Celebrating Columbus Day is one of the stupidest things that Americans do. Let's replace it with this amazing Russian holiday.

It's Columbus Day. Just like last year and every year before, I find myself at home day with my kids, honoring a villain who did nothing worth celebrating, despite what my daughter was taught at school last week.

I didn't have the heart to tell her that you can't discover a place that's already populated with more than 10 million people.

And you can't discover a place that the Vikings actually explored and colonized four hundred years earlier.

I didn't want to tell her that Columbus murdered, mutilated, and enslaved Native Americans, precipitating one of the worst genocides in the history of the world.

I didn't want to tell her that Columbus never actually set foot on the continent. That he mistook the islands of the Caribbean for Asia. That he wasn't even Italian.   

When it comes to the stupid things that Americans do, celebrating Columbus Day is one of the most blatantly stupid. It's ridiculous. It's as if we are trying to be stupid.  

I'd like to propose an alternative to Columbus Day. Rather than engaging in a protracted fight over which worthy historical figure should be celebrated in his place, I'd like to adopt a modified version of a Russian holiday called Conception Day.

On Conception Day (also known as the Day of Procreation), Russians are given the option of staying home from work to try to make a baby. The holiday was originally initiated by Lenin in order combat low birth rates and reaffirmed a few years ago by Vladimir Putin for similar reasons, adding the chance for cash and prizes to couples who manage to give birth to a child exactly nine months later.  

The United States doesn't suffer from a declining population, but why not just give Americans a day off to stay home and have sex?

Even the most ardent (and clearly brain damaged) supporters of Columbus would agree that sex is better than Columbus, and given the laundry list of benefits to having sex, it only makes sense for the government to support a little more fooling around amongst its citizens. 

If the United States ever chose to adopt this plan, I want to make it clear that children should not be learning songs about Procreation Day at school.

A song full of lies about a murderous villain is still better than listening to my daughter sing a song that encourages me to have sex.  

A simple solution for Scott Walker's uncertainty

Republican Presidential candidate Scott Walker says that he doesn't know if being gay is a choice.

I have a simple solution to this problem:

He could simply ask any one of the millions of gay Americans if being gay is a choice and believe what they say, since they would know.

I can't begin to imagine the degree of arrogance and self-righteousness required for a heterosexual man (who dropped out of college with a 2.6 GPA) to completely discount the word of millions of American citizens who would absolutely know the answer to this question.

Does he think that all gay people are liars?

Even better, Walker could stop caring if being gay was a choice, since that question happens to be one of the stupidest questions being asked today.

Do the morons who think that being gay is a choice really expect my homosexual friends to suddenly switch to relationships with opposite sex partners like you might change your order at the local diner? 

Even if being gay were a choice (WHICH IT'S NOT, SCOTT WALKER), who cares?

Perhaps Walker could say that as a conservative politician who believes that government is too large and omnipresent in the lives of Americans,  he doesn't think it's his or anyone else's business when it comes to who a person chooses to love. 

Now that would be a real answer.

The next time you see or hear a story about the British royalty, I suggest this response:

Look, it's a story about Kate Middleton, the possibly American woman married to one of the British princes (I say possibly because I'm not certain of Middleton's nationality and refuse to spend even a second confirming this suspicion). 

Yup, that's her. The princess and her latest baby. Does she have two kids or three now? I'm also not quite sure. But definitely more than one. 

But wait. I don't need to pay attention to any of this. I can change the channel or turn the page in this magazine or close this website because: 

It has nothing to do with my country. 

These people don't have any actual power or influence over anything. 

The whole point of this American Revolution was to break free of the influence of these  entitled people of unearned stature and wealth.

It's a monarchy. Yes, a neutered, ridiculous, fairly pathetic monarchy that a growing segment of the British people believe should be eliminated, but still, it's a monarchy. And monarchies are stupid. Right? We're a republic. We believe in the power of the people. Again, the whole American Revolution was fought to break free of these royal buffoons. What would our founding fathers think of us staring at these royals from afar, obsessing over their weddings and clothing and babies?  

There are people far more worthy of my attention. People who actually accomplished things without enormous budgets and prestige conferred upon them at birth. These princes and queens and dukes are only receiving this attention because of who their Mommys and Daddys are. Maybe I should read about  people who are not exclusively wealthy and white and privileged beyond imagination. Instead of reading about Kate's latest fitness regime, let me go find an article about Chris Gardner or Ursula Burns or Elon Musk or Janet Yellen.

These are people worthy of my attention. Perhaps I might even learn something from them or be inspired by their accomplishments.  

Those are the thoughts that I suggest run through your mind the next time you encounter a story about British royalty. 

Don Featherstone was an interesting man for at least two reasons. Also, the mysteries of 57 and matchy-matchy remain unsolved, and it's really bothering me.

Don Featherstone passed away last month. He was known for two fairly remarkable things:

1. He was the creator of the pink plastic flamingo that adorns so many American lawns even today. He and his wife kept 57 pink flamingos on his front lawn in Fitchburg, MA.

I have yet to figure out why he chose the number 57 and it's really bothering me. 

Side note: The fact that his last name was Featherstone and his greatest career achievement was a sculptured plastic bird is a likely signal that we are living in a computer generated world with surprisingly ham-handed naming algorithms. 

2. Don Featherstone and his wife, Nancy, dressed alike for more than 30 years.  

No explanation for this wardrobe decision that I can find, either. It's also really bothering me. 

Naked clog fighting. Let me say that again: NAKED CLOG FIGHTING.

This existed. It was real. 

You're welcome. 

From such beginnings sprang the combat sport of clog fighting, or ‘purring’ as it was known in Lancashire. An illegal sport, purring involved two men kicking each other until one admitted defeat or blood was drawn. Sometimes the men were naked, and there was also a variation in which the men would sit on either side of a large barrel, their feet dangling inside, and kick each other inside the barrel. Often people would gamble upon the outcome. Grudges could be settled this way – the Lancashire phrase “Ah’ll gi thi some clog toe pie” could easily lead to a purring match, and some very sore shins.
— http://mentalfloss.com/uk/history/29586/naked-clog-fighting-in-northern-england

Republicans run the risk of becoming the latest version of George Wallace

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement Sunday saying state workers can refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if doing so is contrary to his or her religious beliefs.

"(Judges and other state workers) may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections," Paxton said in the statement.

Workers who choose to deny licenses to same-sex couples may face litigation and fines, but there are lawyers willing to defend them, according to Paxton.

Paxton - along with many other Republicans  - are apparently channeling their inner George Wallaces. How quickly they have forgotten how history has judged the former Alabama Governor who ignored the Court's decision and attempted to block the integration of Alabama schools and universities. 

Support for same sex marriage stands at 61% amongst all Americans according to the latest Pew poll and at 73% amongst millennials. Only 14 states banned gay marriage before this ruling (making their calls for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage a big, fat joke).

The good guys are winning, and there is no reversing this tide. 

In the end, each and every one of these Republicans will be deemed to have been on the wrong side of history. They will find themselves standing alongside the likes of George Wallace forever more. . 

On a related note: How can I reject the Citizens United ruling? What can we do to refuse to adhere to that ruling?

Because that's the ruling that we should ignore. Big time.

Presidential Job Application Question #3 (with my answers): What’s your greatest political triumph?

Slate's John Dickerson recently published a piece entitled:

The Presidential Job Application: Seven questions we should ask anyone who wants to become President.

Over the course of the next seven days, I plan on completing Dickerson's application by answering each of the questions. I've always wanted to be President, so perhaps my answers will be so impressive that a grassroots campaign supporting my candidacy will ignite.

Answers to previous questions:

Question #3: What’s your greatest political triumph?

In the spring of my freshman year of college, my friend, Chris Johnson, sat down next to me in biology class and told me that I should run for President of the Student Senate. He was running for Vice President and wanted a running mate.

We were attending Manchester Community College at the time. I was managing a McDonald’s restaurant - working 50 hours a week - while taking a full course load. I had no extra time to devote to anything else in my life.

I also only had about half a dozen friends on campus and knew nothing about campus politics.

And the election was a week away.

Still, I said yes.

In a debate against my Presidential opponents, I was asked how I expected to find to find the time to be President with my enormous school and work load. I said that I had asked my father the same question when deciding if I should run, and he had said, “Great men don’t find the time. Great men make the time.”

The answer was received with one of the only rounds of applause that day.

Of course, my father had said no such thing. I hadn’t spoken to my father in more than ten years. But when I wished that I had the advice of my father, I imagined what he would say, and if the advice was good, I followed it.

I lost the election by a handful of votes to a woman named Jane.

Political career over.

Except that Jane did not return to the college in the fall in order to serve her term (medical issues), so the Vice Presidential winner (not Chris) assumed the presidency. Chris was then asked to join the Senate in the now-vacant Executive Senator position, and he convinced the Senate to open up a second Executive Senator position for me as well. A month later, when the Treasurer resigned, I took her place.

My political career was born.

The most important aspect of this political triumph was my decision to treat all of the candidates for President with dignity and respect. At least one other Presidential candidates did not, and as a result, he was never even considered for any of the available positions when they opened up that fall. I became known as a person who could deliver an excellent speech, listen to others, and campaign hard without attacking my opponents. Those skills became desirable when there was a vacancy to be filled.

In the end, I was probably better off serving as Treasurer than President. I was incredibly busy that year, and the Treasurer’s position – while taxing – was not nearly as time consuming as the President’s position. I managed to lose the election yet reap the benefits of political office, including leadership retreats to Washington and New York, an office on campus, and the camaraderie and friendship that our political team enjoyed, and I had the opportunity to learn under the tutelage of our Dean of Students, Alfred Carter, which has served me well in life.   

Politics is famous for dirty tricks. But sometimes the high road pays off. 

Students were required to listen to Ted Cruz - under threat of fines - which seems just plain mean. Also agonizing.

In case you didn’t hear, the students at Liberty University were required to attend Ted Cruz’s speech announcing his candidacy for President last week. image

Failure to do so would have resulted in a fine of $10.

Even worse, when students attempted to leave after realizing that they were at a political rally, they were refused exit.

“I felt very acutely that I was being used as political bait today” sophomore Emily Foreman said on Monday. “I think our freedom of speech was hampered today when we weren’t allowed to leave.”

A slightly embarrassing launch to a dead-in-the-water Presidential campaign

Most important, you can’t make this stuff up.

Is Ted Cruz really this stupid or is he simply pandering to idiots?

Serious, sincere question:

When someone like Ted Cruz continues to reject the realities of climate change like he did last week on Late Night, does he really believe what he is saying, or is he merely pandering to the idiots he needs to win a primary?

image

I really want to know:

Is Ted Cruz a liar or an idiot?

If it’s the former,  please add his name to United States Politicians in 2015 Who Denied the Existence of Manmade Climate Change Despite Overwhelming and Undeniable Scientific Evidence in Order to Further Their Political Careers At the Expense of Future Generations. 

Mike Huckabee is a bigot still living in 1996

Jon Stewart, while interviewing Mike Huckabee, said the following:

Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion — we protect religion. And talk about a lifestyle choice —religion is absolutely a choice. Gay people don’t choose to be gay. At what age did you choose to not be gay?

You know, you talk about the pro-life movement being one of the great shames of our nation. I think if you want number two, I think it’s that: It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else.

I feel bad for Mike Huckabee. He talks about same sex marriage like it's 1996 and the world is still ruled by ignorant bigots and sensible cowards.

Someone please tell him that while he was busy doing his show on Fox News, the world finally moved on.

image

Two important things to remember as the Blizzard of 2015 approaches

As my home state of Connecticut prepares for the oncoming blizzard, there are a few things to keep in mind:
______________________

The blizzard will hit on Monday night and continue through Tuesday. But the roads will be cleared and stores will be open by Wednesday, which means we are talking about about 36 hours trapped indoors.

And you’ll probably spend about 16 of those hours sleeping.

This is not a big deal. Even if you lose power, which will suck, it’s not a big deal.
______________________

I’d also like to remind my fellow New Englanders that blizzards are not exactly uncommon in our neck of the woods. In the last five years, New England – and specifically Connecticut – has been hit by three major blizzards, more than two dozen snowstorms of a foot or more, and an October nor’easter which did more damage than all of the blizzards combined.

  • Blizzard of 2013: 24-40 inches

image image

  • Blizzard of 2011: 20-30 inches
  • Halloween nor-easter of 2011: 18 inches of snow and a majority of residents without power for more than a week
  • Blizzard of 2010: 12-24 inches of snow

We’ve seen this before. We’ll see it again. We live in New England. It shouldn’t be a surprise. 

Also, you probably had enough bread and milk to get you through Wednesday.

Michael Lewis wants women to rule Wall Street. I would like to take his thesis about a million steps further.

Michael Lewis has Eight Things I Wish for Wall Street. Blogger Jason Kottke highlighted #2 on his blog: 

2. No person under the age of 35 will be allowed to work on Wall Street.

I like this one a lot, but I like #3 even better:

3. Women will henceforth make all Wall Street trading decisions.

Men are more prone to financial risk-taking, and overconfidence, and so will be banned from even secondary roles on Wall Street trading desks -- though they will be permitted to do whatever damage they would like in their private investment accounts. Trading is a bit like pornography: Women may like it, but they don't like it nearly as much as men, and they certainly don't like it in ways that create difficulties for society. Put them in charge of all financial decision-making and the decisions will be more boring, but more sociable. Of course, this raises a practical question: How will our society find enough women older than 35, with no special intellectual ability, to fill all of Wall Street's trading jobs? Well ...

I would like to take it one step further. Or a million steps further. 

I believe that the world would be a far better place if women were in charge. Therefore, I would support the immediate replacement of all male members of the House of Representatives and the Senate with women. 

I’d do the same with every state governor, and if I could, every mayor as well.

image

I would also support the immediate replacement of the all of the male CEOs of all of the Fortune 500 companies with women.

I routinely charge my female students with the task of charging forward and taking over the world. I tell them that I will be disappointed if women are not ruling this country, if not the world, by the time I am a spry 100 years old. 

I suspect that Michael Lewis would agree.

Pineapples once were popular party accessories. And not for eating.

Did you know that pineapples were such a status symbol in 18th century England that you could rent one for the evening to take to a party?

image

This is also the reason there are pineapples atop some many trophies, such as Wimbledon men's singles trophy.

image

People in 18th century England were very stupid.

My 15 dead friends (potentially)

I’m once again in the process of revising my Friendship Application.

image

As I’ve debated new categories to add to my list and the revision of others, I’ve begun to wonder about who I might have befriended from the days of yore.

In short, what dead men and women I would have wanted as friends.

So I’ve begun a list. My criteria is this:

  • The person must be a slam dunk. In the past several days, I have considered dozens of maybes and probablys, but unless I can say for certain that I would call that dead person my friend, he or she is not added to the list.
  • I cannot add people to the list for curiosity sake. For example, I would love to hear the truth about the Kennedy assassination from Lee Harvey Oswald, but that desire for information is not enough to befriend him.
  • I am seeking people of similar mindsets and sensibilities, as well as those individuals who so thoroughly impress me that I would want to spend as much time as possible in their company.

Here’s what I’ve got so far, in order of preference:

  • H.L. Mencken

image

  • Voltaire
  • Jonathan Swift
  • Eleanor Roosevelt
  • Mark Twain
  • Richard Pryor

image

  • Winston Churchill 
  • Ida Tarbell

image

  • Roald Dahl
  • Harriet Tubman
  • Oscar Wilde
  • George Carlin
  • Ida B. Wells
  • Bing Crosby

image

  • Douglas Adams
  • Thomas Paine

If you have any suggestions for additions, please send them along.

If you would like to generate your own list and share it with the rest of us, that would be even better.

My possibly petulant “I told you so” climate change Kickstarter idea: I need your feedback. Am I an idiot?

Earlier in the week, I wrote about the sound byte being used by Republicans in response to questions about the existence of climate change:

“I’m not a scientist.”

Variations of this ridiculous statement include:

“The science isn’t all there yet.”

“I’ve heard arguments from both sides of the scientific aisle.”

House Speaker John Boehner: “Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change. But I am astute enough to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.”

image

Here’s the thing:

When a politician tells us that he does not believe in climate change or does not accept that climate change is the result of human activity or can’t be certain enough about the science to take action, he or she is either lying or stupid. The science is simply too overwhelmingly in favor of manmade climate change for anyone with half a brain to deny it.

The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) — a massive international effort to synthesized scientific knowledge on climate change from around the world — concluded with 95 percent certainty that the vast majority of the rise in global temperatures observed since the 1950s has been man-made. (Ninety-five percent is the same certainty that scientists assign to the assertion that cigarettes kill.)

It’s simply become impossible to deny climate change, which is why this “I am not a scientist” sound byte has come into fashion. Claim a lack of expertise and training and you don’t have to take a stand.

Convenient. Stupid but convenient. 

More than likely, these “I am not a scientist”  politicians are receiving campaign contribution from oil, coal, or natural gas companies and do not want that funding to dry up.

The largest contributors to John Boehner’s campaign, for example, are gas and oil companies.

But even those of us being paid by the fossil fuel companies to keep silent or plead ignorance know that climate change is real, and in the not-too-distant future, when sea levels rise to the point that the map begins to change and once valuable real estate is underwater, denying it will be even more difficult.

There will come a day when man made climate change will be undeniable by even the most ardent fossil fuel advocates.

My fear is that the politicians who are denying the existence of manmade climate change today will be forgotten tomorrow. Thanks to the short memories of the American people and the disregard for history, these men and women lie with impunity, knowing that they will no longer be in office and will probably be dead by the time large portions of southern Florida are underwater.

They are relying on the fact that history can be slippery and forgetful.

Ask an average American how many US Presidents have been assassinated while in office, and he or she will likely say two.

Just imagine: Two United States Presidents were murdered while in office after Lincoln’s assassination, and they have been all but forgotten.

image image

What does John Boehner have to fear when he lies about climate change? Who will ever remember his lies in light of everything else that is forgotten.

But in the not-to-distant future, my children, or perhaps my children’s children, will ask me what the hell we were doing when there was still time to reduce CO2 levels, impose a carbon tax, and make serious investments in green energy. They will want to know why we fiddled while Rome burned, and I want to be able to name names. I want to be able to tell them the names of the liars who took no action and impeded the action of others in the face of over whelming scientific evidence. I want those names etched in history.

So my Kickstarter idea:

I’d like to publish a book entitled:

United States Politicians in 2015 Who Denied the Existence of Manmade Climate Change Despite Overwhelming and Undeniable Scientific Evidence in Order to Further Their Political Careers At the Expense of Future Generations

Each page of this book will feature one of the politicians and their exact words in response to questions about climate change.

That’s it. Lying politicians and their exact words.

I’d like to print one billion of these books, to ensure that physical copies will exist for future historians, but one billion may be a little unrealistic. But I’d like to convince as many people as possible to purchase this book, and to also have the book logged in the United States Library of Congress.

I want people to place this book, which would be handsomely bound, on their family’s bookshelf alongside their copies of The Bible and Huckleberry Finn. I want this book to become a family heirloom. Something passed down from generation to generation.

I want this book read when a father explains to a son that the Des Moines Dolphins were once known as the Miami Dolphins, before Miami was underwater.  

image

Ideally, I’d love to see a granite monument with these politician's names etched into its side, added to yearly like the Stanley Cup, but I’m an author and books are my thing. But if a sculpture is interested in pursuing this project, I’d be more than willing to back it as well.   

One of my stretch goals would be to have one of these books printed on a material other than paper. Something that will last a thousand years or more and be kept on display in the Smithsonian Museum of American History.

Maybe thin sheets of gold? Or platinum? Whatever the scientists suggest. Because I may not be a scientist, but I trust them to tell me what material makes the most sense for this project.

So my questions:

Is this a crazy idea?

Would it be ultimately pointless?

Would the Kickstarter be unsuccessful?

Is this merely my way of publishing a petulant, historical “I told you so” that will change nothing?

Would people support something like this?

Would the money be better spent supporting climate change activism or green energy research?

Should I try that monument idea even though I wouldn’t begin to know where to start?

What are your thoughts? I really want to know.

“I’m not a scientist” is a perfectly acceptable response to climate change questions, as long as you’re willing to acknowledge everything else that you are not.

Republicans who have found the denial of climate change too ridiculous and inconvenient to continue to perpetuate have turned to a new strategy. In response to questions about climate change, they have adopted a single sentence sound byte that they are repeating with disturbing regularity.

“I’m not a scientist.”

“I can’t comment on climate change because I’m not a scientist.”

“I’m not qualified to make determinations about climate change because I’m not a scientist.”

image

This remark might seem genuine and even thoughtful and measured if it wasn’t being repeated with the frequency of a car alarm in New York City. Republicans everywhere have clearly been given this phrase as a talking point and are using it with great abandon, as Stephen Colbert points out in this segment.

Despite the sudden and overwhelming use of this sound byte as a means of doing nothing about climate change, I’m willing to accept these Republican’s admission of ignorance as long as they are willing to also admit that they are also not:

  • economists
  • military strategists
  • healthcare policy professionals
  • gynecologists
  • teachers
  • Biblical scholars

If these white men (because that is primarily who they are) are unwilling to accept the findings of the vast majority of scientists who assert that climate change is both real and man made because they are not scientists themselves, then they must also renounce themselves from decisions involving the economy, monetary policy, the military, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, abortion, contraception, education, and any policy enacted in accordance or alignment with Biblical principles.

This is what Democrats need to be saying every time they hear a Republican say, “I’m not a scientist.”

“Yes, but you’re not an economist, either. And yet you seem to be acting like you know something about the economy.”

“Sure, but you’re not an expert on teaching or being a woman or fighting a war, either. So shut the hell up with it comes to those things, too.”

“If you can’t act on the advice of the majority of scientists because you yourself are not a scientist, then you can’t quote the Bible either when defending bans on same sex marriage or just your own bigotry. You probably haven’t even read the thing cover to cover, and even if you have, that doesn’t make you a Biblical scholar.”

I have yet to hear a Democrat respond aggressively or appropriately to this ridiculous sound byte. Perhaps Democrats have and I have yet to hear it, but I couldn’t find an adequate response through a Google search.

Stupidity cannot go unchallenged or it becomes doctrine.

And while people like Stephen Colbert do a fine job of bringing this issue to light and pointing out the lunacy and virus-like spread of these four words, talk show hosts are not enough. Elected leaders must stand up against this ridiculous blanket of words that climate change deniers and ignorers are suddenly wrapping themselves in. 

Who is watching these political ads?

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that nearly $4 billion will be spent on television advertising for the 2014 midterm elections, up from $3.6 billion in 2010. 

image

My question:

Who is watching these ads?

We’re about two weeks from Election Day, and I have yet to see a single political ad on television. I suspect the same goes for my wife. Granted, we don’t watch much television, but even if you’re among the zombie class of average Americans who watch 6-8 hours of television a day, who isn’t time-shifting their television viewing in order to avoid commercials? More than 70% of American households own a DVR.

People don’t actually watch live television anymore. Do they?

Even if Elysha and I plan to watch a television show on the night that it actually airs, we wait 20 minutes before turning it on so we can bypass the commercials. And if it’s a show on HBO or Netflix or OnDemand, there are no commercials.

Where are people encountering these commercials?

While I’m sure that the viewing habits of every American does not match my own, I can’t imagine that enough people watch television live to warrant spending $4 billion dollars on television ads.

And if I’m wrong, what the hell is wrong with you people? Why are you wasting time watching commercial television? 

So I’m serious. Is anyone actually seeing these political commercials?

A race to the bottom: Which state will be the last to legalize same sex marriage?

Over the weekend, a judge overturned Alaska’s ban on same sex marriage.

On Tuesday, Alaska and North Carolina began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples for the first time.

Thirty states and Washington, D.C. now allow some form of marriage for same-sex couples.

Can you believe it? This seemed impossible just a few years ago, and now a  majority of Americans live in states that permit same sex marriage.

image

The states that are still resisting same sex marriage must understand by now that resisting is only delaying the inevitable.

Right?

As the number of states in which same sex marriage is still illegal continues to shrink, we have to ask ourselves:

Which state will be last to legalize same sex marriage? And does that state want to carry the stigma of being the last to recognize this right?

Depending on how you define integration, Alabama, Arkansas, or Mississippi were the last states to integrate their school systems. Alabama has the unfortunate honor of often being thought of as the last to integrate, with Governor George Wallace refusing to do so until the military intervened and forced his hand.

image

Isn’t that amazing? The military had to forcibly integrate schools in Alabama and other parts of the South.

I can’t imagine that the people of Alabama are proud of this moment in their history.

Alabama is one of 20 states that in which same sex marriage is illegal. It’s currently engaged in a race to the bottom.

Which state will earn the unfortunate distinction of being the last to allow this basic human right? If these politicians in these final 20 states were smart, they would try like hell to avoid being the last. It’s an honor that no state should want.

Unfortunately, intelligence and wisdom tend to be in short supply when it comes to the bigots and hypocrites who struggle to keep these bans in place, so it’s likely to be a shortsighted, clawing, ugly battle to determine which state is run by the largest percentage of them.