Now What?

I watched British mysteries on PBS until 11:00 last night, because I didn’t want to see election returns until there was more certainty about the results. When I finally clicked onto MSNBC, everyone was talking so fast and so much was flashing quickly on and off the screen that it took me a few minutes to understand what was going on – but it didn’t take too long. Democrats had been creamed from coast to coast. There were renewed and additional Republican Governors; more Republicans in the House with an increase in Tea Party crazies; and indeed, the Republicans had taken over the Senate.

Today, those of us who were listening heard Mitch McConnell (by political necessity) and President Obama (by leadership responsibility) talk about working together more productively on issues about which they can find some measure of common ground – chiefly immigration reform, infrastructure repair, and foreign trade (according to the President). But neither of these leopards has changed his ideological spots. McConnell is no friend of the common (wo)man or liberal ideals, and the President is still firm on general health care, the funding of the “Big 3” benefit programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and environmental realities – including, of course, climate change.

I’ve also been watching political analysis throughout the day and there seems to be general agreement that there will be less gridlock and more actual governance than the Republicans have allowed over the past six years; that the Republicans successfully communicated the idea that the nation’s ills were the President’s fault and managed to avoid addressing real issues at all; and that the Democrats shot themselves in their fractured, disconnected feet by not unifying behind the President’s considerable achievements. It was also felt that those Americans who voted, as well as those who didn’t, were both expressing their anger with what has become the dysfunctional status quo.

What politicians in both parties will do from hereon in remains to be seen. But what can we, as citizens, do to influence their actions? I didn’t hear/read any discussion of this, which I find both peculiar and unfortunate. Because in the final analysis, all politicians want votes. They spend huge amounts of money to get votes and accept that money from some very questionable characters. Ironically and importantly, many, if not most, Americans are not political junkies. Many Democrats campaigned on the dangers of Big Money in politics, in particular the bedeviled influence of the Koch Brothers. Apparently most people don’t know who they are or care. And many people don’t connect the dots between their own hard times and Big Money, its key reactionary donors, and the ever-increasing wealth of the 1% (there are now twice as many billionaires as there were before the 2008 crash).

Indeed, virtually all of the pundits I heard today agreed that what most people care about is that they’re increasingly broke; unemployed or under-employed; can’t handle their debt, especially education debt; and fear for their future and their children’s future. In other words, most people are concerned with their own lives and don’t see how their own circumstances fit into the larger, total picture. I hate to imagine that most people are that stupid, that narrow in their perspective, but nothing else explains 2/3 of eligible voters not voting, and the 1/3 that did largely casting their lot with the party that the President doesn’t belong to, because they believe Daddy President should make things better for them and he hasn’t so he’s a bad Daddy President. As the radicals I hung out with in my 20s used to say, “Gimme a break, gimme a gun.” 

If I thought a well conceived and efficiently organized Liberal Revolution were possible, I’d advocate for one. Alas, I don’t think it is, so I don’t. Instead, under the heading “Now What?” I advocate the following: (1) pay closer attention to the news, get your news from more than one source, and start connecting the dots (2) write to everyone in your political world: Mayor, City Council President, State Senator & Assembly-person, U.S. Congress-person & Senators, and the President. Tell them what issues you care about, both the ones that affect you directly and the rest that you recognize affect us all as a nation and as citizens of the world, and (3) remember that democracy is a living, breathing thing made up of all of us thinking critically and participating in the political process. Use the next two years to get ready and in 2016 be fully aware of what’s what and what’s right and vote accordingly. It’s the only real shot we’ve got.

Good News…Bad News

I was, of course, delighted and relieved that President Obama was re-elected and the Democrats maintain the majority in the Senate.  I’m wary but hopeful that Republicans, at least some, recognize the major changes in American demographics and attitudes and understand that if their party is to remain viable, they have no choice but to reject the far-right-as-you-can-go fringe and move more to a workable center in order to actually help run the country – which they can now do, since they failed to achieve their primary objective: making Barack Obama a one-term president.  I was also very pleased that both marriage equality and the decriminalization of marijuana made strides in a few states.  All of this is good news.

But, now that the nation has managed to suffer through this seemingly-endless campaign, there is a considerable amount of bad news to contemplate and correct  – and some of it isn’t “news,” just situations, some fairly recent and others that have been with us for quite a long time.

Let’s begin with the length and cost of this election: two years and $4.2 billion.  The rest of the Democratic World (yes, Virginia, there are over 170 democratic countries) manage to hold elections in just six months to a year.  Why can’t we?  They also manage to not spend billions of dollars or euros or whatever currency they use, and the funds raised aren’t largely comprised of “dark money” (unidentified individual and corporate donors) in massive Super Pacs.  These two situations alone hugely undermine the truth/reality of our democracy, let alone its ability to function.  The fact that more than half the country didn’t vote at all is directly tied to these two factors.

The lack of voting can also be attributed to political cynicism and fatigue on the part of the citizenry; the inability of the two parties to agree on facts – which are different from opinions and perceived solutions to problems big and small; the willingness of both parties to fight dirty and outright lie; the hugely disparate methods of voting, from registration to voting to counting the votes; the outrageously blatant voter suppression that went on during this election cycle; the distinction of “important, battleground states” that make many people in and outside those states feel that their votes are meaningless; and, most of all, the existence of the long-outmoded Electoral College.  These issues pose a valid question: given these factors, why should anyone feel obliged to take an active interest in politics, let alone leave the comfort of home to go out and vote?

Last but most assuredly not least is the media – from daily television news coverage to the “debates” to coverage of the results on Election Day.  Let me take these issues in reverse order.

When I was a kid and then a young voter, there was such a thing as “No electioneering near the polls.”  You couldn’t even enter a voting station wearing a political button.  Then, the three major broadcast TV networks (which was all we had) didn’t begin coverage of the results until the West Coast had largely closed its polls.  These practices were designed to not influence voters on Election Day itself and they were sacrosanct.

In this day and age, however, we have 24/7 news channels: three majors (Left, Right and Center) and a few minors.  Their Election Day coverage began at the crack of dawn on Tuesday, which amounts to electronic electioneering near the polls.  This isn’t good; this isn’t right.  We also have legitimate news sources as well as blogs and social media on the (relatively) new-fangled Internet, which operates on its own 24/7 spectrum in the space-time continuum and is governed and controlled by nothing and nobody.  Sounds great in theory, but a lot of Internet power is in the hands of irresponsible, disreputable and self-serving persons and groups.  What can be done about this?  Lastly, we have polls and pundits.  Polls and pundits are nothing new, but we now have a monumental number of them, some of them credible, others not.  Combined, they contribute to the divisiveness and dullness of political information, not to mention a serious blurring of factual news and both informed and uninformed opinion.

As a result of all this, we have daily news coverage that can frequently rot the brain the way sugar causes cavities.  News outlets spend more time on gaffes,  scandals, taking things out of context, and on the political horserace than they do on major issues.  Right now, before President Obama has even been re-inaugurated, much of the media are speculating about the horse races of 2014 and 2016.  This does not help politics or elections seem meaningful; it’s like sport for news/political junkies.  I totally ignore major/minor league athletics because they bore and annoy me.  With this kind of political coverage, why should many citizens feel differently about politics?  Then there are the debates the media moderate and broadcast.  These might be helpful if they truly covered all the important issues of the day.  But they don’t.  They’re rigid, limited and vary in format in a way that does nothing to help bring issues to the fore.  Is this any way to run a railroad?

If indeed America is to remain a democracy and if we’re going to continue to have elections big and small that actually mean something, then we must (no ifs, ands or buts) reform election law from financing to process.  And if we’re going to continue to have 24-hour news cycles (and that’s not likely to change) on TV and online, modern journalism must honestly re-assess its strengths and weaknesses and how they use their time.  Currently, public television (which those who apparently don’t watch it seem to think consists largely of children’s programming; so not true!) and C-SPAN are the only outlets I’m aware of that routinely produce and air a diversity of documentaries and panel discussions on major political issues, both fiscal and social, on a regular, ongoing basis.

So, while I’m glad my guy won, I’m definitely not a happy camper about the dysfunction of political contests and the media that cover them.  Once we manage to not fall off the fiscal cliff that is currently of serious concern, I hope our leaders and our media will make the time to examine and clean up their acts.

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.

What Is It With Conservatives and Sex?

This past week’s sexually-related political news has left me, as usual, with my mouth agape and my head spinning.  I am increasingly astonished, appalled and frightened by the sexual Puritanism that increasingly spans the American political landscape.  The Conservative desire to “take their country back,” presumably back to 1952, refuses to acknowledge that 60 years and a sexual revolution have passed.  That’s the fact, Jack, like it or not.

I’m referring specifically to the (thankfully thwarted) politically-motivated decision by the breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, to withdraw their longstanding support of Planned Parenthood.  They bought into the lie that Planned Parenthood is “the nation’s largest abortion mill.”

Komen didn’t want to jeopardize their mainstream support from abortion opponents who feel about breast cancer the same way they feel about children with cleft lips in poor countries and battered kittens everywhere.  Truth is, only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity is performing abortions; the rest is devoted to all other women’s health needs, especially breast health and making contraception readily available.  Their core clientele is poor and working class women.

The other assaults du week on women’s health, freedom and day-to-day survival came, of course, from the Greek Chorus of Republican Presidential contenders, including Mitt Romney’s dismissal of the very poor (predominantly women and children), Newt Gingrich’s assertion that America “has always been a bible-based country,” and Rick Santorum’s assorted invectives against abortion (which he claimed is linked to breast cancer; not true), homosexuality, and contraception, because the last enables sinful activity, also known as sex, by unmarried and married “fornicators.”

The scientific ignorance, prudery, social obliviousness, and presumption that personal sexual activity is of legitimate governmental concern, is frightening – as well as an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberty.  But the media feed into it as if it were nothing more than a Hollywood “scandal” to have a giggle over, and the public…well, the largely-politically-disengaged public either doesn’t know or care that there is a dangerous social movement in our midst.

I understand fiscal conservatism.  I don’t agree with it or think it’s in the nation’s best interest – but it isn’t insane, it’s just a particular belief about how to manage taxpayer funds.  It’s up to taxpayers (citizens!) to tell government through votes, petitions and other recourse, what they do and don’t want their money spent on, and we don’t vote or speak out anywhere near enough.

What I don’t understand is social conservatism, which is deeply rooted in Fundamental Christianity and focuses on the sanctity of The Family and the Evils of Sin (also known as human sexuality).  They believe that the only appropriate sexuality is heterosexuality between monogamous, legally married couples for the sole purpose of reproduction.  All and any other sexual activity on the part of consenting adults is sinful.

If these ideas were simply the moral foundation upon which some people choose to live their lives, there would be no problem.  I’ve often said that the best pro-choice slogan I’ve ever heard is: “If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one.”

The problem – and it’s a very big and important problem – is that social conservatives, the same people who say government should stay out of people’s personal lives – want to legislate their definition of morality and outlaw everyone else’s.  And anyone who opposes them is either a fascist or a socialist, but in either case, a degenerate sinner.  Give me a fucking break.  Literally.

Attention liberals, libertarians and all free-thinkers: have sex freakily and frequently.  It’s not just your right – it’s your civic responsibility!

Playing the Race Card

Last night, a friend who lives in the boondocks of a middle-American state, a peace-loving woman with hardly a harsh thought in her heart, told me she had to firmly resist hitting someone upside the head, because she saw a bumper sticker on a car that made her see red.  It showed a [normal] picture of Obama and read: Don’t Re-Nig in 2012.

It took her a while to fully digest what “re-nig” was clearly meant to imply, because she just couldn’t believe what she was seeing.  “I wanted to wait for the owner of the car to come back from wherever they were, but they’re all armed out here, and I was afraid.”  Not chicken, just sensible, particularly in a place where more people have gun racks in their cars than baby seats.  But it sure was a reminder that race (as in racist) was a player in 2008 and is rearing its hooded head again in 2012.

In fairness, many people genuinely dislike and distrust Barack Obama, because they truly believe he’s a Socialist (primarily in reaction to what they like to call ObamaCare), a tax loving/blood sucking Democrat who wants to steal from the middle class and redistribute to the poor, and the man who nearly bankrupted the nation by bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry.

There are many who strongly object to his pro-choice position on abortion (baby killer!) and his acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage (even though Mr. Obama has made clear he supports same-sex unions, not marriage, but so what: he supports sodomy!).

There are also those who think he’s arrogant, anti-Semitic and just plain unqualified for the job.  And there are those of us on the Left who, while understanding what he’s been up against since taking office, still feel very betrayed by his Republican Light behavior in a futile attempt to foster bipartisan cooperation in Washington.

That said, I can’t help but feel that lots of people are resisting seeing – or at least talking about – the obvious element of racism in at least a considerable portion of the Far Right’s disrespect of America’s first black president.  While I was somewhat shocked by the bumper sticker my friend saw, it was only somewhat, because I’ve had no doubt that racism is the 600-lb. gorilla in the political room that nobody wants to acknowledge.

Many folks feel it would be counter productive.  I disagree.  I think one of the big mistakes the President has made is not bringing up the issue of race since his splendid speech on the subject during the 2008 campaign.  Contrary to some popular belief, just because we have a black president does not mean that racism in America is a thing of the past; indeed, this achievement has only brought the reality of racism closer to the surface – but not any closer to meaningful discussion.

I told my friend that, in a way, I was glad the racist messages were starting to come out, because it shows what an important role racism plays in the country’s resistance/refusal to accept the President’s legitimacy.  The birther craziness, the claims that Mr. Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim not an American-born Christian, the sneering attitude towards his background as a community organizer, the inability to understand the First Lady’s apparently unforgivable statement in 2008 that for the first time she felt proud of her country (!!!), and, just last week, Rush Limbaugh calling Mrs. Obama “uppity,” are all intertwined with racist sentiment.

The presence of Herman Cain among the current Republican presidential hopefuls is supposed to demonstrate that the Right doesn’t object to black people per se; as Conservative poster girl Ann Coulter observed, “Liberals can’t stand that our blacks are better than their blacks.”  (You can’t make up shit like that.)

But the simple racist reality is that even if Cain wasn’t a know-nothing blowhard and an alleged sexual harasser, there is no way that both major parties would put up a black candidate.  Many white people’s heads would explode from coast to coast.  And the fact that Cain doesn’t seem to know (or at least acknowledge) this racist reality adds another level of political naivety to his other idiocy that completely boggles the mind.

Anyway, I did an extensive Internet search for the “re-nig” bumper sticker and couldn’t find it.  Perhaps it was a custom job; a number of the Web sites that sell hundreds of anti-Obama bumper stickers (and T-shirts, mugs, etc.)  give customers a chance to write their own messages.  But I did find the following bumper stickers, available individually for very reasonable prices and at bargain basement rates in bulk:

Obama To Tax Aspirin – It’s White And It Works!

Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For The White Guy
If He Wins, Can We Still Call It The White House?
Obama Loves America Like O.J. Loved Nicole

Hey Obama, Yo Mama!

King Had A Dream, We Have A Nightmare

Big Brotha Is Watching Us

Obama: White Guilt 2012

High Five For Failure

If You Get Close Enough to Obama’s Ears, You Can Hear
     The Ocean

No Mo’Bama

Give Tiger A Break, Obama Is Screwing 
     The Whole Country

I’m Not Racist, I Hate His White Half, Too

Obama’s Chillin’ While The Oil’s Spillin’

Welcome To Economic Slavery

Don’t Tax Me, Bro

We Shall Overcome [with Obama’s “O”
     logo as both letter Os]

Rush Is Right

I’m Not Racist, I Don’t Like Biden, Either

Mo’ Drama Bama.

The photo above is my personal favorite of the racist visuals available; others include the always-popular Obama as a monkey, Obama in caricature with huge lips and ears, and of course, Obama as Hitler (and Mao, and Marx, etc.), Obama as the devil, and, in a bow to the Democratic Party as a whole, Obama as a donkey.

We on the Left would do well to start including race in our political conversation, not as a way of dismissing the President’s shortcomings or his opponents fiscal and “moral” objections, but in order to demonstrate how unbalanced and ignorant and personal so much anti-Obama feeling is.

It’s a reminder that no matter how disappointed we are about how he handled his first term, he must have a nothing-to-lose second term, in which he will, hopefully, live up to the Right’s greatest fears and our greatest hopes.  We can't afford to permit Teabag Republican heartlessness, self-righteousness and ignorance to take hold.  If it does…Lawdy, Lawdy, what we gonna do?

Old Modern Man

I miss George Carlin terribly.  I think of him often.  I wonder what he would have said about our sick, wacky times.  Carlin was never a political comedian in the sense that he commented on politics and politicians; he thought it was all bullshit and that voting was pointless.  But he certainly spoke knowingly and critically of our age, always being funny and usually wise and eloquent, as well.  I miss him because his honesty and intelligence, as well as his humor, comforted me, acknowledged me, justified me.  George made me feel proud to be an outsider because he was King of the Outsiders and he made that pretty cool.

I got to interview George Carlin twice, both times by phone.  The first time was when I worked for HBO and one of his specials was coming up.  The second time was when I did some freelance work for the producers/ creators of Shining Time Station / Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends and George was the lovable Mr. Conductor.

Carlin, especially in his post-heart attack years, was reputed to be difficult to deal with (for producers, suits and such, which was probably true) and no easier to interview.  But on both occasions, which were about five years apart, he was pleasant and easy-going; willing to answer any question I put to him; and generous with his time.  Maybe it was because I wasn’t a journalist but instead just a p.r. hack trying to do her job; Carlin always respected ordinary working folks.  I think it was because he was just a decent guy who sometimes gave greedy or bossy or nervy people a hard time.  After all, he was George Carlin.

If George were here now, he’d probably be quietly, maybe anonymously, sending food and blankets to assorted Occupy Wall Street sites.  He would be talking about the legitimacy of gay marriage, tax and income inequality and the danger wrought by the Religious Right’s slow, steady, disciplined 30-year-climb from minor local politics to the less-than-hallowed-halls of Congress, the Court and the White House.  He would be angry, brainy and funny as ever.  And he would be a sane voice in crazy times.

A couple of hours ago, I saw a re-run of the Mark Twain Prize ceremony that honored George Carlin a few months after his death at the age of 71 in June, 2008.  It ended with Carlin’s complete performance of his magnificent routine, “A Modern Man.”  Whether you recall it fondly or never heard it, I present it here for your enjoyment and edification:

“I’m a modern man, digital and smoke-free; a man for the millennium.  A diversified, multi-cultural, post-modern deconstructionist; politically, anatomically and ecologically incorrect.  I’ve been uplinked and downloaded, I’ve been inputted and outsourced.  I know the upside of downsizing, I know the downside of upgrading.  I’m a high-tech low-life.  A cutting-edge, state-of-the-art, bi-coastal multi-tasker, and I can give you a gigabyte in a nanosecond.  I’m new-wave, but I’m old-school; and my inner child is outward-bound.  I’m a hot-wired, heat-seeking, warm-hearted cool customer; voice-activated and bio-degradable.  I interface with my database; my database is in cyberspace; so I’m interactive, I’m hyperactive, and from time to time I’m radioactive.

“Behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, ridin’ the wave, dodgin’ the bullet, pushin’ the envelope.  I’m on point, on task, on message, and off drugs.  I’ve got no need for coke and speed; I’ve got no urge to binge and purge.  I’m in the moment, on the edge, over the top, but under the radar.  A high-concept, low-profile, medium-range ballistic missionary.  A street-wise smart bomb.  A top-gun bottom-feeder.  I wear power ties, I tell power lies, I take power naps, I run victory laps.  I’m a totally ongoing, big-foot, slam-dunk rainmaker with a pro-active outreach.  A raging workaholic, a working rageaholic; out of rehab and in denial.  I’ve got a personal trainer, a personal shopper, a personal assistant, and a personal agenda.

“You can't shut me up; you can't dumb me down.  ‘Cause I’m tireless, and I’m wireless.  I’m an alpha-male on beta-blockers.  I’m a non-believer, I’m an over-achiever;  laid-back and fashion-forward.  Up-front, down-home; low-rent, high-maintenance.  I’m super-sized, long-lasting, high-definition, fast-acting, oven-ready and built to last.  A hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case; prematurely post-traumatic, and I have a love child who sends me hate-mail.

“But I’m feeling, I’m caring, I’m healing, I’m sharing.  A supportive, bonding, nurturing primary-care giver.  My output is down, but my income is up.  I take a short position on the long bond, and my revenue stream has its own cash flow.  I read junk mail, I eat junk food, I buy junk bonds, I watch trash sports.  I’m gender-specific, capital-intensive, user-friendly and lactose-intolerant.

“I like rough sex; I like tough love.  I use the f-word in my e-mail.  And the software on my hard drive is hard-core—no soft porn.  I bought a microwave at a mini-mall.  I bought a mini-van at a mega-store.  I eat fast food in the slow lane. I’m toll-free, bite-size, ready-to-wear, and I come in all sizes.  A fully equipped, factory-authorized, hospital-tested, clinically proven, scientifically formulated medical miracle.

“I’ve been pre-washed, pre-cooked, pre-heated, pre-screened, pre-approved, pre-packaged, post-dated, freeze-dried, double-wrapped and vacuum-packed.  And I have unlimited broadband capacity.  I’m a rude dude, but I’m the real deal.  Lean and mean.  Cocked, locked and ready to rock; rough, tough and hard to bluff.  I take it slow, I go with the flow; I ride with the tide, I’ve got glide in my stride.  Drivin’ and movin’, sailin’ and spinnin’; jivin’ and groovin, wailin’ and winnin’.  I don’t snooze, so I don’t lose.  I keep the pedal to the metal and the rubber on the road.  I party hearty, and lunchtime is crunch time.  I’m hangin’ in, there ain’t no doubt; and I’m hangin tough.  Over and out.”

What’s in a Word?

Since the passage of gay marriage in New York State last week, I’ve been talking to friends about their reactions. Gay and straight, some people are delighted, others seem disinterested, particularly straight people who think it’s fine but it really doesn’t have anything to do with them (and are therefore not thinking of the rights issues and political implications of the matter that affect us all).

One straight woman said she’s very happy and proud of New York and cited, along with the fairness of the law, the many ways that the state/cities can benefit financially. I agree. This will be a boon to wedding-related retail goods, services and tourism (honey-moons!), which is a great side benefit of something that needed to happen for completely other reasons.

Another friend said the greatest importance is that gay couples will now have all the legal rights and privileges (and shared problems) that married straight couples have, from health care coverage, to hospital visiting and living will decisions to greater child adoption and custody rights, etc., et al. These and other practical key issues will continue to be highlighted as the fight for marriage equality continues.

The two responses that interested me the most – and which have been a large part of the marriage equality debate since it began – were the liberal woman and conservative man who both said they were fine with gay couples having the rights of marriage, but they don’t like that it is called marriage. They feel “the union of a man and a woman is the definition of marriage” argument is inviolable, he on religious grounds, she on the grounds of tradition and proper English usage. And apparently the state of Rhode Island agrees, because yesterday it legalized “civil unions” for “same-sex couples,” not gay marriage.

Although I’m an Interfaith minister, I have no religious issue with the use of the word marriage, and as a prescriptive language maven (which I wrote about extensively a few posts back), it doesn’t bother me either; published definitions of marriage of course describe it as a union between a man and a woman, because until very recently (and hardly entirely even now), gay people were not considered normal, healthy, equal persons and their relationships were not considered legal, even valid, in most places.

Using the word marriage – and the word gay – is vitally important. From a civil/human rights standpoint, as well as a legal definition, the word marriage is what makes the committed relationships of gay people equally legitimate as the committed relationships of straight people. It sends important messages: love is love, commitment is commitment, and families take many forms, no matter what combination of two persons the marriage is comprised of.

Emotionally, being two wives or two husbands is very different from referring to each other as “spouse” or “[life]-partner.” Those words have none of the romance of husband, wife (or marriage), and they fail to convey genuine intimacy and betrothed alliance between two people. Not using the word marriage makes the relationship seem lesser-than [straight marriages]. If you’re a straight, married (or even divorced) person, think about how it first felt to call someone husband or wife, to describe yourself as married. Wasn’t there a special sense of warmth, connection, and status, that came with that? Isn’t there still at least a semblance of that, even if you’ve been married for a long time?

I believe the root of the objection to the word “marriage” for gay couples is largely religious, rather than linguistic. While I believe in the importance of the stability and consistency of language in the main, I also appreciate that great social change, such as civil rights and feminism, have brought new words into the lexicon and altered others, and when that happens for such major reasons, I think language is improved, rather than degraded.

But more than religion or language, I think the idea of “gay marriage” is very new, very uncomfortable, very alien to lots of straight people – who have never met a gay person (to their knowledge). Many of them equate gay with the most outlandish participants they see in gay pride parades. Some still don’t believe people are born gay; and they certainly don’t believe that gay relationships are equal to straight ones. To them, gay marriage is an oxymoron and a cheapening of their “real” marriages. I know my two friends who dislike the use of the word marriage don’t fall into this category of less sophisticated people, but I think many do, only it’s become politically incorrect to express such ideas (which is why political correctness is such a pain in the ass and should be the antithesis of progressive thought – but that’s another post…).

The continuing fight for gay marriage is essential. But so is giving all Americans a chance to knowingly interact with gay people so they can see that gays are not freaks to be scorned or feared. And the only way that’s going to happen is if more and more people come out of the closet – to family, friends, people on the job, folks in church, the other guys on the bowling team, the other gals in the quilting and book clubs – just plain everybody everywhere. And invite these straight people to your gay weddings. Every little bit helps.

Why Gay Marriage Matters

June is Gay Pride Month and on Sunday, June 26^th, the annual Gay Pride Parade will wend its way down Fifth Avenue to Christopher Street in the Village. For many young and middle-aged gays and lesbians, this is a familiar rite of Spring; they know gay people haven’t yet achieved full human and civil rights, but in their experience, gays have visibility and a considerable measure of legitimacy.

Anyone 60 or older can remember when being gay was a dirty, dangerous secret; when being exposed as gay could destroy your career or separate you from your family forever; when gay people were called the “twilight people,” because they only came out at night, seeking connection in Mafia-run bars or sordid gathering spots, such as “The Trucks” in NYC’s not-yet-trendy meat packing district, or the secluded “Rambles” in Central Park.

As I write this, my head swimming with many youthful memories ranging from the sad to the bittersweet to the exuberant, the New York State Senate is one mature vote away from legalizing gay marriage – or, as it’s becoming known, “same-sex” marriage, because there are still a lot of people who can’t croak out the word gay. Call it what they will, it is vitally important, because it will bring gay and lesbian “twilight people” a giant step closer to living in the full light of day.

PBS is broadcasting at least two wonderful gay documentaries this month (in place of some of the old war horses we’ve been watching for more than 30 years): American Experience: Stonewall Uprising and Out in America, both of which do an excellent and artful job of summarizing the misery of gay life before the gay rights movement came of age and rage on June 27, 1969, and what has happened since.

In brief: prior to that early summer night, the vast majority of gays and lesbians lived lonely, desperate lives in which lying and hiding were the norm. Homosexuality was illegal and the American Psychiatric Association defined it as a mental illness (a form of psychosis). Gay bars were routinely raided and patrons arrested and often brutalized by law enforcement.

Often, families would have their [teen/adult] gay children confined in mental institutions, where they were generally subjected to aversion/shock therapy and even lobotomies. Military purges of gay service people were common and usually ended in dishonorable discharge. It was assumed that homosexuality was a depraved lifestyle choice and it was the Dark Ages for millions of men and women in 20^th century America (before that and elsewhere, it was even worse.)

Gay people were deprived not only of their human rights but also of their right to be human: to have a positive sense of self, to love and be loved, to have family and community and the protection of law, to live in the full light of day. And if, despite these impediments, gays and lesbians were able to form committed, lasting relationships, they were denied the opportunity to announce, celebrate and affirm their love in the time-honored covenant of marriage. The gay rights movement has come a very long way. It still has a way to go – but in New York State, right now, there is the very real possibility of legal gay marriage. Halleluiah!

As we know all too well, there are those who oppose gay marriage. They say it’s a “threat” to the American family. They say it’s an abomination before God. They say that marriage is sacred – and that it is only meant for a union between a man and a woman. If pressed, many of these same people will tell you that homosexuality is at best a sin, and at worst a depraved… lifestyle choice. They don’t believe people are born gay – and even if they are, gay marriage is a bad thing, especially for children, who might, as a result, get the idea that being gay is okay. (Note to kids: being gay is okay.)

To those people who are guided by conservative, religious values, homosexuality will never be regarded as healthy and normal, and gay marriage will always be unacceptable. However, since this is still (ostensibly) a secular country, individual religious views need not be considered. All that the law has to recognize is that gay people can be respectable, responsible, law-abiding citizens, and their committed relationships are as legitimate as straight relationships.

This has been amply demonstrated throughout the land. Indeed, gay marriage reinforces the institution of family; gays and lesbians have a special appreciation for marriage and family precisely because it has been denied them so long. Given the 50% divorce rate among straight couples, gay marriage could emerge as a significant stabilizing social influence. (Wouldn’t that be a kick…?)

So, here’s to a Happy Gay Pride Day, one and all, an occasion which will be made all the more joyous if the New York State Senate does the right thing and makes gay marriage legal now. It’s time.