10 blocks, or on top of, "Ground Zero" won't offend the spirits of those who died there; each and every one of those people were murdered by terrorists carrying out some plot. They are not martyrs; they are victims, killed by madmen intent on destroying our way of life. We cannot let the insane win; we need to remember who we are as Americans and that we protect ALL of our citizens. It took the efforts of Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Stanton, and many others to fight for the rights of women in our country; we finally realized we needed to protect those rights. It took the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, W.E.B. DuBois, Rosa Parks, and many others to fight for the rights of African-Americans in our country; we finally realized we needed to protect those rights. It took the efforst of Rudolfo Gonzales, Reies Tijerina, Cesar Chavez, and many others to fight for the rights of Latinos in our country; we finally realized we needed to protect those rights. It has taken the efforts of Brenda Howard, Harvey Milk, Paul Goodman, Mark Segal, and many others to fight for the rights of homosexuals in our country; we seem to finally be realizing we need to protect these rights.

The U.S. was founded on religious freedom; many of the first settlers were Puritans seeking a place they could worship and live in peace. How then, more than 300 years since they arrived, are we still hung up on this? Muslims are no more likely to be Al Qaeda than Christians are likely to be Klu Klux Klan. We, as a people, need to step up and say enough. We, as people, need to accept our mantle of responsibility and acknowledge that The American Dream needs protecting, and that it is our job to protect it.

My DMing Blog is Back

After almost six months, my blog for DMing LFR Modules is back with only minor changes. Now housed at http://slot0.blogspot.com, I'll be updating the information three times each week.

I'm excited to be back blogging about DMing the game I love, and I'm looking forward to exploring more facets of this hobby I love.

D&D Encounters is an Excellent Entryway Into Organized Gaming

Those of you following my Twitter and Facebook streams know my updates on Wednesday evenings have been more peculiar than normal. That's due to me live Tweeting the weekly D&D "Encounters" adventures from Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica.

If you are unfamiliar with it, "Encounters" is a series of 60-minute weekly episodic gaming sessions. The current season is twelve weeks long and ends on June 2, 2010; it takes place in Undermountain (a famous dungeon in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting).

One key purpose of "Encounters" is to introduce new players to organized play. Currently, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) supports one organized play campaign entitled Living Forgotten Realms, or LFR. Organized play is a key component of corporate strategy to keep gamer involvement in D&D high and represents the primary form of gaming at conventions. "Encounters" serves as an excellent gateway to organized play for several reasons.

First, "Encounters" introduces a time constraint on gameplay. Each session is 60 minutes long and encompasses one encounter (usually a fight, but occasionally a skill challenge); in order to finish in a timely fashion, players must learn to pay attention and begin to prepare their next actions ahead of time. These skills are critical during strictly timed convention or tournament play and are difficult to introduce in home games. The time limit is generous, however, and affords the GM and players ample roleplaying time. This function is key, as a lack of roleplay is often cited as a reason folks choose not to play at conventions; learning how to fit roleplay into a timed event provides another important skill for convention players.

Additionally, "Encounters" introduces the importance of keeping accurate game records between sessions. Many home games only require that you track your xp and treasure. Organized play requires additional record keeping, such as adventures played, awards received, and sometimes ongoing status effects. "Encounters" maintains hit points, healing surges, action points, and power usage from session to session; players acclimating themselves to this additional record keeping will be ready for the needs of organized play.

Finally, "Encounters" introduces one of the more terrifying aspects of organized play: random players. Over the first four weeks of the program, I have DMed for or played with 15 different people. Naturally, this variety introduces many play styles and personalities; I think this a good thing and is one of the reasons I enjoy organized play so much. However, players used to home games with only friends often find this transition difficult or unpleasant; the "Encounters" model helps folks adjust to playing with a lot of different people.

In short, "Encounters" is a fun and time-friendly way to introduce players to role playing, D&D, 4th Edition, and organized play in one feel swoop. Sounds like a great tool to me.

Enjoy!

Stretching As An Artist

I find myself trying to grow as an artist. This past weekend I challenged myself to take three sets of portraits following some simple guidelines; I didn't adhere to that challenge as strictly as I should have, but I did come away with two good sets of pictures of folks and I intend to keep at it.

Yesterday, Heidi and I went back to the Descanso Gardens specifically to catch the blooming cherry blossoms; there is a two-week period that occurs sometime during the first three months of the year in which the trees bloom. That leaves a very narrow window in which to take some stunning pictures.

I did get some very cool photographs (you are welcome to see them at my Flickr site). But I also put four images on Facebook as a tickler, and for the captions of those images I chose to compose Big Idea Haiku; since I don't write poetry, I thought this an interesting challenge.

I'm happy with the results. Tell me what you think!

Weekend Photography Challenge

With everything going on this weekend, the sensible portion of me suggests that I not plan too much crazy stuff. Fortunately, I fine my sensible portion to be about as useful as a second appendix and ignore it as frequently as possible.

Accordingly, with everything else that is happening this evening, tomorrow, and in fact all weekend, I am going to use this weekend to become more proficient in my portrait taking.

Christina Dickson posted an excellent article at the Digital Photography Studio entitled How to take Striking Portraits in 15 Minutes or Less and I am going to use this article as the foundation for my project.

This weekend, I will take at least three sets of portraits to get a sense of the different ways these images can be done. Unless something drastic happens, I will have at least 27 shiny new images to share with folks. And I am looking forward to that.

So check in here on Monday (possibly Tuesday) for the link to my flickr account to see the resulting images.

Running a Game at a Convention

This "post" was originally written as a response to a call for advice on author/screenwriter/gm Chuck Wendig's website Terrible Minds (http://www.terribleminds.com). The author's post asked for advice on running a game at a convention. Here's my response...

********

First, you must determine YOUR goals for the adventure. Running an adventure specifically designed to introduce players to a new system is very different from running a "competitive" scenario; both of these differ significantly from running a mod with a great story or a killer finale battle. Only in knowing exactly what you want to accomplish will you find success.

Second, all of your planning and prep should enhance your goal. if you are introducing a new system, make sure you have good rules summaries / cheat sheets to hand out to folks and spend a bit of time running through the basics. Should you be running a competitive scenario, make sure you understand the scoring and timing rules and that the players are aware of everything they should know up front. Have a great story? Figure out best how to tell it. Make some GM cheat sheets for the major NPCs with descriptions, voices / accents, and whatever else you will want or need. Your adventure have a tremendous climactic fight? Then make sure you allow enough time for that final encounter. Foreshadow the hell out of whatever you can to build the tension and excitement for that showdown.

Third, find as many ways to inject some descriptive RP into the session. Role playing tends to be the first victim of 4-hour con slots and that does NOT need to be the case. Make your attacks descriptive enough to evoke a simple image and expect the same from your players. If they very statically tell you their attack results, quickly ask them for the nature of the attack and give it a description. Make sure when players give you their own description you play that up a bit so folks get the hint.

Fourth, finally, and most important, do whatever you need to do to ensure that you and your players have fun. If everyone has a great time, you done good.

The Pareto Principle

Italian Economist Vilfredo Pareto developed the 8/20 rule in the late 1800's; it suggests that 80% of effects stem from 20% of causes. The most common example used is that 20% of the population control 80% of the wealth; another commonly used business example is that 20% of your clients contribute 80% of your business.

A few Big Idea folks espouse the notion that, if we eliminate the "other" 80% of our daily responsibilities we could focus on the 20% that contribute to much of our productivity and happiness. I am not convinced it's so simple.

If we assume a standard day, there are 16 awake hours and 8 sleep hours (yes, yes, I know - not with MY lifestyle - just go with it). That means that, out of those 16 hours, roughly 3 hours contribute 80% if our happiness and productivity. I find that difficult to believe. If we examine just the standard work day, there are 8 hours (again with the laughing?); 20% is 1.6 hours. If we could truly accomplish 80% of our daily workload in under 2 hours, I suspect more folks would work towards that goal.

I suggest that, when it comes to personal productivity, this Pareto Principle best serves as a reminder to try to focus on the important stuff than as an actual rule of thumb.

What do you think?

Collage Stories

Herman Melville's Moby Dick and john dos passos's The USA Trilogy extensively incorporate literary collage into the story-telling; dos passos heavily influenced Steinbeck, leading to his incorporation of the technique in The Grapes of Wrath. There are chapters in the latter work detailing conditions in Oklahoma arising from the Dust Bowl - bleak weather, foreclosed farms, the trek to California; these are not part of the Joad saga but advance the story just the same.

Literary collage incorporates a variety of "source" materials into the story: traditional narrative, dialogue, newspaper, radio, theater, tv, song, websites, can all contribute to a chronologically nonlinear story progression. A story may break the chronological narrative with a newspaper op/ed piece, for example, describing public sentiment regarding an issue central to the story. This sentiment becomes part of the story without belonging to a story "event".

Given current technologies, more media can contribute to a story employing literary collage than ever before; Robert Heinlein utilizes this technique to great effect in Starship Troopers by presenting the story as a collection of snippets (with some interactivity, such as a website or personal reader) which, at least in theory, contain additional detail should the reader "... like to know more...".

I think I will explore this technique in some of my immediate work; it's captured my interest and, by specifically including certain source materials, strengthen the setting. Were I to introduce radio dramas and newspaper hawkers to the narrative, I've firmly identified the time of my story without specifying a date.

Let's see how it turns out.

Living vs. LIVING

It's been said that the secret to life is living. Isn't that what we do just by being? We breath, we eat, we sleep, we live.

Yet no one talks about living in those terms unless the subject is life or death. When dealing with the great sleep, "still breathing" matters a great deal.

That dichotomy suggests there is more to life than just living - that there's a process, a vital process, that transcends survival and rudimentary functioning to capture and explain what's really important.

We all know what that is; it's everyone's favorite four letter pejorative that has become both the weal and woe of our species: love. I say that the secret to life is love.

That over-whelming passion is what lifts the human condition beyond mere survival and breaths vibrant emotion into our existence. We MUST cradle that spirit within us for someone(s) and/or something(s) if we are to claim our birthright.

Love represents all strong, genuine passion that flows through the bedrock of our souls and causes the rumblings deep within that drive us to action. Hatred, sorrow, love, joy: these are the keys to our true selves, the selves we yearn to inhabit and be.

So then, if this emotion is the secret, how do we use it? That is both easy and hard; it's easy to say "we must fuel our lives with this passion" but it's terribly challenging to grok HOW to do that. It's a simple thing to say "I love 'x'" but far more demanding to find ways to live so that our passion for 'x' is realized in our work, our leisure, our subconscious. And yet only folks who manage to collect the essence of these emotions within themselves ever fully experience life.

Everyone else just lives.

RACISM IN GOVERNMENT

How is it that in 2009, a year in which we have our first black President of the United States and have nominated the first Latina for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, we TOLERATE racism in the federal government?

I won't be so naive as to ask how it perseveres; I get that. So long as we have people from different races we will always have some measure of racism. I've resigned myself to that sobering truth. I simply don't understand how we tolerate it in our government once it's discovered! This of course stems from the news earlier this week about Sherri Goforth, a legislative aide for Senator Diane Black of Tennessee. In case you had not heard, this woman, an employee of the State of Tennessee for more than 20 years, used her work computer and her work e-mail address to send an e-mail to a large number of recipients, many of whom were also public employees. This e-mail contained portraits of all 44 of our Presidents; that last one, of President Obama, was nothing black a black square with cartoon white eyes in it.

Now, this seems pretty innocuous and on some levels I would agree. Were this person to have made a joke like this in private, on their own time, I would have been in favor of a private reprimand (as it still makes the government look bad). But this racist gag was perpetrated on the clock using official resources. That means it violates all manner of workplace ethics and could be taken to represent an official viewpoint of her boss and the Republican Party of Tennessee. Senator Black is, on some level, the real target of my scorn. She has stated repeatedly that he will not tolerate this sort of behavior, and yet has chosen only to "punish" his aide by written reprimand; to the best of my knowledge there is no suspension and no termination. Why not? Senator Black, if you REALLY want to show that you will not tolerate racism, fire Ms. Goforth immediately. THAT sends a real message of zero tolerance that will be believed.

For the second time in seven months, every ballot counted in a presidential election points towards social and political evolution for country. But the on-going presidential election in Iran contains ramifications far beyond the identity of their next chief executive; the electoral process moves women's suffrage to heights unimagined even ten year ago.

Women are lining up to vote in record numbers and beginning to express a political voice and conscious heretofore hidden behind the religious and ethnic ideology. And make no escape about it; these women risk much to publicly demonstrate against a decidedly non-secular government.

So I prey for these courageous women that their faith and bravery are not forsaken but rewarded. And I prey that I might learn conviction from them to apply in my own life.

Free Speech

I sat incredulous today after hearing that a 88 year-old man walked into the Washington D.C. Holocost Museum and opened fire. That shock worsened when I learned he denies the Holocaust, advocates white supremacy, and served time in Federal Prison as a result of kidnapping charges.

Let me start by stating, without equivocation, that the Holocaust inflicted on the Jewish people (as well as others) by the Nazi regime before and during World War II represents the nadir of humanity's self-abuse. The Holocaust IS a terrible blight on our history and must forever be remembered as an example of something we, as a species, must vigorously prevent until the end of days. There can be no doubt it was real, it was atrocious, and it was intentional.

Having said that, I worry that tragedies like today's shooting will intensify a public outcry for a prohibition on "Holocaust denial speech". While I think such speech is deplorable and needs to be out-shouted and corrected at every opportunity, I also think that folks must maintain their rights to speak freely until such time as their words threaten public safety.

I believe it no mistake that Freedom of Speech is guaranteed first by our Bill of Rights. The ability of our citizenry to voice all opinions and represent every possible viewpoint in debate must be preserved at all cost. While I agree that all of the rights preserved by the Bill of Rights can be limited as necessary, I also agree that the necessity must be severe and the must present a real threat to the public before such limitation.

I believe it our duty to find these haters, to repeatedly demonstrate the deceit and vitriol contained in their "beliefs", and to shame them away from the debates over and over again until they yield. But we must not take away their right to have such a skewed and flawed opinion, nor can we strip them of their right to voice that opinion. We must be better than that.

Divorce Agreement from the Conservatives and My Amendments

I received the following e-mail forward today that really got under my skin; my reply is below.


DIVORCE AGREEMENT


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our irearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael
Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be
happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will
need whose help in 15 years..


Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student (and a Loyal and Proud American )

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

*************************************************************
Dear American conservatives, right-wingers, elitists, McCarthy-ists, and Bush supporters, et. al:

It's true that we have stuck together since the 1950's, and we, too, see many of the schisms you mention in your letter. It's a shame we are unable to find means to surpass our ideologies for the common good of our country and future generations, but your proposal might be for the best.

I feel, however, that your model separation agreement, while sound in principle, needs a bit of amending:

You are not a fan of the "redistibutive tax", so we will keep that; you get the almost 11 trillion dollar deficit (since $8.6 TRILLION of it was amassed during Republican presidencies since the 1950's, including 8 trillion during President Bush's 8-years in office). We do hate guns and war; since you seem to feel that should deny us access to police and military, do you also feel that your love of guns and war should deny you peace and tranquility? If you decide to trade, we'll be here waiting. You DO, however, get the military draft to feed the war machine your industrial complex craves. We'll take Rosie, Oprah and Michael Moore along with David Letterman, Jon Stewart, and Bruce Springsteen; you get Rush, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. Oh yeah, take Reuben Studdard, The Gatlin Brothers, and Ricky Martin, too.

With your taking the corporations and Wall Street, do you intend to give back all of the money in the pension funds of millions of American workers lost to to deceit and theft? What about responsibility for the collapse of the banking industry through poorly regulated trading of securitized mortgages and other discretized risky investment bundles. And with our acceptance of the homeless, the homeboys, and the illegal aliens, whom do you plan to take care of the day-to-day jobs that these groups of citizens labor in day after day in the hospitality and food service industries and the civil services? You can SURELY keep the hot Alaskan Hockey Moms and rednecks; we'll keep Hollywood, NBC, and the rest of the entertainment sector, including all those damn video games you KNOW are corrupting your youth (and all of that revenue, thank you very much).

While you are giving us the Middle East, we'll take Europe, Asia, South America, and pretty much everywhere else since your folks are not so appreciated outside of our borders. And you will likely need your "rights" to hammer those who present a threat since you will likely be perceived as a threat to most of the above-mentioned countries. And when we are flourishing as part of the emerging global economy, we'll send you a road map so you might be able to find your way out of the isolationism dead since Washington.

Are the Judeo-Christian values you intend to keep the ones including divorce, teen pregnancy, and violent crime? Because, if so, I'm not sure you are entitled to sole custody. The national divorce rate average is 4.1% (according to 2002 data provided via the CDC); the top ten states: Nevada, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and Mississippi. ALL are above the national average. I would guess that most, if not all, of those states would end up in "your half". What about teen pregnancy? I'm glad you asked; top ten states (highest percentage of pregnancy girls between the ages of 15 & 19, inclusive) as of 2000: Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, California, Georgie, North Carolina, and Arkansas. Again, most of these states would belong to "your half" of the country. Violent crimes: California, Florida, and Texas in that order. We will, of course, keep the U.N. and you can apply for inclusion once you explain Guantanamo Bay and your flouting of the Geneva Convention.

Along with the SUV and over-sized pick-up trucks, you get the air and water pollution generated by the carbon emissions from those vehicles; we'll bill you for the clean-up costs in our places. And since your stewardship of the environment is sketchy at best, we'll take the national parks; you can go vacation at the Mall of America driving there in your Hummer. You DO get the Superfund Sites, however. We'll take the hybrid cars and reduce our reliance on foreign oil; I don't know which part of that is funnier - the fact that Canada is our number one supplier of foreign oil or if the solution the right-wing attempted to implement was to take over the oil fields and turn it into domestic oil; we can ask Dick Cheney later.

You can have all of the doctors trained in YOUR schools; this would exclude Harvard, Yale, all of the California Schools (Stanford, UCSF, UCLA) and probably Johns Hopkins. You DO get Baylor and Duke, so (if you can afford them) you should be fine. We'll take public health care and turn it into the right it was meant to be. We'll also take The Olympics (since foreign affairs are soooo much trouble) and the trade agreements that go with foreign relations. I don't think you'll need the embassies much, so we'll take that as well as The State Department.

As for History, you should keep it. After all, you made so much of it: the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Assassination of Martin Luther King Junior, the Viet Nam war, the Cold War, the Cuban Embargo, resistance to the Civil Rights Movement, Reganomics, and this little economic hick-up we have right here. And, since you really don't seem to need it much, we'll go ahead and take that pesky Constitution while we are at it - I don't think you'll miss it much. But, of course, you DO get to keep your KKK and your religious right to keep the blacks, the gays, and the abortion doctors in their places (or dead, assuming you think there is a real difference).

Let's see who likes the terms now...

We Haven't Heard the Last of Mrs. Sarah Palin...

A new item on the Federal Elections Commission webpage reveals that Governor Palin has already filed candidate papers for the 2012 Presidential Election.

I don't believe her to be smart enough, focused enough, or moral enough to be the Leader of the U.S.; I DO think another 2-3 years of experience and a real preparatory process will make her a player in the next election cycle.

And I hope that neither the DNC or the RNC overlook her, as that could prove to be a costly mistake.

Hope from the White House

After President Obama was sworn in last Tuesday, I was amazed at how different everyone felt and everything looked despite there being no real change (as of yet) in the country; what we all reacted to must have been hope. I can only imagine those feelings were similar to what people felt with the election of President Kennedy.

In the week since the inauguration, President Obama has begun unveiling his agenda through a series of Presidential Orders, video addresses, cabinet member press conferences, and even an official White House blog. And while there is no guarantee of long-term commitment to these promises can't help but think his decision to be different, transparent, and proactive will, in the long run, be as important as any of the actual policies issued by his administration. He is redefining what the government CAN be and setting the standards very high; I suspect that our people will reject any real attempts to return to "how things used to be" with either this President or future leaders.

I'm excited! I can't wait to see what's next and to get my hands dirty with the minutia of running our country again. I trace this enthusiasm directly back to President Obama and what he's done so far. It''s inspiring and motivating, and I believe he was right on the mark with his comments challenging us to get involved and participate in the recovery effort, It used to be that voting was sufficient; I no longer think that's true. We need to educate ourselves, motivate ourselves and our friends, and get involved in the issues we care about the most.

These first 7 days have been a wake-up call. We have 93 days left of the first 100, and 1454 days left in Obama's first term. What are YOU going to do to help America realize Her promise and steer Her back on track? Make answering THAT your one of your Goals for the upcoming weeks and months.

How does a gay marriage threaten a straight marriage? I've heard this question asked a dozen times since Proposition 8 passed in California. While it's a valid question, it avoids THE fundamental question: How does a gay lifestyle threaten a straight lifestyle?

There's gotta be at least a perceived threat or the opposition wouldn't be so strong. So what's the deal? I have lots of answers - some way more snarky than others; I'll limit myself to the ones that make some sense (at least logically if not to us).

I think we agree the opposition is religion based, and predominantly (but not solely) Christian based at that. So why do Christianity and the homosexual lifestyle clash so strongly? The main factors are proliferation of the religion and the desire for a nurturing environment.

Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, places a high value on family and procreation - partially because promoting "traditional family values" can foster a strong community and partially because raising new generations of Christians /Catholics protects the religions's places in societal structure. More Catholic babies mean more Catholic children mean more catholic adults mean more CATHOLICS - and all of the politician clout and economic power the higher population brings.

I don't say that to be cold hearted, as I don't believe that are the overt intentions of any but a tiny handful of the religious hierarchy; I'm sure that line of thinking must have been part of the formalization process. Keep in mind Christianity was multinational from the beginning and it's existence was tenuous in many portions of the world. Judea and much of the world was part of the burgeoning Roman Empire. Factor in Judaism and the stage gets pretty crowded pretty quickly. When your religion is new, out-numbered, and persecuted you need new members quickly. Now let's add low infant survival rates into the mix - can anyone say that a policy to maximize population growth was NOT in the best interest of the religion?

So how can we as a culture solve this dilemma? I think we should look to the examples Dr. King gave us when he lead the Civil Rights movement in the '50s and '60s. Couples denied their right to marry should march, protest, and sue to win those rights. Those of us who feel Prop 8 unjust must join in the action. We need to bombard the state and federal governments with letters, e-mails, and petitions. Ultimately, I fear this cause won't be won until the U.S. supreme court involves itself; that journey is long and those undertaking it will need as much support as we can muster.

I also feel any lasting solution will require the establishment of Civil Unions as the only legally binding domestic partnerships and the subrogation of "marriages" to the religious roles they were designed to play. It"s this extreme separation of church and state that will remove much of the religious bias and leave governing to the government once and for all. Religions do not get involved in the licensing of a contractor or in the issuance of driving credentials, so why should it involve themselves with the formation of families? Doing so subtly underscores the notion that only a church-going couple could raise a healthy, happy, and stable family. I know from both first- and second-hand experience that is not true; let's remove the propaganda generation and start from there.

Gay Marriage is a Question of Love

I feel strongly about the recent passing of Proposition 8; I'm confounded by how our contemporary society's choice to revoke rights already given to some of its people but confident that we will overcome this adversity and set things right.

However, I find myself once again awed by Keith Olbermann's narrative as he explores this subject. I've touted him as a hero for his firm and outspoken beliefs and and expository prowess; this piece sets the bar even higher. Facial tissue and some privacy are recommended...

* * * * * *

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about
politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do?
With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

How to Run America - A Citizen's Primer

I watched this evening's presidential debate and wondered to myself just who would have been swayed from their previous position? Senator McCain was blase and mean, Senator Obama was bland and uninspiring. I didn't experience a single moment that moved me during tonights Q&A. If I asked 10,000 people around the country how they were going to vote and what impact tonight's debate had, I would be willing to bet that at least 95% of Obama's supporters before the event would still be Obama voters and would cast their vote for Barack if the election were tomorrow; I think essentially the same is true of McCain supports. And the folks on the fence? I doubt that tonight will make their decision much easier come November 4th.

I think I might immediately cast my vote for the first candidate who succinctly answered three consecutive questions - and I mean answered the questions they were asked, some some distant relative of the question asked. Just about every political candidate in the recent past has perfected this talent, and theirs bosses don't call them on it; WE don't call them on it. We have the toughest job over the course of the next 2-3 years, as WE have to retrain ourselves while we teach our children how to expect and demand accountability and responsibility from our government. It's going to require us to become experts on political capital, but there's one resource we have that politicans need: VOTES. We need to make people EARN our votes initially and KEEP them going forward.

And make no mistake about it, WE have the power to do just that. We proved it in California when we ousted Gray Davis back in 2003; I don't want to debate whether that was the right move or if the replacement governor was any better. I'm using that as proof that we CAN make our voices heard. We have to be adamant and diligent in wielding that power; we have to hold ourselves up to the standards we want from our leaders. Because in the coming days, WE are going to need to lead ourselves. Are YOU up to the job? Here's what you need to do to accept that mantle and make sure we move forward as well as we can.

1. Register to vote. The deadline is either today or tomorrow, but if you have NOT registered, DO IT NOW!!! If you don't register to vote, then your justification to complain is limited to only the most aggregious of situations. And then you have to wait at the end of the line. It's free and it's easy, but you HAVE to do it.

2. Decide what is important to you. Is it same sex marriage? Abortion and women's choice? Gun control? The economy? Iraq? Take the issue(s) that resonate with you, that MEAN something visceral to you, and decide how you feel about them. Find groups that share your viewpoint and support them with your time, energy, and $$$. Get involved and stay involved - if you don't, why should anybody else? And don't sell me the load of goods that "your vote don't count". Wisconsin's electoral votes in 2004 were decided by a mere 11,384 votes. That may sound like a lot, but that's less thatn 5,600 who need to change their vote to make a dead heat. I went to high school with that many people for crying out loud; your vote DOES count and you know it does. But that sure is a convenient excuse. Guess what? The time for those has past. We can't accept them from our President, our Senators, nor our Governors; how can we accept them from one another?

3. VOTE that decision. Vote for the candidate(s) whose announced policies are in line with your priorities. If you are not sure, read their website. Look for interviews. Check out the Women's League of Voters. Read your election pamphlet (we paid for it, so you might as well). Talk with your friends to see how they see each candidate's position on these issues. But decide who YOU want leading YOUR America from Washington D.C., from Sacramento, from Downtown. Then VOTE for them.

4. LIVE your decision. Talk with folks, hear their points of view, share your passions. Cruisade for what you are passionate about. Help convince others to vote for who THEY believe in. Promote the election as if it were you bachelor/bachelorette party - remember you want EVERYONE to come to the party.

5. Hold them accountable. If someone promised something, they owe it to you to try to get that done to the best of their ability. Call them on it: send letters, e-mails, etc. Sign petitions. Speak to other representatives and let them know how you feel. Reward them with a donation, signature, vote, etc. if you like the job they are doing. Punish them by withholding your vote and giving it to another candidate, signing a recall petition to help speed their exit, share your frustration with others on websites, blogs, petitions, letters. Make the official know you do not like what (s)he is doing and that you expect them to do better.

6. Hold your friends and family to these same standards. Don't even dare allow them the apathy to not vote. Persuade, bully, cajole, threaten, whatever it takes, get them to the polls. Whom they vote for (so long as it's who they believe will do the best job) is not as important as their participation in the process. Afterwards, stay on them about how folks are doing. Engage them in debates, etc.

It's time for us to find our America, polish it off, and put it up on the mantle for the rest of the world to see. It's time we found that country so we can give it to our kids.

Quick Take on the Bailout Bill

Without reviewing the text of the Bailout Bill that was just approved by the House of Representatives, I can only comment generally on the concept and not the particulars.
I'm not opposed to finding temporary ways for the federal government (yes, I'm using lower case on purpose - I don't know that our current leadership warrants capital letters) to encourage economic machinations that will allow businesses to run until this situation stabilizes. I also don't the federal government should look to micromanage this process (Lord knows they haven't done so well keeping their own house these past few years).

But I am 100% opposed to any plan that does NOT include some Federal oversight. I'm also opposed to any plan that does not include provisions to curb executive compensation, at least during the duration of the governmenal intercession. I'm ALSO opposed to any plan that includes provisions for foreign investors who purchased risky paper.

This plan is not supposed to relieve investors of their obligations for their investments that did not turn out the way they were supposed to. I'm HIGHLY skeptical that all of these debts will "eventually become properly valuated" (if they would, then financial institutions would be less desparate to divest them).

I just prey that our leaders (and MAN do I use that word with a grain of salt) have not just thrown $700 B of our hard-earned dollars away on a solution that will NOT effect real change and reset the economy. Otherwise, that's one hell of an expensive bandaid.