It's 2009 And Today's News Involves The Beatles And Star Trek

Imagine a city dweller in the late 1960s being transported to April 7, 2009 and picking up a newspaper. The top stories: new releases by The Beatles and the buzz being created by "Star Trek."

Dude, I Totally Want To See "The Story Of Anvil"

For every rock band that enjoys superstardom, there must be thousands of musicians who shoot for the stars and finally, one day, come to the hard realization that it's not gonna happen for them.

Unless you are a member of Canadian hair metal band "Anvil."

In the 1970s, two 14-year-olds promised to rock together forever, and formed heavy metal band "Anvil." Now in their 50s, they are still dreaming the dream. A documentary film about Anvil goes into wide release this weekend to much critical acclaim:

I watched Anvil! The Story of Anvil! with a veteran music industry exec who proclaimed "this is genius!" after the first five minutes. And I've watched it with a girly-girl whose initial response was "Are you kidding me?" but who managed to break down in tears three times before the credits fell. You don't have to be a heavy metal fan to appreciate this film. You don't even have to love music, although it will help. Anvil! The Story of Anvil is a touching film that will reach out to any audience member big or small, in times like this, when all we need is a little hope.

If that's not convincing enough, view the trailer. Ironically--this film will probably be the break of which the band has dreamed--they are performing at selected premiere sites.

Our Enemies And Nuclear Weapons

Tara and I have blogged about the "master narrative,"a term which describes the tendency of the national media to seize on a common theme--thus bringing the topic to the top of the national consciousness.

Although the media has been justifiably focusing on the economy, look for more focus on the attempts of our enemies to acquire nuclear weaponry.

Authorities have foiled an attempt to ship nuclear materials to Iran. World leaders continue to debate over the proper response to North Korea's continued development of a nuclear program.

Happy 45th!

My mom and dad celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary today. I was reminded of that this morning when I was greeted outside my place of employment by a hissing goose. Huh?

For my parents' 25th wedding anniversary, we visited the small town outside of Frankfurt, Germany where my mom was raised by loving foster parents. As a child, mom would walk to school--and as she turned the corner, she was greeted by her neighbor's angry, biting geese. Her feathered "friends" would inevitably chase her down the street to her school house.

Flash-forward to the anniversary visit--where we walked down the same street, turned the corner, and, yes, were greeted by a vengeful gaggle of geese.

I have no doubt, 20 years later, the group still stands guard. Over what--I don't know.

I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave.

Oh, this is just about the coolest thing I have found in a long time!

Check out this awesome productivity trick...a tiny file that pops up a reminder every 20 minutes. Lifehacker's How-to Geek explains:

Once the script has been launched, it will ask you every 20 minutes to consider how you are spending your time, and ask you whether you want to continue—answering yes will start the timer over, otherwise the script will exit. At first glance it may sound annoying, but after using this script for a few hours I've already caught myself doing "research" on Wikipedia and goofing off on IM—this reminder is an excellent tool to keep you focused on productivity.

I just set mine up, adapting the message to one that is more meaningful to me (as an attorney, this is a GREAT way to remind yourself to log your time working on cases). Try it--it'll take you two minutes!

Don't Join The Echo Chamber

Tara and I have blogged completely different reactions to the Iowa Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. When we do that, we always hear from folks who wonder "how we do it."

For my part, I would say this: knowing and loving Tara has been one of the best things that has ever happened to me. Tara and I have a circle of friends with a wonderfully diverse set of beliefs.

I have rejected the "echo chamber" way of living--I don't exclusively surround myself with people who only reinforce my point of view. By being constantly challenged, I have learned to listen, to emphasize, and, to lovingly try to persuade.

From the rhetoric that I often hear and see in the media, I believe that more and more people are living in the "echo chamber." Most of the dialogue I hear is meant to crush and destroy the opposition--there's no attempt to persuade or find common ground. And there's no need if you don't have family and friends to temper your speech.

It's important for a number of us to step out--not only for me as an evangelical, but as a participant in the political process.

I am saddened by this chart--which shows first-year approval ratings among our recent Presidents. In his first year, Nixon enjoyed majority support among Democrats; Carter enjoyed such support from Republicans.

President Obama has the widest approval gap in his first year. Many will want to blame him--but honestly, isn't this more of a reflection of our political dialogue on both sides in this modern age?

Gay marriage bans to fall nationwide in next 15 years?

So says the model proposed by Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com. This presupposes that each state will visit (or revisit) the issue.

Check it out...it's worthwhile. The gist is this:

Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.

For Iowa, Silver predicts that a constitutional ban on gay marriage would fail by 2013:

[T]he model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote. By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail.

Even Mississippi would swing to the anti-ban column by 2024. Yes, Mississippi.

The Democratic Strategist provides more context:

What seems to have happened in the last few years, in Iowa as elsewhere, is that the question for politically and ideologically moderate voters on same-sex marriage has changed from "Why?" to "Why Not?" And that change in turn almost certainly reflects the lack of impact--other than images of smiling, happy couples--in states that have already legalized gay and lesbian marriages.

And The Nation weighs in as well, noting that by the time this issue makes it to the ballot (if it does)

the vote will take place after Iowans have witnessed 5-6 years of ho-hum same-sex nuptials of which the most radical, earth-shaking element is that one of the grooms is a 50-year old church organist named Otter Dreaming (one of the named appellees in the Iowa decision).

...

One thing to note briefly here is the positively Midwestern sturdiness of the Iowa Constitution and political system, which makes sure that impeachment and Constitutional amendments go through the democratic process. California: take note!

Walgreens Pulls Chia Obama

Sing it with me: Ch-ch-ch-CHIA!

Walgreens apparently gives local managers lots of discretion in what products to stock. But sometimes, the folks at corporate need to put their collective foots down.

Walgreens is ordering Tampa-area stores to pull "Chia Obama."

Which means the special edition Obama "Snuggie" is DEFINITELY out.

My New Favorite Name Badge

If you are a community or political activist, you attend a lot of events where you are asked to wear a name badge. Here's my new favorite courtesy of Facebook.

Over coffee (him) and tea (her) this morning

Tara: What are you going to post?

Jeff: You'll see.

Tara: Sometimes I edit your posts to correct your subject-verb agreement.

Jeff: Sometimes I edit your posts to correct your ideology.

Argh! Rapid Raccoons! No--Make That Rabid!

Tara and I blog lovingly from the left and the right. Now that we've covered both sides of the "gay marriage in Iowa" debate, it's time to move on to other, important weekend topics:

Rabid raccoon attacks!

The Contradiction In The Gay Marriage Ruling

I always try to talk about the gay marriage issue in a way that does not offend my gay friends. So, here we go:

The ruling comes down to a couple of clear issues for me. First, do you believe the Constitution is a "living document"--meant to be redefined by each generation? Ramesh Ponnuru takes the "strict intent" view:

In a democratic system such as ours, it can be perfectly appropriate for courts to set aside laws. Constitutions reflect the permanent will of the people, which trumps the temporary will of the people as expressed in ordinary statutes (if a court is forced to choose between these sources of law to decide a case).

But nobody can plausibly claim that Iowans meant to ratify same-sex marriage when they approved a constitution including equal-protection language. Nor can anyone plausibly claim that Iowans meant to authorize judges to decide such matters as marriage policy when they approved that language.

The court's ruling thus has no democratic or constitutional legitimacy. Whether or not same-sex marriage is a good idea, the decision by Iowa's court to impose it on the state is an outrage.

But the court rules thus:

1) “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)

Here's Ed Whelen says the court contradicts itself. The latest "standard" set by this generation was in 1998 when the legislature, reflecting the majority will of its generation, passed the law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Instead, the court seemingly admits that it's establishing a standard that might not be popular with this generation:

(2) “The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” (pp. 16).

I also object to the fact that the court believes that the objection to same sex marriage is mainly a religious objection.

The court suggests that "religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage" but religion is not a proper basis for legal distinctions.

In fact, this is an issue of the role that a father and a mother play in the lives of a child--and whether those roles are, in the end, immaterial.

At the same time, I know gay couples who have made a life-long commitment to each other and wish to express that commitment through the institution of marriage. I just wish for that debate to take place in the public arena.

Iowa legislative leaders applaud Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage

This is a joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy on today's Supreme Court decision:

"Thanks to today's decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens' equal rights.

"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

"Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

"Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

"In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

"In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

"Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws."

The pragmatic side of the gay marriage decision.

As a family lawyer, I couldn't help thinking: it's only a matter of time before I handle my first gay divorce. I'm pretty sure Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers won't be involved.

Read the Iowa gay marriage decision.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision is available here, in both summary and full-text versions.

If you don't read it, I don't think you have the right to bash it. Just sayin'.

But here's the best part, right at the end:

"AFFIRMED.
All justices concur."

I love Iowa.

Gay marriage ban is struck down (or, more precisely, Judge Hanson's district court ruling was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court). And did I mention we also set Barack Obama on his path to the White House? Our state is amazing.

I can't wait to read the decision.

[UPDATE:

The first paragraph of the decision, which was penned by Justice Cady, reads:

In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.]

Gay marriage? Refreshing!

And refreshing, and refreshing, and refreshing. The Iowa Supreme Court's site is down. Iowa Public Radio doesn't have a new report.

So we wait, fingers crossed.

Jonah Goldberg's Tax Rant

Jonah Goldberg's tax rant contains this nugget of pure literary genius:

It’s that time of year again. Uncle Sam takes off that gaudy blue coat, puts on his white smock, and snaps that all-too-familiar rubber glove into place. And we, the taxpayers, must gird ourselves for intrusions of proctological magnitude and glacial duration by the revenuers.

The column is titled "Uncle Sam's Long Arm."

"Adventureland" Reviews

I sat down and watched "Twilight" on DVD with my pre-teen daughter.

I wasn't impressed overall--the clunky dialogue (much of which, my daughter informed me, was taken straight from the book) was hard to digest easily.

I WAS impressed with the acting ability of Kristen Stewart. Movie lovers will be able to enjoy Stewart working with some better material this weekend. Critics like Joe Neumaier and Roger Ebert says Stewart's performance in "Adventureland" makes the film worthwhile.

86% of reviews on "Rotten Tomatoes" are positive.

Meanwhile, Back In The States

The former Governor of Illinois is officially indicted.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin wants a new election in the seat formerly occupied by Senator Ted Stevens.

ER Finale Sets Off "Best And Worst" Finale Debate

Events like the "ER" finale are made for the Internet in that they inspire vigorous debate about the best and worst finales of all time. Examples here and here.

I am a big "Seinfeld" fan and agree the finale was disappointing. Face it, though: who COULD have lived up to the hype leading to that finale? Also: think of the number of episodes where the show took amazing chances and pulled it off. I forgive the one gamble that didn't pay off.

I also didn't get enraged by the "Sopranos" finale. If a show is about following characters over the course of their lives, why does a show need to come to a dramatic finish? Every issue in our own lives isn't wrapped up in dramatic fashion. Why not believe that we just stopped following the characters--and their lives go on?

Best finale ever: "Newhart".

Both Parties Face Similar Problems

As readers of this blog might imagine, Tara and I often get asked how two political opposites make a marriage work--especially two politically-active opposites.

It's pretty simple. We both understand that the two of us have the same goals: to use the citizen-driven political process to create a higher quality of life in our country. We differ in how to accomplish this. For the most part, our differences are good-natured--and only two topics are "off limits" in our house (the Iraq war and, ahem, Sarah Palin.)

In fact, this blog was created as a continuation of the lively and completely civil dialogue that takes place among our politically active friends. A majority of people involved in the political process are entirely good-natured about their differences.

As a couple involved in two different political parties, we often see the same concerns popping up in BOTH Democratic and Republican circles. Democrats are concerned about angry activists driving people away through a demand for political purity--and on the Republican side, here is Newt Gingrich talking third party.

Columnist Mark McKinnon also points out that good natured people who lean left or right seem to have no voice in a process that demands continual rage be exhibited by activists.

Folks, I don't have the energy, nor the will, to be outraged all the time. It's why I am not studying the Obamas' every move in Europe in order to scream "incompetence."

I understand the motivation behind this--we all have our favorite people that we feel were horribly mistreated by the other side--and we're willing to take an eye-for-an-eye.

My commitment to my principles is without question. But I share McKinnon's opinion that voters right now believe that an angry minority dominates politics.

I am not naive--I know that part of the political process means "firing up the base." But note: it's a PART of the process. Most of us don't want rage to be a requirement when we head to a local political event.

Update: Mitt Romney steps up and says it is okay to agree with the President from time to time.

GOP superstars: Where are they now?

You know the names...Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the always entertaining Michelle Bachman. Here's what they have been up to lately. But where's Ann Coulter?

Can you be both Christian and Muslim?

That's been the central question surrouding Seattle Episcopal priest Ann Holmes Redding. She's just been removed from the priesthood for proclaiming that she is both a Christian and a Muslim. Is it the role of a clergyperson to present a doctrinally pure version of the faith in which she has been ordained? And if so, is it also her role to demand that of her followers? You can see the beginning of a slippery slope there, can't you? It reminds me of a meeting with an Irish nun who worked with prostitutes on the streets of Dublin. She distributed condoms as part of her outreach. I asked her how she could do that, given the church's stand on birth control. She said to me, "The Pope sets the standard. I live in the real world."

Jeff and I have been watching a series of documentaries about Spanish art and history. I have always been fascinated by the blending of Islamic and Christian and Jewish traditions in pre-reconquest, pre-inquisition Spain. I suspect that there were many people living in Spain at that time whose beliefs and traditions blended the great Abrahamic faiths. The image above is of the church of Santa María la Blanca in Toledo, Spain. It was originally built by Muslim architects, in a Moorish (Mudejar) style, to be used as a synagogue. It may have also housed Muslim worship services, and was later converted into a church.

But I don't think that I can claim to be both a Unitarian Universalist and a Catholic. Culturally, I feel close to the Catholic faith; it is, after all, the tradition in which I was raised. But my beliefs mesh with UU principles, and there are too many areas of mutual exclusivity with Catholic beliefs. Is it different for Christianity and Islam? How about Christianity and Judaism? Judaism and Islam (wouldn't that be amazing?!)?

Here's the core of the problem for Ann Redding:

To some, Redding's an embodiment of how more people seem to be drawing from different faiths these days — including a recently elected Episcopal bishop in Michigan who practices Buddhist meditation. They see her story as a call to the church to be more open to such people.

In Christianity and Islam, while "there are streams of tradition that are mutually exclusive, there are also streams that are not mutually exclusive," said Eugene Webb, professor emeritus of comparative religion at the University of Washington. "Ann is exploring those."

It would be a good thing, Webb said, if more churches allowed for such exploration since it's "going to take place one way or the other. It might be better to wait and see what comes of them, rather than decide in advance that it wouldn't be fruitful."

But to others, Redding is an example of what they see as a church that has strayed too far from its doctrinal and historical center.

The Rev. Kendall Harmon, the canon theologian with the Diocese of South Carolina who also runs the traditionalist blog TitusOneNine, said Redding should be commended, on one level, for having the integrity to be upfront about what she believes.

But what's at stake is central to the church, he said. "To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian and worship Jesus. If we're not clear on that, we have nothing to offer in our witness."

Though Muslims regard Jesus as a great prophet, they do not see him as divine and do not consider him the Son of God.

Redding does not believe that God and Jesus are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus. And she believes that Jesus is the Son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

I have no doubt that Redding would find a welcoming home in a Unitarian Universalist congregation.

Iowa Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage this Friday

The Iowa Supreme Court's opinion in Varnum v. Brien (which I discussed here several months ago) is due to be posted on the Iowa Judicial Branch website by 8:30 a.m. this Friday, April 3.

NY-20, Norm Coleman Updates (From The Right)

It will come down to the absentee ballots in a takeaway opportunity in NY-20.

Norm Coleman suffers a setback--may take it to the state Supremes.

The Blogger's Challenge On April Fools Day

Like every blogger, I am scanning the headlines today for stories I'd like to post and for which I provide comment.

The blogger's challenge today? Trying to figure out the legitimate news stories. Gmail autopilot is an obvious joke. But this story about President Obama ordering GM and Chrysler out of NASCAR??? Hmmmm...

The Simpson Postage Stamp

A postage stamp featuring The Simpsons will be revealed by the US Postal Service on April 9.

The show is celebrating its 20th...yes, 20th!...anniversary.

The first Simpsons Christmas show was my initial exposure to the Simpsons. I quoted it for days to puzzled family and friends--and finally made them watch the copy I had made on a VCR tape.

Yes, I had a Bart Simpson shirt at the height of their popularity and still wear Homer sleep pants and slippers given to me by family a few Christmases back. I did start to collect Simpsons DVD sets a few years ago--but decided a family budget priority probably SHOULDN'T include 20 sets. (Inserting obligatory d'oh! here).

NPR reports DOJ Will Drop Charges Against Ted Stevens

NPR is reporting that the Department of Justice will drop all charges against former US Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

A jury had convicted Stevens last fall of seven counts of lying in order to conceal gifts.

According to Justice Department officials, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to drop the case against Stevens rather than continue to defend the conviction in the face of persistent problems stemming from the actions of prosecutors.

The judge in the Stevens case has repeatedly delayed sentencing and criticized trial prosecutors for what he's called prosecutorial misconduct. At one point, prosecutors were held in contempt. Things got so bad that the Justice Department finally replaced the trial team, including top-ranking officials in the office of public integrity.

If true, it means that the voters administered the only punishment that Stevens will receive for his deeds.

Des Moines Zoo Is Ready For April Fools Prank Calls

This was news to me--a lot of young April Fools pranksters develop their comedic chops by calling Blank Park Zoo in Des Moines. Mr. Don Key is a popular dude at the zoo today.

The zoo is trying to help overloaded employees dealing with the calls by staying one step ahead of the pranksters.

Numbers have been set up for such April Fools standbys as "Mr. Albert Ross," "Mr. C. Lyon," "Ms. Anna Conda," and the aforementioned "Mr. Don Key."

Each number has a prerecorded message letting callers know they'd been fooled.