-  Abraham Lincoln, 1858

The debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is not about the hallowed ground where the Twin Towers fell.  The debate has not occurred because people dispute the right of an investment group to privately own property and use it lawfully as they see fit.  This debate has begun because the shouts of the demons of our basest selves had begun to drown out our better angels.  The fear and hatred of our fellow man, or worse yet, our fellow Americans has reached a fever pitch.  It is a shameful evocation of the lives lost on September 11^th for slanderous use against other American citizens.  The most conservative and angry amongst us will only remember the white lives lost on that day.  There is no recollection of the Muslim lives lost or the Muslim families who mourned with us in the aftermath.  There is no question that this is a sensitive subject.  All Americans of all faiths carry burdens from that day – but there is no civil debate over intent or message – there has only been hypocrisy and hate.

“Islamaphobia” is the new buzz word – however heavy handed it may be it is certainly apt.  There is no question that the fervor that has erupted as a result of the planned community center is based more on hatred and fear of Muslims and less on grief and empathy for 9/11 families.  This is all part of an ever widening divide between two sides of a polarized nation; between the residents of “real” America and the rest of us.  The arc of “I want my America back” continues through hate and fear with the ever looming white American isolationism looming on the horizon.  The new crusade (fitting) against the Islamic faith is just another branch on an ever thriving tree.

The presidential election of 2008 was one that many of us thought would change the racial climate in the United States.  The fact that, America, as a nation, elected Barack Obama seemed to be a sign that things were different.  Unfortunately old habits (read prejudices) die hard.  “Islamaphobia” has heretofore taken a back seat to the more traditional racism directed towards African Americans.  The emergence of the “Tea Party” and their exposure in the daily news cycle has a decidedly racist flavor which has been focused primarily on our black President and the anger and resentment over the belief that this black president is giving taxpayer handouts to other blacks.   The standard line given by the “Tea Baggers” is that they are simply uniting against big government to prevent the continuation of the tax and spend culture and to protect individual liberties, but a picture says a thousand words.  One of the most egregious instances of racism to emerge from the Tea Party ranks is a “satirical” letter from “colored people” to Abraham Lincoln, penned by Mark Williams, founder of the Tea Party Express.

Adding more fuel to this significant fire are the proposed plans for an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan along with the fact that new polling finds that 1 in 5 Americans erroneously believes the President to be a Muslim.  Take into account that a great number of people have come to the conclusion that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It is a fair assumption that those who conclude this would also be one of the aforementioned 1 in 5. It is then a relatively short leap to infer that a good portion of this 20% believe that the President of the United States is, at least potentially, an Islamic terrorist.  This is the political and racial climate that the Park51 Center is attempting to be born into.  The kneejerk reaction to the idea of a “mosque at Ground Zero” by Americans still grieving after nearly 10 years is understandable and frankly expected.  But the further explanation, both of plans and of those involved should have quieted all except the most militant objectors.

Those in this group of objectors have either forgotten or ignored the fact that the act of terrorism is not wholly owned commodity of the Islamic faith.  Violence in the name of God is not exclusive to one religion or sect.  Many frequently cited sources of Christian terrorism are closely tied to racist ideology promoting white supremacy, such as the KKK.  There are Christian terror groups, such as Army of God (AOG,) that are also associated with anti-abortion terrorism.  Religious extremes, regardless of creed share the unquestioned belief in Good versus Evil and that God or Allah is on their side.  Such extremists see themselves on the side of purity and goodness fighting against impurity or corruption, the holy against the heathen.  This is an important point to make in the context of the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate where the implication by those opposed is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.  By that rational must we not consider all Christians as having potential for this kind of behavior?  When framed in those terms it seems absurd.

There is further hypocrisy that can’t be ignored.  Somewhere along the line, certain groups of Americans, generally the most conservative amongst us, have applied a subjective definition to what terrorism is.  No one will debate the fact that the attacks of September 11 were an act of terrorism.  However, how many people rightly consider Joseph Stack to be a terrorist?  How many people know who Joseph Stack is?  For those who don’t, he was the software engineer who flew a prop plane into a federal (IRS) building as an anti-tax protest.  Not only is this domestic terrorist not being considered as such by right-wing America, he is considered by some to be an American hero.

The point of this argument is not justification for any of these groups – quite the opposite.  The intent is to highlight arguments in opposition that have been voiced.  Christian terrorists are dismissed as “crazy people” while Islamic terrorists are characterized as apparently sane and evil.  The question is not whether fundamentalist Christian terrorists are crazy or fundamentalist Islamic terrorist are evil – most level-headed people would agree with both of those statements.  The point is that we cannot paint those who practice either of these religions with the same fundamentalist paint brush.  The prevention of American Muslims from exercising their Constitutionally granted freedom of religion based on the proximity to a site associated with Islamic terrorism is akin to preventing a Catholic Church being built in the proximity of the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.  This is, of course the opposite of the argument presented by the “honorable” Newt Gingrich, who believes that putting a mosque near Ground Zero is the equivalent of putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.

As Americans we must let our better angels conquer our demons.  We have to be better than this.  The United States must be a country of inclusion, not of division.  As a collective we have felt anger and spite in the aftermath of the fall of the twin towers – the residue of these feelings cannot be allowed to bastardize the Constitution to suit political means.  It is accepted as fact that the Park 51 project is Constitutionally allowed – but objectors fly in the face of the document they claim to protect.  For the United States to be a shining city on a hill, bridges much be built, not torn down.  Reactionary and regressive fear is not going to carry this nation into the next century as a beacon for the world.

In the digital age of the never ending election season, the forthcoming mid-term elections of 2010 and the Presidential election of 2012 will never slip below the fold in America’s online newspapers. President Obama and the Democratic Congressional counterparts have been running for re-election since November of 2008. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the old saying goes. That has never been more pertinent than now. The President was swept into office on a grand wave of promise – hope, change and post-partisanship – and was met firmly with hyper-partisanship and anger in the midst of the status quo. He himself said that “power concedes nothing without a fight.” Majorities in both houses of Congress did nothing to dislodge the powers that be – what the conservatives lack in numbers they make up for with fortitude and solidarity, which they have in spades. Whether or not one agrees with their ideology is irrelevant – there is not a Democrat alive who doesn’t wish the elected members of their party had a fraction of the backbone exhibited by the opposition. “Opponents” is truly what they are – “colleague across the aisle” is a pleasantry of no substance. It is a new age of American politics where this simple platitude is so empty and so false.

Pedestrian partisan bickering is a thing of the past – the two party political system has degraded in full out party warfare. Legislation enacted under the current administration that results in positive change in the life of American’s is not viewed by the Republican Party as a victory for the American people; it is viewed as a political defeat. Governing in the American Congress has become an all or nothing proposition. Four years of inaction which would only serve to deepen the severity of issues facing the American people will be a political victory for the Republican Party. Conservatives seem content to mortgage the prosperity and welfare of the American people for victories in 2010 and 2012. Economic recovery, affordable healthcare, deficit reduction, or even a great focus on fiscal responsibility is not the goal in the minds of Republicans. The goal is to assure that President Obama’s administration goes no longer than one term and the majority of seats in Congress are held by Republicans. It would be naïve to assume that similar sentiments are not held by Democrats in Congress. It is obvious that political victory is much more important in the Washington establishment than in effective legislation and honest work towards addressing the problems that face America’s embattled middle class.

It is important now, more than ever, for the President and the leadership to confer and choose a course for the country and carry that agenda forward. They must take this agenda forward by whatever means granted to them by the Constitution. It is imperative that the filibuster abuse be neutralized. For far too long this piece of arcane parliamentary procedure has gummed the works of the American legislative body. The majority party must pass legislation through reconciliation if that is the avenue that is available to them. They must enact change through executive order. There is a singular fact that has been lost in the recent weeks and months. The Presidency and the majority party in both houses of Congress are Democrats – this is not an arbitrary occurrence. This is not a manufactured situation. The Democrats own the White House and the Capital Building because they were voted there by the American people through democratic election. Political posturing aside – it was the vote and voice of the American people in the 2006 and 2008 elections that put the Democrats in this powerful position. This was not only a vote for a Democratic candidate, but also a vote for the Democratic Party platform. It is for this reason that the Democrats have a mandate from their constituents to legislate and carry the agenda forward.

This may not be the case after November 2010. Until then, the Democratic caucus needs to defeat the obstruction of the opposition and govern as they were elected to do. This is where the President will earn his credit and his reelection. He will earn credit by delivering tangible results and successes. Conservative political figures and pundits will give no credit and will refute even the most monumental success. Jobs created by the stimulus package will have their existence denied. Economic growth will be disregarded. Success in Homeland Security will be ignored. Bipartisanship will be a quaint idea of the past. The President has no duty or obligation to include the Republican Party. He has a duty to the American citizens who put him in the White House. That is whose support he needs to earn – and he will earn that through success – not bipartisanship. Success will be a robust economy, affordable healthcare for all, foreign wars resolved and troops returned home. The American people will embrace him for those successes.

Mr. Altmire –

I preface this letter with the fact that I voted for you in the November 2008 election.  Up until recently I had no great knowledge of your voting record until inquiring into your vote on the Healthcare Reform Bill that passed the House last week.  It was to my dismay to see that you had voted against the bill.  Much of my concern is due to the recent partisan fervor concerning the bill and the need for unity among Democrats.  The reason that I chose to get in contact with you concerning this particular issue is that it is one that the President campaigned on and has championed these past months.  I feel that it is important to note that my vote was not only in support of your candidacy and as my choice for representation, but also in support of the President.  My support of you on Election Day was based in part on the assumption that you would in turn support President Obama.

Believe me; I have great respect for independent thought and centrist ideals.  Most rationally thinking people would agree that extremism on either side of the aisle causes nothing but greater division amongst the American people.  However, a “yes” vote on this bill would have meant both strong support for a sitting Democratic President and compassion and empathy for millions of U.S. citizens without the financial wherewithal to afford even a minimal level of healthcare coverage for themselves or their families.  One of my biggest concerns with your vote on this bill is that fact that aligns you with the same people who accuse the President of being a socialist and demanding a government takeover of the healthcare system – these being the same people who gather in public with signs depicting President Obama as Hitler or worse.  I believe that that fact alone should provide enough motivation to support a president of your own party on this issue.

I am aware of the concerns of the opposition of healthcare reform.  None of these concerns outweigh the dire need of 50 million uninsured American citizens.  It is unfortunate to see the value of health and human life not  be monetarily worth the perceived negative impact of a fictitious tax increase.  Conservative attack dogs barking about tax increases and insurance premium hikes verses Progressive references to a deficit neutral CBO report are ineffectual arguments when talking about improving the quality of American lives.  There are far reaching ramifications to improving the overall health of the lower and middle class – not the least of which is a huge number of people receiving regular checkups and treatment for chronic ailments that they might not otherwise receive.  Maybe a dollar value should be placed on the number of people who receive proper care and can return to the American workforce.  Where is the argument for the value to the American economy when the chronically ill are receiving the appropriate care and can return to work?  In that argument I see two immediate benefits – you have enabled another American worker who pays taxes and no longer requires unemployment and public entitlement benefits.

In closing – Mr. Altmire, please continue to do what you believe to be best for the people of our Congressional district and our state.  And, please sir, support the President – it is what your Progressive constituency expects of you.

Best regards,

Mark St.Amant

Murrysville, PA

It is obvious to many that the motivation for this behavior is blatant and overt racism.  Many people hoped that the election of November 2008 would mark a moment in American history where, as a society, the United States could move out from under the ever looming dark cloud of racism.  By and large this may be true, but in the pockets of the country where is has not, the hate and anger have grown deeper and more virulent.  It is easy to dismiss these feelings as a kneejerk reaction to conservative pundits that are so prevalent on TV – but sometimes where there’s smoke there really is fire.  When large groups of angry southerners gather, brandishing their weapons and hateful propaganda, one cannot help conjure images of an angry lynch mob – because that is what it looks like and that’s what it feels like.  This is not a simple Northeastern liberal bias – it’s a matter of history.

The masses that gather in public parks and bark that this is “not their America” and that they “want their America back” are not making a concerted political effort to combat the evil forces of fascism/socialism/Nazism/communism.  If they are using these terms to describe the President or his policies they clearly have no idea what those words mean or stand for. What they want is “their America” back from the black President.  Nothing has changed in their day-to-day lives in the 10 months since the inauguration – except the possibility of a few extra dollars in their paycheck.  The only thing that has changed is the color of the man in the Oval Office and the vigor with which the conservative “news” networks attack him.  The most bothersome statement of the opposition is “I want my America back.”  The trouble they have is the large majority of the people that live in “their America” don’t like their opinion very much and think that their bigoted reactionary rhetoric is not the direction the United States of America should be taking in the age of the World Community.

The “traditional American values” of the conservative are all fine and well – in many cases they are still things to strive for and to be proud of.  But much of the time they are best left to the 1950’s and the age of American isolationism.  America’s place in the world as the only remaining super power is largely based on the relationship it has with and the perspective in which it is viewed by the rest of the world.  This is not an opinion that is popular with conservatives – but this is another positive ramification of the election of Barack Obama – this event alone has significantly increased America’s stock in the world.  All these items seem to be worlds away from the current debate about healthcare reform but it is clearly all related.  There is an argument to be made that the issue at hand (be it healthcare or any other) is of no consequence – regardless of the issue the argument stays the same.

The main divergence of the parties on healthcare is that Democrats/Progressives believe that adequate, affordable healthcare coverage is a right inherent to every American citizen.  Republican/Conservatives do not believe that it is a right – they believe that it is a privilege or a commodity that must be provided for oneself and one’s family regardless of circumstance.  The primary issue with this position is that the lion’s share of people who would be affected by this legislation (those millions of uninsured Americans) are generally in no position to provide healthcare for themselves.  Ignore for a moment the fact that the President has guaranteed that if you are happy with your current coverage, whether it is through your employer or purchased privately, it will not change.  The fact that remains is that a country as wealthy as the United States still has nearly 50 million citizens that have not healthcare coverage.  Regardless of cost, this fact is unconscionable and embarrassing.  It is frustrating that progressives are being saddled with the inference that they have no concern for the health of seniors or children or mothers or whatever the current frame job may be.  Opposition to a public option seems to be an abandonment of people who are unemployed or financially unable to afford health insurance.  Where is the concern amongst conservatives about their health?  Progressives were immediately forced to the dark side of the argument because of the ridiculous but strangely effective “death panel” argument.

Are the people of the United State expected to believe that the crux of a healthcare reform bill would be to hasten the death of those who are most taxing to the healthcare system?  That is the assertion that is being made and accepted by many Americans – mostly senior citizens.  It is unclear where the progressives lost the message.  The President and the Democratic Party are being framed as the bad guys – merchants of death bent of the destruction of the American people.  What would the method to this destruction be?  Death by government strangulation.  The only fault found with progressives is apparently trying to provide adequate, affordable healthcare to those that need it most.  It is these people who are not receiving regular checkups or treatment for chronic ailments.  Though these people are the focus of the reform the opposition claims that any reform of the healthcare system would result in a decrease in the quality of healthcare enjoyed by Americans.  If truly defies logic.

It is apparent that the anti-healthcare reform crowd is lumping a public option or “medicare for all” in the same boat as welfare, food stamps or other public entitlements.  There is a distinction between the two that must be made.  The conservative pillars of “self-responsibility” and “self-reliance” are being taken beyond the realm of what is reasonable when they make their argument.  Is it an unreasonable expectation for a US citizen to have a certain expectation of care when they are sick or injured regardless insurance coverage?  Maybe when talking about welfare the most staunchly conservative will expect everyone, regardless of circumstance, to go out and find work.  More accurately they would expect every citizen to go out and start their own business – exhibiting the American entrepreneurial spirit. That may be a reasonable expectation in their view – but now the expectation would be that they seek gainful employment only from those employers that offer health coverage?  What is either missed or ignored by the conservative population is the fact that there will always be circumstances, be they physical or financial, that will prevent a certain portion of the population from qualifying for and obtaining quality healthcare coverage from a private company.

The term “bleeding heart liberal” is not a term to be looked upon as a slight but as a compliment.  The most conservative and reactionary among us will simply ask “Who is going to pay for this?” when referring to a public health insurance option.  They will go to townhall meetings and scream at people in wheelchairs claiming it is “not my job to pay for your health insurance.”  Watching TV a little too closely will cause some to truly believe that compassion and empathy are dead.  It was a hard lesson learned well during the confirmation of the newest Supreme Court Justice that empathy is not something to be admired, at least according to some.  It is difficult to sway the opinion of a group of people that will gladly subsidize a corrupt and disorganized war but scoff at the idea of lending aid to a woman in a wheel chair.  There seems to be a shortage of people with empathy and concern for those less fortunate than themselves.  The Statue of Liberty may need her message updated – there isn’t a whole lot of support for the sick and the huddled masses anymore – but there should be.

* * *

1. Let us assume you met a rudimentary magician. Let us assume he can do five simple tricks–he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he can make a coin disappear, he can turn the ace of spades into the Joker card, and two others in a similar vein. These are his only tricks and he can’t learn any more; he can only do these five. HOWEVER, it turns out he’s doing these five tricks with real magic. It’s not an illusion; he can actually conjure the bunny out of the ether and he can move the coin through space. He’s legitimately magical, but extremely limited in scope and influence.
Would this person be more impressive than Albert Einstein?

My knee jerk reaction to this question was to say the magician.  Anything otherworldly initially seems more impression than a smart guy.  The more that I thought about it however, I realized, that real or not the theory of relativity is always going to be more impressive than a card trick.  Advantage: Einstein.

2. Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that–for some reason–every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.
Would you attempt to do this?

This is one of the quickest answers that I came to.  I would not kick the horse one time.   NOT ONCE.  I can’t even swat my dog with a newspaper without guilt.  Plus all the political prisoners on earth released from captivity?  Who are they to me?  This is the most callous the you will ever hear me be, but I am not kicking a horse to death for some college student that got kidnapped from a country where they shouldn’t be on vacation.  I am not sure that I would miss Countdown with Keith Olbermann for that purpose.

3. Let us assume there are two boxes on a table. In one box, there is a relatively normal turtle; in the other, Adolf Hitler’s skull. You have to select one of these items for your home. If you select the turtle, you can’t give it away and you have to keep it alive for two years; if either of these parameters are not met, you will be fined $999 by the state. If you select Hitler’s skull, you are required to display it in a semi-prominent location in your living room for the same amount of time, although you will be paid a stipend of $120 per month for doing so. Display of the skull must be apolitical.
Which option do you select?

This is another one that I didn’t have too much trouble with.  I don’t know much about the care of turtles.  Plus I never like to be in any position where fines are possible for stupid things.  I don’t really have any ethical dilemma with displaying Hitler’s skull.  I have a history background, I think that it is a pretty reasonable step to justify the display, plus the stipend is nice.  Can you imagine a better conversation starter at a party?  Also I don’t have any Jewish friends or family to offend.

4. Genetic engineers at Johns Hopkins University announce that they have developed a so-called “super gorilla.” Though the animal cannot speak, it has a sign language lexicon of over twelve thousand words, an I.Q. of almost 85, and–most notably–a vague sense of self-awareness. Oddly, the creature (who weighs seven hundred pounds) becomes fascinated by football. The gorilla aspires to play the game at its highest level and quickly develops the rudimentary skills of a defensive end. ESPN analyst Tom Jackson speculates that this gorilla would be “borderline unblockable” and would likely average six sacks a game (although Jackson concedes the beast might be susceptible to counters and misdirection plays). Meanwhile, the gorilla has made it clear he would never intentionally injure any opponent.
You are commissioner of the NFL: Would you allow this gorilla to sign with the Oakland Raiders?

No we can’t let the gorilla play football.  Women must to have their own professional football and basketball leagues, so must gorillas.  (This is by no means a comparison between women and gorillas, my point is that members of our SPECIES are denied entrance into the NFL, I am pretty sure that those outside the species should suffer the same treatment.)   Now if the genetic engineers were able to generate enough gifted primates as to support an entire National Gorilla Football League, I would get season tickets.

5. You meet your soul mate. However, there is a catch: Every three years, someone will break both of your soul mate’s collarbones with a Crescent wrench, and there is only one way you can stop this from happening: You must swallow a pill that will make every song you hear–for the rest of your life–sound as if it’s being performed by the band Alice in Chains. When you hear Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio, it will sound (to your ears) like it’s being played by Alice in Chains. If you see Radiohead live, every one of their tunes will sound like it’s being covered by Alice in Chains. When you hear a commercial jingle on TV, it will sound like Alice in Chains; if you sing to yourself in the shower, your voice will sound like deceased Alice vocalist Layne Staley performing a capella (but it will only sound this way to you).
Would you swallow the pill?

Everyday and twice on Sunday

6. At long last, someone invents “the dream VCR.” This machine allows you to tape an entire evening’s worth of your own dreams, which you can then watch at your leisure. However, the inventor of the dream VCR will only allow you to use this device of you agree to a strange caveat: When you watch your dreams, you must do so with your family and your closest friends in the same room. They get to watch your dreams along with you. And if you don’t agree to this, you can’t use the dream VCR.
Would you still do this?

A resounding no.  There are several obvious issues with this magical device.  I think that we can all admit that we occasionally have dreams that we would prefer not to share with our parents and to a greater extent our grandparents.  But more so than that, I have had some whopper nightmares in my time and I certainly don’t want to relive them live and in living color.

7. Defying all expectation, a group of Scottish marine biologists capture a live Loch Ness Monster. In an almost unbelievable coincidence, a bear hunter in the Pacific Northwest shoots a Sasquatch in the thigh, thereby allowing zoologists to take the furry monster into captivity. These events happen on the same afternoon. That evening, the president announces he may have thyroid cancer and will undergo a biopsy later that week.
You are the front page editor of The New York Times: What do you play as the biggest story?

I am a politio-phile, news about the President always goes above the fold.

8. You meet the perfect person. Romantically, this person is ideal: You find them physically attractive, intellectually stimulating, consistently funny, and deeply compassionate. However, they have one quirk: This individual is obsessed with Jim Henson’s gothic puppet fantasy The Dark Crystal. Beyond watching it on DVD at least once a month, he/she peppers casual conversation with Dark Crystal references, uses Dark Crystal analogies to explain everyday events, and occasionally likes to talk intensely about the film’s “deeper philosophy.”
Would this be enough to stop you from marrying this individual?

I am not terribly familiar with the Dark Crystal, however I am in no position to judge someone for an odd obsession with a movie.  To be honest, this is a character trait which mirrors many of my own.  I could tolerate a Dark Crystal obsession in exchange for toleration of my Boondock Saints obsession.

9. A novel titled Interior Mirror is released to mammoth commercial success (despite middling reviews). However, a curious social trend emerges: Though no one can prove a direct scientific link, it appears that almost 30 percent of the people who read this book immediately become homosexual. Many of these newfound homosexuals credit the book for helping them reach this conclusion about their orientation, despite the fact that Interior Mirror is ostensibly a crime novel with no homoerotic content (and was written by a straight man).
Would this phenomenon increase (or decrease) the likliehood of you reading this book?

I have no real concerns about a book triggering a personal lifestyle change.  However I tend to be resistant to following the crowd on books and movies that garner some sort of popular fervor based on a kind of gimmick.  I have to say that if there was some extensive media coverage about the new book that could have you coming out of the closet – it would probably decrease the likelihood that I would read it.

10. This is the opening line of Jay McInerney’s Bright Lights, Big City: “You are not the kind of guy who would be in a place like this at this time of the morning.” Think about that line in the context of the novel (assuming you’ve read it). Now go to your CD collection and find Heart’s Little Queen album (assuming you own it). Listen to the opening riff to “Barracuda.”
Which of these two introductions is a higher form of art?

I haven’t read the book or own that album, but I am familiar with the song and find the opening line intriguing.  This one is a push until further research can be done.

11. You are watching a movie in a crowded theater. Though the plot is mediocre, you find yourself dazzled by the special effects. But with twenty minutes left in the film, you are struck with an undeniable feeling of doom: You are suddenly certain your mother has just died. There is no logical reason for this to be true, but you are certain of it. You are overtaken with the irrational metaphysical sense that–somewhere–your mom has just perished. But this is only an intuitive, amorphous feeling; there is no evidence for this, and your mother has not been ill.
Would you immediately exit the theater, or would you finish watching the movie?

I think that if I felt that strongly that something had happened I would leave the theater.  I haven’t had any times in my life where I have had significant feelings of intuition, but if I did I don’t think that I would dismiss it.

12. You meet a wizard in downtown Chicago. The wizard tells you he can make you more attractive if you pay him money. When you ask how this process works, the wizard points to a random person on the street. You look at this random stranger. The wizard says, “I will now make them a dollar more attractive.” He waves his magic wand. Ostensibly, this person does not change at all; as far as you can tell, nothing is different. But–somehow–this person is suddenly a little more appealing. The tangible difference is invisible to the naked eye, but you can’t deny that this person is vaguely sexier. This wizard has a weird rule, though–you can only pay him once. You can’t keep giving him money until you’re satisfied. You can only pay him one lump sum up front.
How much cash do you give the wizard?

Eh $20 – no wholesale changes, I think that would address some trouble areas.  I would ask the wizard for a triumphant head of hair.

13. Every person you have ever slept with is invited to a banquet where you are the guest of honor. No one will be in attendance except you, the collection of your former lovers, and the catering service. After the meal, you are asked to give a fifteen-minute speech to the assembly.
What do you talk about?

If it had to be fifteen minutes, probably something that I could speak intelligently about for that long.  Either Pittsburgh Pirate baseball or Democratic politics.  Not sure how well the topics would go over in the room, but I know that my wife likes both.

14. For reasons that cannot be explained, cats can suddenly read at a twelfth-grade level. They can’t talk and they can’t write, but they can read silently and understand the text. Many cats love this new skill, because they now have something to do all day while they lay around the house; however, a few cats become depressed, because reading forces them to realize the limitations of their existence (not to mention the utter frustration of being unable to express themselves).This being the case, do you think the average cat would enjoy Garfield, or would cats find this cartoon to be an insulting caricature?

I think that cats would enjoy Garfield.  They would empathize with him.  He never talks, he only has thought bubbles.  There is nothing insulting about Garfield to cats – he is smart and smarmy and abuses a dopey dog, other cats would love it.

15. You have a brain tumor. Though there is no discomfort at the moment, this tumor would unquestionably kill you in six months. However, your life can (and will) be saved by an operation; the only downside is that there will be a brutal incision to your frontal lobe. After the surgery, you will be significantly less intelligent. You will still be a fully functioning adult, but you will be less logical, you will have a terrible memory, and you will have little ability to understand complex concepts or difficult ideas. The surgery is in two weeks.
How do you spend the next fourteen days?

Writing.  Writing everything that I thought and could remember.  I would need to have some evidence of what I was and what I was capable of prior to the surgery.  It is easy to say that you wouldn’t go through the surgery and just be yourself for the next six months.  But when it comes right down to it, that’s not fair to your family and love ones and you don’t really know what the result will.  Write, don’t sleep.  Leave a record.

16. Someone builds and optical portal that allows you to see a vision of your own life in the future (it’s essentially a crystal ball that shows a randomly selected image of what your life will be like in twenty years). You can only see into this portal for thirty seconds. When you finally peer into the crystal, you see yourself in a living room, two decades older than you are today. You are watching a Canadian football game, and you are extremely happy. You are wearing a CFL jersey. Your chair is surrounded by books and magazines that promote the Canadian Football League, and there are CFL pennants covering your walls. You are alone in the room, but you are gleefully muttering about historical moments in Canadian football history. It becomes clear that—for some unknown reason—you have become obsessed with Canadian football. And this future is static and absolute; no matter what you do, this future will happen. The optical portal is never wrong. This destiny cannot be changed.
The next day, you are flipping through television channels and randomly come across a pre-season CFL game between the Toronto Argonauts and the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Knowing your inevitable future, do you now watch it?

No question.

17. You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no past.”
Which of these two people do you trust less?

What a great beginning to a novel.  I trust the man with no past less.  Everyone has a past, but not this guy.  I am intrigued, but not trusting.

18. You have won a prize. The prize has two options, and you can choose either (but not both). The first option is a year in Europe with a monthly stipend of $2,000. The second option is ten minutes on the moon.
Which option do you select?

How about a $50 stipend to live in Pittsburgh?  I don’t really want to go the moon under an circumstances.  $2000 a month in Europe is definitely more interesting to me, there are a lot things there that I would to see and do and there are literally zero things that I would like to see or do on the moon.  Easy answer.

19. Your best friend is taking a nap on the floor of your living room. Suddenly, you are faced with a bizarre existential problem: This friend is going to die unless you kick them (as hard as you can) in the rib cage. If you don’t kick them while they slumber, they will never wake up. However, you can never explain this to your friend; if you later inform them that you did this to save their life, they will also die from that. So you have to kick a sleeping friend in the ribs, and you can’t tell them why.
Since you cannot tell your friend the truth, what excuse will you fabricate to explain this (seemingly inexplicable) attack?

I had the hardest time with this question.  I am not a violent guy really so it would be tough to explain away.  I am a pretty big dude so I think that I could get away with saying I was running through the room after the dog and tripped.  I think I could justified the impact as an accidental misdirection of 275 pounds.

20. For whatever the reason, two unauthorized movies are made about your life. The first is an independently released documentary, primarily comprised of interviews with people who know you and bootleg footage from your actual life. Critics are describing the documentary as “brutally honest and relentlessly fair.” Meanwhile, Columbia Tri-Star has produced a big-budget biopic of your life, casting major Hollywood stars as you and all your acquaintances; though the movie is based on actual events, screenwriters have taken some liberties with the facts. Critics are split on the artistic merits of this fictionalized account, but audiences love it.
Which film would you be most interested in seeing?

I am not sure that I know a single person that would want to see the gritty true life documentary of themselves when they are presented with this question.  I would probably avoid the documentary style version of the Mark story. I would pay $8.50 to see The Mark Knight starring Vin Diesel.

21. Imagine you could go back to the age of five and relive the rest of your life, knowing everything that you know now. You will re-experience your entire adolescence with both the cognitive ability of an adult and the memories of everything you’ve learned form having lived your life previously.
Would you lose your virginity earlier or later than you did the first time around (and by how many years)?

No changes.

22. You work in an office. Generally, you are popular with your coworkers. However, you discover that there are currently two rumors circulating the office gossip mill, and both involve you. The first rumor is that you got drunk at the office holiday party and had sex with one of your married coworkers. This rumor is completely true, but most people don’t believe it. The second rumor is that you have been stealing hundreds of dollars of office supplies (and then selling them to cover a gambling debt). This rumor is completely false, but virtually everyone assumes it is factual.
Which of these two rumors is most troubling to you?

Nobody likes a thief.  I find that rumor to be more troubling, true or not.  If it is true – I don’t like me either.

23. Consider this possibility:
a. Think about deceased TV star John Ritter.
b. Now, pretend Ritter had never become famous. Pretend he was never affected by the trappings of fame, and try to imagine what his personality would have been like.
c. Now, imagine that this person—the unfamous John Ritter—is a character in a situation comedy.
d. Now, you are also a character in this sitcom, and the unfamous John Ritter character is your sitcom father.
e. However, this sitcom is actually your real life. In other words, you are living inside a sitcom: Everything about our life is a construction, featuring the unfamous John Ritter playing himself (in the role of your TV father). But this is not a sitcom. This is your real life.
How would you feel about this?

After five reads I honestly cannot wrap my brain around this question.  I am not sure how I feel about the situation because I truthfully don’t understand the situation.

This is day one of Obama’s new Presidency. At 7am I found myself literally cornered by two conservative coworkers. Did they come at me with a social agenda? Economic policy? Foreign policy and two (count them – TWO) wars in the Middle East? Nope. I was confronted with the inauguration ceremonies being obscenely expensive. I got attacked because “the party cost too much.” I came away from the exchange feeling defeated because I had very little to say in response. I can generally go rounds with people on the economy or foreign policy or any pressing issue, but I have nothing for you on the expensive party. So the $140 million “drain on the economy” was their big concern, not the trillions being spent on an unpopular war. To each his own. I think that the inauguration was just another opportunity for Democrats to be painted as tax and spend liberals – my attackers didn’t come to the succinct conclusion, so I guess that I will make it for them.

I must say, if all we get for the next four years are these weak desperate arguments about ancillary items of little consequence, we can look forward to another four years after that. I had the opportunity to spend sometime today with my Regional Director. This man is in a highly ranking management position with what I can only assume to be considerable income. He is also a Navy veteran. The man doesn’t have to where a sign for me to know which side of the aisle he sits on. So today I got to spend a couple of hours in the car with a genuine conservative. He is tremendously intelligent and infinitely well read. He has rational, well though out and researched opinions on most issues. That doesn’t change the fact that I think everything he says is wrong. But I have played the corporate game for a few years now and know that it is wise to create as few arguments with one’s boss as possible – particularly those not work related.

The point that I most wanted to contend was about social class in reference to the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. He said that both Democrats and Republicans want to help poor people – the difference between the parties presents itself when addressing social welfare of the middle class. By his logic, Democrats fall victim to providing welfare programs to the middle class and become mired in the overwhelming cost and sense of entitlement that follows. In contrast, Republicans believe that when left alone the free market economy will regulate wages, benefits, and cost of living for the middle class, who should, in effect, be left alone to succeed or fail on their own.

First of all, I truly do not believe conservatives, particularly the ones on TV and radio and those crafting the party message, give a damn about poor people, I really don’t. Second, if the proof was in the 2008 elections, the middle class can be clumped with in with the poor when we are talking about conservative concern. In reality, I believe that the middle class is getting smaller by the day. With the state of the economy and the nationwide cost of living you are going to have a hard time convincing me that a $50K a year household is middle class anymore. As of January 2008 the poverty designation for a family of four is set at $21,200/year. That is equivalent to one member of the household working full time making a little over $10/hour. Anything above that is apparently not poor.

During the entire two year election process leading up to November 4 I cannot remember a single reference to the middle class by the GOP. We heard “hockey mom” and “Joe Six Pack” and “Joe the Plumber” but I am not really sure who that is referring to. I certainly don’t feel like a part of that group. So I must complete a previous sentence. I do not believe that today’s conservative movement cares about poor people and by extension the middle class. Those who may benefit from government assistance are seen as a burden, not as a group of U.S. citizens. I think that the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is an overall lack of concern or compassion for people less fortunate than themselves. They make an example of those who abuse the system not those who are truly in need. Everything else is semantic social posturing. The bottom line is that plowing the road in order to allow the rich to become richer assuming that benefits will be returned to the economy is fundamentally flawed.

During the weeks that have followed the election, the grumblings and misgivings of the painfully defeated have begun to resurface in everyday conversation. The shield of our victory has not been as strong as I had hoped. There are those like me who find themselves so heavily invested into national politics from the sidelines that we are consumed by all that is said. There are ups and downs everyday with every word taken so personally. I am guilty of that to be certain. It is easy to become mired in the combative nature of politics without being combative yourself. Defensive is the default setting for most Democrats who find themselves, as I often do, the lonely ink spot in the bowl of Republican milk. The 2008 election was an exceptional day for Democrats nationally, but I have yet to find any comfort in being in the majority.

There is hope though – I have seen it. During my travels for work I happened to pass an American legion post in a small, remotely suburban town. (Being that I live in southwestern PA, I am sure that one can imagine the general sentiment that would be heard coming from an American Legion post coming from this part of the countrybut I was moved by what I saw. The unexpected nature of the message from such a location certainly added to the impact. There are two short sentences posted on their announcement sign: “Support our President-Elect. Criticism is not a cure” – a truly great sentiment. In truth I was taken aback. This is the kind of thought and logic that I have been looking for from all positions on the political spectrum.

Imagine, if you would, the source. First, the location – a small town in southwestern Pennsylvania, 40 miles outside of the city right on the cusp of what we affectionately call “Pennsyl-tucky.” Second – the age group. My only experience with members of an American Legion was in high school at our American Legion baseball picnic. I am not talking about a group of aging Vietnam veterans. There was one gentleman there who I am sure must have seem action at Gettysburg. Hyperbole aside, you are definitely referring to an older generation when you are talking about the men who are bellied up to the bar drinking $.10 drafts at your local legion post. It has always been my experience to equate conservatism with age. Lastly – the military history. You can almost guarantee lifelong military, particularly those who join a club to socialize with other likeminded individuals are, going to be a Republican crowd.

Pigeon holing the Legion crowd is not my intent – quite the opposite as it turns out. My preconceived notion about their membership only adds to the weight of their message that was displayed for public consumption. I saw it as a group of individuals going out of character and making a statement for positive change. I applaud them for that and hope for the opportunity to tell them so personally.

The “socialist agenda” that the Republicans see is simply a return to the tax structure of the Clinton administration. I may have been a little younger and not so in-tune back then, but I don’t remember anyone throwing around “Marxist” and “Socialist” when we had a $5 trillion surplus and everyone had a job. The fiscal conservatives and the free market that they champion has left the American people with a $10 trillion deficit to shoulder when 1.2 million less of us have jobs. Capitalism at its finest – am I right? I can encapsulate my entire argument against the socialist charges can be phrased in a simple question: “How can providing the middle class with more purchasing power be in opposition to capitalism?” The trickle-down economics of the last 8 years has placed such strain on the middle class that retail business is down significantly nationwide. Say what you want about the fairness of levying additional tax burden on this highest income bracket. The let the “rich get richer” strategy of the Republican Party does not equate more money being injected in to the economy. It equates the more money being pocketed by the people with the most. The fascinating thing about this argument is that the people that I get it from generally don’t have two nickels to rub together. I am shocked by the number of lower income people who defend the rights of the rich to the death. It has been my experience in the short time since the election that it is the people that Obama intends to help that object most strongly to his economic platform. ‘Hey “Joe the Factory Worker” I am going to make your life a little easier.’ ‘No you can’t do that you Socialist, that’s not fair to wealthy people.’ It makes me crazy.

Here is another example of the blind faith and loyalty that are given to the Republican Party leadership. I have really tried to be understanding, at least to a point. But I am flabbergasted by the groups of truly poor people who chide Obama for being a socialist and trying to tax people of the certain income level that they will never even sniff. These are the same people that hope Obama will fail over the next four years so that they can be proven right. Don’t forget this is the party of patriots, of real Americans. These people are hoping for the continued decline of the US for purely personal reasons. I literally heard a woman say that she hoped that “he doesn’t fix anything and nothing gets better so we can get him out of there in four years.” Let us put the blatant racism aside, and simply address the fact that someone who claims to be an American is hoping against the best interest of the country because she doesn’t like Democrats.

Back to my initial point, Barack Obama is no Socialist. Bill Clinton was never called a socialist when he was at the helm of a robust economy in the 1990’s. The progressive tax system is born of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, and the hero of John McCain – conveniently missed. Sarah Palin is on record stating that “…here in Alaska we spread the wealth (paraphrase)” and each Alaskan resident receives a yearly stipend from the oil companies. The second name on the Republican national ticket is the governor of the US state that most closely resembles socialism. It is simply a fear tactic that took hold. Most moderate Republicans and independents aren’t racist and know that Obama is neither a terrorist nor pals around with them. The socialist tag is something that they can sink their teeth into. People are smart enough not to believe the most fantastic of slanderous claims, but are unfortunately not informed enough, or willing to understand the Socialist argument they are being fed. Or worst of all, they need something to hate him for, and this fits just fine.

I have never been more proud to be an American than at this moment on this day.  The feeling that welled up inside of me on the night of November 4^th is something that I have never felt before and it hasn’t gone away.  I hope that it doesn’t.  In that singular instance when Barack Obama was announced as the winner of the 2008 Presidential Election I was united with millions of people that I will never meet.  I have so long yearned for a community of my own.  Tuesday night I had one.  I saw joy and elation on every corner.  More than a few tears were shed.  I could not be less ashamed to admit that a lot of those tears were mine.  At that moment America was a community once more.

This sort of inspiration could not have come too soon.  Collectively Americans, myself included, were beaten, laid low by the state of the nation.  Everyone knows the affect the economy has had on us all, but it goes deeper than that.  Those not overcome by ego and manifest destiny ache for American soldiers spread across the Middle East with a road home not yet clear.  Anger has been born of our frustrations.  Anger from personal struggle is being misdirected to the undeserving.  People that are not defined as “real Americans” in the past months have been the target – people without blind faith or over-inflated sense of righteousness.  We are the target for this anger – and that is what divides us.

If anger is what divides, a need for change must be what unites us.  Those of us who hunger for change have finally been given a voice that cannot be ignored.  There is a new generation of Americans aching to drive our country into a 21^st century of peace, prosperity and safety for all.  We have been in search of a leader – a leader who can transcend a political party or an elected office; a leader who can unite and succeed, not divide and conquer.  The apathy of the youngest generation of American adults is a myth,  We have only lacked a leader that we believe and know believes in us – we have been waiting for someone to us that YES WE CAN.

Make no mistake, the hate and the anger will continue – but there can be no love without hate.  Millions of us found our leader last night.  Millions of us were inspired to do more last night.  Take pride in what we have done and in the fact that with one strong voice, our generation cried out for change and we were heard.  This is the dawn of a new beginning for us so we cannot be left behind.  I will never forget the doors that I knocked on for him.  I will never forget the words that I wrote about him.  But it cannot stop with memories of triumph – we must continue.

It is time again for America to take its rightful place in the world.  We must again be the shiny city on a hill.  The new American history will be written in the hearts and minds of a generation of Americans standing shoulder to shoulder and marching forward.  Many short months ago it seemed impossible.  We were headed down the same corrupt path of past failures.  But our leader has immerged.  He can take us where we must go.  Can we reverse the damage that has been done?  Can we heal the divide caused by hate and ignorance?  Can America once again be a shining example to the rest of the world?  YES WE CAN.

At some point, those speaking in opposition, regardless of your perspective, have not only become enemy – the opposition is now evil.  I have heard from multiple people, referring to multiple political candidates as the “anti-Christ.”  This is a direct quote.  When Hillary Clinton was in the thick of the primaries, I heard her referred to as this by Republicans – a Republican woman as a matter of fact.  Now that we have a new nominee for President, Senator Obama is now the new anti-Christ.  I have never been comfortable with these types of comparisons.  I have never had that kind of hatred for a Republican running for office before.  It hasn’t happened often, but I have voted for a Republican before.

As we edge closer to November and the constant barrage of personal attacks on candidates and we get back to life as usual, it is important to remember that we are, in fact, all Americans.  Being involved in the political process, voicing an opinion, and voting, regardless of what that opinion is, and who you cast your vote for, makes you a good American.  I will be the first to admit that I have become more than wrapped up in the back and forth.  I have spoken and written strong opposition to Republican position and behavior.  But I don’t HATE Republicans, I disagree with Republicans.  Unfortunately, over the past months, there has strong evidence that they hate me. 

I guess my point today is that after all the dust settles and the election chips fall where they may – my best friend is still a former Marine and staunch Republican.  My grandparents are still my grandparents.  I still go to my sister’s house for Thanksgiving. A colleague at my last job was my complete ideological opposite, and pointed that out often, but was still a good and decent man.  I hate the strong feelings that linger.  I don’t think George Bush is a good President – and I said so with my vote twice.  But I don’t hate him.  Similarly, I don’t hate John McCain or Sarah Palin, but I disagree with them and my vote is going to be proof enough.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, the strongest feelings of hate are directed at Senator Obama.  This is a man that is undeserving of such hate.  This is a brilliant, accomplished and articulate man stuck the center of a perfect storm of racism, ignorance, and partisanship run amok.  It is a tragic observation of the state of national politics that we have by and large ignored issues of any weight in this election, and focused on personal attacks, from either side, but particularly from the right.  My bias is obvious, so forgive me – but calling someone old does not even register on the hatred scale required to register the act of wrongfully calling someone a terrorist.  Politics has to end at the waters edge.