Are we six weeks into 2012 already? I’ve just been so strapped for time, what with January being National Braille Literacy Month and all. And of course now that it’s Febru-ANY, you can imagine why my schedule is packed.

Rest assured, I’ve kept tabs on the medio-political developments in this young Year of the Dragon. And the contest for the Republican presidential nomination remains front and center.

With his vigorous rejuvenations in the polls and support-sapping slides, Newt Gingrich is the Ra’s al Ghul of the GOP field. He has been around forever. On a respirator after the pointy barrage of negative ads hurled at him, he’s used the debates like a Lazarus Pit.

After an important win over frontrunner Mitt Romney in South Carolina, followed by a rough defeat in Florida, and a foregone loss in Nevada, he’s pressing on, marital baggage and all.

(By the way, I don’t believe Newt’s wife is a robot the way Romney is. Rather, I’m convinced Callista is actually controlled by a tiny alien inside her head, à la Men in Black.)

Gingrich has an uncanny ability to say the best possible thing in the moment to make himself look as favorable as is possible. Whether those comments also end up being absurd, insensitive, ignorant, or plain abhorrent, I leave up to you.

However, just before the Nevada caucus, I heard Gingrich say something surprising, articulate, and that I am pretty sure I agree with, and a wide swath of Americans might also. He gets going in this clip and reaches a crescendo just after the two-minute mark:

“My good friend, the governor from Massachusetts, said it was okay to not worry about the poor because after all they have a safety net.”

Eventually, he makes his way to this remarkable analogy:

“It’s not a safety net, it’s a spider web. It traps them in poverty. It keeps them at the bottom. It deprives them of independence. One of the reasons I’m running is I want to replace the spider web with a trampoline that launches them into the middle class and gives them a future.” 

Isn’t that something? Those terms are so vivid, they feel Frank Luntz-tested.

Welfare is a perennial political topic. Liberals want to make sure the worse-off have support and conservatives want to make sure lazy people are not mooching off it.

Are services like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and food stamps useful (The Safety Net)? Are they too enticing to some people who become overly reliant and stick to them (The Spider Web)? Perhaps. But they also provide vital support for people to gain their footing and try for a big bounce into productivity and prosperity (The Trampoline).

Whether we wish the net were wider and sturdier, or thinner and flimsier, we all agree that the goal should be to rise above it, with what we have now (worker training programs and the like) or something else. Nobody aspires to live off of food stamps.

Sure, Gingrich uses anodyne lines (“I believe we are 100% Americans”) and creatively extrapolates and exaggerates (“I don’t believe we are a 99% and 1% country; I believe that is a European socialist model”) along the way, but that’s neither here nor there.

Rather, what this incident reminds me is that it’s important and fascinating to recognize that while you may differ with someone greatly (and even feel they would be a horrendous president), you may agree and give them credit for a point well-made.

Despite the onslaught of translucent podiums and ever-inventive, nearly exhausted ways in which production designers have toiled to erect a new interpretation of the star and stripes on stage, we’re just. Not. Done.

In acknowledgement of the strong viewership they have attracted, the widening array of issues being discussed, and the rife cross-promotional synergies, may I present the remaining calendar:

VH1′s Divas Live! Debate

January 7, 2012

Hollis, NH

In this penultimate debate before the New Hampshire primary, the GOP candidates reiterate that strong, confident, independent women do not have a right to choose. Michele Bachmann deftly parlays one of her answers into an on-key verse from “I’m Every Woman.” To compensate, the men spout off about their wives, while claiming they clearly came out ahead of everyone else in the Iowa caucuses, even though they all basically ended up coming in a tie there.

5-Hour Energy® Alternatives Debate

January 8, 2012

Manchester, NH

After a late night in the post-debate spin room the night before, followed by a full day of campaigning, all candidates (except Bachmann, because she’s a human dynamo) guzzle the sponsor’s product during tonight’s 90-minute debate. The first half-hour is hyper, but the last hour is rough, with all candidates nursing migraines, holding their heads in repose. The highlight emerges near the end, when Rick Perry, in an effort to outdo Rick Santorum on his commitment to natural gas, pulls out a jug of the stuff, and force-feeds it down Jon Huntsman’s throat, like those Iraqi guys do to Mark Wahlberg in Three Kings.

Ikea® DEHBAIT

January 16, 2012

Orlando, FL

On-site at the Swedish megastore two weeks before the state’s primary, an uncommon program is scheduled, where the presidential hopefuls must build a GUSTAV desk while eviscerating the successes of Scandinavia’s socialist-capitalism melding. Newt Gingrich is missing his Ikea wrench, but manages to exceed expectations with sound criticism of the instructions. Björn Borg moderates.

Project Runway & Top Chef  “Top Chief” Debate

January 19, 2012

Columbia, SC

The remaining GOP field is given 45 minutes before airtime to make dinner for themselves. The results are brought on TV and judged by Padma Lakshmi, who needs to go offscreen twice to vomit, because none of these folks has cooked a meal for themselves in over 23 years. Tim Gunn takes over in the second half with dilemmas for the pols: “The Supercommittee’s defense cuts have reduced the number of stealth bombers available for your hasty invasion of Iran. What do you do? Make it work.”

IBM® “Watson & The White House” Debate

January 23, 2012

Yorktown Heights, NY

Alex Trebek takes the hosting duties once again, as Watson joins the candidates onstage and upstages all of them with accurate facts and measured reason.

Inside the Actor’s Studio Debate

Groupon® “Group PAC” Debate

Kalamazoo, MI

March 1, 2012

The winner gets half off their general election Super PAC start-up fees! ‘Nuff said.

Double Dare® “Down To The Wire” Debate

March 5, 2012

Philadelphia, PA

Only a few candidates are left standing by now, and Ron Paul absolutely tears it up in this late-round contest where Marc Summers does the questioning. Third party, schmird party: that guy is spry! Once again, Romney underestimates Paul, as the libertarian pursues victory in a slimy physical challenge.

Wine Spectator “Speculative Whining” Debate

March 19, 2012

Simi Valley, CA

The candidates are given tastings of California varietals and must define the characteristics of the wine with adjectives that they simultaneously can use to make a jab at President Obama. Gingrich on his pinot noir from Stag’s Leap: “Fruity and delicate, like Obama’s posture to China.” Romney on his Honig sauvignon blanc: “Thin and acidic, like Obama’s experience and penchant for dividing the nation.”

This is ostensibly a blog about media and politics, but it gets pulled in the political direction a bit more often. I think that’s because the daily developments of that world feel more consequential (even if that is illusory) and spark a more pointed and immediate reaction.

However, as a voracious follower of television, and occasionally gracious sharer of the remote control, I have plenty to say on the topic. So, when I read that NBC was bringing back Fear Factor, I cringed. And upon seeing an ad for it in which it appears men and women are bobbing for apples in a pool of blood, I also reacquainted with my gag reflex. Indeed, LA Times, indeed: “Horse rectum for everyone!”

We know you’re struggling, NBC, but this smacks of desperation. What happened to the NBC execs of a few years ago who were lamenting their network being reduced to showing frat guys eating bugs in primetime in the mid-aughts? I don’t know if it’s a result of their new Comcast overlords, but this is a step backwards over a lesson it seemed was already learned.

When a viewer files a lawsuit (eventually dismissed) saying your show made him vomit prolific piles of protein, what makes you sit down with your team and say, “I think we had something here. Let’s bring it back.”

Variety reports (subscription required) that Fear Factor re-opened well. In the ratings on Monday night it was seventh overall, with 8.5 million viewers, and fourth in the 18-49 demographic. (To put that another way, 8.5 million people watched five scorpions get eaten alive by some girl. Despair.)

I wasn’t on a press list to get an advance screener of this return premiere, and it’s probably just as well, because I don’t think I would have watched it. If I really wanted to purge, I would knock back a few extras at the Brief Wit holiday party instead of seeing some guy’s dad eat a baker’s dozen Killa bees live. Still, to speak with some credibility, I did fast-forward through the two back-to-back re-premiere episodes on my DVR in about eight minutes.

I just imagine Joe Rogan, the host, who I like from his days on News Radio, getting the call from the producer saying, “We’re back!” and then springing up from his couch, fist to the air, kind of like Elaine’s one-time beau on Seinfeld when he found out he was the Wiz again… because nobody beats him. (By the way, News Radio is an underrated ’90s sitcom, but how obsolete does a show about radio sound today?)

Fear Factor’s maker, Endemol, has adopted enhanced nauseation techniques this year. The scale of the stunts is larger, and more importantly, the eating of unnatural animals and wading in disgusting substances has been lowered to new levels of yuck. It seems like the emphasis of the show is always on that second of three challenges: the gross-out spectacle.

With this iteration of Fear Factor, it feels like we’re just a step short of the old capital punishment bit from George Carlin. “I’d have naked upside down crucifixions on TV once a week at halftime of the Monday night football game!” That might be easier to watch.

One falsehood of the show is that it isn’t really about fear. Rarely, if ever, does a contestant simply opt not to do something. And when they do, it’s out of repulsion to the sheep’s eye they’ve been told to eat. The contestant doesn’t have a fear of sheep’s eyes, she’s just disgusted by them.

The same is true of the stunts. Contestants are always helmeted, goggled, and carabiner-ed up. The staff is always close. You know you’re not getting hurt in this highly monitored environment.

In its debut 10 years ago, Fear Factor drew 12 million viewers, and exceeded expectations to become, what Bill Carter of the Times called, the hit of the summer of 2001. NBC felt strongly enough about it to try a disruptive Playmates version during halftime of the Super Bowl the next year, when the game was on Fox. Fear Factor ran through 2006, and even spawned a Universal Studios ride.

Of course, the Times’ original review in 2001 was not something you put on the marketing collateral at upfront time, unless your advertisers like chilling out in a pit full of rats.

Carter also mused then, “It has certainly pushed some boundaries of taste. Fear Factor followed up its challenge last week — when contestants had to eat from a bowl of sheep’s eyes while a herd of sheep wearing eye patches looked on — with a segment on Monday night that had contestants eating from a platter of buffalo testicles. (At least that was not accompanied by a chorus of buffalo singing ‘Home on the Range’ in soprano.)”

Personally, if I’m watching a reality TV competition, I’d rather opt for something with a hint of cultural enrichment, like The Amazing Race. I can’t imagine why that show has won the Emmy for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program eight of the last nine years.

Or, if you’re into stunts, how about Mythbusters? Mythbusters is a monumentally better reality program than Fear Factor, with tons more inventive, dangerous stunts that keep you watching. It wins you over with humor and innocuously learns you somethin’ about science along the way. And don’t expect the president on Fear Factor any time soon for that reason.

The show was lampooned in thinly veiled parodies on 30 Rock in 2008, when Fear Factor was off-air. Jeff Zucker, who presided over NBC during the show’s initial run, used to joke that his network was “the home of quality TV — and Fear Factor.”

But it’s not just bad taste, it’s bad business. Even if in a less tangible sense.

If you want to know why your network is hurting, it’s shows like this, diluting your brand, befouling a reputation for quality. You used to cultivate that, in order to attract top production outfits and affluent, educated viewers. Fewer people are opting for the Peacock logo on their channel guides now. These gross-out ratings may prop you up temporarily, but they are simultaneously holding back your broader aspirations.

The only redeeming part of Fear Factor‘s return is that the producers can create a stunt where contestants literally jump a live shark to jump the shark.

We all know now that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators living in Zuccotti Park for almost two months were methodically uprooted by the NYPD Tuesday.

So what?

As I said before, I support the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I’m not sold on all the tactics. Chief among these is the persistent inclination of a couple hundred people to live all day and night in, what is by most accounts, not just a pretty shitty excuse for a park, but also a pretty arbitrary spot.

It’s been noted by lots of onlookers: Zuccotti Park is not even on Wall Street. The park itself has no meaning to banker types, and most New Yorkers hadn’t even heard of it before September 17. It was selected as the rallying point for OWS because it’s an open space in the Financial District.

And yet, all day Tuesday and into Wednesday, peeved protesters plotted to take it back, rising and then falling with judicial rulings on whether they could re-colonize it with their gear.

As the Times reported, “one protester, Nate Barchus, 23, said the eviction from Zuccotti Park was likely to galvanize supporters… ‘This,’ he said, referring to the early morning sweep, ‘reminds everyone who was occupying exactly why they were occupying.’ “

That’s exactly wrong!

Were you protesting your right to live in public squares for indefinite periods of time?  Or to confront police brutality?

I think not. Rather, remember what compelled you to to show up in the first place. It was to garner attention and affect real social change in the financial-political complex.

Let it go, OWS. If you had been down there night in and night out, I’m sure it gained some sentimental resonance. But the point of the movement is not to get hypothermia from passing out on a slab of icy cold stone.

Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg and the cops are being reasonable going forward. They aren’t denying you access to the park. They’re letting you back in! You can hang out there all day, you just can’t move in.

Public property is intended for wide use by the population. Being a member of that population does not entitle you to permanently move in to a place that you would otherwise have lunch with your friends at. If that were the case, I would have colonized the Great Lawn a long time ago.

Pick your battles. What does camping out and sleeping in a park really accomplish at this point?

Instead, be nimble. Evolve to be effective. Exerting all this effort on public space has hamstrung you. Focus your energy on confronting outsized income inequality and standing up to the unfair influence wealthy people and corporations have on your lives through power they exert on government.

There are now others joining me in adding to a consensus that living in public space is no longer a boon to the cause. In fact, Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that conceived of the OWS movement, concedes this, and proposes using this moment as a time to transition: ”We clean up, scale back and most of us go indoors while the die-hards hold the camps. We use the winter to brainstorm, network, build momentum so that we may emerge rejuvenated with fresh tactics, philosophies, and a myriad projects ready to rumble next Spring.”

To piggyback off that, as I argued previously, the movement should change its name to emphasize what it is about. There is now evidence indicating that “Occupy Wall Street” does not test well, and that “The 99%” is the meme the public is sympathetic to and identifies with. You’re no longer occupying anyway. This is an ideal opportunity to regroup, rethink and rebrand.

As a reader pointed out, my stuff’s been a bit esoteric of late. So, it’s time to weigh in on some broader happenings. Thus, I give you my take on Occupy Wall Street: that rambunctious rebellion, that righteous resistance, that random ruckus, that risible revolt (depending on your mood, or if you are part of the NYPD crew that has to work an extra shift).

I hadn’t been down to Zuccotti Park since it began, except for the movement’s first Monday, when I passed by while visiting the 9/11 Memorial. After a coup at lunch this week (aka a tasty turkey burger in the Financial District), I was nearby and checked it out.

I walked around the perimeter, scoping out the scene, and eventually walked through the tarp city that has sprouted up, bearing a passing resemblance to Krzyzewskiville.

There are a variety of reactions I have to Occupy Wall Street (#OWS). I’ve been reluctant to embrace it outright. (Apparently, I’m a Democrat in Congress.) Some of my pre-conceived notions were altered by being there and speaking with people.

As a result, my thoughts take on something of a dégustation menu: each portion is easily digestible, but at the end you’ll be pretty full. I’ll start with lighter fare and move into some larger dishes. Also, enjoy the pictures I took down there, as an intermezzo between courses:

On-site, OWS is pretty well organized. As you can see from the map and the Good Neighbor Policy pictures, the participants are doing their best to be congenial and have a sense of order, even if parts of it are humorous. The welcome desks and media area are practical. The library is a mishmash of random books, from filling-time novels to the tongue-in-cheek (I hope) Anarchist Cookbook. Suffice it to say, the kitchen is not stainless steel.

It’s somewhat clear what exactly Occupy Wall Street’s initial planners had in mind, but the name feels like it is more of an isolated event than the group or movement it has evolved into. At a certain point, it is too late to rebrand, because the media and the public have already adopted the initial label, despite its vague or inaccurate connotation.

“Global warming” came to define the environmental movement for much of a generation. As a result, the term has led to the substance behind it being belittled, lampooned, denied, and brushed aside too often. (How many times have you heard someone spout off half-seriously on a cold day, “Forget global warming, man! It’s freezing out!”) Only recently has “climate change” made significant inroads in replacing “global warming” and offering a terse, clear understanding of what the issue really is. “Global warming” has hurt the cause, unmeasurably but undoubtedly. The damage has been done in terms of time lost, conditions worsening, and minds becoming less persuadable.

It may be too late for OWS, but I think there is still an opening for an impactful name change as things focus. I could come up with a few ideas, but the most viable one is contained within a meme and a message the OWS protesters are already saying: “The 99%.”  It’s short, and you either know what it means by now or it causes you to find out. Either way, you get it quickly, and there is a pretty good chance you are part of the 99% of Americans who are not part of the 1% of the population with the highest income. If so, perhaps you agree that you “will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.”

And if you are in the 99%, you probably are not psyched to see news this week from the Congressional Budget Office showing that for the top 1%, “from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent.”

The 99% did not come anywhere close to that. Something to keep in mind. Hope it doesn’t give you indigestion.

I watched Erin Burnett’s debut on CNN tonight, in her new program OutFront, and have some thoughts on the first broadcast.

Unlike the world of scripted TV dramas and sitcoms, first shows don’t portend success or failure in news, or variety programs, for that matter. I remember watching the first Colbert Report and thinking it was never going to last, for instance.

OutFront conveyed a seriousness about the news of the day coupled with conversational frankness, though it’s unclear whether it (or anything) can stand out in a cable news landscape where the graphics all look so similar that it’s hard to know when one show ends and another begins. After all, to the average channel clicker, isn’t Erin Burnett just (recent CNN anchor) Campbell Brown 10 years younger?

No disrespect to Ms. Brown, but I’d argue no. Burnett has proven she has chops in interviews with CEOs and guts in travels to hotspots around the globe, including Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier this year.

I’m a longtime fan of Erin’s from her work at CNBC, chiefly on Squawk on the Street (where I know her former producer) and Street Signs. She could also hold her own on Meet the Press.

I also like that she went to Williams College, because I respect the education my good friends received there, and hold a soft spot for the elusive purple cow.

However, a title like OutFront implies an on-scene immediacy. The promos for the show depict Erin in the field, camera at the ready. What I can’t tell yet is if the show’s name is just a well-tested, aggressive title, or if it will be taken quite literally. She was in a studio tonight, after all.

They’ve definitely done some jet-setting segments (there were pre-taped packages form China and Pakistan tonight) for the rollout of the show, but is that sustainable? Is the plan to have her travel to the forefront regularly?

Earlier today, she was in the thick of it at the Occupy Wall Street “leaderless resistance movement” at Liberty Square in downtown Manhattan. Unfortunately though, most stories aren’t a 15-minute cab ride away.

That report was insightful: it showed the energy, but also the frolicking disorganization of a potentially burgeoning force. It displayed people engaging in something that simultaneously looked like both a noble endeavor and a silly one.

The 20-something kid she spoke with there didn’t know that our government actually turned a profit on the TARP bailouts. I feel like he should have, but it was also debatable editorial judgment to show one person who didn’t know that. If they showed a whole slew of clueless demonstrators, that would have meant more.

I found Erin respectful, but assertive in her interview with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (who comes across like your unexpectedly driven uncle). I’d be remiss if I didn’t point one thing was missing, though. On Friday, she tweeted, “Just talked to Defense Sec Leon Panetta. Says he had authority to kill Al-Alwaki, even tho he was us citizen. Full intv #OutFrontCNN Monday!” While terrorism was discussed, Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who was part of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was not mentioned.

Later, in a segment called “Outcast,” Erin reported about the subpar conduct of a CIA operative in the field in Pakistan and then at home, where he got in a fight over a parking spot. It was the weakest part of the program, feeling like a sleeker version of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World.”

Erin closed with a tribute and thank you to Mark Haines, her “lovably grouchy” co-anchor and mentor at Squawk on the Street. He passed away unexpectedly in May. I literally yelled “No!” at my screen when I heard. It’s a great loss; he really came through the screen and spoke to you.

That final segment is supposed to be a short essay going forward, but tonight was a fitting deference to the past that has contributed to Erin’s readiness for the future. I was glad she got through it, too. She barely welled up and her voice cut out ever so slightly at the end.

In the way that the ultimate test of a company’s mark on its sector and on the culture is whether it becomes a verb (i.e., Google it, FedEx it, Ziploc it), the team at OutFront set a pretty lofty goal (perhaps in jest) that they aspire to be so impactful as to have others in the media say, “They OutFronted us.” It’s bold. I hope they do, but then again nobody ever says they got Hardballed or 60 Minutes-ed.

In closing, the show was uneven, and honestly, that’s fine. Let’s see where it goes.

The country’s first-ever credit downgrade. Stocks tanking. 30 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. President Obama is expected to speak shortly, presumably about all of these topics. So, I’ve come out of hibernation for some impromptu live-blogging. Let’s see if I have anything useful to say…

Behind Schedule | 1:47 p.m. It’s 47 minutes past the announced start time. The Dow appears to have taken this into account and gone down another 47 points. Or is it 147?

The Walk Out | 1:54 p.m. Obama came out in a brisk, solemn walk, and got right to the credit rating issue, pushing back on the S&P hard.

Details | 1:58 p.m. He is speaking to specific things we can do (not many with Congress’ hand-tying) to spur economic growth: payroll tax credits and such. He is pretty stern.

Unusual Wording | 2:00 p.m. As part of a stanza to remind and inspire us of our self-worth, he said that the U.S. has “some of the most productive workers” in the world. He, and other politicians, usually say something along the lines of, “We have the best workers in the world,” so this stuck out for me. Will some Republican presidential candidate criticize him for this? The more important thing is that he is right: it seems to me that while our workers are great, so now are those of the other countries we hear about frequently: India, China, et al.

Let’s Be Army Strong | 2:04 p.m. Obama pivoted from our tough economic situation to the grim news in Afghanistan, honoring the commitment and sacrifice of those we lost. He said that soldiers put aside their differences for the sake of a vital mission, and that we should do the same. He used it is a rallying cry for the country to live up to the best of what they fought for.

That’s It | 2:11 p.m. The comments were over in a fast 10 minutes. There was no real news here it seems, and little concerted effort to lift us up. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

Useless | 5:10 p.m. Re-reading confirms: this is my most useless post ever.

I figured it was a good time to write more than 140 characters because it’s not every day that your home state makes civil rights history.

Y’know, considering that I’m not gay and have no plans to be gay in the future, I’m pretty jazzed about this gay marriage vote in New York state. I might even have jazz hands. Jazz hands!

And yet, I haven’t been invited to any gay weddings or gotten any save-the-dates so far. This is debilitating news because 1) they will be good parties, 2) I imagine they will be “the thing” to be at this summer, and 3) it’s common knowledge in New York that gay men maintain a deep bench of adorable girl friends. (And the gay male endorsement of the straight male friend may just surpass the parental stamp of approval these days.)

Much has been said by now about the overall vote, the well-coordinated, months-long effort to see it come to fruition, and the exuberant celebrations, so I won’t focus much on those aspects.

Instead, I’m going to point out a few things that are awesome, telling, or (if I’m lucky) incisive about this fabulous! legislation.

Let’s start with telling. In the wake of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signing the bill into law, there are still nay-sayers out there.

These opponents of same-sex marriage raise flimsy arguments to “justify” their stance.

It’s really stupid when they say things like, “What’s next, marrying a hamster or a trout? Maybe a red-tailed hawk or a duck-billed platypus?” Yeah, jackass, that’s what’s next. Because gays and lesbians (aka other human beings) really appreciate being compared to self-unaware animals.

Or, take some choice moments from the PBS NewsHour segment below, in which (openly gay) Democratic New York Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell and Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and chair of the National Organization for Marriage, are jointly interviewed about the New York law.

Whereas O’Donnell talks about themes of justice and fairness, Gallagher talks about voter vengeance and how the “yay” voters committed political suicide. Around the 5:30 mark, you can see how she harps on how vindicative the party and voters will be towards the four Republican state senators who voted for the bill, how they sold out their base for dumb politics, and how questions in polls on the issue are asked and worded.

People like Gallagher say those state senators make themselves politically vulnerable to do this. Maybe. But it’s morally vulnerable not to.

Okay, now let’s jump to the potentially incisive.

With a major triumph like this, there has been revitalized, intoxicating talk of an amped-up movement (a rave, if you will) of gay marriage spreading to other states.

Clearly, New York, beyond being one of the largest states, has a larger impact on culture, media, and finance, than any other, save arguably, California.

After he signed the bill into law, Governor Cuomo said:

“What this state said today brings this discussion of marriage equality to a new plane. That’s the power and beauty of New York. The other states look to New York for the progressive direction and what we said today was you look to New York once again because New York made a powerful statement, not only for the people of New York, but for the people across this nation. We reached a new level of social justice this evening.”

I’m on board with the last part. However, I’m not sure how this latest victory will affect progress towards wider acceptance. And there is a long way to go. When the law in New York goes into effect on July 24, there will be six states and Washington, D.C. that issue same-sex marriage licenses in the U.S. On the flip side, “Twenty-nine states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, while 12 others have laws against it.”

We would do well to remember that the saying “So goes the nation” was not coined with New York in mind, but Maine. And lately, it is most apt in Ohio.

New York is not the bellwether of the country, it is the provocateur. A progressive, ahead-of-its-time (or right-on-time, with others lagging behind) territory.

President Obama during his press conference Wednesday made favorable statements with regards to LGBT rights nationally (“I think we’re moving in a direction of greater equality and — and I think that’s a good thing”) and same-sex marriage in New York (“What happened in New York last week, I think, was a good thing”).

So, he is edging closer, beyond merely saying that his views are “evolving.” I have been watching this issue for a while, and said that I think he has to do what is politically expedient on this issue to get reelected, though there is a case to be made that endorsing it before the 2012 vote could help him. Chuck Todd and Brian Williams raised that possibility during their post-conference banter.

Most people’s political stances “evolve” in days, weeks, and months. Obama’s may be moving at the pace of actual evolution: over thousands of years.

It seems mighty evident to me at this point that he is for same-sex marriage, but does not want to shake things up yet. Still, if you were a one-issue, anti-gay marriage voter, would you vote for Obama based on what he said Wednesday?

Given all this, instead it seems that when the Prop 8 lawsuit in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, goes to the Supreme Court, as it appears destined to, only then will we see a risky and defining moment that is the most likely route for same-sex marriage to go national. I suppose I’m okay with that, except for the fact that Arnold is somehow connected.

Now, the awesome.

Has any state senator’s vote been more for the right reasons than the four Republican state senators who voted for this same-sex marriage law?

This vote might cost them their jobs. But James Alesi, Mark Grisanti, Roy McDonald, and Stephen Saland are so legit, they don’t care if next time around at the ballot box voters force them to quit. (Thanks for bearing with me on that one.)

These are not exciting guys, not conventionally inspiring… and that’s why they are.

The explanations behind why they voted the way they did are invigorating and instructive. What follows is a survey of their comments:

James Alesi

“I believe very strongly that it is OK to be Republican and embrace equality.”

“I think if a Republican state senator who comes from conservative roots can support marriage equality, and I will be running in the same year as President Obama, President Obama can support marriage equality, and if he doesn’t support marriage equality, then that would be a major disappointment.”

Go for the comments, stay for the bongo drum:

“It’s time for me in my life, when I am given the opportunity, to take the opportunity to vote for something I believe in my heart is right. We don’t get that opportunity very often.”

“This becomes a matter of equality for people, our sons and daughters, [who] deserve the same freedom and the same equality in this great country and in the state of New York that each of every one of us enjoy in our everyday life.”

“I believe that if you live in America and if you expect equality and freedom for yourself, that you have to extend it to other people.”

Mark Grisanti

“I just probably committed political suicide.“

“If I take the Catholic out of me, which is hard to do, then absolutely they should have these rights.”

“It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with my own personal belief.”

“I apologize for those who feel offended. I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Roy McDonald

“You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing. I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. I’m tired of blowhard radio people, blowhard television people, blowhard newspapers. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

“I’m trying to do the right thing. I’m basically a father, a grandfather of two disabled grandsons. You try to be a good person. You try to respect all the arguments and review it. Now we can move on.”

“I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion. I’m not out to hurt some gay guy, gay woman. Live your lifestyle. That’s not my lifestyle, but God bless ‘em — it’s America. Be nice to people, and let’s all just live our lives.”

“I’m not one of these guys that lives and dies, at this age of my life, for politics. I’ve accomplished more than the average guy around here. I’m going to go and see my family when I leave here. I’m going to go, turn around, and if I get out of politics I’ll be a professional like I’ve been in the past. I’ll make money. My grandchildren will have money to help them through the problems they have. I’ll go play golf, see my wife and spend time with my three kids and grandkids.”

“Am I comfortable with my vote? It’s changed. I was raised in a conservative household. Would my parents be OK with my vote? Yes. The only thing they would require of me is do the right thing. Do what you think is appropriate. That’s it.”

“You realize people in circumstances aren’t what you think they’re going to be, and you develop some sensitivity.”

Stephen Saland

“I have, as many people are aware, certainly struggled over this issue. It has been an extremely difficult issue to deal with. But I can say my intellectual and emotional journey has ended here today. And I have to define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality and that equality includes within the definition of marriage.”

“Struggling with my traditionalist view of marriage and my deep rooted values to treat all people with respect and as equals, I believe after much deliberation, I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.”

(He also gives a folksy interview with some local reporters here.)

What these men are saying is it’s not about political life, it’s about real life. And real life matters more.

This is what politics is all about, should be about. Not being political.

They rebuffed the expedience of staying in office. That’s decidedly un-Machiavellian.

All year long in the U.S. Capitol and statehouses around the country, we hear blowhards and blowhardesses talk in circles. They rarely achieve anything of lasting consequence.

Our elected officials hold jobs in which they are essentially exempt from performance metrics in order to stay employed. They can miss votes. They don’t even have to introduce bills. They’re answerable to us only after specific, relatively long intervals.

These can be cushy jobs, if that is what the officeholder desires. This is aside from the fact that it’s hard work to continuously appear as if you are doing something while not actually doing anything. Yes, most officials are busy not solving the problems of the day.

Isn’t the selfish allure of public office supposed to be to exert your power and influence? Most don’t. Paradox.

Yet they like staying in office: they’ll usually do anything to stick around.

This exposition serves to make the risk, action, and defiant morality of these four GOP officials all the more impressive.

They will definitely get invited to more gay weddings than me.

Well, here at Brief Wit, we’ve always been a bit more Gauguin than Gaga. In that spirit, I’d like to turn their meaningless artifice into art. More specifically, poetry. Namely, Japanese poetry.

So, without further ado, I give you the 2012 GOP Presidential Haikus!

Not Running

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi

Boss Hog voice double.
Raise cash and get Hazzard vote.
Uvula transplant?

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas

Heart him, he hearts you!
Needs more time to hawk batshit
revisionism flicks.

Donald Trump

Biggest regret not
comedic, but Cabinet
sans Omarosa.

Running

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House

Louie Anderson
“right-wing social engineer?”
Callista: needs meds?

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota

Have you heard of me?
I’ll be the best lame VP
Have you heard of me?

Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania

Google me to get
to my website. On second
thought, please do not. Ewwww.

Ron Paul, Representative from Texas

Real Tea Party man.
Does he know coffee prevents
prostate cancer now?

Waiting On The Sidelines

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana

Amiable guv
still waiting for a growth spurt
in polling, or height.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts

Douchebag frontrunner,
limits, but secret weapon:
a shit-eating grin.