On Tuesday, May 8th, North Carolinians will go to the polls to cast primary votes for US President, NC Governor and a number of other state offices.  Also on that ballot will be a referendum for an amendment to the NC State Constitution, called Amendment One.  The amendment - if it passes - will ban gay marriage in North Carolina.  NC law already prohibits gay marriage, but conservative Republicans in the state want extra insurance against future challenges to that law.  They want to make sure it would be as difficult as possible for NC to change the law and begin allowing gay marriage.

If you want to keep these anti-gay-marriage folks from putting up more barriers to gay marriage, vote AGAINST their amendment.  The language may sound confusing; just remember, vote AGAINST the amendment to vote FOR the people.

• For a pretty unbiased report on what the amendment would do, see this recent WRAL report.
  
• For more information about current public opinion on this issue and the odds of the amendment passing, click here.
• For information about getting involved in the fight for gay marriage in NC, click here.

Apparently the Florida State Attorney for Seminole County is leaving it up to several million of us to try this case.  Don't worry about trying to get out of jury duty on this one though, it's going to be a piece of cake.

We'll have Lawrence O'Donnell as prosecutor, and Michelle Malkin for the defense.  Instead of forensics experts, we get to go with our gut.  Instead of interview transcripts, we get to hear speeches and arguments, which are much less tedious.  Instead of a learned judge deciding what evidence to let in, we can consider Trayvon Martin's school discipline records, and the moving, earnest protestations of one Joe Oliver, a sort-of close friend of the family of the defendant.  Think of it as a riveting episode of Law & Order.  Or CSI.  We're all experts these days anyway, right?  And while the courtroom setting is traditional, it's really bland, and there's no popcorn.

I have a picture of Nathan just like this one.  He is 22 now, and my other son Martin is 25.  They got through their teen years with only a handful of situations made more tense because they are young black men.  But the anguish on the faces of Trayvon Martin's parents chills me.  What happened to their son was one of my worst fears.

Any parent cringes when they hear about the death of a teenager.  We never forget that our kids are all so, so vulnerable.  They are newbies to freedom - they relish it and want to get out and around every minute they can.  But if you have a new driver in the family, you dread news of a crash.  If you have a special needs child, you worry about them being less able to navigate through what might be ordinary events for other kids.  If you have a gay child, you worry about assault.  And believe me, if you have a black child, especially a boy, you know that for some people, even those tasked with protecting your child's safety, they raise suspicion just for walking down the street.

There is much left to unfold in this case.  So many angles, so much we don't know.  If you pick each piece apart, they are all important: police procedures, gun laws, municipal integrity, powerlessness, racism, the question of neighborhood watch, and more.  But one piece that cannot be overlooked is the awareness that young black men in America must constantly have about how they are perceived, and the burden of fear forever carried by their parents.

Abortion is a heartbreak.  A nightmare.  A frightening, painful, sorrowful event.  Nothing is more present in the mind of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy than the concept of potential life.  A sonogram does not present breaking news.  It is the height of presumption to imagine that this procedure would elucidate for a woman that the fetus inside her has a heartbeat.

The callous legislators across the country pushing the new sonogram laws have established by their actions that they understand nothing about the process women go through to make this decision.  And as of now, the decision still belongs to the woman alone.  Abortion is legal.  These guys need to back out of the territory they have wandered into. 

They appear to be under the impression that when a woman gets a positive pregnancy test, she mulls it over for a couple of days and decides it would be inconvenient to have a baby right now, and heads to a clinic to get it out of the way.  This may describe a process that someone, somewhere has gone through, but it is not the norm.  In fact, the legislators show their hand by the very tactic they want to use: in attempting to use an ultrasound to tug on maternal instincts and change a woman's mind, they are conceding that these maternal instincts are there. 

By the time a woman has made her decision, she has gone through an emotional wringer.  Maybe these lawmakers don't know that most women have provided a shoulder to cry on for a friend, sister, niece, daughter, or mother who is trying to make this choice.  Even those women who haven't had to face making their own decision about an unplanned pregnancy can speak with authority.  Pregnant women in crisis reach out to the other women in their lives.  They seek advice.  They talk, they cry, they ask for opinions.  They look for answers and wisdom.  And they seek information.  They go online, they make phone calls, they pray.  They weigh options, and picture scenarios.  There aren't many women who have not confronted the emotional ordeal that is an unplanned pregnancy, either first hand, or through working or volunteering in the field, or through being there for another woman.  Exposure to this kind of trauma, whether personal or empathetic, arises again and again throughout the lifetimes of women. 

So believe us when we tell you that your sonogram is not needed.  When a woman is in the decision-making stage of an unplanned pregnancy, merely walking past baby shoes in a store can be devastating.  And in the end, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is based on the same protective, selfless, maternal instinct that these forced sonograms are meant to manipulate.  Abortion is a dark sacrifice.  It is a conclusion that a woman draws that she, a prospective vessel for new life, cannot reasonably determine that there is a place in the world awaiting that life.  It's an answer to this question: "Can I be the one to usher into the world a nascent human being, to provide it safe passage, and be responsible for it becoming a person; a creature that must then face everything life will give and take?"  Only the woman, the potential vessel, the responsible party, can answer that question.  Only her.

Conservative legislators want to decide for her.  To illuminate their truth to her, to tell her she is missing the part about the heartbeat.  They need to back off.  As long as abortion is legal, they will have to work out their feelings about it for themselves, away from the private space in which a woman confronts her own truth, in her own way.  They are misguided in their attempt to apply mental anguish with this technical procedure.  More anguish is found in the scent of baby powder, in the melancholy day dreams of a mother who knows it is not her time.

It may appear at first glance that this footage is of a (very adorable) young Barack Obama, Harvard Law student, introducing an admired professor to a (very geeky) smiling group of fellow students.  But rest assured, Hannity will reveal that these students are poised for pandemonium.  They fearlessly engage in sit-ins, group hand-holding, and waving big (sort of pathetic, obviously pre-Sharpie) cardboard signs.  Hannity will reveal that this distinguished, rather avuncular professor, Derrick Bell, was a mutinous Black Nationalist-type, bent on upheaval and unrest, unafraid to employ any means necessary to subvert the system and ensure the supremacy of his race.

I'll admit, I'm not sure how Mr. Hannity will pull this off.  Bell's act of revolt at the time of the clip was a plan to take a leave of absence from his tenured position as law professor until such time as the school agreed to offer tenure to a black female.  Yes, he went on one of those infamous "well-then-you-can-just-withhold-my-salary-and-vacation-leave" -type rampages from the 60's.  And honestly, Bell has had a history of working within the system at high levels of academia and prestigious national organizations.  He made a substantial contribution on more fronts than I can name here, both to the intellectual discourse about race, and to practical Civil Rights concerns. 

But if anyone can make this guy - and Barack Obama by association - look like a race-warrior, Sean Hannity can! 

Maybe he can quote some of the inflammatory language from one of Bell's polemical tomes.  For example, his book  Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth, (obviously a handbook on destroying the white devil) is replete with the message of insurrection: 

• “Power in the hands of the reformer is no less potentially corrupting than in the hands of the oppressor.”  (Wait, that sounds like a caution against using any means necessary.  Sean should skip that one.)

Ok, how about this one, from the same book:

• “We live in a system that espouses merit, equality, and a level playing field, but exalts those with wealth, power, and celebrity, however gained."  (Clearly the subtext here is, "Take to the streets!  Tear our cities down!  Burn, baby, burn!")

Maslow's Peak wishes Mr. Hannity luck.  The link is below - if you have time to view this 11:39 minutes of footage before the show tonight, you can make a drinking game out of the distortions.  And remember, the real story is always on FOX.

FRONTLINE:
The Story Behind the Obama Law School Speech Video

As advertisers pulled out of his radio program right and left, Rush Limbaugh was forced to take a humble tone, and---wait, what's this?  No humble tone here; this guy is doubling down!  Never thought I would type these words, but there's just no denying it:  Rush Limbaugh is a genius.

Here is his statement, issued Saturday afternoon:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.  My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Rush, "word choice" is not the problem here.  ("He used a poor choice of words" was the weaselly phrase also clung to by Mitt and Rick when they were forced to weigh in Friday.)  During his rants, Rush actually softened his word choice at one point, saying “OK, so she’s not a slut. She’s ‘round heeled."  The problem isn't phrasing.  It's that he said demeaning, slanderous things about Fluke because of her position on a political issue.  He could have said, "This good lady assuredly removes her knickers and does unspeakable things with gentlemen callers on an all-too-frequent basis.  Otherwise she would undoubtedly refrain from insisting on economic recompense for correlated expenditures."  It would have the same meaning, and it's this defamation that he should be apologizing for.

This guy knows his stuff.  By saying, "I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke," he only concedes that while people who expect insurance to cover contraception are irresponsible sexual libertines, he didn't mean Sandra Fluke was one of them.

My hat is off to Mr. Limbaugh.  He simply turned his apology into an opportunity to restate his position.  I popped the whole statement into Word - it's a total of 192 words.  After I deleted the self-serving recap, 34 remained.  And the redacted version is heartwarming:

"I chose the wrong words. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.  My choice of words was not the best.  I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

In the wake of his intensely offensive blather last week, Rush Limbaugh discovered that while he was talking, his money was walking. 

So far, active Limbaugh sponsors pulling their ads from Limbaugh's radio show include Sleep Train, Select Comfort, and Quicken Loans.  Other companies that have advertised with Limbaugh in the past or were erroneously named as sponsors hastened to correct these errors or distance themselves.  These include Lending Tree, eHarmony, Auto Zone, and Life Quotes.

I'm posting this immediately to clarify where these companies stand, and will add updates as they come in.  For a great overview of the whole Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh story, click on this Politico blog post by Dylan Byers.  Look for my additional commentary on the whole story later this weekend, including a look at the reactions of President Obama and the Republican presidential candidates.