Pride; Mainstream

“Originally this was an alternative parade,” I remarked to my wife as the third group of bank employees shuffled listlessly by, humbled by the lack of applause.

The dykes on bikes led it off excellently, it must be said, with wonder-woman and everywoman revving their phat hogs down 4^th street.  But then came commercials for at least 20 corporations who’d “asked” their employees to participate to promote name recognition – a not-bad idea considering that the crowd of spectators must’ve exceeded a hundred thousand.

Some firms at least got into the spirit; like Chipotle, with their cowboy straddling a gyrating burrito “So Big You Can Ride It”.  Starbucks made a commendable showing numbers wise; as did Microsoft, whose employees who got more into the colorful spirit.  Uninterestingly enough, Amazon again didn’t do dick for the city.

Neighbors had a memorable float, so did Wildrose, as is to be expected of the best gay and lesbian clubs in town, respectively.  The firefighters elected not to display their beefcake, a shame, because it was like 90 degrees out and everyone was panting for their hoses.

Kudos to the kamikaze bikini squirt gun crew, who flitted up and down the line, teasing marchers and watchers alike; applause also to pink roller batman, who I swear I saw last week in freemont as black batman – unmistakable physique.  

A heartfelt thumbs-up to the doggie fetishists with butt plug tails.

But all in all, San Fran wouldn’t’ve been real impressed.

The Mormon Church was there pledging their solidarity; interesting.  I suppose they must be angling for that slippery slope towards polygamy.  Washington’s first wives were present as well; kind-eyed smiling octogenarians they looked from afar.

From the boy scouts to the tranny dominatrixes, everyone was totally into it.  Especially, I assume, the absent Dan Savage.

Even the bike cops sported mardi gras necklaces.

Afterwards at the Seattle Center there was a mile long line to pee.  The A/C was sweet, but the real fun was in getting drenched in the joyously ejaculating fountain.  A competent D.J. rocked rave tracks and several freaks flocked towards his beats… but the problem was not enough people were on enough drugs. But that’s okay, there’s a time and a place for that; this was a family affair.

Chock a block with vendors’ stalls; all manner of entrepreneurs selling all kinds of shit: kudos to the guy with the $1 ice cold water cooler on wheels, my wife was just talkin bout how thirsty she is.  Marijuana perfumed the air, as it does at every Seattle public gathering these days.

Shoulder to shoulder “Wieners!  Penis popsicles for sale”!

It was almost weird being a straight couple there.  Don’t get me wrong, we were totally welcomed (if a bit swept to the edges): one very sincere dude even stopped us and thanked us from the bottom of his heart for our support.  To which I of course replied: we just came for the flesh, bro- whatever.

Not much tittilating naughtiness in the end; lots of partners with kids.  That’s what gay has become in Seattle: no big deal.   

Another majority-held value, with which everyone is rushing to associate now that it’s mainstream.

The GOP position on immigration is offensive.

A political party is a reflection of its constituency.

Voters have always fallen for fear tactics, but we have less excuse now than ever to swallow xenophobic rhetoric, what with the unlimited information at our fingertips.

The problem is we've all got attention deficit. We require to be entertained every single second, to get hooked in 140 characters or less.

Who has time for critical analysis of multifaceted issues when there's so much great stuff on Netflix?

The GOP platform on immigration is offensive notwithstanding.

Tyranny of the majority continued to play for a century after the fall of the Confederate South. White Christians haven’t proven themselves a very benevolent most populous demographic since then. (Though which group ever has?)

Group identity is inevitable; it is only natural that Italians hated Irish hated Jews back in the day. Of course, those were the immigrant groups, then.  Similarly, many modern-day Latinos criticize each other far more passionately than they do whites. Or whites vilify them, for that matter.

It’s just that at the current rates of inversion, unless they start mating like Caribeños, Caucasians will soon become a minority group, a situation to which no amount of gerrymandering will be able to adjust, unless something bullheaded is done on the front-end.

Why wouldn’t the golden gringos want to retain their power by any means necessary? Trust me, sus vecinos comprenden muy bien la idea. That’s why they’ll never in a million years vote for you even if you raise up Rubio.

You’re treating Latinos like enemies, unlike the natural allies they are; unlike Canadians, for example. They get the hint, hijos de putas.

School’s Out in D.C.; Grades In

The Supreme Court went short of calling marriage a fundamental right; indeed, they straight up punted on prop 8, about which I’d be extremely upset if it didn’t mean the appellate court’s overturning of the gay marriage ban will stand. That is, gay marriage will resume in California, whoo hoo.

But by overturning DOMA the Court directly remedied a glaring inequity: Bi-national homosexual couples’ petitions for change of residency status were formerly thrown out; now they will be evaluated the same as straight couples’, provided that they were married in a marriage equality state.  All U.S. Citizens get to make their spouses citizens now, even mail-order brides; it’s one of the best federal rights we have; one of the greatest gifts we can bestow upon our beloveds on our gayest of wedding days.  The Supreme Court gets an A-.

The United States Senate gets a C-.

Here’s why: First of all, their schizophrenic immigration “reform” bill has no prayer of getting through the House. Secondly, yes, they’re offering a path to citizenship for long-term illegals, who everybody hires under the table with a wink, whose masters pocket the payroll deduction, who don’t pay taxes… The Senate says: sign ee up; I need someone to foot my social security and medicare bills!

But keep em out!

Beef up border security; build the Berlin wall like we’re mortal enemies; the China wall, like they’re some bloodthirsty Mongol horde. Construct the Great Wall of Drones, ‘cause they’re brown.

For those already here, the “path to citizenship” would be a relative win (again, if it somehow survived the House of Representatives’ red pens), though the proscribed road is long, and it requires one to constantly best-behave and obey. To any overseas family members, however, well… we really wish you could join all the fun, it’s just: we’re full: we’ve decided that about 15% ‘ethnic’ is as high as we’re willing to go. We also don’t want any more black people, which a lot of “you people” are, you know.

I’m not that saying that the rich old white boys’ club isn’t slowly adapting, it’s just that these particular rich white men and women want their super-privileged sons and daughters to get easy schmooze jobs too. Thus, they can’t let the voting demographic get too out of whack.

Constitutional arguments for marijuana legalization

1. The 10^th Amendment reads:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Congress had to change the constitution to prohibit alcohol.  The 18^th Amendment was subsequently repealed, of course, because of all the violence and widespread civil disobedience.  Everybody knows: prohibition failed.  Nowadays, liquor is regulated by the states again, as it should be.  As is right.  Local governments have highly specific information, and far more resources on the ground.  Indeed, in Washington state, marijuana sales will actually be regulated at the city level (Kent has elected not to license retail stores, for example) – even better.  Small governments function highly efficiently.  The behemoth in the other Washington is blunt, clumsy and burdensome.

2. The 14^th Amendment prohibits  any government actor from making or enforcing a law  which deprives any person of her life, liberty property, or "privileges" without due process of law.   Due process of law means that police must follow procedures in making arrests (such as show probable cause and get a warrant, read Miranda rights, etc.).  But it has also means that federal, state and local governments should not make unfair laws.  Everyone knows that young ethnic minority men are incarcerated and rendered unemployable at an alarming rate for getting stoned.  Due process means that the state must prove that it has a strong interest in prohibiting such behavior; that is, laws which jail an adult for possessing a plant less potent than whiskey should be scrutinized strictly.  Citizens’ behavior is not to be restricted without good reason.  States especially cannot punish innocuous behavior in a discriminatory way, like they’ve obviously been doing.

3. Which begs the 1^st Amendment question, which runs something like this:  Native Americans are allowed to consume hallucinogens as part of their religious rituals; states have not been able to justify anti- peyote statutes because they have not shown how ingesting that plant ceremonially harms society (the Due Process argument has triumphed in the California and Arizona supreme courts); yet furthermore the free exercise clause of the1^st Amendment prohibits governments from dictating how one practices one’s religion (provided that one’s practices are not subversive to social order).  The Supreme Court denies that one man’s interpretation of God’s law trumps the law of the nation every time, it says that the free exercise clause does not allow human sacrifice, for example; a man cannot be a law unto himself; a man cannot use religion as an excuse to commit harmful crimes.  Fair enough.  Got it.  But if a man wants to smoke marijuana as a meditation aid, or to help him hear aum hum while strumming a sitar, whom is he hurting?  Isn’t peaceful 1^st Amendment religious practice precisely the type of “privilege” to which the 14^th Amendment refers?

Unfortunately, also according to the Supreme Court, laws with a "public purpose" which only "incidentally" (rather than intentionally) infringe upon religious practices are subject to a "rational basis" test.  To clear this very low hurdle, the government need only show that there is some conceivable purpose for the law, which is in theory related to the incident. 

The 1^st Amendment also guarantees free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to complain about and to petition one’s government, incidentally, which is why I can publish this essay, and we Washingtonians were able to pass Initiative 502.  The 1^st Amendment is perhaps the most important paragraph in the Bill of Rights.  It should be (and usually is) interpreted reverently.  

Except for some reason in Cannabis' case.

Response to the Federal Supremacy Conundrum: Civil Disobedience

I-502 conflicts with federal law.  Pot is still illegal.   So should we have waited for the feds?  Done nothing til they did, like good little boys and girls?  Or should we continue to lead by civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience, for those who don’t know, is a “public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government” (Rawls).  

The most likely upshot will be a bunch of media attention, a little backlash, then a laissez-faire federal attitude.  After all, D.C. is a long way away and very busy.

Governments rarely change from within.  They are conservative by design, even when led by nominally liberal administrations.  And so they should be, I think- we can’t be constantly changing our laws all the time without good reason.  But on the other hand -and this is vital- governments exist to serve the people.  

Like the states repealed alcohol prohibition one by one in defiance of a heavy handed federal mandate which clearly wasn't working at all, so too have we residents of Reverend King Country done what we wanted to on this one.  Since it is our demonstrated collective will that we should be free to ingest a non-dangerous substance (or not- you don’t have to be pro-pot to be anti-prohibition) our elected representatives (i.e., city council members) must act as we want.


"It is your moral obligation to disobey an unjust law."
-Dr. Martin Luther King

"Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation."
-Mahatma Ghandi