I haven't felt the need for this space in a long time, but I have a feeling it will become ever more important to me in the next four years. I am still sorting out the feelings of depression, disappointment, fear, and anger that are all jumbled together in my heart today. Below are my initial thoughts in the hours following the 2016 Presidential Election. I reserve the right to expand upon them later...or not. This is just how I cope with devastation: I write.
I cannot find any words to say to Donald Trump or his supporters that are anything more than the vitriolic, divisive verbal diarrhea that they've been spewing since the beginning of the campaign. So, to them, I say nothing for now. While that sort of behavior is, apparently, effective in winning elections now, that is not the kind of person I want to be or plan to become. I resolve for myself, to go high.
When George W. Bush was elected in 2004, I had just begun studying at Douglass College, an all women's college. I didn't fully understand the importance of a women's college at the time and, actually, I may only be understanding its importance right now. I had begun college assuming I'd become a communications/journalism major, but that year and that election changed my path. I studied political science instead, with a particular interest in political theory.
After the 2004 election, as students and young Americans, we were so hurt and disheartened. We felt like our country was turning its back on us. We felt scared. (Sound about right?) But it inspired some of us to learn about the system we have, learn about our options, and become active and informed citizens. We elected Barack Obama. That former despair, eventually, brought about the most historic presidency in American history to this point.
Therefore, the silver lining I see in the aftermath of the 2016 election is that, with any luck, it will inspire another generation of people to educate themselves and become passionate about something other than themselves. Perhaps we became complacent during a time of relative stability, but that time is clearly over.
So, for those among us who agree that diplomacy, patience, and intelligence are still values we should hold dear and are still qualities we will require of our leaders, all I can say is: don't let this turn you around or change your minds. Do not become disillusioned. Mourn, but do not fall on your swords. Lead by example. Learn. Act. Vote (in every election, not just the big ones.) We are strong and resilient. We cannot let divisive and anti-intellectual policies prevail. There is more at stake than our little lives. There is an entire planet. Other people exist. There has never been a more important time during which to seek out our own empathetic sides.
If you believe, as I do, that Americans ARE black, brown, white, men, women, non-binary, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist, disabled, chronically ill, gay, straight, wealthy, poor, somewhere in the middle, or some other glorious denomination (and any combination thereof), then you CANNOT argue that Donald Trump is a patriot. He has been working to set us against ourselves and we cannot take the bait. In addition to lacking any actual plans for anything, this is why Donald Trump is particularly dangerous. He views our differences as hindrances when, really, they are advantages. It is our responsibility - as it always has been - to express our love for our country through our love of each other and ourselves actively, passionately, loudly, and relentlessly.
Lastly, this was a particularly hard defeat for women in this country. I can tell you that; I am one. The country has now shown the world that we will accept a racist, sexist (possibly-sex offending), narcissistic, unintelligent man as a leader just so long as...he's not a woman. I do not mean to be hyperbolic; I don't see any other way of interpreting this election. Mrs. Clinton's flaws simply to not equal Mr. Trump's in magnitude. Sexism in this country is a quiet killer (both literally and figuratively) about which we need to start talking. On both the right and the left, what people don't like about Hillary Clinton is that she played the boys' game and she played it well. Nothing she did has been deemed criminal and that has been shown to us over and over again over decades; that is what some of us call a fact. So, drop that bullshit right here and right now. She's fallible, just as we all are, but she doesn't quit. She's brilliant. She does her homework. She plays hardball. She knows the answers or seeks them out. She has the strength and the temperament.
But she wears funny pantsuits and has such a "harsh" voice.
I can tell you this: I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that is something I will be able to say proudly for the rest of my life.
So, to my fellow American women, I beg you, do not lose hope and hold on tightly to your pussies. There is work to be done...hard work...women's work...and there is no one more qualified to do this work than we. (Feminists of all genders, I'm looking at you too!) We have come so far since Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and - my girl - Victoria Woodhull fought so hard so that we could vote today. Revolution does not happen over night. Be inspired by our progress while paving the next trail.
Yanno, I just figured one thing to say to Mr. Trump and his friends: thank you for creating a new generation of nasty women. We're here and we're about to get a hell of a lot nastier.
Below, find some thoughts and some rants on the recently announced death of Osama bin Laden. This was originally written as a private journal entry, but I decided it'd been a while since I posted anything on this blog, so I figured I'd share.
My earliest recollection of "terrorism" is from 2000; I was 14 years old. The USS Cole was bombed in Yemen. I think this was the first time I'd heard the name "Osama bin Laden." Having been only six years old when the World Trade Center was bombed (1993), that was in the back of my head, but not really something I remembered experiencing. It was Mrs. Diaz's Honors World Cultures class (ninth grade "current events" assignment / discussion) where I first learned about terrorism and extremism. I think teaching it any earlier than that would have been rather futile anyway. Prior to 2000, my knowledge of terrorism was that is was bad and performed by bad people. We didn't learn about economic strife or sanctions or oil or religion or any of that stuff. We didn't learn politics.
I've grown up with this man being the center of the "criminal" world. I was 15 years old when the towers went down. I knew the act was wrong and hateful and I was hoping to see my fellow countrymen take the higher road. I was disappointed. I didn't like the anti-Muslim sentiments or the chest thumping. (Even in the wake of this man's death, I still don't believe chest thumping is appropriate.) I didn't want war, but if we had to go to war, I would have preferred it being legal and organized. I would have preferred a war where we knew the enemy or, at least, understood his gripes and had soldiers and intelligence personnel who actually spoke his language. I didn't see the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq (in the ways we went about them, at least) as legitimate answers anymore than I thought the act itself was legitimate.
Since I was young and impressionable when the towers were hit, the devastation and reactions completely shaped my views. For as long as I have been capable of independent thought, I have known that this man was an enemy (an enemy of what or whom, I wasn't sure, but enemy nonetheless). We all had to learn. Americans have had A LOT to learn and we have learned since 2000 / 2001, but we shouldn't think we're done yet. We were shocked - a lot of us legitimately - when the towers came down. I was among them, but I was only 15 after all. Some adult out there was supposed to be keener than I.
Had the towers not been hit, I find it unlikely that I would have pursued a political science degree. The act woke some of us up. We knew "they" didn't like us much, but we never imaged that "they" hated us so violently and learning this made me want to understand why. I wanted to know what reasons they had that were potentially extreme and what reasons were potentially legitimate and I found more of the latter than I'd expected. There are no black-and-whites. There are no total right-and-wrongs. The globe itself is a blur. America has made mistakes and has screwed people over in other countries for her own benefit and sometimes to the direct detriment of the people of those other countries. With little remorse. Often, with little or no admission. Not that we haven't done ANY good, but they get to dislike us for that. We have participated in some - arguably - terrorist activities (only we do it by arming the terrorists we want to win and making sure they DO win and then we call in a "military coup" in the country without recognizing the serial numbers on the guns). We like to pick and choose our terrorists. This is not to say that the "terrorists" we recognize are anything less than terrorists. This is to say that they have some points and in some ways we have brought this on ourselves. We have been arrogant and we have been quick-to-act. We have done harm for which we should, reasonably, expect some form of backlash.
However, there are plenty of things that these people stand for that are wrong no matter what America has done. Women should not be covered from head to foot while living in a desert if they do not choose nor should they be executed for being "impure" victims of rape. Additionally, murder in the name of any cause or religion is thoroughly unacceptable. I am pro-choice and I am even pro-assisted suicide, but I am not for senseless murder of living, independently-breathing human beings who WANT to live. Human beings are such minuscule and, frankly, unnecessary blips in the cosmos; we really don't need to be offing ourselves. If the only way for you to express yourself and your opinions is through causing physical harm to someone else, it is not a legitimate form of expression. We hurt each other enough with the shit we spew into the air. We don't need to do it with bombs and bullets.
So, I'm really not trying to get put on any terrorist watch list for believing that some of their concerns are legitimate. It's just not as simple as "there's the bad guy, go get him." Terrorists may always be bad, but they may not always be wrong. This is an important distinction from which too many Americans have been blinded. Now, I fear that too many people will take this as a literal victory, will think that little more needs to be done. I fear that people will gloss over all the things we've since learned about why "they hate us" as if, without him, they won't hate us anymore.
In any event, I think America grew up as a direct result of this man's existence. We learned we CAN be hit on our home turf and it doesn't even take much. Some of us even went out and tried to learn about our enemies. These are healthy reactions to a tragic event. There will be a new al Qaeda leader and, likely, more attacks (though hopefully none to the magnitude of September 11, 2011). Killing one man is only a symbolic victory, but I do think it is an important one. His death does mark the end of an era and provides a certain amount of closure for those of us who were alive and cognizant when the towers fell. We can feel like someone was held accountable for the tragedy. We may even be able to feel a little safer knowing that the mind that thought up such awful things can no longer scheme against us, though there may be a mind of equal evil lurking just behind. I don't, however, view his death as "justice" especially since his followers will only describe him as a martyr from this point on. I don't find solace is his death. I would have preferred his capture and trial as opposed to his death; I think we could have learned more that way, but it might have been the only choice we had.
What NEEDS to happen, globally, is serious reorganization and recognition. A lot of first-world countries are doing harm: both to less advanced countries, but also to the planet. Just because we have money (maybe) and can operate covertly, does not make it any less tragic. Everything is run by greed. There is no such thing as "enough." Companies make money and money is in the interest of government, so the two are going to let the world implode if citizens of the world are not vigilant. Money is important to people too, but I think a fair amount of people can recognize when they have enough and don't feel the need to plunder for more once they have found financial security. (If this is not the case, then we really are doomed.) Companies don't seem to have that meter. This isn't a joke. This isn't make believe. Our environment is going to hell. Companies are in business to make money and it doesn't matter to them what ends up in the air or in the water or whose 12 year old daughter is working in some factory for $0.03 an hour, but it matters to the people in those countries and it matters to the birds and the fish that inhabit its skies and its seas. This is why they hate us. I don't even think it is a direct hatred of America or Americans, but of what we symbolize. There are other countries with similar power who do similarly bad things, but we're the ones who brag about it. They hate us for being so arrogant and for being so greedy. But the planet doesn't need us. Our universe, the cosmos beyond don't need us. Everything survived for billions on years without us and will thrive again should we bring about our own demise. We're a tumor on our world, but WE get to choose whether to be benign or malignant. The only ones who can save us are, quite literally, ourselves.
If the world needs an enemy, it should not be some Arab man wearing a turban. The enemy should be pollutants and any company or government that is complacent. The enemy should be anyone who can find rationalizations for child labor and unsafe / unfair working conditions. The enemy should be anyone who would like to squelch education. Education, I think, is the key to everything and needs to be available to everyone. The higher one's education, the less likely one is to fall into extremism or to follow blindly any faith or leader. Plus, we just desperately need smart people. We need smart people to find us energy alternatives. We need smart people to innovate.
The cause can't just be to "end" terrorism because we can't end terrorism without curing the decease of which terrorism is a mere symptom. We need better global business policies, fair labor laws and practices, and greater value on and accessibility to education. The world doesn't hate us for our "freedom." It hates us because we pick and choose who gets freedom and we base that on who can benefit us the most. Greed needs to be laying in a pool of blood with a bullet over its left eye. Greed interferes with peaceful enterprise and interaction. Greed is public enemy number one.
Recently viewed: The Corporation (2004) written by: Mark Achbar, Harold Crooks, Joel Bakan, and Thomas Shandel Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980) written by: Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter
Recently read: The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen written by Howard Carter and A.C. Mace
Back in November, New Jersey elected Republican Chris Christie as governor. This result was and wasn't surprising. It WAS surprising because Corzine, the Democrat, was the incumbent and out-spent Christie. It WASN'T surprising because of the political atmosphere in New Jersey: high taxes, corruption, and a lack of patience with "businessmen" (which Corzine is perceived as being) nationwide as a result of the "bailout."
The election results were depressing, though - really - they were bound to be one way or another. Christie is the worse of the two evils. Corzine isn't ideal either, but I liked that he attempted to rally the true liberal base and didn't really try to cater to the conservatives that he would likely not win over anyway. He chose not to pander to them; he chose not to validate them. Unfortunately, they are the ones who came out and voted for Christie.
The election was probably decided primarily on taxes. Corzine had to raise them despite his promises and, really, they need to be raised. We have - not only a huge federal debt, but - a huge state debt. Christie claims he's not going to raise taxes. Who doesn't promise that? It can't happen with the way the state is run, though, and the things we need. I'm all for major structural overhaul of Trenton, but that's gonna cost even more. It's the whole: "things are going to get worse before they get better" philosophy. That's the problem with reform: it's going to cost a lot before you'll be able to see any return and people are impatient. [For example: the nation was struck by an economic disaster that was in little or no way caused by Obama / his administration, but because his solutions have yet to grant us a full recovery, we are already jumping to the conclusion of failure. It may well fail, but the administration has already admitted that we will not really see any gains until - at the earliest - next year.] Restructuring and change are going to cost: both money and time. There are infrastructures that need to be put in place, people who must be hired and trained. All of that costs.
I can't imagine that Christie will be able to reduce taxes and even if he does, it'll be at the expense of something else. Even if he manages to not raise them, at what detriment? Since I do not agree with his version of "public good," I fear what he'll cut. Education? His kids go to private schools and he supports parents who get their children into private schools, so what happens to my public schools? Health care? If he doesn't think public education is valuable, do you really think he cares about your uninsured son? How many jobs are going to be lost to cut corners? Is New Jersey going to make abortion illegal? He is quoted: "I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs...." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/another-leading-republica_b_220452.html) which is all fine and good for one's personal beliefs, but not as a legislative mandate, not as a rule by which those who DO NOT share his beliefs should be forced to abide. We need to educate women on choices both before and after they become pregnant (including SAFE sex options and not just "don't have sex" options). We need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the conservative method has proven to fail over and over and over again. Moving on: are we going to impede even more on the right of homosexuals? We need to move forward. Civil rights aren't matters of beliefs or opinions. Gay rights - or lack thereof - is an area in which New Jersey had begun to progress. At least we allow civil unions and I really had hopes that we would soon be among the elite who've woken up and have thrown fear aside for equality. Now, I'm not so sure. We have a governor-elect now who is willing to veto a gay marriage bill.
[For the record, this is not a "societal change" as Governor-Elect Christie claims. Society is not being asked to change. In fact, no one is being asked to change. No straight person who doesn't want to be impacted by this will be impacted by this. Your faith will not be challenged (and if it is, you should look more closely at YOUR relationship to God and leave me to sort out my own). There are no victims if gays can marry; there are only victims if they are denied that right.]
I guess I'm really a Socialist. I really have no problem with spending a little more now to help the whole of my state or nation to make it a better place (even if it is not in my direct, everyday interest). I only make $12 and hour and I get about $200 taken out of my paycheck every two weeks for taxes. It sucks, but it's needed. It pays for our infrastructure which many people STILL think doesn't run as smoothly as they should (whether this be the running of state business via the state's bureaucracy or the building of roads and buildings). It goes towards our police and fire departments. It goes towards education. And, yes, it probably goes towards things I'm sure I'd rather it not go to, but there is no such thing as a "perfect" union. No ONE person can really get everything he / she wants. Living in a republic, you'll always have to compromise a little.
In particular, we NEED to pour money into public education. We need to get good people in there running the school and we need to treat and pay teachers respectfully. Every once in a while, someone grunts about how high taxes are. People with kids in private schools or without kids at all moan: "why am I paying for public schools?" Well...why are you paying for the fire department? The police? I've never had a fire at my house and I've never had to call the cops, so why should I have to pay those guys? Or, as my mother cites: I don't support the war and I don't have any loved ones fighting over seas, so...why are my tax dollars funding wars I don't believe should be fought?
The answer is: because it's for the overall good of the nation. Or, at least, enough people think it is. I don't approve of the war(s), but we need a military as much as I wish we didn't. We pay taxes for the fire and police departments because we recognize those are services that are valuable. How is education exempt from that category? How is education not a general public good? Good public schools mean that someday, maybe, we'll have legions of really fucking smart people and they can make not only our country, but the world, a really amazing place. We're kind of in the shitter right now. We're allowing capitalism and greed to blind us from the realities: our kids can't compete with kids around the world and this is going to lead to the downfall of America. And on a more expansive note: the downfall - possibly - of humanity. We need smart people to find alternate solutions to problems that don't include guns and tanks. We need smart people who use their brains and not their fears to make decisions on civil rights. It's a cycle that can't easily be broken, but I fear we're only going to move farther and farther from where we MUST be to fix it if we continue to care about ourselves alone. Sometimes it's okay to "spread the wealth" and one of those times is when the wealth is knowledge.
Lastly, New Jersey did have corruption issues under Corzine, but it had corruption issues during pretty much every administration over the last couple decades prior too. This doesn't excuse it, but it'll likely happen under Christie's watch too...unless he really plans to overhaul the whole system. Which could be awesome, but only if he's moving in a progressive direction. Otherwise, I just fear we're going to wind up decades behind. Our goal should not be to end up back where we've been; we've got to keep moving. It worries me, the prospect that New Jersey may be becoming more conservative. Then again, Jersey is weird and even has a history of voting against the party just elected for the presidency in their off-year elections. So, this may not really illustrate much of anything. Corruption is a societal disease. When people seek that which they cannot have or have not earned, an environment is created where cheating is acceptable as long as it is hidden under the table. Politicians have been living in this world for a long time.
On an optimistic note, Christie has a decent environmental record. The New Jersey Environmental Federation actually endorsed Christie, the first Republican they've endorsed in three decades. [See: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/nj_environmental_federation_en.html.] If he keeps his promises on the environment, New Jersey could become an example. If he keeps his promises on the environment.
On the whole, though, there is not much optimism here. This election has made me not only question the fate of my government, but the state of New Jersians as people and what we stand for anymore, what they value. It saddens me how much self-interest and a "to hell with everyone else" attitude people seem to have. We are sadly proving Hobbes' theory on human behavior: that we are all "nasty, brutish, and short" and that, without some form a authority, we would probably all live in caves and hit each other with mallets. We are keen on referring to ourselves in the US as "civilized," but our intentions are really no more pure than anyone else's. We need a new social contract based firmly on what's good for the whole. We need a society less driven by markets and more driven by life and living it. We need to stop pissing on each other.
Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am less fearful of reading the newspaper or tuning into the evening news. CNN keeps my unemployed ass company during my daily job searches; it sometimes provides whispers while I'm writing. I haven't been compelled to weep for my country much in the last six months.
And then there was May 26th, 2009. The California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8: a ballot initiative making gay and lesbian marriages (previously made legal) illegal in the state. It changes the state's constitutional language, making only marriage between one man and one woman constitutional in the state. The initiative was placed on the November ballot and passed; the implication here is that voters who came out in stride to elect Mr. Obama also voted passionately to withhold equal rights from select members of society. I hope the irony of this is not lost on anyone.
Both sides of the battle then went to court and the May 26th decision gave merit to current same-sex marriages, but stated that further same-sex unions would not be recognized as "marriage" in California.
This news brought me to tears despite the fact that I'm not gay. We may never have another civil rights struggle like those for African Americans and women in the 60s and 70s, but I've held the belief for a long time that homosexuals in America are among the most systematically discriminated against across the country today. We legalize the discrimination of this group. (This isn't to say that other social minorities are always treated equally, but - at least - as written law goes, those forms of discrimination are no longer encouraged by the government or the majority of Americans.) My hope that the election of Mr. Obama last November marked a shift in the American ideology was tarnished by the news that Proposition 8 had passed in the first place. Its supporters' continued aggression is nothing short of mind boggling to my poor, young, impressionable mind.
Some arguments against same-sex marriage are explained here:
Protect Marriage is an 'informational' and fund raising website. According to Mormons For 8, 35% of the donations are from Mormon churches. [The Daily Harold breaks the numbers down more here: LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage.] Not surprisingly, the push against same-sex marriage is coming from the religious (arguably, Christian) right.
Upon investigation of their website, 'Protect Marriage,' Proposition 8, and and anti-equality movement are concerned - of course - about religious freedom and the children. Those seem to be their reoccurring concerns. They claim that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage and that the acceptance of gays in society is somehow detrimental to children.
In understanding this first argument, I find it helpful to rediscover simple word meanings. For this, I turn to the ever trustworthy Dictionary.com for a basic definition.
Traditional - adjective 1. of or pertaining to tradition. 2. handed down by tradition. 3. in accordance with tradition. 4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).
The definition of "traditional" is interestingly vague. The problem with the abstract concept of "tradition" is that it depends thoroughly upon from whom these behaviors are being "handed down." It is a line drawn by families over generations or cultural and religious groups over ages. A "traditional" marriage in India may amount to what most Americans would refer to as an "arranged" marriage. Arranged marriages are the "tradition" in many parts of the world including such industrialized nations as India and Japan. That doesn't make them practices that are inherently good (nor, granted, inherently bad). (And when I discuss "arranged" marriages, I am not even touching on "forced" marriage or any non-consensual unions, although those may certainly be included under the "tradition" umbrella as well.) This begs the question, then: from whose "traditions" are we taking our definition of "traditional" marriage (that is: marriage between one man and one woman)?
Given the amount of support Proposition 8 has from the Mormon church, it seems that looking at extremists of the Judea-Christian guild is a good place to start. I have to pick on the Judea-Christian "tradition" because it certainly doesn't appear that Prop 8 supporters are supporting arranged marriages or marriages deemed "traditional" outside of Judea-Christian beliefs. Ponder for a moment, this ad also featured on the 'Protect Marriage' website:
The first issue in this ad is: "What [does] it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms?" The next shot is a very angry man insisting that gay marriage was "forced" on him by the courts. Then, lastly, they have a very distressed little girl and her mother questioning what same-sex marriage "means" for the little girl.
Keep in mind, none of those questions are answered in the ad nor does the ad tell you where your questions can be directly and unbiasedly answered.
Religious freedom is a foundation of American life. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue: it's a civil rights issue. My decision to marry someone who has the same sexual organs as I do in no way conflicts with your unbreakable belief that such a union is a sin, unless you and I happen to be the same person. However, your passion for denying me that right based on your belief that my union is a sin DOES conflict with my civil rights. Both freedom of religion and civil rights are protected under the US Constitution. However, my marriage doesn't impede on your ability to worship whereas your beliefs are making it impossible for me to have my full rights under the Constitution.
Religion being made the headline of this organization's ad says to me that religion is a driving force even beyond the Mormon church. While Americans often identify themselves as Christians, America is NOT a Christian country. (And I am not even totally sure Christianity still holds the majority, as even Atheism gains in popularity.) We use religious dictum - from many religions - for moral guidance, sure, but "do not murder" is going to be made into law regardless of whether God commanded it to be so because it's good for the whole of society.
Any argument based on religion should automatically be thrown out because we have a separation of church (whatever religious center in which you worship) and state (the government under which you live your daily, civil life). Religious declarations are not by default laws and, unless it is for the mortal protection of society, such declarations should not be made into laws. If God chooses to damn homosexuals then let that job be left for God; it is not the place for mere mortals. Morality is subjective; it is not something that can or should be legislated unless the lack of legislation causes harm (as in : "nah, go ahead, commit that murder").
Moving on to the angry man's argument. I'm choosing not to touch on this at length because of its utter absurdity. Unless a San Francisco judge is forcing people to marry other people of the same sex, no judge is forcing anything on anyone. Similarly to abortion: legalizing gay marriage does not make gay marriage the only legal type of marriage, just as the legalization of abortion doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion. It is simply an option for those who find themselves in those respective positions.
However, the word "force," even without any validity to the claim, is powerfully psychologically menacing. A 30 second spot, on in the background while changing diapers or making dinner, which claims that anything is being "forced" upon citizens, is going to be a powerful, though in this case preposterous, claim. It's going to raise eyebrows, but most people will take it at face value and not research the claim. Any amount of research and one might realize the he/she is not being forced to do anything accept be tolerant of different people and a slightly different lifestyle.
The final argument pulls at your heart strings. Or is supposed to. If I understood the argument, perhaps I could provide a less snarky interpretation, but the best I can offer is as follows: parents fear that the utterance of words like "gay" and "lesbian" will...miraculously...turn their kids...gay? And, apparently, they have a problem with that?
A recent bulletin posted on the site expresses outrage over new curriculum (probably put in place to promote an understanding and tolerance for those who are gay or have gay friends/family) that explores homosexuality as a lifestyle. "Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority...The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds" (Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum). Apparently, that's...a terrible, terrible thing?
I find it hard to believe that the curriculum "elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds," but even if that is true, perhaps the reason is because racial and religious groups are not legally oppressed anymore. The need to teach children to respect those groups may have dissipated slightly.
The real issue here is that parents don't want there little boys and girls to know anything about sex. Ever, apparently. Therefore, discussing sexuality and why Tommy has two mommies is a sticky situation. Sex and sexuality are sensitive issues, but lying to children or pretending "those" sorts of people aren't out there, is no way to protect your child from the inevitabilities of the real world. If you won't teach your children tolerance towards gays, someone has to. Or someone should. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would chose this kind of hate a discrimination for him or herself? Learning about a different lifestyle does not by default turn you into a practitioner of that lifestyle any more than learning about slavery makes you a slave or even an African. Learning about Islam doesn't make you Muslim. There's a difference between being something and understanding / empathizing with something.
And if your child is gay, wouldn't you want to foster a home that embraces that child regardless? Isn't that moral? Homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing about it which should make gays second-class citizens.
That is how to teach your children about homosexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of nor is it anything about which one should ever feel any shame. It is two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other. How is teaching that a bad thing?
Other arguments for Prop 8 are discussed here: What Is Prop 8? Most of these arguments are concerned with religion and children too. Many are knit-picky. It's worth a skim.
The bottom line is that regardless of the inconveniences the opposition addresses, you CANNOT deny members of society certain rights unless protecting that group's rights is gravely detrimental to the whole of society. (For example, "ageism" is okay in certain situations because you don't want twelve-year-olds driving or drinking or going to war.) The 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Cornell Law: US Constitution, 14th Amendment, emphasis added)
The moment one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court, there is no way same-sex marriage can be denied short of a US Constitutional Amendment banning it (which George W. Bush threatened to do, more-or-less proving that denying same-sex marriage is currently unconstitutional). The basic philosophy behind the Equal Protection Clause is that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. Granted, it was written with freed slaves and segregation in mind, but the "othering" of blacks and the "othering" of gays in terms of legislation seem to run parallel. Proposition 8 would not pass a rational-basis test: there is no mortal danger to society posed by same-sex marriage; nor should it pass the court's strict scrutiny of the law where a party must prove a compelling state interest in denying people their rights. If all gay-marriages included human sacrifice, then maybe they'd have a case, but - with the exception of "this makes me feel icky" - there is no reason for citizens of California to feel threatened by same-sex unions.
Same-sex couples can be just as devoted and loving to each other and their children as heterosexual couples. They have the same ups and downs as any couple in any sort of relationship may have. I think any abandoned child would gladly chose adoption by a same-sex couple over life in orphanages or foster homes.
Let us remember that same-sex couples were accepted in ancient Egypt as well as Rome before Judaism and Christianity became popular. (So, if you're really talking "traditional," don't forget it's buried deep in history as well...even the history of Judaism and Christianity.) Let us also remember that heterosexual couples don't necessarily provide a happy or healthy family for children. The sexes of the parents don't make or break family life; it's how well the partners interact with one another.
Six states in the US have already legalized gay unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriage, but do not perform any. Several states have legalized civil-unions. The tide is going in a progressive direction. And it has to. Throughout history, Americans have abolished status-quo doctrines that prohibit rights. (Note: prohibition didn't last long, right? Blacks can now marry whites, right? Women can now vote, right?) Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible says a lot of things that we chose not to write laws banning. And, on that note, I shall end this post on an upper. Enjoy:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 was truly something else.
In keeping with his serious and somber demeanor after his election on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama reiterated his charges for change and national responsibility during his inaugural speech. His presidency, he hopes, will be one that focuses on restoring America's reputation in the world and revitalizing her economy and her people. To the disappointment of many, his speech was not the normal chest-thumping to which we've become accustomed. He promised that America would meet her challenges, but he didn't sprinkle the challenges she faces with glitter and flowers. Our challenges are many and America has the will to overcome them, but the strength must come from both her people and her government. Obama's election can't be the end of the road. It has to be the beginning of America's long road towards regaining respect around the world and standing as a strong example of democracy once again.
Not to forget the now former President Bush, George W. and Laura Bush left the White House after Obama's inauguration via helicopter. Personally, it was one of the most satisfying sights I've ever witnessed.
Just for fun:
You can hear happy singing it the background as the helicopter flies off. I wonder if any other departing president has been so happily sent off.
I also have to add that Tuesday night's The Daily Show may be one of the funniest ever. This, alone, proves that:
They, literally, had to push Cheney out of the White House.
The last eight years has left my country in deep debt both monetarily and, I believe, morally. However, I think this new administration will restore some global faith in America, her values, and her people. We're no longer the hillbilly country with the cowboy president. Now, we're a country of adults. Barack Obama is smart, articulate, and respectful: three things the executive branch of American government has been missing for nearly a decade.
If feels good to have faith in leadership. Of course, I don't expect President Obama to change the world over night, but I feel relatively safe in the hands of my government again. I feel like Obama's agenda will be the advancement and well-being on America and NOT the thoughtless kowtowing to corporate buddies. (Part of why I voted for him - both during the primary and the presidential election - is because he IS young. How many corporate buddies could he possible have!?) I don't think he will so blatantly disregard the American people OR the people of the world like Bush did. I don't think he'll let our reputation in the world dip any lower.
The inauguration ceremony was an amazing sight. This president is a symbol of progression and hope to so many in the country who have suffered due to the mismanagement of the Bush years. The crowd was massive. It was unbelievable. I only hope that some of those people keep watch and stay informed. This president will bring change and he'll move the country back to the 'plus' side, but when his work ends, the next president must go even further. We cannot become complacent now. America still has a long way to go. She still discriminates. She still hates. She still starves and bleeds. She still asks God to solve her problems instead of standing up and solving them herself. We have opened a door with this president. Liberals have a shot now to show conservatives that we're not so scary and - maybe - we can win some of them over. We can't treat them with the disdain the Bush administration treated us. That'll only rile their base up against us. Now is not the time for that. Now we need to recognize mistakes, face challenges, and reach out to ALL Americans in order to see our problems resolved.
Obama's inaugural speech did include some religious rhetoric and even some "we won't back down" language. I could have lived without that, but I think that most president wind up calling on God and trying to hype Americans up. They're popular American cliches. In our country, you won't get elected unless you appear to be a "good Christian" and thank God time and time again. When Obama invokes the image of God, though, I think he does so more to placate those who are looking for him to prove his religiosity. Not that I think he's a "non-believer." His religion makes no difference to me so long as his religion is not his only driving force as president. I agree that religion can serve as a handy moral guide, but it should not be the only guide. I think he hopes for God's support and, given the mess he is now charged with cleaning, I can't blame him. I don't think Barack Obama claims to ACTUALLY speak to God in the way George W. Bush did. Further, when Obama says that America WILL defend herself, I don't think he means it in a Bush Doctrine sort of way. I think he plans to defend the country responsibly and - where ever possible - diplomatically.
President Obama has my trust. For now. I'm not saying I won't be skeptical and watch him carefully, but there's no reason to doubt him yet. I have my hopes and I have things I want to see this president do. If he does even some of them, I think that'll be a great improvement. He's not catering to any ONE ideology. He has to try to compromise with all types of people and some people are not as liberal as we are here in the Northeast. I expect some disappointments, but just because there's something I want for this country doesn't mean that that something is good or pleasing for the country as a whole. We NEED cooperation and compromise now. Liberals need to show conservatives that we're not evil. We need to work with people who don't agree with us and try to get them on our side. They, too, need to understand that no president should cater to just their beliefs. Then - maybe someday - we COULD have a liberal and open country. Maybe we COULD take God out of politics. Maybe we COULD see gays legally marrying. Maybe we COULD call a truce on the culture wars.
We're not there yet, though. As early as November 5th, Prop 8 should have shown all us starry-eyed liberals that our dreams had not quite come true yet. But this should be seen as a step. This is a baby step in the right direction. So, for now, I'm going to be proud. I'm going to smile, laugh, and cry happy little tears because even though this administration won't give me everything I want, it's a sign that someday there could be an administration that will get us there, once more of America is ready for it.
National ideologies CAN change. The first white Americans were strict Puritans who would probably put even today's conservative right to shame. We once saw no moral issue with keeping darker colored human beings as captives, objects, worthless workers. We once thought women were too inferior to work or vote. In time, all of these characteristics that once made up America were disregarded. If you're not a progressive, you're living in the past.
I have not really read any post-Election opinions written by my friends because I'm trying to keep my thoughts my thoughts and use my own words to get them out. That said, I feel like all the sentiments about which I plan to lament upon have already been lamented upon by many people so I apologize for any repetition.
Last night, I became a proud American. I'm not sure I've ever said that before. Sure, I was happy during the Clinton years, but I was probably too young to really feel proud and have that feeling be based in anything substantial. Last night, America voted for a man who has true potential to turn the course of this country around and bring respect back to us in the eyes of the world.
As all my friends and I happily basked in the news and held on to every word of both John McCain's concession and Barack Obama's victory speeches, I could almost hear the world breath a sigh of relief. The darkness of the last eight years may really be over. We have a chance now. We've reached the fork in the road. We can make this better before it's too late, but it has to be now. Americans proved last night that that IS what they want.
Barack Obama is the face of America in the 21st century. He comes from a mixed racial background, middle class, raised by his mother and then grandparents, worked his way up. He was not born into prominence. He did not get to where he finds himself today because of his background, but because of his work ethic. He can be seen, in many ways, as the embodiment of the American dream, a dream that is - mostly - mythical, but can still be found in the greatest and most determined of citizens and I think we will see more American dreams coming true with Barack Obama as our leader. I'm not sure how the McCain campaign became the face of "real" America, but Barack Obama lived that: he lived the middle class life and became an example of what "real" Americans can achieve. He proved that you really can work your way up, but you have to want it and you have to try. He proved that America gives you opportunities few other countries can afford and that those who have benefited most from America should give the most back: in his case, running for the highest office with hopes of making America - and the world - better. (All he's asking the rest of you to do is pay a few more taxes so we can, yanno, have roads and schools and fire departments: silly stuff like that!)
He proved that America really can change and that sentiment was obvious in the tears of Jesse Jackson, Oprah, and every other Barack Obama supporter brought to tears last night. Working the polls yesterday, a new excitement was tough to deny.
His victory does not necessarily mean that we can stop worrying. Obama is still a politician and politicians break promises, but his message throughout the campaign resonated from coast to coast in all kinds of people. During the campaign, he managed to change the mind set in America from one that would stickily vote for old white guys to one that would vote for a young minority if he stood for what they stood for. Thankfully, what we stand for in the aftermath of this election are the ideals of hope, change, cooperation, and unity.
Notably, Barack Obama's victory speech was a serious one. He didn't give us the usual "USA USA WE'RE NUMBER ONE WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" speech. He didn't pound his chest or dance on McCain's (hypothetical) grave. He told us truths. While he'd never say it, he knows Americans can often be selfish and individualistic and that this country needs cooperation and selflessness to survive. This wasn't a "we can stop fighting now: the battle's over" speech. This was a "the battle's just beginning" speech. President Obama can't fix the world, but - hopefully - he can convince the world into fixing itself using sound plans and peaceful negotiations. The work behind us pales in comparison to the work ahead of us and I don't think Americans like to think of themselves as people on whom work is needed, but we are. We have to reach out to our neighbors and help those who are down of their luck. We can't just think of ourselves anymore, but of our communities and of the world and we have to recognize that we don't live in our own little bubbles.
Are Americans up for that?
Obama has set high expectations for himself among his supporters and I don't expect him to live up to every single one of them, but I do expect him to run this country efficiently and intelligently with eloquence and grace. I expect the agenda of 'making America strong again' to be the only agenda, not the agenda in addition to his super-secret hidden agenda. I am forever skeptical, but I have hope and I know that Barack Obama - right now - is the man we need, even if just to prove that the ideals for which he claims to stand are ideals Americans, too, share.
As of 11pm on November 4th, 2008, America elected a new president. He will face the greatest challenges of any new president in cleaning up the last eight years, but he is young and smart and - if anyone can do it - it is he.
Normally, I try to cite a news article or some sort of current event as basis for an entry because, otherwise, this blog is sort of purely opinion based, but - on this occasion - I think all I want to do is share an opinion.
Regardless of what the McCain campaign and their Fox News partners want to spew about the "east coast elites" and the "un-American" parts of the country, I know that - for my friends and I - we care so deeply about this country that we want only the best for it and the best doesn't come from divisive politics or fear mongering. The best America can be, for right now, is unattainable unless her leaders drastically change course and, yes, possibly even admit some wrong-doing. America has lost her respect and much of her power in the eyes of the world. Her people are tattered and tired, but - I don't believe - done, by any means.
We need leadership, though. Real leadership. We need someone who will stop spewing bullshit and be honest...as honest as any politician really can be, at least. Obama has the potential to change America's direction. Personally, his "inexperience" is almost a plus for me because, as I'm sure I've lamented before, I feel he isn't as entrenched in the Washington status quo as McCain (or even Clinton). You can't survive in politics without becoming indebted to someone, but I do think he has tried to keep his hands pretty clean. He has a vision. He has intelligence and eloquence. He has the potential to bring respect and class back to a country that's lacked it for so fucking long.
America's democracy is in trouble. We shouldn't have people waiting out in line for two to eight hours outside polling places. We shouldn't have fear and confusion in polling booths. It shouldn't even cross our minds in this country that a vote may not be counted. People have to know their rights; they have to know that - even if there are police officers everywhere - it's still their right to vote and they can intimidate you, but they can't stop you. (Well, unless you're actually doing something aside from voting that is illegal. Haha.) We need an informed electorate and this race, more so than any other in recent history, seems to have gotten people who would otherwise look away, to stand up and notice what's going on around them. I only hope they actually go out and vote. While McCain is certainly not the most heinous among the Republican party, what good will he bring to the nation? What change has he really told us he'd bring to the White House? McCain would not be the worst case scenario, but Palin really would be.
Anyone who was on the fence between Obama and McCain should have flung himself excitedly over to Obama's side after the announcement of Sarah Palin for Vice President. That decision alone proves how unequipped he is for the presidency. She does nothing but tell Americans over and over how perfect America is and how - to be a true American - you have to blindly follow failing leadership; you have to think America is great even when the evidence around you proves we have serious problems both in our backyards and overseas. Is it really un-American to point out your country's short-comings and vow to improve upon them? Lying to your fellow people, to other countries, and to yourself about America's perfection helps NO ONE, so stop calling Michelle Obama and the rest of us "unpatriotic" for not being proud of America's behavior. Over the passed five years, America has lost over 4,000 citizens to a war in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) not to mention soldiers from other countries, Iraqi solders, Iraqi civilians, the wounded, the troops in Afghanistan, or the families of all of the above. There are countless lives that have been ruined, so don't tell me America should be proud of it. There ARE things more important than being right, America. Like being smart. And smart is something Barack Obama exudes. He will - responsibly - end this nightmare.
We need to shred this "mightier than thou," "city on a hill," American exceptionalism shit and realize we are not the only players in the world anymore...and the world is shrinking. McCain hounds Obama for saying he'd meet with world leaders (specifically Ahmadinejad) without "preconditions." Yes, Obama thinks negotiation without preconditions is better than no negotiations at all...how terrible. We can't keep ragging on people and expecting them to drop their beliefs (no matter how passionately we may disagree with them) just because the mighty U.S. wants it so. There has to be understanding. There has to be compromise. Omaba seems like a man who knows the world is bigger than America's borders. American isolation simply will not work and we have to be active (but RESPONSIBLE) as a world leader...while we can still call ourselves one.
We also have to help our own right here. We can't have people falling more and more in debt, taking out loans only to dig deeper holes. It's a wretched cycle most Americans face as early as college (for those lucky enough to attend) with college loans. At 21 years old, you can find yourself under piles of debt. The cost of living goes up, while jobs decrease; they get sent elsewhere. We give breaks to big businesses so they'll stay big while the small ones get smaller and smaller until there are no Mom 'n' Pop places anymore. (As much as I do love my Starbucks, I'd take a smaller, independent coffee shop over it any day.) Maybe "spreading the wealth" sounds like Socialism, but I certainly think it's better than keeping all the wealth in the hands of the wealthy while the rest of us (and the economy) find ourselves in the shitter.
Further, we need to end the era of bigotry and hatred within our borders. In 2008, whether Barack Obama is an Arab shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't vote for him just because he's black, but you should also not vote against him because he's black. I don't dislike Palin because she has a vagina; I dislike her because everything about her, to me, is anti-American, anti-women, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, and anti-progressivism in general. In 2008, there is no reason why gays shouldn't - without question - have the right to marry. In 2008, there is NO reason why America is not leading the way towards energy efficient cars, homes, dogs, cats, everything! There's no reason for it and it needs to change. It needed to change four years ago, but...we'll take it now.
Election Day is tomorrow. I'm a mess of anxiety and excitement. I have little crying fits. I want to see this county be so much healthier than it is and has been for the last eight years.
The last eight years should have been so much different. Let's make the next eight brighter. Let's pull out of this period of de-regulation and executive-privilege-on-steroids and make America a country about which we can all feel truly proud again.
Please go out and vote tomorrow. It is one of the only parts of American "democracy" in which citizens actually get to be involved. There are many websites with polling information. One I came across is: http://www.vote411.org and it seems very helpful. Most polling places open between 6am and 8am and close between 6pm and 8pm. It's your right and the country needs you.
"And once there was a time to join the army, and once there was a time to hear the news, and once there was a time for easy silence, but now the jury waits for you..."
Posts
