In Case You Missed It

Language says a lot. The words you chose, the way you say them, and the things you don't say are all equally powerful tools of getting your message across. As I watched the Vice Presidential election recently, certain moments sent alarm bells off in my mind, but they went by so fast, I had to slow down and go back to a transcript of the evening to be sure I understood what had happened and why my spider-sense was tingling. Senator Harris and Vice President Pence are both excellent debaters, good at choosing their words and responding in the moment to further their agenda. It was actually Vice President Pence's skills as a speaker that, by the end of the night, concerned me the most. Where Trump frequently comes across as a bull in a China shop, Pence is more like a vine invading your garden--appearing harmless and normal until it has wound around and choked the very plants you're trying to grow. 

In case you missed it, here are some of the key moments of revelation for me. 

1. Pence undermined a fair election in the country he is Vice President of:

Before completely dodging the question about how he and Trump would handle losing the election and agreeing to a peaceful transition of power, and going on a tirade of insidious lies to suggest the election and Democrats shouldn't be trusted, (44:55-47:08) Pence said something even more subtle but no less powerful:

"if somehow you win this election" (28:03)

The word "somehow" is not necessary in this phrase, it's added here to suggest that them winning would be remarkable or unbelievable. This is no doubt keeping in-step with Trump's statement that Biden would only win if the election were rigged. 

Rewind to where we were at this time 4 years ago, when Trump was trailing in the polls, the Access Hollywood tape had come out, and no one (including Trump, if you believe sources) actually believed Trump would win, and perhaps this comment--if said by Secretary Clinton--could go without much scrutiny. But this is an absurd statement to make to an opponent who is consistently leading in the polls and has every reason to believe they have an equal, if not better, shot at winning. The term is overused a lot these days, but honestly, it's gaslighting, and it's setting up a false reality where the only "legitimate" election results are those favoring Trump. For the sitting Vice President to do that in his own country is, at best, a scary political play, and at worst, a gross abuse of his office to undermine our democracy. 

2. Outside of the debate, Senator Harris is rarely shown the same deference that Vice President Pence is:

Susan Page: (12:42)

I’m sorry. Kamala Harris, Senator Harris, I mean, I’m sorry.

Kamala Harris: (12:46)

That’s fine, I’m Kamala.

Susan Page: (12:47)

No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me.

Why did this moment stand out to me? Because outside of the debate, so many people are comfortable referring to Senator Harris as "Kamala" but you never hear them talking about "Mike." Turns out, I'm not the only one who noticed this. According to one study of doctors, women are far less likely to be introduced as "Doctor So-and-So" by their male colleagues, and since their male colleagues are more numerous than their female colleagues, that means a lot fewer times they're referred to by title. This may seem like a small thing to you, but in the last election when everyone talked about "Crooked Hillary" instead of, say "Secretary Clinton" it gave them license to ignore an extremely impressive list of credentials and qualifications for the role of President. In this debate, VP Pence very rarely made that mistake, and stuck to referring to her as Senator, which I appreciated. When speaking off the cuff, though, he didn't remember his well-trained manners as much, saying:

"it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC when she submitted it in the Senate."

I believe he was referring to Congressperson (or Congresswoman) Ocasio-Cortez. I got the impression that he was referring to Senator Harris as "Senator" less out of respect for her office, and more out of a training that said he should convey more esteem than he feels, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. The rest of the media should take note. 

3. Vice President Pence Interrupts...a lot.

Pence interrupted Harris twice as much as she did him, and he frequently needed to be told to give her the uninterrupted time that he had just enjoyed. He also plowed over his time and the moderator of the debate with almost every question - even when he was not answering the question. Over the course of the debate, I observed Senator Harris doing this more often, but it was clearly an attempt to vie for equal time with what Vice President Pence was taking. She finished her answers more succinctly in the beginning. 

4. The candidates dodged what they didn't want to answer, and the moderator let them

Here are the questions that the candidates basically didn't answer in any direct or meaningful way when posed by the moderator:

Pence didn't answer:

• Why is the US death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country?
  
• If Roe V Wade is overturned, what would you want Indiana to do? Would you want your home state to ban all abortions? 
  
• How would your administration protect Americans with preexisting conditions to have access to affordable insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down?
  
• If vice president Biden is declared the winner and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what would be your role and responsibility as vice president? What would you personally do?

Both didn't answer:

• Have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should?
• How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies? (though both did discuss China, neither really answered this)

(There were no moderator-posed questions that Senator Harris alone completely dodged)

5. Vice President Pence would be bad at a game of telephone

We've all played the game as kids where someone says something, and then the next person has to repeat it. Of course, I'm being disingenuous here, because Vice President Pence doesn't accidentally misrepresent what Senator Harris says, he willfully twists it, counting on people to hear him say it. Any woman who has probably had the experience of saying something, having it ignored, and then hearing a man repeat just what she said...and having that listened to. Plenty of articles confirm that this isn't just happening in women's heads. What's dangerous here in the debate is that VP Pence is intentionally misrepresenting what Senator Harris says, and he can count on his gender to carry his version of what happened further with listeners. I had to go back to the transcript to see what actually happened. Here is one example:

Harris says: Whatever the vice president is claiming the administration has done, clearly, it hasn’t worked. When you’re looking at over 210,000 dead bodies in our country, American lives that have been lost, families that are grieving that loss, and the vice president is the head of the task force and knew on January 28th, how serious this was. And then, thanks to Bob Woodward, we learned that they knew about it. And then when that was exposed, the vice president said, when asked, “Well, why didn’t you all tell anybody?” He said, “Because the president wanted people to remain calm.”

Pence says:  But when you say what the American people have done over these last eight months, hasn’t worked, that’s a great disservice to the sacrifices the American people have made-

We have one more debate to go in this whole ordeal, and you can believe, I'll be listening very closely. 

Me, too.

There is a girl I used to be.

She is fearless, she is brave. She is silly and fun. She loves men, and isn’t afraid of them. She loves sex, and isn’t afraid of enjoying it. She has a voice, she’s strong and outspoken, and doesn’t take your crap, thank you very much.

A teacher in high school tried to take that voice from her. She told that girl that she wasn’t talented, wasn’t worth the effort, wasn’t kind, or considerate, or deserving, but really, the girl was all those things. And although that teacher’s voice still rang in her ears, she persisted. She followed that talent.

And in her 8th week at college in her freshman year, the voice was silenced. It wasn’t silenced by a man, although he was there. The girl ran away, and hid, and stopped talking. She said she “wasn’t sure,” but she didn’t say “no”...and then she couldn’t say “no.” She watched, but she didn’t speak up. Any sound, any sound at all would have made it all go away, and she was silent. Inside her head, she was screaming. He didn’t notice her silence or stillness, he didn’t hear the screaming in her head. And then she was gone.

And I hate her for leaving me that night under that man. I hate what that means about myself. She went away that night and she’s never come back. My whole life since then, I have tried to find her. Sometimes I imitate her. I’ve created a version of me that’s based a little bit on her, an homage to the original. But the fact is, that night, in that dorm room, I was changed forever.

A therapist once told me about a patient she had that orgasmed during her rape. I understand how betrayed by herself she must have felt. As sick as it is to say out loud, I sometimes envy women who feel that they can blame their rapists, only because I so often fall to blaming myself. It took me 3 years to even call it “rape.” I still struggle with it, worried that someone will catch me on a technicality, will try to argue that something valuable wasn’t actually taken from me, that I gave it up, and so that somehow means I’m not missing it at all.

Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if that girl had found her voice and stayed. What my relationships would be like. My marriage. My career. What kind of a mother would I be? What would it feel like to not be afraid? What would it feel like to trust myself? What if I had never had an STD, or felt broken? What if I hadn’t spent years after that incident trying to reclaim that part of me that I lost? What if I had just stayed whole?

I once got professional feedback that I “said ‘no’ too much.” What those men I worked for couldn’t understand is how very hard it can be to say ‘no’, especially for a woman saying it to a man who has power over you. They didn’t see how much bravery it took to say ‘no’ to them (two of them hit on me later, they didn’t like when I said ‘no’ then, either).  I have spent my life shouting ‘no’ into my past, hearing the word echo in my head, not hearing it in my own voice. I can’t say it to him, so I say it to myself, and by doing so, I deny myself so many things I want.

Here’s the thing: I didn’t have to say “no,” because the absence of “no” is not “yes.”

So to hell with him for wanting sex more than consent and to hell with you if you think that’s not rape. No person deserves to live their life with this much self-loathing for doing nothing wrong. I may never find that girl again but I hope she knows I love her even though she left me, and the woman I am is learning to love herself every day.

5 Things Opera Fans Need To Keep in Mind Amidst the Super Bowl Buzz

A friend of mine recently shared this article purporting the 5 things you need to know about opera before the Super Bowl. The author suggests that because Renee Fleming is singing, people should educate themselves about her genre. I found the article to be very similar to a lot of articles about opera that get passed around on Facebook by fellow opera singers and lovers. It's largely self-serving (look how educated we are! Look how old our art form is! But it's relevant too!) and not actually beneficial to people who don't know or appreciate opera. Honestly, I think to presume that there's anything you have to know before encountering opera would do more to turn someone off from opera than to make someone embrace it. So, my two responses:

1 Thing You Need to Know About Opera Before the Super Bowl

Absolutely Nothing. Enjoy Ms. Fleming's performance!

5 Things Opera Fans Need to Remember Amidst the Super Bowl Buzz

1. Ms. Fleming Will Not Be Singing Opera

She is singing the National Anthem. If she were to bust out with a bit of Rusalka, that would be one thing (not to mention, awesome), but she's not. She may or may not chose to sing it in an operatic style, since this is a diva who loves to dabble in other genres. Either way, it's our National Anthem, not opera.

2. People Are Not Converted to New Genres at the Super Bowl

Remember in 2010 when Carrie Underwood sang the National Anthem and you were like "OMG, I have to start listening to more Country music NOW!!!!"?   No?  Neither do I...and I already liked country music. 

3. Most People Probably Won't Care And/Or Remember Who Sings the National Anthem

Since the commercials are a crucial part of the Super Bowl experience, lots of people will be using this moment of patriotism to run to the bathroom before the game starts. Other people will forget as soon as it's over. If you can name the last 3 people who have sung the National Anthem without looking it up on Wikipedia first, you're better than I am. This is nothing to take away from Ms. Fleming's moment in the spotlight; she'll still have a multi-million person audience and I'm sure she'll do fantastically, but people will move on, and so will she.

4. No One Cares How Trained You Are, Nor Should They Have To

Honestly, if I hear one more opera singer taut how many languages we speak or how many years of training we've had, I might throw up.  Stop trying to make people appreciate you and don't confuse appreciation with love. I loved the Beach Boys' music long before I appreciated how tight their vocal harmonies were. I loved swing music long before I appreciated its origins, and I loved watching figure skating on TV long before I realized just how early in the morning figure skaters had to wake up to get the ice to themselves. Appreciation usually comes after love, and to try and force it may get in the way of people falling in love at all. Which leads me to...

5. Opera Can Defend Itself

Opera is beautiful. It's interesting, it's passionate, and it's capable of expressing the whole range of human emotion. It has lasted as an art form for 400 years because it's GOOD, not because people parade out its virtues in lectures.  One of my favorite examples of this is in The Shawshank Redemption when Andy Dufresne uses the PA system to blast the letter-writing duet from the Marriage of Figaro across the prison yard. It's a gorgeous moment, and I've seen moments like this in real life when kids encounter opera for the first time. There's this sense of wonder and connection and it doesn't require any knowledge at all. A good opera moment can blow you away no matter who you are or how much you know about opera. So singers, please, a little less defending, a little more with the blowing away.

The Diamond

Have I ever told you about the story of the diamond in my engagement ring?  It's really quite a story.  Andrew's Great-Grandmother was a worker in the diamond mines in the area we would now call the Ukraine. "Worker," of course, is a generous term for what was essentially slavery.  The story goes that Great-Grandma wasn't about to live her life in servitude, so she stole three diamonds and escaped.  One diamond she sold to buy her passage to America and a few other personal belongings. The other two diamonds have been passed down through the family ever since. One went to Andrew's uncle, and one to Andrew's father.

Because these diamonds aren't exactly "legal," they lack the id tag that any diamond you would buy nowadays would be laser-cut into it. The one that went to Andrew's father had an old-fashioned rose cut, one that's not used (or even legal) these days because it can hide imperfections (which is advantageous for a diamond that, though hand-selected, wasn't exactly scrutinized before she took it). Andrew's father gave it to Andrew's mother when he proposed, and even after they divorced, she kept the ring on the condition that when Andrew was ready to marry, he would get the diamond.

This is the story as I know it. I may have half the facts wrong (the story changes with each re-telling) but it's the story that is why I find this particular diamond to be irreplaceable. Its history has spanned generations and continents, it has been destined for the love of Andrew's life since he was still in his cradle.

When he and I were dating, we stopped into a jewelry shop in our neighborhood at the time and looked at rings. It was a family-owned shop, and as we perused various styles, one of the sisters who owned the shop was keeping notes about all the things I liked and didn't like. When Andrew came back, weeks later, with his diamond in-hand, he and she designed a ring around it based on everything they knew about me.

On a warm summer's evening on June 8, 2007, Andrew proposed and slipped the ring onto my finger for the first time. We were in a spot looking out over the NY harbor and the lighting wasn't very good, so I didn't even really see the ring until moments later when we had moved into better lighting.

It was perfect in every way.

I've proudly worn the ring ever since, with the diamond and its history becoming a part of me, and I a part of its history. At first I was terrified--what if something happened to it? What if I lost it or damaged it or it was stolen from me?  Our jeweler assured me that the safest place for the diamond is on my finger, and that's where it has been for the last six-and-a-half years. I can't wear jewelry when I sleep, so each night, I would give the ring to Andrew for safe-keeping, and each morning, he would give the ring back to me. It's a little tradition that I cherish, just as over the years I've cherished the ring, and the diamond, more and more.

Tonight, while we were sitting on the couch, just before we were going to go to bed, I looked down at my hand and saw a hole where the diamond is supposed to be. We tore apart the apartment, called the bar where I was certain I had seen it last, and even traced my entire route home from the subway. Perhaps it is somewhere in the West 4th station, or down a drain from when I washed my hands, or kicked to the side of the road like a broken piece of glass. I don't know where my diamond is, but it is not with me, and it is not on my finger. And I'm only just starting to accept the possibility that I will never see it again. I am crushed. We may buy a new diamond, but this one can never be replaced.

Apologies 101

I have come to the conclusion that a lame apology is worse than not apologizing at all.  I'm not saying that you have to drop to your knees and beg for forgiveness every time you bump someone in the subway, but when you've done something wrong or hurt someone, even if you didn't mean to, a bad apology actually can make the situation worse by furthering the person's belief that you are not being considerate of their feelings or aware of what you're doing wrong. Like a lame handshake, it can take a neutral impression and make it terrible, but when you're apologizing, the stakes are probably higher. So before we get to a good apology, let's define a bad one.


A bad apology does any or all of the following:

• Puts the blame on the injured person. "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said" or "I'm sorry you didn't realize what I meant."  Do you see what that apology is actually saying? "I'm sorry you were too emotional or stupid to understand my intentions..."  It doesn't actually take responsibility for what I did wrong, and it continues to blame the person who may be injured. Imagine if it were something else instead of words and emotions we were talking about.  Would you ever say to someone "I'm sorry you were in the way of my moving car" or "I'm sorry you didn't see in time that I was about to stab you with that knife?" Of course not.  
• Negates itself. "I'm sorry, but..."  The second you say "but" in a sentence, you essentially negate everything you've just said. Many people use this segue as a chance to continue the argument while also getting to claim that they apologized, following that "but" with everything they've just been doing or saying, or with lame excuses. "I'm sorry, but I really didn't mean...."
• Demands a return. "I'm sorry for X, and you should be sorry for Y." Think of an apology as a gift. Sure, I may HOPE to get an apology in return, and I may need to hear one at some point later on, but this apology is about what I did to you, and if I am truly sincere, I am sorry and that's the end of this chapter. (This is also far more likely to get an apology in return, it may just take some time).
• Shifts the emotional damage back to the apologizer. "I'm so sorry I'm such a terrible, stupid person and a monster and I deserve to die for what I did to you and I never do anything right..." By forcing you to go into pity mode for me, I'm not actually taking the time to deal with your pain and suffering which I had caused. Now I'm requiring you to say "no, you're not those things" and I'm imposing my own feelings of regret onto you. Not cool. I'm also exaggerating to the point where I'm either making myself or your feelings seem ridiculous, so I'm not conveying to you that I understand just how much damage I actually did.

Ok, so now that we've identified some bad apologies, let's examine what a good apology is.  

A good apology includes ALL of the following pieces:

1. Acknowledgement of what I did and how it was wrong. "I'm sorry that I said {what I said}. It was a hurtful thing to say to you and I shouldn't have let myself get carried away in the moment"
2. Expression of your own regret. "I didn't mean it and I'm very sorry that I hurt your feelings by saying it. I never mean to hurt you, even when I'm angry."
3. Steps for resolution. "How can I make it better?" Or, if you know what you'd like to do, "I'm going to make sure this doesn't happen again by..."

All three pieces are absolutely required for a serious apology. You can mix up the order, you can buy flowers or donate to charity, but if you didn't include all three pieces, you're not done.  A good apology is appropriate and proportional to the damage you've done as well. If you made a little mistake (bump someone in the subway) "Oh, I'm sorry I bumped you, let me give you more room" is fine. If you forgot your child's birthday, I'm not saying you HAVE to buy a pony but something bigger is required.

Now on to my next lesson, how to avoid being a dumb-ass in the first place. I'm still working on that one so all advice is welcome!

At Long Last, My Gay Marriage Debate Post

I've written this post in my head probably fifty times.  Over the years, I've debated and commiserated with friends on the subject of gay marriage, and I've listened much, much more to other people discussing it. Here is my conclusion:

There is not a single logical reason I have yet heard to be against gay marriage in America.

I have found it impossible to apply a purely logical argument to this issue and come out against gay marriage. Here is what I've been hearing, and my thoughts:

"Marriage is a church institution, not a civic one"
That may be true...in some other country.  In America, we are discussing the LEGAL ability to marry which is, by definition, a civic issue.  For example, I am married legally and am recognized as married by both legal and religious entities.  I can check "married" on every form I have to fill out, including my taxes.  I have never, since being married, had the status of my marriage questioned by anyone. I did not get married in a church or by a religious official, so by this argument, I shouldn't be married at all.  What people who say this really mean is that they would like to use their religion as the basis for the rest of their views in this debate. Once you take that away from them by establishing that you are, in fact, discussing a legal status in a country which allows for a plurality of religions without being tied to one, they are unable to quote the bible at you or talk about God's great design, which really hurts many of their other arguments. Another often misleading argument along this vein is that if gay marriage is legalized, churches which oppose gay marriage will be "forced" to perform these marriages. This is also not true. Because of the separation of church and state, churches cannot be forced to perform religious rites for anyone that they don't want to.

"Gay marriage will deteriorate the sanctity of marriage in this country"
 Ignoring the word "sanctity," which is addressed above, this argument always makes me laugh because I have never seen the people who picket against gay marriage picketing against, say, Las Vegas wedding chapels. I have yet to hear, throughout the entire gay marriage debate, a single news story about "Defense of Marriage" folks introducing a bill to require a waiting period to get a marriage license, for example, or to modify divorce laws.  It seems that these folks think heterosexuals should be free to treat marriage as whatever they want, but gay people should respect its "sanctity." (I acknowledge that there are MANY people out there trying to support stronger marriage by offering counseling and pre-marriage training for couples, and I think you're doing a great job!)
For a full earfull of the state of heterosexual marriage in our country today, take a listen to Bruno Mars' song "Marry You" which includes such choice, respectful lines as "shots of Patron and [the wedding's] on, girl" and "if we wake up and you wanna break up that's cool."  To date, the passing of pro- or anti-gay marriage laws have yet to have a single effect on my heterosexual marriage. I feel neither more secure in my marriage nor less secure because my next door neighbors may or may not have the right to marry.  Respect for marriage is something you have to teach people at the individual level, you can't legislate respect.

"Marriage is about having children"
When I applied for my marriage license, I was not asked by the county courthouse if I planned to have children. I also did not have to subject myself to any fertility testing to make sure I could.  This argument actually makes me feel bad for all the people who, for whatever reason, are married and are physically unable, financially insecure, or do not have any desire to have children. Do the people who argue this point plan to force all of those groups to adopt? I haven't seen that legislation yet, so I'm guessing they don't really mean it.

"I'm not ok with homosexuals marrying, but I'm ok with Civil Unions."
Interesting attempt at a middle-ground.  Why are you ok with one but not the other? Is it for the reasons above? Do you not feel that civil unions are your own attempt at a "separate but equal" state, and did we not already establish in 1954 with Brown v Board of Education, that "separate but equal" is not, in fact, equal? Again, I'll use my own marriage as an example. I am married, but I did not go to a church and the ceremony was performed by a justice of the peace. How is this different than your idea of a civil union? Are you going to make me say that I was "civil unioned" just because you don't like that I got married by a JP?  When you meet a couple and someone says "let me introduce my wife" do you question them on their marriage ceremony before you acknowledge that they are, in fact, married and not in a civil union? This seems terribly pedantic and I can't imagine many people in society being willing to submit to such questioning in casual conversation.


But, my dear, pro-gay marriage friends, I have a bone to pick with you, too. You are also guilty of dragging the debate into realms which are not germane to the discussion of gay marriage. Here's my least favorite of all:


"It's about love. And allowing people to love whomever they want"
No, it's not. You are perfectly capable of being in love with whomever you want, hell, you can even be in love with whatever you want. Love is a feeling, you see, and not a legally recognized state, and certainly is not subject to any jurisdiction. We are discussing the legal state of marriage and the accompanying legal privileges that flow from it.  The fact is, people marry for a lot of reasons. Sure, love is one of them, and it has certainly been put on a pedestal in our modern American society, but people also marry for money, security, because their parents told them to, to get a green card, to raise their social profile, to throw a big party, to gain status, to stop being lonely, to get lots of presents, etc. etc. You don't have to prove that you're in love to get married, and I don't know how you would go about that if you did. 

To say that marriage is about love is also to say that as soon as you don't feel like you're in love anymore, you shouldn't still be married. I blame this logic for breaking up as many marriages as infidelity. I don't know any couples that have passed the 10 year mark that would say they always felt in love. Other emotions kick in when love occasionally takes a break. They feel loyalty, or respect, or something else entirely, and they work through it until they feel the love again (or don't).


I'm happy to continue to discuss this issue with anyone who wishes to leave calm and rational comments. I'm particularly interested to hear other arguments against gay marriage that I might have missed, or other things that drive you crazy about either side's arguments.  What do you think?

It Pays to Ask

I'm in the midst of an experiment which came about when I simultaneously set out to improve my finances and decorate my apartment--two of the most seemingly-contrary goals known to the modern world.  The experiment is simple: when I go to buy something, I ask if I can have a discount.   Like so many simple ideas, this is so basic I feel absolutely revolutionary by trying it and like a bona fide genius when it succeeds.

So far, every time I've asked, I've gotten some kind of discount or add-on (like free shipping or a bonus item). EVERY. TIME.  My list of discounted items so far includes a photo scanner, a Christmas tree (unfair, I know. They expect you to haggle and if you don't--well, you should), a headboard for my bed, Christmas ornaments, a chandelier, and other gifts I'll be giving on Christmas morning. It has worked at national chains, local merchants, and street corner sales.  I don't expect this 100% level of success to continue after the holidays, but I have learned that more often than I would have imagined, the only thing that stands between me paying full price and getting a discount is my willingness to ask. I'm happy to share my tactics so far so you can try an experiment of your own.

Basic Rules of the Asking Experiment:

• You have to ask - Don't expect people to give you a discount when you come perfectly willing to pay full price, even if they have a stand-by discount they're prepared to offer. Whatever the army may be doing these days, "don't ask, don't tell" is definitely still going strong when it comes to retail discounts.
• You have to ask nicely - People will help you if you give them a reason to help you.  Making their life easier is a great reason for them to help you.  I'm always extremely polite when I ask for a discount, I use the person's name if I can, and I start with a willingness to take "no" for an answer.
• Take no for an answer the second time - Lots of times people who are actually empowered to offer you a discount will say no at first.  Politely and kindly ask again.  Examples I've said recently include "sure, I totally understand that you can't match Amazon's price, but even a 10% discount would make it worthwhile for me to walk out of the store with it today" or "oh, that's a shame.  Are you sure? I really want it but it's such a stretch on what I budgeted." Both times the initial "no" turned into a "yes."  If it hadn't, I wouldn't have pushed again.

More Advanced Asking/Haggling Tactics:

• Have a bad cop...somewhere else - I learned this one from my dad and it works like a charm.  He was buying a couch and told the salesperson that, although his wife and decorator liked this other couch (clipping of less-expensive couch at Macy's in-hand), he REALLY liked this couch he was sitting on, but he couldn't come home paying more for a couch his wife and decorator didn't approve of.  Now, anyone who's met my mom knows that she is only capable of being an intimidating bad cop when she is not present, and that's just the point.
• Do your research - Sometimes you can have good reason to ask for a discount, like if you've seen something similar somewhere else at a different price or if you know the quality of what you're buying doesn't measure up to its pricetag.  If you're shopping retail and not using the Amazon app to scan barcodes and find prices, you're missing out.
• Walk away - Walk away from the item you think you want.  Whether it shows the person that you're serious about wanting/needing that discount or it just gives you time over night to think "do I really want this thing?" it's a strong move for negotiating and ultimately a good way to distance yourself from things you many not really want to buy.  You should have seen the price my mother-in-law got for her car after she took it home for a weekend-long test drive and returned it on Monday without buying it. The salesperson couldn't believe it.

I'm still in the beginning of this experiment so let me know if you have any other tips & tricks.