I’ll be off from work until Jan. 4, so the blog posts will be few and far between (if any!) until then. But hey, keep those comments coming…

Happy holidays and best wishes for a happy, healthy and fruitful 2013!

Still fearing a fall off the fiscal cliff? One Las Vegas-based company claims it has the solution, for women anyway: Sugar daddies.

I received this news release this morning from SeekingArrangement.com – and no, this is not from The Onion:

With 20 days left until the “Fiscal Cliff,” will you have your “parachute”?

Many are speculating on how to avoid yet another financial crisis, but no one has offered a solution, except one website. It’s actually quite simple: women can use their beauty to transcend the “Fiscal Cliff”.

According to Forbes, the average person will lose $2,000 to higher taxes starting January 3. Instead of feeling powerless, one million attractive women have already improved their financial situation through mutually beneficial relationships.

On SeekingArrangement.com, women earn an average of $3,000 from monthly allowances. Why count pennies? Instead of having to choose between celebrating the holidays this year or not drowning in debt next year, SeekingArrangement.com offers a solution: date rich men.

The website’s CEO and Founder, Brandon Wade, has even created a video with a special message to beautiful women across America: “A woman needs a rich man to be her financial ‘parachute’ in order to survive the ‘Fiscal Cliff’.”

SeekingArrangement.com is offering free premium memberships to attractive women, until the Fiscal Cliff is avoided.

Here’s the aforementioned video:

I’m not completely sure which part of this is most offensive – it presents so many options – but for the moment, I’ll go with “A woman needs a rich man to be her financial ‘parachute’ in order to survive the ‘Fiscal Cliff’.”

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which calls itself “a leading family issues organization promoting moral virtues for the common good,” issued this statement today:

“Our hearts go out to the victims and their families. This is deeply disturbing and should stir great anger in all of us. Why were 26 people murdered today, most of them children? The main motive for murder is always sin. The Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, whose birthday we celebrate at Christmas, identified murder as a sin that proceeds from the heart. (See Mark 7:21-23)

“More than asking why this evil happened, we need to work diligently to prevent it. The innocents killed at Newtown are double the number of Columbine victims in 1999. We should be all the more grieved and all the more resolved to stop murders before they start. The answer is teaching the fear of God and love for God in schools and throughout society. Because mass murder is another example of societal degradation, a deadly consequence of promoting murderous abortions, godless evolution, and gratuitous violence. How opposite of teaching children that all people are worthy because they were created by God, that all innocent human beings deserve protection because they’re made in God’s image, and that every person is accountable to God when He judges the world.

“Every school official should be armed and trained to repel these attacks upon schoolchildren. And every parent and every media industry decision maker should absolutely prohibit children from enjoying scenes that glorify violence and desensitize them to the taking of innocent human life.”

Have at it, commenters.

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review the constitutionality both of California’s Proposition 8 of 2010, which wrote a ban on gay-marriage into the state’s constitution, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Here’s a sampling of the reactions.

From Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom:

“Today marks the beginning of the end for a California journey that started eight years ago when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. By agreeing to hear the Proposition 8 case the U.S. Supreme Court could end, once and for all, marriage inequity in California.

“Forty-five years after the Supreme Court ruled that marriages between interracial couples were constitutional in Loving vs. Virginia, Justices can once again reaffirm the basic American principal of equality for all.

“The singling out a class of Californians for discrimination violates the basic principles of who we are as a nation. It is important at this moment in time to recognize that individuals can be mightier together than apart, that there is strength in our diversity, power when we unite around our shared values and success when we advance together.

“Today’s announcement starts the clock towards the final decision for California. History will one day be divided into the time before marriage equality and the period that follows. And thankfully, we will be on the side of history worthy of being proud of.”

From National Organization for Marriage Chairman John Eastman:

“We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case. We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect.”

“Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to grant certiorari in the case. It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels. It’s worth noting that Judge Reinhart is the most overruled judge in America. I think this case will add to his record.”

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will review lower-court decisions that invalidate the judgment of the U.S. Congress to define marriage as one man and one woman. It’s not the job of federal judges to substitute their views for the policy judgments of the people’s duly elected representatives. We believe the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this exercise in judicial activism and stop federal judges from legislating from the bench on the definition of marriage. We’re confident the Court will uphold DOMA.”

From state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco:

“I am hopeful and encouraged about today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Proposition 8 case, which is one of the most significant equal rights issues to come before the court in many decades. For the past four years we have argued that Proposition 8 is not only unconstitutional, but that it also violates the basic principles of respect, dignity and validation that every American deserves. I am confident that the Supreme Court will reaffirm these fundamental freedoms and uphold that a person’s right to be treated equally does not vanish simply because of who they are or whom they love.

“The momentum for marriage equality has never been stronger in our country. We have support from President Obama, recent victories at the ballot box, and polls that show a majority of Americans are with us. In addition, federal courts continue to strike down laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. I am convinced our triumphs will continue.”

From ProtectMarriage.com general counsel Andy Pugno:

“Every one of the numerous legal steps we have taken for the past four years has been in anticipation of this moment. Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn’t been afforded to the People since we began this fight.”

“We are delighted that the nation’s highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than seven million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.”

More after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving 2012, in both my personal and professional lives. I’ll forgo the personal here, but share a few blessings I’ve had on the job this year:

The “pinch-me” bizarre campaign moments: Newt Gingrich promising to establish a U.S. moon base; Clint Eastwood berating an empty chair; Joe Biden chilling with the bikers; anyone at all taking Donald Trump seriously, ever, even for a nanosecond.

The stranger-than-fiction stories I covered: a U.S. Senate primary that featured, among many others, a surfing rabbi, a “birther” queen and an octogenarian mountain climber; the first one-on-one with Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi after her shoplifting conviction; a maniacally misinformed wedding-chapel owner in Reno; and, just this week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors suffering the consequences for banning public nudity.

My continued employment: The news industry’s massive downsizing in recent years has pushed out many talented and valued colleagues and friends. I’m a very lucky man to still be doing what I love, and I’m thankful for it every day.

My bosses: Many thanks to editors Ken McLaughlin and Mike Frankel for all the work, from the fine-tuning to the big revamps, they’ve put into my stories this year; I’m a better reporter and writer for working with them.

Some people I’ve covered have endured an awful 2012 to varying degrees, from the Oikos University massacre’s victims and their loved ones to the Lockyer family. I hold them and others in my thoughts today, and wish them a happier, healthier, brighter year to come.

149 years ago today, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a two-minute address at the dedication of a military cemetery on the Gettysburg battlefield.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot consecrate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Humbling, I hope. So, enough carping about the “fiscal cliff,” right? We’ve overcome bigger hurdles than this; let’s get on with it.

More than twice as many Christians as Jews say they wouldn’t date someone of a different political party, according to a not-so-scientific survey by a pair of religious-based dating websites.

JDate.com and ChristianMingle.com – both owned by Beverly Hills-based Spark Networks USA – polled more than 2,000 of their members with a series of questions about dating and politics. The results indicate Jews are more open than Christians to dating someone of a different political party, though a solid majority of each faith is open to the idea. Respondents of both faiths overwhelmingly said that if dating someone with different political beliefs, they would choose to “agree to disagree” on the subject.

Keep in mind this survey only reached people who’d enrolled in these religious-oriented dating websites in the first place, so it’s a somewhat limited sample.

Here’s some of the breakdown:

Here’s how the questions were asked:

Q: Would you ever date someone who belongs to a different political party?
1,454 ChristianMingle responses, 1,204 JDate responses)

JDate – Yes: 90%, No: 10%

ChristianMingle – Yes: 79%, No: 21%

Q: If you found out the person you were dating had opposing political beliefs to you, what would you do?
(1,304 ChristianMingle responses, 1,347 JDate responses)
JDate –

Agree to disagree: 86%

Break up with them: 4%

Never discuss politics again: 6%

Try to change their beliefs: 4%

ChristianMingle –

Agree to disagree: 80%

Break up with them: 8%

Never discuss politics again: 7%

Try to change their beliefs: 5%

Beethoven, a quilt and a dream.

Eve Darling hails from Terre Haute, Ind. Read more about the National Optimists Party here.

With Hurricane Isaac projected to dampen clothes, if not spirits, at this week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., this one seemed like a natural:

(To the tune of “Rock You Like a Hurricane” by the Scorpions:)

It’s late in August, in Florida
Delegates gather, down in Tampa
They’re nominating their first Mormon
They’re not afraid of the storm comin’ in

Here I am, Romney in a hurricane
Here I am, Romney in a hurricane