Amazing Grace

If you did not see or read President Obama’s eulogy for Rev./SC State Sen. Clementa Pinckney on Thursday afternoon, you missed something unique and magnificent. The perspective of the President’s language was very Christian because he himself is very Christian and he was offering a eulogy about a minister, so that’s not surprising. But his tribute was particularly eloquent and filled with messages of basic humanism, the possibility for the evolution of human kindness, historic truth, common sense, and social and political necessity, all of which was entirely appropriate in the context of the eulogy and the time in which we live. If you missed it, I encourage you to click on one of the links above.

The President’s core message was that we are blessed by God with grace – the grace to be good people; people capable of love and forgiveness even in response to the most vile wrong-doing and the most heart wrenching grief; and that if we can learn how to live our lives and view others with a more open heart, anything and everything good is possible. Even if you take God out of that scenario and simply view the capacity for grace as something that is a central part of our DNA which we can choose to cultivate or ignore, the message still rings true and is worthy of contemplation and discussion.

As my regular readers know, I embody a great deal of anger, cynicism, and hardcore judgment about things and circumstances I don’t like. I apply this rancor to all the subjects this blog is primarily about: politics, contemporary culture, new technology, and the ruination of the English language. I try to reveal the sense of humor I have that keeps me relatively sane and has so far prevented me from committing acts of violence. But I’ve also discussed my considerable depression and misery.

Over the past couple of days, I’ve twice watched the President deliver the eulogy and read the text once. Besides increasing my respect and affection for him, I’ve thought a lot about the lack of grace I’ve cultivated within myself and wondered (1) if I have the ability to do so and (2) if even the effort would give me a greater sense of inner peace if not outright love, happiness and joy. I don’t know the answer, but I admit that I fear the process, not because of its difficulty, but because I’ve clung to these feelings like a teddy bear for decades.

Indeed, they remind me of a great Robin Williams scene in Moscow On the Hudson, in which he plays a foreign musician and he’s just jammed with a blues band and is talking to one of the American musicians: “When I was in Russia, I did not love my life, but I loved my misery. You know why? Because it was my misery. I could hold it. I could caress it. I loved my misery. You know, I have a whole family I will never ever see again. You see? Now you see. You know it. There it is. Now you know that the saddest thing in the world is life. Yeah, man. Now you see. Thank you. Thank you for a wonderful night. Boy, I feel great. Take care. I love you.”  “If that was wonderful, what happens when he hits deep depression?” 

The murders in South Carolina filled me with a hopeless sadness and fire-breathing rage. The ability of a number of family members of some of the victims to confront the killer in court and express their grace and forgiveness filled me with humbled awe. The President gave me a whole lot to think about. And the Supreme Court’s affirmation of national marriage equality gave me happy hope – and the sense that enough of the Justices had been blessed with true grace.

I don’t know what the lasting impact of the diverse events and language of the last couple of weeks will be for me – or others. I don’t know how I’ll feel or think or what tone my writing will take, especially as the 300-year campaign of the 2016 election moves glacially along. But whatever people’s different feelings about all this may be, none of us can deny that something extraordinary has happened. And that in itself is amazing.

Contemplating Valentine’s Day

I think it’s fair to say that, generally speaking, men don’t like Valentine’s Day and women do. Men don’t like feeling pressured to be excessively romantic and having to express their emotions, not to mention spending money. Women like it when men are mushy, especially if they usually aren’t, and getting to hear a sometimes-rare “I Love You” is a thing of joy. And we like getting flowers and chocolate; gifts, period. I believe lesbians feel the same as straight women about Valentine's Day, but their relationships are usually more touchy-feely than straight relationships anyway. I can't speak for gay men.

The best Valentine’s present I ever got was a shipment of filet mignons from Omaha Steaks. It felt very sexy to be the kind of woman who inspired a gift of raw meat. His card was restrained, but since we had only been dating for six weeks when Valentine’s Day rolled around, I didn’t mind. I gave him a shirt – pedestrian, I know, but I couldn’t afford a gold cigarette case. My card to him was one with the photo above in which I wrote a correspondingly sexy message inside. Both of us were pleased.

Some people, men and women, straight and gay, reject Valentine’s Day because they view it as a Capitalist conspiracy among the greeting card, flower and candy industries (which, in the business of marketing, would be considered a clever “cross promotion”). I think that’s rather cynical and humorless, even if it’s become true. However, historically, Valentine’s Day dates back to Ancient Rome, 270CE, when an imprisoned priest was martyred by Emperor Claudius II for falling in love with his jailer’s daughter and sending her a letter signed “from your Valentine.” Priests weren't celibate yet, but those old Romans didn't like Christians, so he couldn't win for losing either way.

What is now an annual holiday is also connected to a Roman spring fertility festival and evolved into a Day of Romance by the 14^th Century. Printed Valentine cards made their U.S. debut in the mid-1800s and traditional gifts were already chocolate and flowers, particularly red roses: the Roman symbol of love and beauty. The Valentine’s Day tradition endured and is celebrated in the US, England, Canada, France, Mexico and Australia, among other countries.

Like many women, I enjoy Valentine’s Day when I have a man in my life and don’t when I don’t. I don’t this year, but I’m not feeling bummed out. This country is in such a state of turmoil, division, anger, want, greed, and need (I really think America is having a nervous breakdown) that I welcome anything pleasant and that celebrates love when hate is going around like the flu.

I painfully miss affection and believe the lack of it is truly unhealthy. There was a study many years ago that separated a bunch of babies in an orphanage or hospital or some such into two groups. One group got a lot of holding, fondling, kissing, cuddling, etc. and the other group got none. The untouched group constantly cried and fussed, ate and slept poorly, and were just cranky little miserables all the time. The coddled group was the complete opposite. I don’t think this changes as we grow up, especially when we mature into sexual beings, as well.

And some kind of love and affection is, I believe, markedly important for the aging and elderly. I wouldn’t be surprised if some future study discovered a connection between a lack of affection and the development of severe depression and even Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. I don’t think it takes scientific genius to figure out that when people aren’t touched for extended periods, they literally lose their minds; affection is as basic a need as food, water, clothing, and shelter.

So, this Valentine’s Day, I’m thinking lovely thoughts. I’m remembering how lucky I was to have had a very loving, affectionate mother, and, how sweet it was when I had certain men in my life (others provided the emotional sustenance of a rock). I’m remembering my half-aunt Mildred (long story…) who, after many years of being widowed, had the courage to marry a second time at the age of 66 (and the even greater courage to divorce him at 76). 

I’m happy for everyone I know – and even those I don’t – who are fortunate to have a Valentine, and I wish all of you a happy, loving Valentine's Day. For those of you who don't have a significant other but want one, I hope you find one soon. And because I haven’t given up hope, I’m thinking positively and looking forward to my own next one. This fat lady ain’t singin’ yet.

Conventionally Speaking

I watched all of both the Republican and Democratic Conventions and found both of them informative, fascinating and revealing.  I watched them on C-SPAN so I wouldn’t be harangued by in-the-moment media analysis or irritated with commercials.  Then, over the several nights of both events, I watched analysis on PBS and the Cable Big Three (MSNBC, CNN and FOX).  I no longer pay any attention to the Big Three Broadcast networks that pay nothing to broadcast (and never have) yet still pay no attention to their civic obligations as massive media institutions; screw ‘em, let them play football while Rome burns.

I’m saddened to learn that convention viewership was low and that by and large, Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats each watched their own conventions but not each other’s.  I can only hope the debates will inspire greater and more bipartisan viewership.

And it’s too bad more people didn’t watch, because the differences between the two conventions were stark and very important.

The Republicans were stiff; many of the speakers were more politically self-serving than anything else; the delegation was (as usual) glaringly Caucasian; and the messages were clear.  Barack Obama is the most terrible, dangerous thing to ever happen to America and if Romney/Ryan win, they will undo as much Obama policy as they can and run the country like a corporation.  They made obvious their devotion to Norman Rockwell-like families and marriage; their belief in having as little government as possible doing as little as possible (except where women’s autonomy is concerned, of course); talked endlessly about God and taxes; and showed nothing but contempt for social issues, social programs and the poor – to the very minimal extent they addressed them at all.  They also outright lied about several matters, then afterwards announced they “would not allow this campaign to be controlled by fact-checkers.”  That’s true chutzpah.

In contrast, the Democrats produced a much more lively show.  The music was hotter, the speakers were numerous, diverse, and largely fired up and ready to go.  The delegation was a greatly mixed, cheerful crowd, with many people in outrageously fun get-ups.  But they weren’t there to play.  The primary topic of discourse was the Man of the Hour: Barack Obama.  There was much commentary from speakers about what he’d accomplished (Obamacare, the auto-bailout, ending the war in Iraq, getting bin Laden, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” etc.) and an obvious understanding that much more needs to be done, on the economic front especially.  But as Bill Clinton accurately observed, “No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, could have cleaned up the mess that was left for him in just four years.”

What was most heartening about the Democrats was what I can only describe as their humanity – a sensibility I sure didn’t feel from the let-them-eat-rice & beans GOP.  The Dems talked about community and citizenship and the fact that we’re all in this together.  They emphasized that while government should not be involved in everything, there are good and important things government can and should do.  They repeatedly referenced women’s rights, from pay equity to complete control of our health care, including reproductive freedom.  There were several gay speakers and broad support throughout the hall for GLBT rights, including marriage.  They talked about the fairness of The Dream Act, new energy initiatives, science, climate change and the enormous importance of affordable education and retraining working people whose skills are outdated.  There was assurance that the very young, the elderly, the disabled, and, singularly, returning veterans, would be protected and supported.  The said a “civilized society” looks forward, moves forward, works cooperatively and doesn’t leave anyone hanging out to dry.

Neither party was coy or closed about its values, priorities, positions or beliefs.  They couldn’t be more clear in their differences about who and what they want to serve.  Both parties also had interesting omissions in their statements.  The Republicans in general and Romney in particular said nothing about the Afghanistan War, the troops, or his party’s platform!  The Democrats didn’t mention the Stimulus Package during the president’s first two years.  The Democrats also didn’t say outright that a corporation isn’t a person and a country isn’t a corporation and a president isn’t a CEO and the Cabinet is not a Board of Directors.  The Republicans didn’t say a word about civil service, service, which is what government is about – service and leadership.

I’ve often been upset with Barack Obama over the past few years.  Even allowing for the obstructionism and outright hatred he was faced with from Day One, I thought he was at times too eager to cooperate and compromise with a Disloyal Opposition that was more dedicated to making him a one-term failure than they were in helping the country and its people.  They see the world – and the country – as a business deal.  That’s a very bad thing.

I appreciate that many people have lost faith in the political process entirely, who think that both sides, all sides, are corrupt and dishonest and not worth getting out of bed to vote for.  I don’t deny that political chicanery abounds.  But if you’d seen these two conventions, you would know that the Republicans have officially become right-wing extremists controlled by the Tea Party fringe, and the Democrats, however disjointed and disorganized they are at times, are still the party who cares about everyday people.  To them, the “bottom line” is not the whole story.  So please listen, please watch – and please vote.

Speaking Truth to Stupid: Rape Ignorance and Voter Suppression

Okay, my “strength and fervor” have been replenished since my last post and I feel strongly motivated to comment on two outrageous trends within the Republican Party – policies and practices which, God, common sense, and civic participation willing – will help defeat them at every level come November.  I’m referring specifically to this week’s outrageous allegations by Missouri senatorial contender Todd Akin that rape victims cannot get pregnant from rape, and so no exception is needed in anti-abortion laws (and efforts) to permit rape (and incest) victims to have abortions.  I’m equally appalled and downright terrified by ongoing nationwide Voter Suppression efforts.  It would appear that real freedom is in real trouble in 2012.

In the rape matter, we have another unfathomable example of how Science Ignorance and Religiously Influenced Science can have a devastating impact on legislative efforts to address urgent matters.  It’s in the same scientific class as “climate change is a hoax” and “wind and solar power can’t work because what happens when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?”  This stuff is dangerously dumb.  But the latest attack in the War On Women (which, of course, is just a phony Liberal construct) is a horrendous combination of gross ignorance and stunning insensitivity.

Prior to the 20^th century, Western Medicine actually asserted that when a woman’s uterus was not properly engaged in what it was meant for – incubating a fetus – it literally floated around inside her body, contributing to otherwise unexplainable female melancholia.  Now, Akin and his ilk are reviving a long-held anti-choice belief that in instances of “legitimate” or “forcible” rape (as opposed to fun and welcome rape?), a woman’s body shuts down and prevents pregnancy.  Her “juices don’t flow” and her “tubes tighten,” they say.  Oy, vey! 

Therefore, exceptions to anti-abortion laws must be eliminated, say these cavemen, because willfully fornicating women who get themselves pregnant through pleasure could easily lie about rape or incest.  Anti-abortion proponents aren’t going to let that loophole threaten the Personhood of the Unborn when “science” can “prove” rape doesn’t cause pregnancy.  I guess this will show the approximately 34,000 rape victims annually who get pregnant through rape who’s boss!

Now – instead of science, one of the worst periods in American History – the era of Jim Crow and poll taxes – comes into play in regard to Voter Suppression.  Republicans at both the state and federal levels would have us believe that voter fraud is a huge problem that must be addressed with stringent ID and voting hours laws to ensure that people who are not legitimately entitled to vote cannot be registered and get anywhere near a voting both.

The fact that over the past umpteen years there have been more bungee-jumping accidents than incidents of voter fraud doesn’t enter into this.  Conservatives would have us believe that Voter Fraud is a real and urgent problem – just like seeing the President's college transcripts and a real birth certificate, since the one he provided was obviously a forgery.  Accordingly, Voter Suppression laws are now in effect in 38 states – and they have a direct and purposeful impact on the young, the elderly, Blacks and Hispanics, and the poor of all ages and ethnicities – in other words, people who are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.

It’s not unreasonable to require first-time voters to present some form of identification when they register.  I vaguely recall that when I registered in the early 1970s, I presented a phone bill and my Social Security card – which showed where I lived and that I was on the government grid.  I had no problem then and have had no problem in the 40-odd years since.  Now, many states are asking for birth certificates (which many people no longer have or never had – and getting them, if available, costs time and money) and, more specifically, photo IDs.

In suburban and rural America, most people have a driver’s license.  But in urban areas, that’s often not the case.  Many students have school-issued photo IDs – but in some states, like Texas, a student ID isn’t acceptable; neither are company-issued photo IDs – don’t ask me why.  States are requiring government issued photo IDs – such as passports (most Americans don’t have one), a driver’s license, or a state-issued photo ID that one can get through the Motor Vehicle Bureau whether or not you’re a driver – but this too costs time and money.  Many working and poor people don’t have one or the other or both, nor do they have the means of transportation to get where they need to go for this.

It is sufficiently distressing that half of the country doesn’t even bother to vote, whether or not they have the “appropriate” ID to register.  To make it deliberately difficult, if not impossible, for many people who want to vote to do so is obscene and totally contrary to what this country supposedly stands for.  It is estimated that up to four million Americans could be disenfranchised by these Voter Suppression initiatives.  Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives are up in arms.  Republicans/Conservatives are quietly letting political shenanigans take their course.  After all, if they let everyone vote, there’s a good chance that Batman and Robin will lose to President Obama – and, as they have stated clearly and publicly, beating Obama is their primary objective.

Left to their devious, self-serving devices, Republicans stand a real chance of throwing Roe v Wade, the 1965 Voters Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, environmental protection, any attempts at gun control, the existence and strength of unions, gay rights & marriage, and all support for education, the arts & humanities, and public broadcasting, under the bus.  They say Obama has robbed Americans of their freedom – how and what, they don’t say.  But it’s clear that the Republicans can and will do some serious freedom robbing if we don’t stop them.  Make sure you register and vote – and speak up.  Nothing less than functional Democracy is at stake.

Congratulations, Mr. President

When Pres. Obama announced yesterday that he personally supports gay marriage, there was general joy in the GLBT community, general dismay among the Far Right and Literally Religious everywhere, and very possibly a huge sense of indifference on the part of people with little or no interest in American politics and social issues.  Given that this is an election year and the President is a politician who very much wants to return to the White House next winter, I have no doubt that his decision to make this announcement at this time was somewhat calculated.  Indeed, what seemed to be VP Joe Biden putting his foot in his mouth last week with the same sentiment may in fact have been a political weather balloon intended to gauge public opinion.

But whatever the circumstances, I believe Mr. Obama was sincere in his personal struggle and the viewpoint he ultimately expressed.  And the fact that the President – the first sitting president ever – made this “radical” statement is very important for the millions of Americans who are G, L, B, or T, as well as their family and friends of any and all orientations.  It matters because we’ve all been taken further out of many still-extant closets, and for young gays especially, gives them increased comfort, rather than shame, about who and what they are.

Reliable polls show that over 50% of Americans support gay marriage, which means that nearly 50% do not.  Why not?  I think the answer boils down to a nasty combination of ignorance, status, fear and fundamentalist faith.

Ignorance: because millions of Americans (many of the same folks who don’t believe in Evolution and other science-based ideas) still haven’t gotten the memo that homosexuals are born, not made.  They still view gays as immoral perverts whose real agenda is not civil rights, but “recruiting” people, especially the young, into their fold.  You can no more lure someone into homosexuality than you can “pray the gay away,” but they don’t get it. 

Status: because to some straight people, “marriage” is a term reserved for them and their “traditional” unions, so to give dykes and faggots the same status diminishes their own.  Fear: because lots of people don’t know openly gay people and they’re afraid of what they don’t know.  They’re equally afraid that their own gay children will stop succumbing to intimidation and discrimination and find the courage to openly be themselves.  Fundamen-talist Faith: because Judeo-Christian scripture calls homosexuality an abomination, and they take those ancient scriptures to heart.

There is one anti-gay-marriage demographic, however, that must be viewed a little differently, and that's African-Americans.  For many of them, the reasons of ignorance, fear and faith apply, but there's another component that's not hard to understand.  Black Americans are still recovering from hundreds of years (beginning pre-Slavery) of being deeply oppressed and barely regarded as human.  They see this history as a prime reason that so many black men (past and present) have been socially emasculated.  They don't want to trade "nigger" for "faggot" as the newest slur to overcome.  And there's already considerable resentment that a significant proportion of black men reject black women in favor of women of other races.  For blacks, gay marriage feels threatening to their continued existence and growth as a community stabilized by solid traditional marriages and strong families.  This is not an unreasonable concern, but, blacks will nonetheless have to struggle with this important social change along with everyone else.

In the larger, over-all sense, gay marriage is abhorrent to many in the same way that racial civil rights and women’s rights went against much of the American grain – because they signaled significant change in how America would look and function.  There’s also the matter of a prevalent human instinct to feel superior to someone, and since it’s become “politically incorrect” to feel superior to women (although that’s sure making a comeback) and blacks (although that’s nowhere near over), gays and illegal aliens now bear the brunt.  Hispanics and Asians can’t escape the hate-mobile either, but the “immorals” and the “illegals” are much more acceptable targets – essentially in the same category as terrorists.

I (like many others) wasn’t too pleased that the President made a point of saying that the legality of gay marriage should come under the province of states’ rights – but that’s a matter of law, not personal opinion.  The President’s opinion (as well as his fairly decent policy record regarding GLBT citizens) is strong medicine, even if it’s not a cure for ignorance, status, fear and (simplistic) faith.  It may take a while, even a few more presidential administrations, before GLBTs win the full rights and social acceptance we deserve.  But look at it this way: as recently as the 1960s, homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness and a crime.  Progress takes time – and we should celebrate our victories along the way.