Okay, now wait a minute; I'm just an ignorant straight guy with a few GLB friends, but I'm really confused now. I thought ENDA was an equal-rights thing, but reading Ms. Stryker's (very angry) article and some of these comments, it sounds like it's about AIDS and health care. Which leaves me scratching my head, honestly.

I know how I feel about getting equal rights for everyone; I mean, who is against that? But the way it's put here, it sounds completely different, almost like a Trojan Horse kind of deal, and that can't be right. Or can it? Like I said: I'm confused.

In any event I have to agree with others here: the tone of Susan Stryker's response was so angry and hostile that it was very off-putting. I don't know all the ins and outs of this law, but Aravosis' article came across as heartfelt (no matter what his background or politics), and some of my GLB friend do wonder about the "T". He seemed to me--total outsider straight guy--to be asking some reasonable questions. Ms. Stryker's response didn't seem very reasonable at all; more jeremiad than response. If one were to try to judge the debate solely on these two articles--which would be insane, of course--I don't think Stryker would win the day. Just my blind, hetero opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Mick Jagger isn't self-conscious? Who knew! Thanks, Mr. Ignatius!

I generally enjoy Walter Shapiro's articles and analysis, but this whole "Keep New Hampshire First!" meme that seems to be fairly common with political reporters leaves me cold. It's patently absurd that a state as small (41st in population) and homogeneous (98% White) as New Hampshire should have such an inordinate influence on the primaries for 88 years. Nostalgia notwithstanding, it's ridiculous. And that one official in a tiny state has such a huge influence over the primary season due to a state law is absolutely insane.

I am not utterly convinced that a national primary would be the disaster the pundits say it is. The vast number of Americans already have zero chance to meet the candidates prior to all of them but the two "winners" dropping out. In California (my former home) and Texas (where I reside currently), the primary is a joke, merely an exercise in voting "Me Too!" for the Anointed One. But let's say that a national primary would be the mess it's portrayed as. There's a simple solution:

Take turns.

Yes, that's right: New Hampshire and Iowa have had their turn for years. How about someone else getting a damn chance? Does anyone think that Walter Mondale would have been the candidate in '84 if, say, California had had the first primary? Or Michael Dukakis if Texas had been first? Please. The primaries could be rotated, starting with a state (here's a thought!) more representative of the country than New Hampshire or Iowa. How about Louisiana? (That would shake things up!) Or Oklahoma? Heck, even North Dakota would make for a change of pace. (Or, heaven forbid, California or Texas.)

In any event, all this breast-beating and rationalization about why New Hampshire and Iowa have to be first is silly. High time someone else had a chance (no matter what my Uncle John in Derry may say).

Sigh.

Look, I'm perfectly willing and happy to admit that Israel has done some stupid things (anything involved with Lebanon, for example). I'm fine with a lot of people being wary of, or downright angry at AIPAC. The leadership of Israel frequently makes me consider drinking heavily. And certainly there is a firm percentage of the Jewish-American and Israeli population that is a lot more militant than most everyone is comfortable with.

But I have to say that I grow weary of the strong implication that all Jews are neoconservatives. Or that all Israelis are expansionist. Or that all Jews are against a two-state solution.

So let's just state it for the record, here: Plenty of Jews are totally appalled by the neoconservative agenda. Plenty despise Bush's "I Love Likud!" Middle East policy. Many many many want to see a free Palestine (even if for some it's so that everyone will shut up already about the Palestinians). Plenty don't want Israel to lob nukes anywhere, including Iran. (All this despite the fact that a Palestine would put millions of people who actively hate Jews right next door, I might add.)

So just remember when you read Juan Cole, or any of the other folks who tend to get pretty down on Israel (and Jews in general--from the political perspective, in any case): plenty of Jews are durn liberal. There are millions of Jews who are. And while everyone likes to talk about the neocon Jews, the vast majority of Jews aren't neocons.

Including this one.