What's In a Name? None Of Your Business, That's What

Latest Column- The Pilot Newspaper:

Jaleesa Martin and the father of her 7-month-old-baby boy, Messiah, could not agree on a last name. But when they went to a child support hearing in Cocke County, Tenn., last week, they got a decision they didn’t expect and hadn’t even asked for.

Not only did child support referee Lu Ann Ballew decide the child’s last name, but she took it upon herself to change his first name as well, from “Messiah” to “Martin.” Henceforth, the boy would be known as “Martin DeShawn McCullough,” giving him the mother’s last name as his first name and decreeing that he have the father’s last name.

Apparently, naming a child “Messiah” offended the judge’s religious sensibilities.

“The word Messiah is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Ballew said. She contended that the child might have problems growing up with a name like “Messiah” in Tennessee, adding: “It could put him at odds with a lot of people, and at this point he has had no choice in what his name is.”

Asked what the difference was between calling a child Messiah and calling him Jesus, as many Latinos do, Ballew told a reporter she’d thought about that and decided that it “wasn’t relevant to the discussion.” The judge was apparently relying on the ancient legal maxim Claude os tuum, ratio est. (“Because shut up, that’s why.”)

Jaleesa Martin will be appealing the judge’s decision.

Look, I’ve lived my entire life with a name that could most charitably be described as unusual. I’ve heard every lame joke that could be made about my name. I have, for example, developed a deep and abiding distaste for that John Denver song “Country Roads,” thanks to the legions of supposed wits who think it’s the most original thing ever to miss-sing the lyrics as “Dusty Rhoades, take me home....”

News flash: It isn’t, and I’m not going to.

And believe me, I have seen some names pop up, especially on court calendars, that have made me shake my head and wonder what the heck these parents were thinking. But that doesn’t mean that judges, on their own motion, should feel free to override the right of parents to name their kids as they see fit.

I’m not even sure how the question of a baby’s name gets to be an issue in child support court in the first place. In my experience, the only issue in child support is, “Where’s the money?”

Sometimes, it reminds me of the bust-out scene from “Goodfellas”: “You lost your job? (Bad word) you. Pay me. Your car broke down and you spent all your money getting it fixed so you could get here? (Bad word) you. Pay me.” And so on. 

They usually don’t concern themselves with matters like whether the child’s name is, in the judge’s opinion, religiously incorrect.

There are countries, particularly in Europe, where the authorities have veto power of what parents name their children. Denmark, for example, has a list of 7,000 “approved” names (4,000 for boys and 3,000 for girls, which hardly seems equitable).

Deviate from the list, and you’ve got to go through Copenhagen University’s Names Investigation Department and then the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs. That process often takes weeks, during which I suppose the parents just refer to their offspring with the Danish equivalent of “hey you.”

Sweden has a “naming law” that requires that names “cannot cause offense or discomfort” to the person named. Recently, parents protesting the Naming Law tried to name their child “Brfxxccxxmnpcccc llllmmnprxvclmnckssqlb111163” (pronounced “Albin”). To no one’s surprise, they got turned down. A resubmitted petition to name the kid “A” (also pronounced “Albin”) was also rejected.

I’m not sure how either of those was supposed to cause “discomfort or offense” to Albin — who was, let us not forget, a baby. The first one actually sounds kind of like how a baby “talks,” if you drop the numbers at the end. I admit it could make filling out applications problematic in later life.

Some countries, with good intentions, try to control what you can name your children. But by golly, that’s not how we roll here in the good old U.S. of A.

You want to name your kid “Apple” or “Brooklyn” or some girl’s name ending in “i” that pretty much guarantees that at least some part of her working life will involve a stripper pole, or even “Messiah,” that’s your right as an American.

And no activist judge should be able to tell you different.

What's With Putin?

 Latest Column- The Pilot Newspaper: 

What the heck is wrong with Vladimir Putin? Has the man lost his mind?

Is he, as my son suggested recently, acting out like some sort of international brat because he’s jealous of all the attention the Middle East is getting? Is he nostalgic for the days of the Cold War? Or is he just a massive jackass?

Putin’s government recently thumbed its nose at the U.S. and granted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s request for asylum in Russia, despite our insistence that Snowden be returned.

Snowden accepted, thanking the Russians and quickly settling into his new home, where I’m sure that none of his phone calls or other private communications will be monitored. Because, as we know, the Russians are all about protecting privacy when it comes to phone calls and the Internet.

Another thing that has a lot of people, including President Obama, seeing red is the Russian government’s recent crackdown on gay and lesbian people. Putin recently signed a law not only prohibiting adoption of Russian-born children by gay couples, but also forbidding such adoption by parents living in any country where there are marriage equality laws.

He’s also signed a law allowing the police to arrest tourists and foreigners “suspected of being gay or pro-gay and detain them for up to 14 days,” according to a story in The New York Times. Another law threatens jail time for “homosexual propaganda,” an offense so broadly defined that a person can be arrested for advocating tolerance. Beatings and violence against LGBT people are up all over Russia, with the authorities turning a blind eye.

It’s increasingly clear that the motivation for all of this is pure, classic scapegoating. A totalitarian regime needs an enemy, someone to blame for the loss of some imaginary golden age. Hitler needed the Jews, our homegrown wingnuts blame immigrants, and Putin has decided to pick on gay people to draw attention away from his own shabby failures.

Some LGBT activists are suggesting that the Putin regime be punished with a boycott of Russian vodka, particularly Stolichnaya, even though Stoli’s actually made in Latvia now.

More seriously, some are pushing hard for the U.S. Olympic Committee to declare a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics planned for Sochi, Russia, especially since there’s no indication from Putin that American athletes, coaches or Olympic committee staff who are gay, or even ones who speak out for tolerance, will be safe from arrest, confinement and deportation.

Some Putin supporters are claiming that this is because only straight athletes “meet the ideals” of the Olympics. Apparently they’ve forgotten that the event originated in Ancient Greece, where guys wrestled naked and one of the most famous poets was a woman named Sappho of Lesbos. Yeah, that means what you think it means.

Until recently, I’ve been an advocate of what I call the “Jesse Owens” theory. As you may remember from your history, Owens, an African-American runner, went to the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, even though Adolf Hitler saw the Games as a way to promote the ideals of Aryan superiority, and the Nazi party newspaper was demanding that blacks, Jews, and other what they called “undesirables” be barred from competing.

Faced with threats of a boycott, Hitler backed down, and Owens went on to win four gold medals, becoming the most successful athlete at that year’s Games. So I’ve always thought that the best way to deal with bad behavior from an Olympic host country is to get their athletes out on the field and whip their tails, fair and square.

I’d love to see an openly gay athlete, like American figure skater Johnny Weir or New Zealand speed skater Blake Skjellerup, beat the Russian team on the ice (although given Weir’s age, that’s a longer shot than it used to be).

On the other hand, I have to acknowledge the point made by some boycott advocates, like British actor and comedian Stephen Fry (who’s both gay and Jewish) that even Hitler wasn’t threatening to arrest Owens for being black. If Russia’s threatening to lock up our country’s citizens for who they are, or even for advocating for other people’s rights, then yeah, we’ve got a boycott-worthy problem.

Imagine if Putin were reviving the old Soviet-era oppression of Christians by signing laws keeping Christians from adopting children, or saying non-Russian Christians were subject to being locked up and kicked out of the country. A boycott would be a no-brainer in that case, and it should be in this one.

We need to tell Putin if he doesn’t cut this nonsense out, we won’t be sending an Olympic team: We’ll be sending those idiots who picket soldiers’ funerals with “God Hates Fags” signs instead. If that doesn’t back him down, nothing will.

Will You Listen To Yourself?

Latest Column- The Pilot Newspaper: 


It’s often said that a big part of our problems these days is that we don’t listen to one another. This is undeniably true. However, a big part of our problems also comes from people not listening to themselves.

If people could really hear, objectively, some of the stuff that comes out of them, they might reconsider ever speaking again. Take, for example, former Democratic Congress-man Anthony Weiner, now running a campaign for mayor of New York that’s an absolute train wreck.

Mr. Weiner’s sexy tweets and pictures of his manly part, sent over text and Twitter, have already been documented in nauseating and depressing detail. But then it was revealed that in some of his communiques, he called himself “Carlos Danger.” Really? Anthony. Dude. Step back for a moment and take a good look at yourself, and not through the viewfinder of your camera phone.

It’s true that New Yorkers are a tolerant bunch. After all, the last mayor’s wife had to get a restraining order to keep him from bringing his mistress into the mayor’s mansion. The denizens of the Big Apple can handle a womanizer. But if the latest plunge in your poll numbers is any indication, they draw the line at a cheesy and lame one.

Then there’s Weiner’s communications director, Barbara Morgan. Morgan recently responded to an unflattering online tell-all article written by a former intern with a blistering and profane tirade against said intern that I’d love to reproduce for you here, except that not one word in three could be printed in a family newspaper.

Her excuse? She didn’t know she was on the record. Babs, sweetie, listen to yourself for a minute. You’re the communications director. Isn’t it part of your job to know when you’re on and when you’re off the record?

Another person who should probably have listened to what’s coming out of his mouth is Kentucky Sen. and probable GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul. Speaking at a fundraiser in Tennessee, Paul directed a slam at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (also a likely presidential candidate) and New York Congressman Peter King: “They are precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending. They are ‘gimme, gimme, gimme all my Sandy money now.’”

Oh, Randy, no. Are you listening to the sounds that come out of the front of your head? There’s plenty of spending you could have chosen to mention. But spending on victims of Hurricane Sandy? That’s what you’ve chosen to demonize? Do you hear what you’re saying?

Christie, never one to sit still for an insult, responded quickly, noting that Paul’s state gets back $1.51 from the federal government for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, while New Jersey gets back only 61 cents. He sarcastically praised Paul for his skill in “bringing home the bacon.”

Paul then fired back a zinger of his own, describing the portly Christie as “the king of bacon.” Because when you’re having a serious debate on spending priorities, the best way to get your point across is with a fat joke. Stay classy, Senator Paul.

But for sheer “do you even hear yourself?” effrontery, it’s hard to beat San Diego Mayor Bob Filner.

Filner, as of this writing, has been accused of sexual harassment by no fewer than eight women. Apparently, Hizzoner’s preferred seduction technique was to put his intended paramour in a headlock and/or tell her that she should come to work without underwear on. It worked about as well as you’d expect.

What qualifies Filner for the Chutzpah Hall of Fame, however, is his request that the city pay his legal bills for the defense of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by one of his victims, in part because — get this — the city failed to provide him with sexual harassment training.

“It is my understanding,” Filner’s lawyer wrote, “that such training was scheduled, but the trainer for the city unilaterally canceled. … Therefore, if there is any liability at all, the city will almost certainly be liable for ‘failing to prevent harassment.’” The city declined to chip in, probably because they’re suing him too.

Back many years ago, when I was working in radio, we had what was called a “seven-second delay” — a tape gizmo that allowed us to cut off the transmission if, for example, someone dropped an F-bomb or said something otherwise inappropriate. With all of modern technology, you’d think we could design something similar to strap to politicians so they can think, however fleetingly, about how what they say is going to sound.

What the Heck, Let's Just Go For Full Monarchy

Latest  Column- The Pilot Newspaper:


So the world has another royal baby, and he has a name: George Alexander Louis. His official title will be “His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.”

What is it with this family and the name George? His granddaddy, the Prince of Wales, is Charles Philip Arthur George, his great-granddaddy was King George VI, and his great-great-granddaddy was King George V.

I mean, I know they’re all about the tradition, but come on, it’s the 21st century. Why couldn’t they have mixed it up a little?

Prince Bubba has a nice ring to it. Or maybe they could defray some of the costs of the monarchy by selling naming rights. Prince Nokia Samsung Hyundai, for example, could bring the family the kind of international branding that’s so important in this global economy.

There was some talk, by the way, that the Prince of Wales intended to rule under the name King George VII. Other sources I’ve read, however, claim he has denied saying that, possibly because it seems a bit rude to pick your monarch name while the current sovereign is still breathing.

Some of England’s pricklier rulers might have even removed one’s head for that sort of thing. Fortunately, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t seem the head-chopping type. I’ve seen the look in her eye, though. I wouldn’t want to risk my neck by crossing her.

In any event, the new royal whelp has, like all things royal, captured the imagination of millions of us commoners on both sides of the pond. In fact, some of the gushing I’ve heard over here about the event made me think that if the Brits wanted to reconquer the U.S., all William and Kate would have to do is carry the little fellow between them in a sedan chair, like that picture of the Ark of the Covenant in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” and people would just fall all over themselves to surrender.

As always, with a great craze comes a great backlash, with various and sundry commentators raising the old cry that the monarchy should be abolished as an archaic and horrendously expensive relic of a bygone age.

Oddly enough, many of those seem to be coming from Americans. Perhaps the most vociferous one came from Hamilton Nolan of the website Gawker, who wrote a blistering polemic titled “Imprison the Royal Family and Abolish the Monarchy.” Nolan writes, “In a just world, this innocent child would be going up for adoption, since its family would have been imprisoned for crimes against humanity.” It gets worse from there. The rather overheated Mr. Nolan, as noted above, is an American, which raises the question of what standing he has to be so indignant.

In the U.K., on the other hand, a British friend (the talented thriller writer and journalist David Thomas, aka Tom Cain) tells me that only about 18 percent of Britons polled actually want to see the monarchy abolished and that even the most fervent Scottish nationalists promise to keep the queen as head of state.

On the pro-royalty side, Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post recently wrote a column in which he suggested, with tongue only partially in cheek, that the U.S. might be well served by becoming a monarchy — a constitutional one, of course.

“Constitutional monarchies,” he points out, “have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies.” In addition, he asserts, the royal family, instead of being a drain on the British economy, actually generates “tiny stimulus boomlets” around events such as the royal birth.

So, hey, why not give it a try? It’s got to work better than the current state of gridlock. The only problem is actually picking a monarch. But does it really have to be? As various royals have shown, a member of the royal family doesn’t have to be particularly smart, talented, or even good-looking (at least if you’re a male). So the choice should be obvious.

Call me Prince Dusty, and feel free to grovel.

This is Outreach?

Latest Newspaper Column: The Pilot Newspaper


It’s pretty much accepted wisdom at this point that, in order to succeed on a national level, the Republican Party is going to have to broaden its appeal.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it, “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

So what are conservative Republicans doing to expand their appeal on the national level?

Well, you have Phyllis Schlafly of the right-wing Eagle Forum going on conservative radio and explaining that it’s useless to try to reach out to Latinos because they don’t “have any Republican inclinations at all,” and “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.”

Further, she said, Latinos “come from a country where they have no experience with limited government. And the types of rights we have in the Bill of Rights, they don’t understand that at all. You can’t even talk to them about what the Republican principle is.”

Perhaps someone can explain to Mrs. Schlafly, first off, that Latinos don’t come from “a country.” There is no country called Latinostan. Also, they can explain to her that insulting, en masse, the fastest-growing voting group in the U.S. is the path to political extinction.

Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Off His Meds) defended his opposition to immigration reform and asserted that Latinos won’t punish the GOP at the ballot box with this gem: “I think you will see people start waking up and go, ‘Wow, I’m Hispanic and these Republicans really like me. … Wow, this Republican really does want me to do well. That’s the party I ought to be in!”



Yeah, Louie, let me know how that condescending and paternalistic attitude works out for you. Of course, this is the guy who once berated the attorney general for casting “aspersions on his asparagus,” much to the confusion of all in the hearing room, so maybe he’s jockeying for Michele Bachmann’s soon-to-be-vacant position as Head Loony of the Republican Caucus.



Don’t worry, ladies — the Republican Party hasn’t forgotten you! Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz., of course) recently demonstrated, once again, the GOP’s ignorance of female anatomy by confidently asserting that exceptions from abortion restrictions in case of rape are unnecessary because such pregnancies are “rare.” He apparently forgot that ignorant BS like that cost the GOP a Senate seat less than a year ago.

During the recent debacle in Texas, where the legislature came back especially to pass a restrictive abortion law, Republican legislator Jodie Lautenberg struck a blow for gender equality in the area of ignorance by claiming that emergency rooms have “rape kits” that “clean women out” (for the record, the rape kits are for collecting criminal evidence). Scottie Nell Hughes, director of the Tea Party News Network, went on TV saying that rape victims who end resulting pregnancies should serve the same jail time as their rapists. And the beat goes on.

Of course, there are some who say that there’s no need for outreach, that “angry white guys” are enough to carry them to the White House and control of the Senate. I invite those people to compare and contrast a pair of events that happened right here this past week in North Carolina. They are the latest “Moral Monday” protest on the Halifax Mall behind the General Assembly building and the “Thankful Tuesday” counter-demonstration the next evening.According to The News & Observer, the police estimated 2,000 attendees at the Moral Monday protest. Organizers pegged the number at closer to 5,000. The Tuesday protest, on the other hand, drew a mere 200 people, holding signs that said, “Stop Abortion Now,” and “Thank you [Gov. Pat] McCrory.”

So, even using the lowest estimate, 10 times as many people turned out to protest the General Assembly’s current path as turned out to support it. And the pictures from the event really tell the tale: The Moral Monday folks are a strikingly diverse group, of all ages and races. The TT’s … not so much. They are, shall we say, ethnically homogenous, and not one of them looks younger than 60.

Of course, the generally low turnout for TT may be because right now even a lot of sane Republicans are getting disgusted with the General Assembly’s full-steam-ahead efforts to enact a radical right-wing social agenda at the expense of little details like a state budget.

Maybe they’d get better turnout if they called for a “Stop Futzing Around and Pass a Budget Already Tuesday.” Granted, it doesn’t roll as trippingly off the tongue, but I think it accurately sums up the frustration I’m hearing from Republican friends of the non-insane variety.  I know the GOP isn’t listening to me, but maybe it could listen to them.

The Pictures Tell The Tale Here In NC

"A crowd of about 200 hollered and cheered. They waved signs that bore messages Halifax Mall isn’t used to seeing on Mondays: “Stop abortion now,” and “Thank you McCrory.”

The turnout for the last Moral Monday?

Police estimate 2,000, organizers say 5,000, even the most conservative estimates put the Moral Monday crowd at 10 times the size of the tiny, ethnically homogenous,  aging supporters of our ridiculous General Assembly.

You are seeing the future, right here.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/16/3034412/conservatives-praise-nc-gop-legislative.html#storylink=cpy