GRABBINGSAND

D.H.S. – The Series … “a multimillion-dollar episodic series, will explore the inner workings of the Department of Homeland Security, teaming the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and National Security Administration (NSA) together with “first responders” such as local police, fire and safety administrators.”

The series is being pitched to prospective networks today and has the full support of President Bush and Tom Ridge. “They love it. They think it is fantastic,” say the producers at Steeple Productions, located in the Seventh-Day Adventist Community of Zillah, Washington. Not familiar with Steeple Productions? Well, perhaps you might find their four-episode “Creation Vs Evolution ” series entertaining. Or frightening.

The D.H.S. graphic leads me to believe that these warriors will be fighting Al Qaida through the tactical use of prayer.

(This was originally meant to be a MetaFilter post, but MeFi is down again this morning. So you get to read it here first. Aren’t you lucky? And thanks be to Kayt for the link.)

I post this with little or no comment. Just click and watch the video from last December.

“There’s time for politics. And, you know — there’s time for politics. And I — it’s an absurd insinuation.”*

If you’re going to argue a point, for or against, you’re always better off knowing exactly what you’re fighting … or championing. A little more than a day (or two) after I made a rather rambling post addressing the hot topic of marriage and its defense, the POTUS decided to ignite the first M-80 of his presidential campaign. He used such power-words like “fundamental” and “civilization” and politi-phrases like “national importance” and “stability of society” — had it not been for the subject matter, I would’ve been impressed with his vocabulary. Under the guise of preserving the sanctity of tradition, the President asked that Congress swiftly pass an amendment to the Constitution that would clearly define and restrict the institution of marriage. While the word “ban” never left his mouth — feel free to check the transcript yourself — the fear is that such an amendment would reduce non-heterosexual citizens to a second-class status. But is this fear rational?

Well, it depends on the wording of the amendment in question. While no specific resolution was mentioned, the likely document is H.J. RES. 56, first introduced in June of 2003. Sponsored by Rep Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), the verbiage is brief:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

A sister resolution (S.J. RES. 26) was brought into the Senate last November by Sen Wayne Allard, also of Colorado, and also a Republican. The wording is the same.

Does this constitute a ban? Quite possibly, but more than that, it oversteps the boundaries between the legislative and judicial branches of our government. How? The word “construed” is the culprit. By disallowing further analysis and deliberation on the topic of marriage, this amendment would bind the hands of judges nationwide, forever rendering the entire matter ineligible for discussion. Of course, this is just what President Bush wants. Whatever scorn remains in his throat after speaking of Al Qaida and generic terrorism, he reserves for what he calls “activist judges” — a term that has been picked up like a crisp twenty by rightwing hotheads and neocon commentators.

Furthermore, this amendment’s scope would overreach the individual constitutions of every state in the Union, further affecting/diminishing another hot topic – states’ rights. This is most perplexing, as the Republican party has traditionally upheld states’ rights. In fact, the GOP has always been very proud of their commitment to less-government-as-better-government. But then, nothing in politics is running along a historical track these days. More like a crazy train…

While you’re mulling that over, you might be interested to know who is co-sponsoring this proposed amendment. Since I live in Georgia, the following gentlemen are particularly cause for concern:

• Rep Jack Kingston (R-GA-1st)
• Rep Johnny Isakson (R-GA-6th)
• Rep Mac Collins (R-GA-8th)
• Rep Charlie Norwood (R-GA-9th)
• Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA-10th)
• Rep Phil Gingrey (R-GA-11th)
• Rep Max Burns (R-GA-12th)
• Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

Really, Zell. Isn’t it time you put your donkey lapel pin in an envelope and sent it back to the DNC? Come on. You’re practically growing an elephant’s trunk… or just a longer nose, much like Pinnochio. Anyway. If any of my fellow Georgians are wondering just who among these are serving you, take a look at the Congressional District Map. I make no guarantees that you’ll be able to decipher your representative through all of the gerrymandering, but do try. And once you find them, send them an email. After all, they’re working for you. In addition to the Georgia contingent, the joint resolution has seven more Senate cosponsors, and 98 cosponsors in the House.

Every one of them has a homepage. Every one of them says that they’d love to hear from you.

After 24 hours of greyscale, the site is back to normal. News of the online protest made it into the Times and Wired, though there are no official numbers yet for just how many sites went grey and how many albums were downloaded. If you missed it, the site looked a lot like this:

(Yeah, I like the blue myself …)

Here’s the short story. One DJ takes two very different albums and throws them together to form something altogether new. The Beatles White Album meets Jay-Z’s Black Album on DJ Dangermouse’s independently released Grey Album. But is it good?

The Grey Album is pretty badass… though it’s more of a mashup than a remix. The production quality is what you’d expect from an enterprising independent, which is to say that the potential and the inspiration matters far more than the product. For EMI to see this album as a threat to The Beatles legacy is appalling. DJ Dangermouse surely isn’t making much from this at all, and I don’t think stealing was his intention. Like all of the mashups from the last few years, it shows us where music will be going in the next ten or twenty years. Cliched as this might sound, this is the future. The Grey Album is exactly the kind of thing that would’ve made John Lennon smile and nod his head. And George Harrison had copyright issues of his own with The Shirelles and “He’s So Fine.”

So download it already. If you listen and fail to like, delete.

(Not to be confused with The Greyscale, which is just as funky, though not being censored by EMI.)

Finally, all of the reasons have been collected in an easy-to-read list of 12 simple why-nots. Now the whole gay marriage controversy can be put back on the shelf and we can continue to live our wholesome little lives. Here are some highlights:

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

Ah, humor, sweet humor.

Now, let’s not get bogged down in a marsh of semantics. The arguments about preserving the sanctity of marriage through legislation are attributing holiness to something secular and municipal in nature. It is codifying marriage and removing its complexity. Yes, every marriage results in a change of legal status for the two people involved. Taxation changes. Employee benefits are altered. Ownership of property takes on a new dimension. Rights of decision and influence are expanded. There are several other alterations of condition, and I’m sure you can do your own research. These are under the pervue of the state, benefits granted from your government. Sanctity doesn’t reside in these civil rights. They mark the line where the concern of the state officially ends and something actually sacred begins.

Apart from these legal facets, there are other possibilities with every marriage. There is a joining of two families — unless your names happen to be Montague and Capulet. There is a unification of two lives, a promise to share and love that goes far beyond granted permissions and stipulations on a printed page. If performed in a place of worship, the two are joined in the eyes of God Almighty (or whatever diety is applicable). Please note that God doesn’t reach down with a glowing celestial hand to sign any necessary forms in triplicate.

These are not guaranteed, of course. And no written law could even begin to secure the components of a marriage that make it successful. How would it even be written? By law, you will be incredibly understanding to your partner’s moods and feelings, making them hot tea when they are curled up on the couch with a headcold and sending them flowers on the third monday of every 31-day month.

And please, let’s not take this down the road of protecting procreativity. Saying that the purpose of marriage is to propagate the species through offspring is outmoded by modernity and frankly reduces us to sanctioned breeders. Several couples marry and don’t have any children. Others adopt. Are we to say that a couple that fails to birth a child is not worthy of marriage either? And is a single parent no longer a viable guardian?

This deserves a more lucid post. It really does. The core of what I am trying to say is this: marriage does not need to be defended. People need to be educated. People need to think more before they agree to proposals. The still-rising divorce rate in this lovely country of ours is higher in the midwest, where the living is clean and the common man resides, so I just cannot see how the actions of 3,000 westcoast couples are driving a wedge between men and women. If there is a threat to matrimony, it is much more complex and much more personal than expanding the word “marriage” to include non-hetero unions.

With less than nine months to go, Ralph Nader is weighing his options and looking at his hat. He thinks that his hat would look better in the ring, but really… it should stay on his head for another four years.

The same could be said about Hillary Clinton, who should stick to her own 2008 plan. If you have the resources and the resolve, you should run for any office you wish. Of course. But 2004 is not just any year and this is not just any contest. Dean is a victim of severe mismanagement, Sharpton is the Republican dream-candidate and Kucinich just needs to go home and chill out with some DS9 reruns. (The man is a Romulan. Really.)

So it comes down to Kerry and Edwards, and Kerry — as equine as he still appears to me — will secure the nomination. If he’s smart, he’ll pick up Edwards (or perhaps Clark) as a running mate. Then the fun begins as he meets George Bush and his rough gang of neo-cons. This will be the dirtiest presidential campaign that any of us have ever seen, as emailed accusations fly out to supporters by the millions for pennies instead of the dollars that would’ve previously been spent on television adverts.

The last thing we need is a maverick in green to distract the electorate and hit the replay button on November 2000.

If the mailman can stay home today, why can’t I? What if I promised to think reverent thoughts about George Washington between breakfast and lunch? After all, I spend every other day trying to acquire and save more little of his little green portraits …

Just in case you weren’t keeping up, we’re down to five.

Brother Zell Miller sounds off on the Superbowl, pointy-headed ignoramouses and decency.

(The speech is much more fun if you insert appropriate interjections between each paragraph. I would suggest phrases like “Woooo, doggie!” and “By cracky!” and “Filth and tarnation!” and “Lawdy Lawdy!”)