It should be clear to anyone paying attention that the administration is not going to do anything about LGBT issues before the 2010 congressional elections. Nor should they.

Imagine reversing DADT and promoting marriage equality right now. Sounds good, but the GOP would use these issues to bludgeon vulnerable Democrats in 2010. The result would be losing at least the House, perhaps the Senate -- consequentially, all progressive causes would come to a grinding halt.

Obama is probably going to address these issues after 2010, with the belief that his strong campaigning skills will carry him through 2012 in spite of hateful GOP attacks. I'm not saying it's right to further delay LGBT issues, it certainly is frustrating, but the political reality is we can't have another 1994.

I'm sure people are going to be arguing about this column in great nuance, but I thought for an immediate response I'd hastily and broadly re-post something originally posted on a friend's Facebook profile. I don't know who wrote it originally, but kudos to the (very sarcastic) writer:

*

I know this list doesn't differentiate between 'wrong' and 'something the government has a right to prevent,' but neither does anyone who argues against gay marriage :-).

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

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

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I agree with Cary's advice, but I wish he'd added this:

You assume too much about your former friends. You've intentionally made yourself into an outsider, a former insider, in their lives, and in expanding your own horizons you've assumed that they haven't expanded theirs. Sure, they may not have moved (much?) beyond a geographic area (are you really so sure?), but that doesn't mean they haven't learned or grown during all these years without you. Maybe some of them have got educations at local colleges, read books, vacationed abroad, used a few mind-altering substances, met unlikely people, gone through trying experiences, etc. -- maybe they've grown in ways that an outsider wouldn't readily notice. Let them in, and be willing to be surprised by their stories. After all, you don't necessarily have to move to a big city to improve yourself.

I didn't say "run." Just that he should have a high-level position in the apparatus, for which 22 years of diplomatic postings and gov't positions should make him qualified. (Though the State Dep't would make sense, also.)

Shouldn't Joe Wilson be somewhere in the upper levels of the intelligence apparatus?

(For those with short memories, Joe Wilson is Valerie Plame's husband who debunked the Niger/yellowcake war propaganda.)

I've been waiting to see this guy get his due for a long time now, and putting his skills to use in the Obama administration would be a good start.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

-- Stephen Colbert

Because I think the possibility to create accidental poetry here is tremendous. Given the right questions and responses from the human, who knows what crazy shit the bot will come up with. Could be Vladimir and Estragon all over again.

Seriously, if you have a link to a page where just anyone can interact with the Elbot -- or a bot much like it -- please share.

Also, a question: would the most ethical thing be to attribute the final product to the bot's makers?

Assuming that Oliver had never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Even though I was obviously rooting for Obama, that one made me wince. Looked very bad, very insulting to the young man.

They're in the minority. Pelosi gets all the Democratic reps on board and passes the bill.

Elections, ahem, have consequences.

Is there any chance this $700 billion could amount to -- oh sweet irony -- a LOAN from the government to these financial institutions? Assuming they'll be shored up and profitable once again in a few years (not a safe assumption, I know), then they could slowly pay back the loan amounts, plus the rate of inflation, over the course of ten or so years?

Maybe this is naive of me. But if it's bad lending that got them into this ridiculous place, then a loan from the gov't could get them out, except this loan would be guaranteed by a tool that the government has and the investment banks never had: the law.

I hope this doesn't seem too much like an ad since this happens to be the company that I work for, but you can get driving directions via text message if you call 1-800-Free411. Works well if you're already out and about and don't want to bother someone who's near a computer screen.