Connect with us

Spilled Milk: I’m A Terrible, Awful Parent

Published

on

This post is the sixteenth in a series of Spilled Milk columns by Emmy Award-winning writer and producer William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood. Spilled Milk, which originates in The Huffington Post, appears on these pages on Saturdays.

Serendipity is defined as the unexpected phenomenon of finding something delightful or valuable when you least expect it.

I love serendipity, especially when the something delightful or valuable is a someone. I met my husband 14 years ago in this magically haphazard way. And shortly after that, another key player in my life.

Years ago Greg, my TV agent, began telling me about Matthew, an old college friend of his from New York. When Matthew came to Los Angeles on business Greg insisted we meet. He thought we’d make a great homo couple. I’m quoting verbatim.

Matthew and I hit it off, but the big homo romance never happened due to coastal issues; I lived in L.A. and Matthew lived in New York. We became great friends instead. Back in New York, Matthew met Byron, who had the good manners to live within walking distance. Byron became Matthew’s boyfriend. About a year after they met Matthew happened to be in L.A. again on business, and my agent-slash-Matthew’s best friend from college Greg threw him party. At that party Matthew introduced me to his new boyfriend’s sister, who lived in Los Angeles but almost didn’t make it to the party that night because she had a cold.

Only she did make it. And that’s how my TV agent Greg’s college friend Matthew’s new boyfriend Byron’s older sister Lily became one of my best friends.

Ever since, Lily and I have met for lunch every Thursday at the 101 Coffee Shop in Hollywood. Thursdays because that’s the only day they offer their spectacular fried chicken special. (Lily and I are both Southern.) We’ve been fried chickening for years now. We don’t see each other anywhere else or on any other day. We only call to cancel, never to confirm.

But if it’s one o’clock on Thursday, I show up at the 101 and there she is.

skitched-20130510-191234

Lily and I have had an easy rapport from the beginning. We can talk about anything and over the years our conversations have run the gamut. How to make a bourbon old-fashioned, choose a cell phone, re-grout tile, find a mechanic. We’ve covered weight loss (mine), crazy neighbors (hers), politics and weight gain (mine). Other topics of discussion have included Lily’s engagement, our parents’ health, and how to plan both cat funerals (mine) and human weddings (first mine, then hers).

But most frequently we discuss my parenting fiascos.

Over the years, with no children of her own to wreck, Lily has become a sounding board for my tales of parental failure, which have become a regular feature of fried chicken Thursdays.

They usually go something like this.

skitched-20130510-191334THE 101 COFFEE SHOP

BILL is sitting in a window booth. A waitress brings his iced tea, just as he ordered it, with four lemons around the rim. He pours six Splendas into the tea and stirs as he flips through the L.A. Weekly. Checks his watch.

A short while later, LILY approaches, wearing pearls as always.

LILY: Hey sweetie! Sorry I’m late.

She leans down, kisses Bill on the cheek.

BILL: You’re always late.

LILY: You’re late sometimes.

BILL: If I’m late it’s because I know you’ll be later.

LILY: (settling into booth) Well, I’m a late person. I just am. How’ve you been?

BILL: (long pause) …I’m such an awful parent.

LILY: (brightening like it’s Christmas) What happened?

BILL: I can’t even say it. It’s too embarrassing.

LILY: Come on, I’m sure it wasn’t that bad.

BILL: It was worse than bad.

LILY: (locking him in a fake-sympathetic gaze as she fingers her pearls) Tell me.

BILL: Okay. Kelly’s been traveling on business for a week.

LILY: That’s stressful. Single parenthood. Go on.

BILL: It’s bath time. The tub is running.

LILY: Oooo, I remember from babysitting. Kids are a nightmare at bath time.

BILL: I had to pee.

LILY: Of course you did. The tub was running.

BILL: So James runs in and starts yanking on my shirt – as I’m peeing — and sobbing that his sister told him The Velveteen Rabbit was stupid.

LILY: What?! The Velveteen Rabbit is not stupid!

BILL: That’s what I told him. Then Elizabeth barrels into the bathroom and tattles that James found the leftover Halloween candy I hid in the garage and ate twelve Milky Way Minis after supper.

LILY: Shifting the onus.

BILL: Which he denies even though there are globs of caramel stuck to his teeth.

LILY: Lying.

BILL: Then Elizabeth says he tried to buy her silence by bribing her with five Milky Way Minis.

LILY: Blackmail. Are you still peeing?

BILL: Can you believe it? Yes, I’m peeing through all of this. So over my shoulder I tell Elizabeth to please give me some privacy, but not before asking if she ate the Milky Way Minis…

LILY: …and she says no.

BILL: Then James starts to scream “Yes you did! Yes you did!” And she shoots back, “No I didn’t! I didnot, Daddy!” Which makes him scream louder. “Yes you DID! She’s LYING, Daddy! And she made me give her all my candy-corn pumpkins! I want my candy corn pumpkins!” I finally can’t take it anymore and yell, “STOP IT!”

LILY: But they didn’t.

BILL: Of course they didn’t. Elizabeth kicked it up a notch. “You don’t even like candy-corn pumpkins!” Then James, who’s totally hopped up on sugar, bursts into tears, “Yes I do! And The Velveteen Rabbit is not stupid! Tell her, Daddy, it’s not stupid!!”

LILY: Well, he’s right.

BILL: And that’s when I just… (hanging his head) lost it.

LILY: (leaning in, eyes widening, hungry for it) How? How did you lose it?

BILL: I started jumping up and down. On the bathroom floor. Like I’m on a pogo stick. Screaming “STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!” At the top of my lungs. Up and down, beating my fists against my sides. All of a sudden I’m the youngest child in the room. I’m a toddler. 200 pounds of toddler id, out of control, screaming, “JUST STOP IT!… STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!”

LILY: Tell me you’re not still peeing.

BILL: No, that’s done. I don’t think you can pee and jump. It’s a biological failsafe. I’m just yelling now. Jumping and yelling, “STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!”

LILY: What did they do?

BILL: They stopped it.

LILY: So it worked.

BILL: That’s not the point. I mean, yeah, it worked. Because they were traumatized. They just kind of stood there staring up at me, like anybody would who’s just seen a yelling insane person who thinks he’s a pogo stick. I’m such an awful parent.

LILY: You’re not an awful parent. Kelly wasn’t there to help, it was the end of the day, your kids were jacked up on sugar, you were peeing and you got overwhelmed. It’s completely understandable. They’ll get over it.

BILL: Don’t try to make excuses for me. I lost control as a parent. At bath time.

LILY: Did they drown?

BILL: No.

LILY: See? It could have been a lot worse. If you truly were an awful parent they’d have drowned. Didn’t your parents ever lose it at bath time?

BILL: They never did the pogo stick.

LILY: Okay, fine… After the bath time incident, when James and Elizabeth were ready for bed did they still want you to tuck them in?

BILL: Yes.

LILY: Did you cuddle with them?

BILL: We always cuddle.

LILY: Did you read to them?

BILL: Not The Velveteen Rabbit.

LILY: Did they tell you they hate you?

BILL: No.

LILY: Have they ever told you they hate you?

BILL: Yes.

LILY: Then they’re normal. Did you feed them this morning?

BILL: Of course I fed them.

LILY: Did you get them dressed and pack their lunches and drive them to school?

BILL: Yes.

LILY: Did they mention what happened?

BILL: You can’t mention a memory you’ve already repressed. Stop trying to make me feel better. I was a pogo stick, Lily. I’m not kidding. It’s like I was spring-loaded. Picture Tigger from Winnie-the-Pooh. With rage issues. I almost smashed my head against the ceiling. And it’s a really high ceiling.

And then it starts. Lily begins to dissolve into giggles. Soon she can’t breathe. She’s clutching herself and falling against the edge of the booth.

I just stare at her. “Why is that funny? I couldn’t hold it together with my children. I’m a horrible, awful parent.”

This makes her spew her lemonade across the table.

LILY: (now laughing so hard she’s gasping for air) Show me! Show me how you were jumping up and down. Do the pogo stick. Get out of the booth and do it!
BILL: Why is this so funny to you???

There are many reasons I love Lily, but this odd gift she has for being able to diffuse my rants and make my flaws seem life-sized ranks near the top. She listens as I confess mistakes I’m certain will scar my children and instead of being mortified, giggles.

Then spews lemonade. Making me feel less awful. Every Thursday.

What better definition of friendship can there be? In those few minutes each week Lily lets me see my goofs through her eyes as the flawed little human comedies they are. She assures me I’m not an awful parent. Just a normal one, an imperfect fool like all the rest, doing his best with two little pistols who call him Dad.

But I have a feeling Lily’s perspective may be shifting soon. Serendipity recently dropped someone new into her life.

A baby.

skitched-20130510-191450
 

* * * * *

 

* * * * *
William Lucas Walker is an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer whose television credits include Frasier, Will & Grace and Roseanne. He co-created the critically-acclaimed Showtime comedy The Chris Isaak Show. Bill and his husband Kelly are the parents of Elizabeth and James, born in 2001 and 2005. The children were gratified by the legal marriage of their parents in 2008, an event that rescued them from a life of ruinous bastardry.

Spilled Milk chronicles Bill’s misadventures in Daddyland. The first recurring humor column by a gay parent to appear in a mainstream American publication, Spilled Milk has regularly landed on the front page of The Huffington Post.

Follow William Lucas Walker on Twitter: @WmLucasWalker, @SpilledMilkWLW or Facebook: “Spilled Milk” by William Lucas Walker.       

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.