Karl Rove really is creepy.

Last week Karl Rove tweeted a frowny face at me.

There are ten words I never thought I would write. It was not entirely undeserved as I had earlier tweeted that his use of emoticons was creepy and perhaps he did not need any further help in that department.

click here for actual tweet

His response? The frowny face emoticon.

click here for actual tweet

OK, so that is pretty funny. But it is also pretty creepy. Tens of thousands of people follow this guy on Twitter. 92,722 the last time I checked, but President Obama just formally greeted the Emperor of Japan so he may have just picked up another thousand or two. He is the Josh Lyman of the Republican Party so why does he give a rat’s fart if I take issue with his syntax?

I have several theories on this:
A) He wants to show he is just a “regular guy” that can joke with funny “folks” like me.
B) He really did take it personally because he is a neurotic freak that constantly checks and scrutinizes every tweet that mentions his name (which I can only imagine to be a considerable number)
C) His response was the simplest way to alert his people to my presence so they can do his dirty work for him – which they kinda’ did.

click here for actual tweet

click here for actual tweet

Schadenfreude makes me wants to believe it is “B”, but most likely it’s “A”, or an option that I have not even considered. And, of course, whether or not responses such as these were anticipated by Mr. Rove, we’ll never know, but it all certainly proves one point: The internet is fun!

click here for actual tweet

But, c’mon, seriously? A grown man of certain note, highly respected in some circles, should not be using cute little winkies and smiley faces. I don’t care who he votes for. And the fact that their use is in the casual world of Twitter is no goddamn excuse either.

So on to my other point, which I also believe this small exchange proves: Twitter is not irrelevant. After all, the Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President has just learned firsthand (not through the filter of some news outlet but directly from the source) that I think he’s a creepy jackass.

And isn’t that a beautiful thing?

Dear California: WTF? Love, Iowa

There have been times in my life when I have been called naïve. My ego always takes a hit when these remarks surface. Maybe it’s because of my own prejudice that infers certain foolishness at the notion of naiveté. And let’s be frank, we all know I can be a cynical bitch when I want to be especially since with age I’ve become far more comfortable than I should when speaking my mind. Besides, how naïve can a girl be when her favorite word is “fuck”?

So as I watch the events surrounding Prop 8 in California, I have to force myself to stop and wonder, “Is my shock and outrage a further product of my own unacknowledged naiveté”? How can it be, when it seems so obvious to me, that California, of all states, continues to support legislation that restricts the rights of its citizens?

In our society, isn’t government, as an agent of the people, supposed to work as protector of our rights? Yet, here, with Prop 8, government is being used to restrict the rights of certain individuals, based on the prejudices of other individuals. Those who attempt to brush off the weight of yesterday’s decision by reducing the debate to the “nomenclature” of marriage, strike me as being far more naïve than I. If this debate were simply a discussion of semantics, would there be protests in the streets?

The CA Supreme Court has ruled that a gay couple can have all of the rights and privileges equal to that of “constitutionally based incidents of marriage” but not actually have rights to the word itself. Instead, they have reserved “the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law.” So, I guess their next call should be to Webster’s and the folks over at the OED? Also, isn’t the use of a word an unalienable right protected under the 1^st Amendment? Has the State of California just violated the US Constitution by denying an entire group of citizens to the use of a single word?

Going back to my original concern, regarding my naiveté, I suppose it’s true. I can’t possibly imagine that there are so many people out there that unwilling to accept how wrong they are. But maybe I am woefully arrogant, not naïve. I just can’t get past the fact that, at least on this subject, I’m right, and everyone else is wrong. Gay people are not a threat to the institution of marriage or family or anything other than bad taste. Harvey Milk won his battles by the simple premise that when you know gay people it is that much harder to discriminate against them. So then how is it possible that people of California continue to discriminate against their neighbors? How is it possible that people of Iowa, with a far smaller gay community to be sure, don’t discriminate?

I could go on forever about the religious arguments and implications this decision holds but for me, this should not be about religion or my faith. This is about my fellow citizens, people who come in all different shapes, colors and creeds, and how we have instructed our government to see us. The legislative, judicial and executive branches are agents of the people. And though we at times think that these branches act independently from our will, they do not. Currently, the State of California sees the gay community as a group not qualified for the word “marriage” and the love implicit in its meaning. I think otherwise and hope the good people of California, as well as the rest of the good ‘ole USA, will learn this lesson sooner rather than later.

Here’s a thought: Maybe the recent Prop 8 issue will be taken to the US Supreme Court where it will be struck down in a ground-breaking decision that effectively legalizes gay marriage on a Federal level. Or I am being too naïve?