One of my former Kennedy School students, Anthony Woods MPP '08, is an American hero.
The only son of a single mother, Tony is a distinguished graduate of West Point, a decorated war veteran who has ably commanded troops during two tours of duty in Iraq. He is the finest student I have taught at the Kennedy School, which is why I asked him to serve as my course assistant last spring. In June, Tony delivered the Graduate English Oration at Harvard's Commencement Exercises. He currently serves as special assistant to New York State Governor David Paterson.
So why has Tony just been "eliminated" from the U.S. Army for "moral and professional dereliction"?
Because he is a homosexual.
As profiled in Harvard Magazine, Tony is the most recent target of the U.S. military's hideously unjust and patently absurd "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, signed into law fifteen years ago by President Bill Clinton. President-elect Barack Obama expressed strong opposition to the policy throughout the 2008 campaign, but will likely delay its repeal until the second year of his first term.
Here's hoping President Obama acts more swiftly than that to eliminate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In doing so, he would support both our troops and our best ideals.
As Commander in Chief, President Obama won't be able to strengthen our military or protect our national interests without soldiers like Tony Woods.
December 28, 2008
A People's President
On Wednesday morning, November 5, Folha, one of Brazil's leading media outlets published a commentary I wrote, "A People's President," on the historic 2008 Presidential election.
The editors at Folha had solicited the piece from me the weekend before the election. It was at once difficult and liberating to write--difficult because I was asked to reflect on Barack Obama's victory four days before it actually happened (I was knocking on wood after every paragraph); liberating because I found myself writing about the Bush Administration in the past tense. The end was near, and it felt damn good, almost too good to be true.
As we now know, Obama won. History moved. The world cheered. Millions of Americans like me breathed a deep, emotional sigh of relief. And then the difficult work began.
The editors at Folha had solicited the piece from me the weekend before the election. It was at once difficult and liberating to write--difficult because I was asked to reflect on Barack Obama's victory four days before it actually happened (I was knocking on wood after every paragraph); liberating because I found myself writing about the Bush Administration in the past tense. The end was near, and it felt damn good, almost too good to be true.
As we now know, Obama won. History moved. The world cheered. Millions of Americans like me breathed a deep, emotional sigh of relief. And then the difficult work began.
Bridges: To Build or To Burn?
Barack Obama's selection of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the convocation at his inauguration in January has elicited strong reactions from across the political spectrum.
My friend and college classmate John Cloud, writer for Time, sees the Warren invitation as a sign that Obama is a "very rational-sounding bigot." Many gays and lesbians agree.
I, for one, do not.
And neither does Melissa Etheridge, who instead sees this as an opportunity to create change by forging new relationships between evangelicals and homosexuals. This will not be easy--it may, in fact, fail--but it's probably worth a shot. With young evangelicals now showing promising signs that they will vote for a Democrat--that they're more concerned about poverty and the environment than abortion and gay marriage--this seems like an opportune time for both groups to take this leap of faith. The torch has passed from one generation to another, and that includes evangelicals.
As we embrace change, it's also worth thinking about how we might forge better relationships between blacks and gays, who have been at odds with one another in the wake of Prop 8. Exit polls indicated that perhaps as much as 70% of African Americans voted for the anti-gay measure. This is certainly troubling--any time one disenfranchised minority votes in large numbers to deny basic human rights to another--but it's equally troubling that so many white gays and lesbians have been quick to scapegoat blacks in the wake of this electoral defeat.
Homophobia among blacks is wrong. And so is racism among gays. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Human rights--which include both civil rights and gay rights--are indivisible. As President-elect Obama likes to say, "I am my brother's keeper."
So if we are going to blame black folks for not voting in solidarity with us (in fact, many did vote in solidarity with us--some of our very best allies are black), we need to take an honest look at ourselves and ask two fundamental questions:
1) Did we have a good enough ground game in California to win the battle over Prop 8?
2) Have we done enough over the years to support issues that black folks care about?
From my perspective--as an openly gay white man who has spent much of his life working to combat racism and promote interracial understanding and equality--the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO.
And that is why so many black leaders--from Al Sharpton to Jasmyne Cannick--have defended Obama's choice of Warren and also criticized the white leadership of the LGBT movement who have blamed blacks for the passage of Prop 8, while ignoring other issues (poverty, prisons, health care, education) that are crucially important to African Americans, both gay and straight.
We have a rare opportunity these days to build rather than burn bridges, but this will require us to relinquish our ancient fears and prejudices. Barack Obama may offer one model of how to do this, but in the end it is we--every last one of us--who must re-make our world.
My friend and college classmate John Cloud, writer for Time, sees the Warren invitation as a sign that Obama is a "very rational-sounding bigot." Many gays and lesbians agree.
I, for one, do not.
And neither does Melissa Etheridge, who instead sees this as an opportunity to create change by forging new relationships between evangelicals and homosexuals. This will not be easy--it may, in fact, fail--but it's probably worth a shot. With young evangelicals now showing promising signs that they will vote for a Democrat--that they're more concerned about poverty and the environment than abortion and gay marriage--this seems like an opportune time for both groups to take this leap of faith. The torch has passed from one generation to another, and that includes evangelicals.
As we embrace change, it's also worth thinking about how we might forge better relationships between blacks and gays, who have been at odds with one another in the wake of Prop 8. Exit polls indicated that perhaps as much as 70% of African Americans voted for the anti-gay measure. This is certainly troubling--any time one disenfranchised minority votes in large numbers to deny basic human rights to another--but it's equally troubling that so many white gays and lesbians have been quick to scapegoat blacks in the wake of this electoral defeat.
Homophobia among blacks is wrong. And so is racism among gays. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Human rights--which include both civil rights and gay rights--are indivisible. As President-elect Obama likes to say, "I am my brother's keeper."
So if we are going to blame black folks for not voting in solidarity with us (in fact, many did vote in solidarity with us--some of our very best allies are black), we need to take an honest look at ourselves and ask two fundamental questions:
1) Did we have a good enough ground game in California to win the battle over Prop 8?
2) Have we done enough over the years to support issues that black folks care about?
From my perspective--as an openly gay white man who has spent much of his life working to combat racism and promote interracial understanding and equality--the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO.
And that is why so many black leaders--from Al Sharpton to Jasmyne Cannick--have defended Obama's choice of Warren and also criticized the white leadership of the LGBT movement who have blamed blacks for the passage of Prop 8, while ignoring other issues (poverty, prisons, health care, education) that are crucially important to African Americans, both gay and straight.
We have a rare opportunity these days to build rather than burn bridges, but this will require us to relinquish our ancient fears and prejudices. Barack Obama may offer one model of how to do this, but in the end it is we--every last one of us--who must re-make our world.
Almost Famous
Two days before Christmas, I got an email from my friend Frank Rich, asking my opinion about the controversy over Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the official convocation at his inauguration. He also asked for my thoughts on Prop 8, as well as where Obama needs to go from here. This was my response:
Dear Frank,
I should preface what I'm about to write with the caveat that I am not a "normal" gay--the kind of upper middle class, well-educated, white homosexual who thinks the passage of Proposition 8 is a sign of the looming apocalypse (irony intended) or that "marriage equality" (the phrase itself containing unexamined contradictions) is the defining issue for our people. I was far more distressed by the passage of the Arkansas ballot initiative banning gays and lesbians from adopting children than I was by the passage of Prop 8. In many ways, I'm an old-fashioned gay liberationist who rejects the current consensus: liberation = just like straight people. Conformity is not equality. As James Baldwin once said of integration: "why would I want to be integrated into a burning house?" The question stands.
All of this is to say that I'm not comfortable being a "spokesperson" of any kind. Still, I've been asked to be of late. I did a session on Prop 8 at the Institute of Politics last week, and will be giving several lectures, etc., on it throughout the winter/spring. It seems everyone wants to talk about this damn thing. And fevers are pitched.
Let's start with some historical perspective. In many ways, gays and lesbians have made enormous progress in a very short period of time--in terms of having a voice and being visible; in terms of cultural representation and political power. I mean, we can get married in MA and CT, can be civil union'ed in several other states, and have these commitments recognized in several more. This is not sufficient, of course, and sure I'd love for everyone to be able to get married, regardless of sexual orientation and what have you, but I do think we need to see the forest for the trees here and acknowledge that much progress has been made. Perhaps not as much as some would like on marriage, but on a range of other issues (civil unions, employment non-discrimination, visitation rights, adoption laws, AIDS research, hate crimes legislation, etc.) there has been good movement. I hasten to add that on these issues, President-elect Obama is far more progressive than any President in American history.
When you stop to think that this June is the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, you get a sense of just how far we've come in a relatively short period of time. As a scholar of social movements, I think it's instructive to assess the LGBT movement in relation to other movements: the women's movement, the labor movement, the black freedom movement. Think about how long it took for women to get the right to vote (they still don't have equal pay for equal work); how long it took for workers to get the right to collectively bargain (there is still no national living wage); how long it took for black folks to be treated as fully human. You get my point.
Sometimes, I think the leaders of the LGBT movement have too narrow a political focus, too myopic a view of history--both of which create an ethos of impatience that is widely perceived as petulance. A more specific comparison puts this into even sharper relief. This year also marked the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's March on Washington Address, which, among other things, marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, the black freedom struggle--that long, painful, inspiring story that moves from slavery to Barack Obama--is older than the nation itself. And that's why so many black folks have had such a hard time with Prop 8. It took 100 years--two Reconstructions--for America to make good on the basic promises of freedom and equality that came out of the Civil War, and then over 40 more before a black President was finally elected. When you think of how long it's taken to get here, it's pretty understandable why some black folks find the protests over Prop 8 a bit overwrought. Now, I'm not saying we should just sit back and be patient--Lord knows Dr. King taught us all a lesson about that--but I do think white gays and lesbians need to be more discerning when they compare the LGBT struggle to the black freedom struggle. Gay is *not* the new black, contrary to what the gay press might tell you.
Now Rick Warren. I think this is something of a manufactured "crisis." Sure, I was furious about the selection. Obama could have selected all sorts of people to deliver the invocation, and he chose a man who is on record suggesting a close link between homosexuality and pedophilia, between gay marriage and incest. This is unacceptable, and he and Obama need to answer for this. I understand Obama's desire to bring all sorts of people to the table--and I actually applaud it, despite the fact that I am not always happy with his guest list--but right now many of us feel like Obama was happy to have us at the table when we had something to offer him (votes, money, time, etc.), but not so excited to have us at the table now that he has something to offer us (access, inclusion, respect, power, etc.) Obama is too smart not to know that this would be taken as a slap in the face, an offense to an important part of his coalition. Along with many LGBT folks, I worked very hard to get him elected, and am thrilled by his success. Obama's victory was a victory for the nation, and it remains so.
But Warren is a troubling figure, not as sick and twisted as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell, but in many ways just as powerful. His message reaches millions, which is why we are so concerned about its content as it relates to LGBT people. I am happy to see that the Saddleback Church has recently changed its web site to be more inviting and inclusive of gay people; perhaps Warren is changing his tune. And perhaps Obama has inspired him to do so. Time will tell.
So this is where I am at the moment: Rick Warren is a symbol. If he changes his tune and becomes more open to the LGBT community, all to the good. If the invitation from Obama proves the catalyst for this, all the better. It's a win-win for everyone but the Religious Right (which is an even sweeter win for all of us). But it's now time to move from symbol to substance: for Rick Warren to recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian by embracing all of God's children; for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn't go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency; and for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Barack Obama on the content of his policy-making not on the character of his ministers. Lord knows we've been here before. And the result was wholly unexpected: a rare but powerful glimpse into the soul of a man who seems to understand--perhaps even better than we do--that we are all imperfect people still searching for the better angels of our nature.
What I didn't know was that Frank was going to quote me in his Sunday NYT column today!
Anyway, my Crackberry--yes, another new development in my life--has been blowing up since the column was posted on line last night. I've even gotten some "feedback" (ahem!) from folks who are angry about the swipe I took at Bill Clinton (I called him a "sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency." What, people, do you not remember Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.?) But generally people have been very nice. And my parents, of course, are just thrilled. So if you're looking for the Sunday NYT in Bradenton, FL--where my folks have a condo--you're probably out of luck.
I am grateful to Frank for giving me such a huge shout out in his column today. In addition to being a good friend and a national treasure, he is one of our staunchest, most reliable allies. We can't win this human rights struggle without people like Frank Rich.
Dear Frank,
I should preface what I'm about to write with the caveat that I am not a "normal" gay--the kind of upper middle class, well-educated, white homosexual who thinks the passage of Proposition 8 is a sign of the looming apocalypse (irony intended) or that "marriage equality" (the phrase itself containing unexamined contradictions) is the defining issue for our people. I was far more distressed by the passage of the Arkansas ballot initiative banning gays and lesbians from adopting children than I was by the passage of Prop 8. In many ways, I'm an old-fashioned gay liberationist who rejects the current consensus: liberation = just like straight people. Conformity is not equality. As James Baldwin once said of integration: "why would I want to be integrated into a burning house?" The question stands.
All of this is to say that I'm not comfortable being a "spokesperson" of any kind. Still, I've been asked to be of late. I did a session on Prop 8 at the Institute of Politics last week, and will be giving several lectures, etc., on it throughout the winter/spring. It seems everyone wants to talk about this damn thing. And fevers are pitched.
Let's start with some historical perspective. In many ways, gays and lesbians have made enormous progress in a very short period of time--in terms of having a voice and being visible; in terms of cultural representation and political power. I mean, we can get married in MA and CT, can be civil union'ed in several other states, and have these commitments recognized in several more. This is not sufficient, of course, and sure I'd love for everyone to be able to get married, regardless of sexual orientation and what have you, but I do think we need to see the forest for the trees here and acknowledge that much progress has been made. Perhaps not as much as some would like on marriage, but on a range of other issues (civil unions, employment non-discrimination, visitation rights, adoption laws, AIDS research, hate crimes legislation, etc.) there has been good movement. I hasten to add that on these issues, President-elect Obama is far more progressive than any President in American history.
When you stop to think that this June is the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, you get a sense of just how far we've come in a relatively short period of time. As a scholar of social movements, I think it's instructive to assess the LGBT movement in relation to other movements: the women's movement, the labor movement, the black freedom movement. Think about how long it took for women to get the right to vote (they still don't have equal pay for equal work); how long it took for workers to get the right to collectively bargain (there is still no national living wage); how long it took for black folks to be treated as fully human. You get my point.
Sometimes, I think the leaders of the LGBT movement have too narrow a political focus, too myopic a view of history--both of which create an ethos of impatience that is widely perceived as petulance. A more specific comparison puts this into even sharper relief. This year also marked the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's March on Washington Address, which, among other things, marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, the black freedom struggle--that long, painful, inspiring story that moves from slavery to Barack Obama--is older than the nation itself. And that's why so many black folks have had such a hard time with Prop 8. It took 100 years--two Reconstructions--for America to make good on the basic promises of freedom and equality that came out of the Civil War, and then over 40 more before a black President was finally elected. When you think of how long it's taken to get here, it's pretty understandable why some black folks find the protests over Prop 8 a bit overwrought. Now, I'm not saying we should just sit back and be patient--Lord knows Dr. King taught us all a lesson about that--but I do think white gays and lesbians need to be more discerning when they compare the LGBT struggle to the black freedom struggle. Gay is *not* the new black, contrary to what the gay press might tell you.
Now Rick Warren. I think this is something of a manufactured "crisis." Sure, I was furious about the selection. Obama could have selected all sorts of people to deliver the invocation, and he chose a man who is on record suggesting a close link between homosexuality and pedophilia, between gay marriage and incest. This is unacceptable, and he and Obama need to answer for this. I understand Obama's desire to bring all sorts of people to the table--and I actually applaud it, despite the fact that I am not always happy with his guest list--but right now many of us feel like Obama was happy to have us at the table when we had something to offer him (votes, money, time, etc.), but not so excited to have us at the table now that he has something to offer us (access, inclusion, respect, power, etc.) Obama is too smart not to know that this would be taken as a slap in the face, an offense to an important part of his coalition. Along with many LGBT folks, I worked very hard to get him elected, and am thrilled by his success. Obama's victory was a victory for the nation, and it remains so.
But Warren is a troubling figure, not as sick and twisted as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell, but in many ways just as powerful. His message reaches millions, which is why we are so concerned about its content as it relates to LGBT people. I am happy to see that the Saddleback Church has recently changed its web site to be more inviting and inclusive of gay people; perhaps Warren is changing his tune. And perhaps Obama has inspired him to do so. Time will tell.
So this is where I am at the moment: Rick Warren is a symbol. If he changes his tune and becomes more open to the LGBT community, all to the good. If the invitation from Obama proves the catalyst for this, all the better. It's a win-win for everyone but the Religious Right (which is an even sweeter win for all of us). But it's now time to move from symbol to substance: for Rick Warren to recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian by embracing all of God's children; for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn't go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency; and for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Barack Obama on the content of his policy-making not on the character of his ministers. Lord knows we've been here before. And the result was wholly unexpected: a rare but powerful glimpse into the soul of a man who seems to understand--perhaps even better than we do--that we are all imperfect people still searching for the better angels of our nature.
What I didn't know was that Frank was going to quote me in his Sunday NYT column today!
Anyway, my Crackberry--yes, another new development in my life--has been blowing up since the column was posted on line last night. I've even gotten some "feedback" (ahem!) from folks who are angry about the swipe I took at Bill Clinton (I called him a "sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency." What, people, do you not remember Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.?) But generally people have been very nice. And my parents, of course, are just thrilled. So if you're looking for the Sunday NYT in Bradenton, FL--where my folks have a condo--you're probably out of luck.
I am grateful to Frank for giving me such a huge shout out in his column today. In addition to being a good friend and a national treasure, he is one of our staunchest, most reliable allies. We can't win this human rights struggle without people like Frank Rich.
Pink is the new Crimson
As I mentioned, the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus (HGLC) celebrated its 25th Anniversary on Sept. 26-28, 2008. The editors of the Harvard Crimson asked several members of the LGBT community to write editorials the week preceding the anniversary weekend. Here they are:
"Reunions Suck," by Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN
"Unfinished Business," by Susan Marine, director of the Harvard College Women's Center
"Cleaning Out the Closet," by Lee Strock and Lela Klein, Chair and Political Chair of Harvard Law School Lambda
"Finding Faith in Family," by yours truly.
My editorial was actually the transcript of remarks I delivered at Morning Prayers in Appleton Chapel at the Memorial Church on Friday, Sept. 26, 2008. Rev. Dorothy Austin, Co-Master of Lowell House, invited me to deliver these Morning Prayers--one of Harvard's oldest and most beautiful traditions--as a way to mark the official beginning of the 25th anniversary weekend. It was an extraordinary if daunting honor for me.
"Reunions Suck," by Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN
"Unfinished Business," by Susan Marine, director of the Harvard College Women's Center
"Cleaning Out the Closet," by Lee Strock and Lela Klein, Chair and Political Chair of Harvard Law School Lambda
"Finding Faith in Family," by yours truly.
My editorial was actually the transcript of remarks I delivered at Morning Prayers in Appleton Chapel at the Memorial Church on Friday, Sept. 26, 2008. Rev. Dorothy Austin, Co-Master of Lowell House, invited me to deliver these Morning Prayers--one of Harvard's oldest and most beautiful traditions--as a way to mark the official beginning of the 25th anniversary weekend. It was an extraordinary if daunting honor for me.
Back in the Game!
I know I've taken a long hiatus from blogging this fall. Believe me, I wish I could do it all, but life got in the way. Funny how that happens sometimes.
First was the 25th Anniversary Celebration of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus. I am on the Board of the HGLC, and was programming co-chair for the weekend. It was an enormous amount of work, but well worth the effort in the end. Hundreds of LGBT folks from across the Harvard community--faculty, students, staff, alums--attended the weekend, which featured an amazing range of speakers from every possible background and profession. The first-ever event of its kind for Harvard's LGBT community, it was a festival of Crimson Queerdom! Check out the coverage of the event in the Harvard Crimson and Harvard Magazine.
The second, far less fabulous reason for taking a break from blogging is because my grandfather had a very bad stroke in September--as luck would have it, the night before the HGLC Weekend was scheduled to begin. Gramps is the family patriarch--in a good way--and his illness has had a destabilizing effect on my family, especially my mother, who is shouldering much of the burden of caring for my grandfather, and my grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's two years ago. Needless to say, family has been on my mind a lot this fall, and I've spent more time at home in Albany than I usually do.
Third, of course, was the 2008 election. More on this in a minute, but suffice it to say I was completely caught up in it--as a campaign volunteer, as a politically-obsessed spectator, as an ordinary citizen--so much so that I found myself having difficulty sleeping or thinking about anything else for most of September and October, and half of November. The outcome, to my mind, was glorious, but the political season was a profound distraction from the normal routines of life. Indeed, there was nothing normal about this. I think The Onion captured the mood perfectly with the headline, "Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are." The truth hurts.
Fourth is love. Since last year, I've been in a long distance relationship with a wonderful man, with whom I am simply smitten. This is the second go-round for CJ and me; we first met, and dated, when he was a student at Harvard's Graduate School of Education in 2001-2002. Since then, he has worked for Teach for America and other educational organizations, and is now the founding dean of a new charter school in New York City. The long distance thing is sometimes tough, but we're managing just fine. We swap weekends in the Big Apple and Beantown. Thank God for Amtrak! Like the Obama campaign, this falls under the category of "welcome distraction."
Last but not least: my job. Oh yeah, that. This fall, I taught three classes: an undergraduate honors seminar on "Stories of Slavery and Freedom"; my large undergraduate lecture course on "American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac"; and my Kennedy School course, "The Arts of Communication." Strangely--despite the fact that there didn't ever seem to be enough hours in the day--I had my best semester of teaching to date. My students were amazing, and I was pretty fired up most of the time; simply put, we clicked. It's nice to love your job.
That said, I'm looking forward to a calmer spring term. I have some time off this next month, and am excited to return to my writing projects, including this blog. Read on!
First was the 25th Anniversary Celebration of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus. I am on the Board of the HGLC, and was programming co-chair for the weekend. It was an enormous amount of work, but well worth the effort in the end. Hundreds of LGBT folks from across the Harvard community--faculty, students, staff, alums--attended the weekend, which featured an amazing range of speakers from every possible background and profession. The first-ever event of its kind for Harvard's LGBT community, it was a festival of Crimson Queerdom! Check out the coverage of the event in the Harvard Crimson and Harvard Magazine.
The second, far less fabulous reason for taking a break from blogging is because my grandfather had a very bad stroke in September--as luck would have it, the night before the HGLC Weekend was scheduled to begin. Gramps is the family patriarch--in a good way--and his illness has had a destabilizing effect on my family, especially my mother, who is shouldering much of the burden of caring for my grandfather, and my grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's two years ago. Needless to say, family has been on my mind a lot this fall, and I've spent more time at home in Albany than I usually do.
Third, of course, was the 2008 election. More on this in a minute, but suffice it to say I was completely caught up in it--as a campaign volunteer, as a politically-obsessed spectator, as an ordinary citizen--so much so that I found myself having difficulty sleeping or thinking about anything else for most of September and October, and half of November. The outcome, to my mind, was glorious, but the political season was a profound distraction from the normal routines of life. Indeed, there was nothing normal about this. I think The Onion captured the mood perfectly with the headline, "Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are." The truth hurts.
Fourth is love. Since last year, I've been in a long distance relationship with a wonderful man, with whom I am simply smitten. This is the second go-round for CJ and me; we first met, and dated, when he was a student at Harvard's Graduate School of Education in 2001-2002. Since then, he has worked for Teach for America and other educational organizations, and is now the founding dean of a new charter school in New York City. The long distance thing is sometimes tough, but we're managing just fine. We swap weekends in the Big Apple and Beantown. Thank God for Amtrak! Like the Obama campaign, this falls under the category of "welcome distraction."
Last but not least: my job. Oh yeah, that. This fall, I taught three classes: an undergraduate honors seminar on "Stories of Slavery and Freedom"; my large undergraduate lecture course on "American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac"; and my Kennedy School course, "The Arts of Communication." Strangely--despite the fact that there didn't ever seem to be enough hours in the day--I had my best semester of teaching to date. My students were amazing, and I was pretty fired up most of the time; simply put, we clicked. It's nice to love your job.
That said, I'm looking forward to a calmer spring term. I have some time off this next month, and am excited to return to my writing projects, including this blog. Read on!
September 18, 2008
On Man-Crushes and Marriage
Sure he's beautiful and talented and decent and just, but this is why I really love Brad Pitt.
The right-wing forces of evil and intolerance have launched a movement to reverse the spring court ruling granting same-sex couples in California the right to marry. Proposition 8 is the hate-filled ballot initiative that seeks to deny this basic human right to gays and lesbians.
Fortunately, California is also the home to many progressive people who understand that human rights are universal and indivisible. Here's hoping they win this battle in the never-ending culture wars.
On November 4, vote "NO" on 8!
The right-wing forces of evil and intolerance have launched a movement to reverse the spring court ruling granting same-sex couples in California the right to marry. Proposition 8 is the hate-filled ballot initiative that seeks to deny this basic human right to gays and lesbians.
Fortunately, California is also the home to many progressive people who understand that human rights are universal and indivisible. Here's hoping they win this battle in the never-ending culture wars.
On November 4, vote "NO" on 8!
September 15, 2008
Back to School
It's the first day of classes here at Harvard College. There's a certain energy pulsing through the campus today. I could feel it, even at the crack of dawn this morning, when I was walking over to my department to xerox my syllabi. I'm all fired up for my first class meetings!
In addition to my Kennedy School lecture course, "Arts of Communication," I am also teaching an honors seminar, "Stories of Slavery and Freedom in the Modern Atlantic World," and my big undergraduate lecture, "American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac." Three classes, probably several hundred students. It should be a good term.
I love the first day of school, always have. It still makes me feel like a little boy. It's such a privilege to work in education. I honestly can't imagine a more rewarding profession.
Best wishes to my students and colleagues for an enjoyable semester!
In addition to my Kennedy School lecture course, "Arts of Communication," I am also teaching an honors seminar, "Stories of Slavery and Freedom in the Modern Atlantic World," and my big undergraduate lecture, "American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac." Three classes, probably several hundred students. It should be a good term.
I love the first day of school, always have. It still makes me feel like a little boy. It's such a privilege to work in education. I honestly can't imagine a more rewarding profession.
Best wishes to my students and colleagues for an enjoyable semester!
Just for Fun
I wanted to post two hilarious video spoofs. They had me rolling!
The first is from "Saturday Night Live," where Amy Poehler and Tina Fay were dead-ringers for Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. My stomach still hurts from laughing so hard.
The second is from the blog, "I'm Voting Republican," and is also very funny!
In these desperate times, we must occasionally laugh to keep from crying.
More seriousness later...
The first is from "Saturday Night Live," where Amy Poehler and Tina Fay were dead-ringers for Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. My stomach still hurts from laughing so hard.
The second is from the blog, "I'm Voting Republican," and is also very funny!
In these desperate times, we must occasionally laugh to keep from crying.
More seriousness later...
Marital Bliss
This past weekend, I was fortunate to attend the wedding of my dear friends, Renee Richardson and Christopher Gosline, on Block Island.
It was a spectacular affair--fun, intimate, impeccably planned, overflowing with love and good will. Renee and Chris wanted a relatively small wedding, one where--in their words--"we didn't have to meet anyone we didn't already know." It was a really special weekend. Renee was one of the most beautiful brides I've ever seen--she should have been photographed for Vanity Fair--and Chris looked like Cary Grant with his classic Hollywood good looks. These are beautiful people, inside and out.
At any rate, I wanted to post my opening remarks from the ceremony. In addition to being a union of two people, this was also a union of two families from very different backgrounds who share one very important thing in common: an enduring love for this special couple. I don't know if I've ever been to a wedding--and I've been to dozens--where everyone understood the beauty and magnitude of the occasion.
Here's what I said:
Good afternoon, people.
My name is Tim McCarthy, friend of the bride and the groom, and I have been given the great privilege—and enormous responsibility—of presiding over this ceremony today.
As you might imagine, I was honored beyond measure when Renee and Chris asked me to officiate their wedding. For those of you who know me, this is hardly a request I get every day. And thank God for that. My nerves can’t take too much of this.
Renee and Chris are two of my dearest friends in the whole world. Individually, they are impressive; together, they are astonishing.
I’ve known Renee since college. We were both blue-collar kids at a blue-blood school.
But we had more in common than our humble roots. We had audacious dreams: to take full advantage of every advantage; to make our proud parents even prouder; and to work hard to make this world more loving and just. Along the way, we also wanted to have as much fun as possible. And by this last measure, at least, we have had great success.
For many years now, I have been inspired by Renee—her expansive mind, her boundless beauty, her infectious spirit, and her loving soul. She is the sister I never had, the hero I always wanted.
I haven’t known Chris for as long, but he sure did made a good first impression (we all know what an impression he made 5 ½ years ago at the Hudson Hotel!) Chris is smart, generous, warm, sensitive, fun, funny, just, and—like Renee—not so bad on the eyes. He is the kind of man you dream about marrying, one with what I call “good home training.” He will be a loving partner and an adoring parent. I know this because I have seen it—simply put, he adores Renee. And I’m happy to report that the feeling’s mutual.
For so many reasons, today is a dream come true. Those of us who have known Renee know that for many years, she was of two minds about marriage. On the one hand, she never thought it would happen to her. And on the other hand, when it does happen, it’s gonna be fabulous!
Seriously, one of the things I’ve always loved about Renee—one of the reasons I also love Chris—is that they take marriage so seriously. They do not embark on this journey lightly or naively.
I think they take their commitment to one another seriously because, like me, they’ve had excellent role models. David and Audrey, Larry and Connie: I want to acknowledge what an exceptional job you have done raising Renee and Christopher. People like this don’t come along every day. Your love is everywhere evident in this couple, and their commitment to each other is a loving testament to the commitments you have made—to each other, and to them.
I know today is a dream come true for the four of you as well.
The theme of this weekend is one of “journeys.” We all know how much Renee and Chris love to travel. (I mean, they got engaged in a castle in Prague—who does that?) But this weekend’s theme has a deeper meaning—a more profound significance—beyond the globe-trotting exploits of this cosmopolitan couple.
As I was watching everyone dance last night—in that tent on a hill, on this island in the Atlantic, as the heavens showered us with attention—I couldn’t help but think of all the many journeys that have brought us to this destination. (And no, I’m not talking about the two Block Island ferries I missed yesterday!)
I am talking about journeys that began in Europe and the Caribbean—in France and Germany and Ireland and Trinidad. Journeys that took us from Danbury and East Flatbush, through Vermont and Massachusetts, then to Harvard Square and Wall Street, and now to New Hampshire and, God and lawyers willing, eventually back to Brooklyn.
We are blessed to live in a nation of many peoples, one that has been the destination of many journeys—some voluntary, others not, but each one an essential part of who we are and what we may yet become. Last night—indeed, every time this crowd gets together—we witness the kind of world God intended for us: one filled with love and friendship, bread and wine, music and each other.
When I say that today is a dream come true, I mean that quite literally. What unites all of these journeys is the tenacious hope—the bold expectation—that what lies ahead can and will be better than what came before. This hope is the source of our faith as a people. It is what keeps us moving forward—when the wind is at our back, and when the mountain before us seems impossible to surmount.
And I know this hope—this essential optimism—is the thing that binds Renee and Chris to one another. It was the thing that gave Chris the confidence to stare at Renee until she paid attention to him (not the vodka Red Bull). It’s the thing that has guided Renee in her pursuit of the Ph.D. she will receive from Harvard in June. It’s the thing that made Chris so strong when she was so sick, and it’s the thing that brought Renee back to health. It’s the thing that sustained a long distance relationship for so many years. It’s the thing that inspired these parents to bless this world with these remarkable children. It’s the thing that will inspire both of you to make the world a better place for all of our children. It’s the reason we call your dog “Keeper.” And it’s the reason we all love you so profoundly, why we made the journey to this destination today.
My prayer for you today is that this hope will always be the source of your faith—in the best of times, of course, but also when despair and discrimination make it hard to have any faith at all.
May your hope and love inspire faith in all of us—and vice versa—as we continue this journey together, now, as one big family.
Renee and Chris, may you always be each other’s final destination. And on this day where dreams have come true, may God bless your most perfect union.
It was a spectacular affair--fun, intimate, impeccably planned, overflowing with love and good will. Renee and Chris wanted a relatively small wedding, one where--in their words--"we didn't have to meet anyone we didn't already know." It was a really special weekend. Renee was one of the most beautiful brides I've ever seen--she should have been photographed for Vanity Fair--and Chris looked like Cary Grant with his classic Hollywood good looks. These are beautiful people, inside and out.
At any rate, I wanted to post my opening remarks from the ceremony. In addition to being a union of two people, this was also a union of two families from very different backgrounds who share one very important thing in common: an enduring love for this special couple. I don't know if I've ever been to a wedding--and I've been to dozens--where everyone understood the beauty and magnitude of the occasion.
Here's what I said:
Good afternoon, people.
My name is Tim McCarthy, friend of the bride and the groom, and I have been given the great privilege—and enormous responsibility—of presiding over this ceremony today.
As you might imagine, I was honored beyond measure when Renee and Chris asked me to officiate their wedding. For those of you who know me, this is hardly a request I get every day. And thank God for that. My nerves can’t take too much of this.
Renee and Chris are two of my dearest friends in the whole world. Individually, they are impressive; together, they are astonishing.
I’ve known Renee since college. We were both blue-collar kids at a blue-blood school.
But we had more in common than our humble roots. We had audacious dreams: to take full advantage of every advantage; to make our proud parents even prouder; and to work hard to make this world more loving and just. Along the way, we also wanted to have as much fun as possible. And by this last measure, at least, we have had great success.
For many years now, I have been inspired by Renee—her expansive mind, her boundless beauty, her infectious spirit, and her loving soul. She is the sister I never had, the hero I always wanted.
I haven’t known Chris for as long, but he sure did made a good first impression (we all know what an impression he made 5 ½ years ago at the Hudson Hotel!) Chris is smart, generous, warm, sensitive, fun, funny, just, and—like Renee—not so bad on the eyes. He is the kind of man you dream about marrying, one with what I call “good home training.” He will be a loving partner and an adoring parent. I know this because I have seen it—simply put, he adores Renee. And I’m happy to report that the feeling’s mutual.
For so many reasons, today is a dream come true. Those of us who have known Renee know that for many years, she was of two minds about marriage. On the one hand, she never thought it would happen to her. And on the other hand, when it does happen, it’s gonna be fabulous!
Seriously, one of the things I’ve always loved about Renee—one of the reasons I also love Chris—is that they take marriage so seriously. They do not embark on this journey lightly or naively.
I think they take their commitment to one another seriously because, like me, they’ve had excellent role models. David and Audrey, Larry and Connie: I want to acknowledge what an exceptional job you have done raising Renee and Christopher. People like this don’t come along every day. Your love is everywhere evident in this couple, and their commitment to each other is a loving testament to the commitments you have made—to each other, and to them.
I know today is a dream come true for the four of you as well.
The theme of this weekend is one of “journeys.” We all know how much Renee and Chris love to travel. (I mean, they got engaged in a castle in Prague—who does that?) But this weekend’s theme has a deeper meaning—a more profound significance—beyond the globe-trotting exploits of this cosmopolitan couple.
As I was watching everyone dance last night—in that tent on a hill, on this island in the Atlantic, as the heavens showered us with attention—I couldn’t help but think of all the many journeys that have brought us to this destination. (And no, I’m not talking about the two Block Island ferries I missed yesterday!)
I am talking about journeys that began in Europe and the Caribbean—in France and Germany and Ireland and Trinidad. Journeys that took us from Danbury and East Flatbush, through Vermont and Massachusetts, then to Harvard Square and Wall Street, and now to New Hampshire and, God and lawyers willing, eventually back to Brooklyn.
We are blessed to live in a nation of many peoples, one that has been the destination of many journeys—some voluntary, others not, but each one an essential part of who we are and what we may yet become. Last night—indeed, every time this crowd gets together—we witness the kind of world God intended for us: one filled with love and friendship, bread and wine, music and each other.
When I say that today is a dream come true, I mean that quite literally. What unites all of these journeys is the tenacious hope—the bold expectation—that what lies ahead can and will be better than what came before. This hope is the source of our faith as a people. It is what keeps us moving forward—when the wind is at our back, and when the mountain before us seems impossible to surmount.
And I know this hope—this essential optimism—is the thing that binds Renee and Chris to one another. It was the thing that gave Chris the confidence to stare at Renee until she paid attention to him (not the vodka Red Bull). It’s the thing that has guided Renee in her pursuit of the Ph.D. she will receive from Harvard in June. It’s the thing that made Chris so strong when she was so sick, and it’s the thing that brought Renee back to health. It’s the thing that sustained a long distance relationship for so many years. It’s the thing that inspired these parents to bless this world with these remarkable children. It’s the thing that will inspire both of you to make the world a better place for all of our children. It’s the reason we call your dog “Keeper.” And it’s the reason we all love you so profoundly, why we made the journey to this destination today.
My prayer for you today is that this hope will always be the source of your faith—in the best of times, of course, but also when despair and discrimination make it hard to have any faith at all.
May your hope and love inspire faith in all of us—and vice versa—as we continue this journey together, now, as one big family.
Renee and Chris, may you always be each other’s final destination. And on this day where dreams have come true, may God bless your most perfect union.
September 03, 2008
A Party of Whiners
It seems like the Republicans have become a party of whiners.
Everyone's complaining about something: sexism, the "liberal media," you name it.
Tonight, former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential contender Mike Huckabee assailed the MSM for its "double standard," claiming that news coverage of the GOP has been "tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert."
First of all, I wonder how many Republicans have ever been to a Madonna concert? Usually, they try to avoid the gays. Then again, I've always thought Huckabee was just a little too witty to be entirely straight.
Secondly, if I were Mike Huckabee I'd shut up about the press. By all accounts, he was a media darling when he was running for President, so much so that they never really hit him very hard on a whole range of issues--let's start with his call to quarantine people with AIDS--that showed him to be not only deeply un-Christian but fucking crazy as well.
Everyone's complaining about something: sexism, the "liberal media," you name it.
Tonight, former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential contender Mike Huckabee assailed the MSM for its "double standard," claiming that news coverage of the GOP has been "tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert."
First of all, I wonder how many Republicans have ever been to a Madonna concert? Usually, they try to avoid the gays. Then again, I've always thought Huckabee was just a little too witty to be entirely straight.
Secondly, if I were Mike Huckabee I'd shut up about the press. By all accounts, he was a media darling when he was running for President, so much so that they never really hit him very hard on a whole range of issues--let's start with his call to quarantine people with AIDS--that showed him to be not only deeply un-Christian but fucking crazy as well.
Palin, The Outsider
Tonight's line-up of speakers at the Republican Convention includes Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who will, incredibly, take a swipe at Barack Obama's experience:
"And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Incredible. Honestly, I'm looking forward to this.
"And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Incredible. Honestly, I'm looking forward to this.
Palin, The Victim
There's a new narrative emerging within the ranks of the GOP, one that Republicans are hoping will appeal to voters--particularly women voters--still upset by Hillary Clinton's loss to Barack Obama in the Democratic primary: Sarah Palin is the victim of sexism, just like Clinton was.
Predictably, GOP women are rallying around Sarah Palin. But now even Hillary Clinton's former aides are weighing in, saying that Palin has been subjected to a media double-standard during the intense vetting process that has taken place since last Friday.
How ironic that the GOP--a party that has spent the last generation denigrating the politics of "victimhood" and "identity"--would put forward a narrative of "Palin-as-victim" in order to generate sympathy and votes for the Republican ticket. This is such an insult to women, and to anyone else who can see through this cynical, pathetic charade.
Just for fun, I thought I'd share the following quote about Hillary Clinton:
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country.'"
The source of the quote? Sarah Palin.
So much for feminist solidarity!
Predictably, GOP women are rallying around Sarah Palin. But now even Hillary Clinton's former aides are weighing in, saying that Palin has been subjected to a media double-standard during the intense vetting process that has taken place since last Friday.
How ironic that the GOP--a party that has spent the last generation denigrating the politics of "victimhood" and "identity"--would put forward a narrative of "Palin-as-victim" in order to generate sympathy and votes for the Republican ticket. This is such an insult to women, and to anyone else who can see through this cynical, pathetic charade.
Just for fun, I thought I'd share the following quote about Hillary Clinton:
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country.'"
The source of the quote? Sarah Palin.
So much for feminist solidarity!
GOP Lovin' them Dems!
Tom "The Hammer" DeLay and his GOP colleagues want to give credit where credit is due: the Democrats are better organized than the Republicans. (That's an understatement!)
Meanwhile, Republican strategist Mike Murphy and Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan got caught on mic--unbeknownst to them, of course--talking trash about Sarah Palin and John McCain.
With friends like these...
Meanwhile, Republican strategist Mike Murphy and Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan got caught on mic--unbeknownst to them, of course--talking trash about Sarah Palin and John McCain.
With friends like these...
Cass Sunstein on Obama's Pragmatism
In this week's New Republic, my colleague Cass R. Sunstein has a good piece on Obama's political pragmatism.
There has been much discussion recently about Obama as a "screen," a "blank slate," onto which we all project our hopes, fears, desires, and anxieties. The Right likes to vilify him as "radical" or as a "conventional liberal." And I've been having a lot of debates with my friends on the Left, who just aren't convinced that Obama is a real progressive. They are upset about what they perceive to be his retreat to the middle on issues like abortion, FISA, gay marriage, the death penalty, you name it. Sunstein's article is, in part, a response to this reaction.
I must say, I do share many of these concerns. Obama is not a perfect candidate, by any means. But then again, who is? As I've said before, no candidate for President of the United States--and certainly not one from either of the two major parties--is going to satisfy all of any one person's political requirements.
Those of us on the Left need to be reminded that Ralph Nader isn't perfect, either, and yet so often, we have flocked to him during times of disappointment and alienation (I voted for Nader twice, in 1996 and again in 2000). But this election is different. There are stark differences between the two parties; this could hardly be more clear. And we are experiencing multiple crises, both at home and abroad, that need our collective attention. In the midst of it all, the Democrats have nominated a historic candidate with genuinely progressive values, a man who wants to fix our government and transform our public life (he's already transformed our public life). More to the point, Obama has invited progressives to the table in an unprecedented way during this campaign, and I have every reason to believe this will continue once he gets elected. We would do well to accept his invitation, rather than standing outside the banquet hall bitching about the fact that not everyone at the party is just like us.
Sometimes, I think, our ideological purity undermines the clarity of our political vision and analysis. And this is a time for clarity, not purity.
There has been much discussion recently about Obama as a "screen," a "blank slate," onto which we all project our hopes, fears, desires, and anxieties. The Right likes to vilify him as "radical" or as a "conventional liberal." And I've been having a lot of debates with my friends on the Left, who just aren't convinced that Obama is a real progressive. They are upset about what they perceive to be his retreat to the middle on issues like abortion, FISA, gay marriage, the death penalty, you name it. Sunstein's article is, in part, a response to this reaction.
I must say, I do share many of these concerns. Obama is not a perfect candidate, by any means. But then again, who is? As I've said before, no candidate for President of the United States--and certainly not one from either of the two major parties--is going to satisfy all of any one person's political requirements.
Those of us on the Left need to be reminded that Ralph Nader isn't perfect, either, and yet so often, we have flocked to him during times of disappointment and alienation (I voted for Nader twice, in 1996 and again in 2000). But this election is different. There are stark differences between the two parties; this could hardly be more clear. And we are experiencing multiple crises, both at home and abroad, that need our collective attention. In the midst of it all, the Democrats have nominated a historic candidate with genuinely progressive values, a man who wants to fix our government and transform our public life (he's already transformed our public life). More to the point, Obama has invited progressives to the table in an unprecedented way during this campaign, and I have every reason to believe this will continue once he gets elected. We would do well to accept his invitation, rather than standing outside the banquet hall bitching about the fact that not everyone at the party is just like us.
Sometimes, I think, our ideological purity undermines the clarity of our political vision and analysis. And this is a time for clarity, not purity.
Keeping Me Honest
Thanks to my reader, "lsc," for posting this piece on Obama's recent apology to a television news reporter in Detroit. Evidently, Obama referred to her as "sweetie."
Does this mean he's sexist?
Does this mean he's sexist?
Obama Breaks Through
According to Gallup, Obama has crossed the elusive 50% polling threshold, opening up an 8-point lead over his Republican rival John McCain.
A number of recent polls--Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS News--indicate that Obama got the "bump" he wanted from the Democratic Convention in Denver. Recent events surrounding McCain's choice of Sarah Palin to be his VP, combined with the chaos of Gustav and the first days of the Republican Convention, may have also had some influence.
I'm not one to give polls too much credence--national polling matters less from an electoral standpoint than state-by-state matchups--but this is certainly good news for the Obama campaign.
A number of recent polls--Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS News--indicate that Obama got the "bump" he wanted from the Democratic Convention in Denver. Recent events surrounding McCain's choice of Sarah Palin to be his VP, combined with the chaos of Gustav and the first days of the Republican Convention, may have also had some influence.
I'm not one to give polls too much credence--national polling matters less from an electoral standpoint than state-by-state matchups--but this is certainly good news for the Obama campaign.
Will McCain Drop Palin?
That's what the bookmakers say!
Says David Williams of Ladbrokes, a London-based gambling house: "Ever since he appointed her, people have stopped betting on McCain. He went down like a sack of potatoes as far as the punters are concerned."
Now I'm not a gambling man--which is why there's no way, no how I'm voting for McCain-Palin!
Says David Williams of Ladbrokes, a London-based gambling house: "Ever since he appointed her, people have stopped betting on McCain. He went down like a sack of potatoes as far as the punters are concerned."
Now I'm not a gambling man--which is why there's no way, no how I'm voting for McCain-Palin!
This Is Hilarious!
Thanks to my friend Morgan for sending me this video, from Daily Kos about how John McCain really chose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Very funny!
September 02, 2008
Heads in the Sand
When it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, John McCain and Sarah Palin have a very troubling record.
Both candidates have consistently opposed funding for sex-ed programs. They are abstinence-only folks.
And we all know how well that works!
Both candidates have consistently opposed funding for sex-ed programs. They are abstinence-only folks.
And we all know how well that works!
September 01, 2008
Protesting the GOP
Thanks to Christina for posting this link which documents the police crackdown on the thousands of activists who have flocked to Denver to protest the Republican National Convention (such as it is).
You won't hear about this in the MSM.
I was relieved to see that riot cops have arrested and detained Amy Goodman. She's very, very dangerous!
You won't hear about this in the MSM.
I was relieved to see that riot cops have arrested and detained Amy Goodman. She's very, very dangerous!
Only Abstinence?
Here's a great piece on the fraud that is "abstinence-only" education.
Elliott Prasse-Freeman is a former student of mine--one of my all-time favorites, in fact--with whom I've just begun working on a new book on human rights. Elliott is a brilliant, progressive young activist who has spent the last five years working in international development for various agencies--from the U.N. to international NGOs.
Elliott Prasse-Freeman is a former student of mine--one of my all-time favorites, in fact--with whom I've just begun working on a new book on human rights. Elliott is a brilliant, progressive young activist who has spent the last five years working in international development for various agencies--from the U.N. to international NGOs.
Lobbyists for McCain
I've been all work and no play today, so here's a post to lighten the mood:
My friend Andrew Boyd--activist, author, humorist, gadfly, troublemaker, egoist, and founder of Billionaires for Bush, a grassroots network of corporate lobbyists--is at it again.*
This election season, he's founded a new group, Lobbyists for McCain, which describes itself as such:
"Lobbyists for McCain is a new kind of organization for a new era. For the first time in U.S. history, lobbyists have come together — not just for our clients, and not just for the Presidential candidate we trust — but for ourselves. We lobby for lobbyists; one could say we are the lobbyist lobby. After all, lobbyists need lobbyists, too."
Click here to purchase your very own "Lobbyists for McCain" bumber stickers. My SUV is covered with them.**
If you're interested in joining "Lobbyists for McCain"--especially if you're interested in attending a John McCain rally*** before November 4****--then click here.
Only the elite are doing it!
*these are all words Andy regularly uses to describe himself. Especially "egoist."
**I don't really drive an SUV. I can't afford one.
***like "Bingo Night" at the Sunshine Retirement Home in Clearwater, Florida
****when John McCain gets his ass handed to him by Barack Obama.
Disclaimer: I'm not Andrew Boyd, but he approved this post. Kind of.
My friend Andrew Boyd--activist, author, humorist, gadfly, troublemaker, egoist, and founder of Billionaires for Bush, a grassroots network of corporate lobbyists--is at it again.*
This election season, he's founded a new group, Lobbyists for McCain, which describes itself as such:
"Lobbyists for McCain is a new kind of organization for a new era. For the first time in U.S. history, lobbyists have come together — not just for our clients, and not just for the Presidential candidate we trust — but for ourselves. We lobby for lobbyists; one could say we are the lobbyist lobby. After all, lobbyists need lobbyists, too."
Click here to purchase your very own "Lobbyists for McCain" bumber stickers. My SUV is covered with them.**
If you're interested in joining "Lobbyists for McCain"--especially if you're interested in attending a John McCain rally*** before November 4****--then click here.
Only the elite are doing it!
*these are all words Andy regularly uses to describe himself. Especially "egoist."
**I don't really drive an SUV. I can't afford one.
***like "Bingo Night" at the Sunshine Retirement Home in Clearwater, Florida
****when John McCain gets his ass handed to him by Barack Obama.
Disclaimer: I'm not Andrew Boyd, but he approved this post. Kind of.
Roger Simon is "Relentless"
Politico's Roger Simon has written a stunning six-part investigative report on the inner workings of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. This is journalism at its best, and he got folks to talk on the record! It's a long piece, but it's well worth the time.
Calling Obama's organization "relentless" and Clinton's "dysfunctional," Simon concludes that, at every turn, Obama simply ran a superior campaign, from organizing state caucuses to securing superdelegates.
Two things struck me while reading this: first, Bill Clinton was a far more damaging influence on his wife's campaign than most of us even realize; and second, Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton was a truly remarkable feat. This was not supposed to happen, but it did.
If you want to know how effectively President Obama will govern, look no further than his campaign.
Calling Obama's organization "relentless" and Clinton's "dysfunctional," Simon concludes that, at every turn, Obama simply ran a superior campaign, from organizing state caucuses to securing superdelegates.
Two things struck me while reading this: first, Bill Clinton was a far more damaging influence on his wife's campaign than most of us even realize; and second, Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton was a truly remarkable feat. This was not supposed to happen, but it did.
If you want to know how effectively President Obama will govern, look no further than his campaign.
Hurricane Palin
Just as we learn that Gustav has missed New Orleans and is losing strength, another storm is brewing, one that seems poised to do a great deal of damage: Hurricane Palin.
Ever since John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate--a shocker that confounded critics and angered supporters--the first-term Alaska Governor has brought nothing but trouble: an ongoing ethics investigation; rumors of a pregnancy cover-up; confirmation that her 17-year-old daughter is indeed pregnant (right now!); revelations that she once chaired the political action committee of indicted Senator Ted Stevens.
All of this in just three days! What's next? HuffPo is tracking the storm of controversy.
There is, of course, a silver lining for right-wing conservatives: through it all, Palin has not budged on her opposition to abortion (even, it turns out, in cases of rape and incest). In other words, if elected, Palin, like John McCain, will seek to overturn a 35-year-old law that allows other women the freedom to make the same choices she and her daughter have made: whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade (1973) did not mandate abortion; it protected a woman's freedom to choose whether or not to have one. All women--regardless of what choice they make.
(In case you were interested: Palin is way out-of-touch with the American mainstream on the issue of abortion. According to recent polling, a majority of Americans supports abortion rights, and at least 70%--even many of those who might otherwise identify as "pro-life"--think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.)
All of this is to say that in his first major Presidential decision--the choice of a running mate--John McCain has demonstrated terrible judgment, all in the interest of trying to showcase his "maverick" style while shoring up his conservative street cred. But the gamble failed. There is simply no way McCain or his people vetted Palin carefully before making this crucial decision. The more we learn, the more apparent this becomes. How is John McCain ready to lead if he screws up the selection of the person he wants to lead with?
My prediction: Palin will withdraw from the race, if not this week, then before the debates.
Ever since John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate--a shocker that confounded critics and angered supporters--the first-term Alaska Governor has brought nothing but trouble: an ongoing ethics investigation; rumors of a pregnancy cover-up; confirmation that her 17-year-old daughter is indeed pregnant (right now!); revelations that she once chaired the political action committee of indicted Senator Ted Stevens.
All of this in just three days! What's next? HuffPo is tracking the storm of controversy.
There is, of course, a silver lining for right-wing conservatives: through it all, Palin has not budged on her opposition to abortion (even, it turns out, in cases of rape and incest). In other words, if elected, Palin, like John McCain, will seek to overturn a 35-year-old law that allows other women the freedom to make the same choices she and her daughter have made: whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade (1973) did not mandate abortion; it protected a woman's freedom to choose whether or not to have one. All women--regardless of what choice they make.
(In case you were interested: Palin is way out-of-touch with the American mainstream on the issue of abortion. According to recent polling, a majority of Americans supports abortion rights, and at least 70%--even many of those who might otherwise identify as "pro-life"--think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.)
All of this is to say that in his first major Presidential decision--the choice of a running mate--John McCain has demonstrated terrible judgment, all in the interest of trying to showcase his "maverick" style while shoring up his conservative street cred. But the gamble failed. There is simply no way McCain or his people vetted Palin carefully before making this crucial decision. The more we learn, the more apparent this becomes. How is John McCain ready to lead if he screws up the selection of the person he wants to lead with?
My prediction: Palin will withdraw from the race, if not this week, then before the debates.
A Political Brain
Over at HuffPo, Drew Westen, whose work I teach in my Kennedy School course, has written a fabulous post on the success of the Democratic Convention and the controvery surrounding the Palin VP nomination. A must-read for political junkies!
Westen is the distinguished Emory psychologist and author, most recently, of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the State of the Nation (PublicAffairs).
Westen is the distinguished Emory psychologist and author, most recently, of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the State of the Nation (PublicAffairs).
The Convention Becomes a Circus
This was supposed to be the week that Republicans showed America why they're more fit to govern than Democrats. But the Twin-Cities convention has become a three-ring circus.
(And I thought the big concern was whether more people would watch the Giants-Redskins game or John McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday night!)
Just when you think things couldn't get any worse, the Palin pregnancy story takes an even stranger turn:
The McCain campaign has issued a statement confirming that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate's 17-year-old daughter is indeed pregnant, has the full support of her family, and will marry the father of the child.
Needless to say, an abortion is out of the question. So, evidently, were contraception and abstinence.
Seriously, folks, this is nuts.
Not the teen pregnancy part. This happens all the time, and young people in this situation deserve our compassion and support. I had a scare or two myself back in the day, and I've never been more anxious in my life. Frankly, I'm happy to hear that the Palins are supporting their daughter during this difficult time; lesser parents might abandon their child.
That said, in addition to loving and supportive parents, young people also need adults around them who love them enough to have frank discussions about sex and sexuality, who support them enough to provide information about STD prevention and access to contraception.
The crazy part about all this is that John McCain says he knew about this before he asked Palin to be his Vice Presidential candidate. Hogwash. There is absolutely no way that John McCain would have picked Palin if he knew about this in advance. At least I hope not. This is a total shit-show and it's only going to get worse as more and more MSM outlets begin to cover this story, which, along with Hurricane Gustav, will dominate the news cycle this week.
The Republicans should just pack up and go home.
We're two months away from the most important election in recent American history, and the Republicans have basically cancelled their national convention, and are now mired in a bizarre pregnancy drama involving a vastly unqualified, virtually unknown Vice Presidential candidate.
I can see the headlines now: "Bristol Palin unready for motherhood; Sarah Palin unready for White House."
(And I thought the big concern was whether more people would watch the Giants-Redskins game or John McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday night!)
Just when you think things couldn't get any worse, the Palin pregnancy story takes an even stranger turn:
The McCain campaign has issued a statement confirming that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate's 17-year-old daughter is indeed pregnant, has the full support of her family, and will marry the father of the child.
Needless to say, an abortion is out of the question. So, evidently, were contraception and abstinence.
Seriously, folks, this is nuts.
Not the teen pregnancy part. This happens all the time, and young people in this situation deserve our compassion and support. I had a scare or two myself back in the day, and I've never been more anxious in my life. Frankly, I'm happy to hear that the Palins are supporting their daughter during this difficult time; lesser parents might abandon their child.
That said, in addition to loving and supportive parents, young people also need adults around them who love them enough to have frank discussions about sex and sexuality, who support them enough to provide information about STD prevention and access to contraception.
The crazy part about all this is that John McCain says he knew about this before he asked Palin to be his Vice Presidential candidate. Hogwash. There is absolutely no way that John McCain would have picked Palin if he knew about this in advance. At least I hope not. This is a total shit-show and it's only going to get worse as more and more MSM outlets begin to cover this story, which, along with Hurricane Gustav, will dominate the news cycle this week.
The Republicans should just pack up and go home.
We're two months away from the most important election in recent American history, and the Republicans have basically cancelled their national convention, and are now mired in a bizarre pregnancy drama involving a vastly unqualified, virtually unknown Vice Presidential candidate.
I can see the headlines now: "Bristol Palin unready for motherhood; Sarah Palin unready for White House."
Laura Bush on Sexism
The famously reserved First Lady appeared on Fox News this morning to caution Democrats against being "sexist" in their attacks on Sarah Palin.
Is it just me, or does Laura Bush always look uncomfortable when she's in public?
(I've always thought this was strange. After all, she seems to be a smart, amiable, principled, decent person; it's her husband who's the public embarassment, not her.)
That said, I wonder if Laura Bush has the same concern about Rush Limbaugh, who referred to Palin as a "babe" over the weekend? And did I miss her denunciations of the sexism directed at Hillary Rodham Clinton and Michelle Obama?
Now don't get me wrong: I'm not going to defend the news media. I always bristle whenever journalists or pundits talk about female candidates' appearances, clothing, and "style."
(Enough already about Hillary Clinton's pant suits!)
But to somehow conflate the media's insensitivity and lack of nuance on gender issues--hello, Fox News?!--with the entire Democratic Party is absurd. Give me one instance where Barack Obama has shown himself to be sexist. Seriously. Perhaps there are examples of this, but I haven't seen any.
It is equally absurd to say that any criticism of Sarah Palin is sexist. Sarah Palin, a virtual unknown before last Friday, is now being vetted by the news media and the American people. This is standard procedure in campaigns--I would go so far to say that this is the media's role and duty in public life--and every candidate who runs for office has to endure it: the bad, the good, and everything else. That said, the McCain campaign could have avoided some of the more vigorous questioning since last Friday by conducting a proper vetting process of its own.
But it didn't.
And before Americans go to the polls in November to elect Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, we have a right to know who she is, what she stands for, and whether she has what it takes to be the leader of the free world.
This will involve asking all sorts of questions about her character, leadership style and ability, knowledge of domestic policy and world affairs, and her personal life. For instance, among many other things, I'd like to know how she would handle a term-time pregnancy as Vice President. She seems to have handled it relatively effortlessly as Governor of Alaska, and for this, she deserves kudos. The "life-work balance"--something we should ask our male politicians to address far more than we (or they) do--is an important arena to explore, especially among young candidates with small children. I've always wanted to ask Barack Obama how his aggressive campaign schedule allows him to be the devoted father he claims to be? As lovely as his relationship with his daughters (and wife) seems to be, I suspect there's some disparity between words and reality. How could it be otherwise? And what if he and Michelle Obama have a child in the White House? These questions are fair game for Obama, and they should be for Sarah Palin as well. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions about John McCain's age and health without being accused of ageism.
Every candidate inspires different questions. Young and female (and elderly and African-American) candidates will force us to ask new questions about how they negotiate the personal and the political. This isn't sexist; it's progress.
Is it just me, or does Laura Bush always look uncomfortable when she's in public?
(I've always thought this was strange. After all, she seems to be a smart, amiable, principled, decent person; it's her husband who's the public embarassment, not her.)
That said, I wonder if Laura Bush has the same concern about Rush Limbaugh, who referred to Palin as a "babe" over the weekend? And did I miss her denunciations of the sexism directed at Hillary Rodham Clinton and Michelle Obama?
Now don't get me wrong: I'm not going to defend the news media. I always bristle whenever journalists or pundits talk about female candidates' appearances, clothing, and "style."
(Enough already about Hillary Clinton's pant suits!)
But to somehow conflate the media's insensitivity and lack of nuance on gender issues--hello, Fox News?!--with the entire Democratic Party is absurd. Give me one instance where Barack Obama has shown himself to be sexist. Seriously. Perhaps there are examples of this, but I haven't seen any.
It is equally absurd to say that any criticism of Sarah Palin is sexist. Sarah Palin, a virtual unknown before last Friday, is now being vetted by the news media and the American people. This is standard procedure in campaigns--I would go so far to say that this is the media's role and duty in public life--and every candidate who runs for office has to endure it: the bad, the good, and everything else. That said, the McCain campaign could have avoided some of the more vigorous questioning since last Friday by conducting a proper vetting process of its own.
But it didn't.
And before Americans go to the polls in November to elect Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, we have a right to know who she is, what she stands for, and whether she has what it takes to be the leader of the free world.
This will involve asking all sorts of questions about her character, leadership style and ability, knowledge of domestic policy and world affairs, and her personal life. For instance, among many other things, I'd like to know how she would handle a term-time pregnancy as Vice President. She seems to have handled it relatively effortlessly as Governor of Alaska, and for this, she deserves kudos. The "life-work balance"--something we should ask our male politicians to address far more than we (or they) do--is an important arena to explore, especially among young candidates with small children. I've always wanted to ask Barack Obama how his aggressive campaign schedule allows him to be the devoted father he claims to be? As lovely as his relationship with his daughters (and wife) seems to be, I suspect there's some disparity between words and reality. How could it be otherwise? And what if he and Michelle Obama have a child in the White House? These questions are fair game for Obama, and they should be for Sarah Palin as well. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions about John McCain's age and health without being accused of ageism.
Every candidate inspires different questions. Young and female (and elderly and African-American) candidates will force us to ask new questions about how they negotiate the personal and the political. This isn't sexist; it's progress.
Passing the Buck
The significantly downsized Republican convention has turned into a high-tech telethon to raise relief money for victims of Hurricane Gustav.
Now this is terribly sacriligious, but I'm going to ask anyway: what if the storm isn't nearly as bad as Katrina? What if there are relatively few victims of the storm compared to last time? What if, as Ray Nagin has suggested, New Orleans residents will be able to return to the city by Wednesday?
I understand the panic and scramble among Republicans to scale-back their convention this week. I'm sure the Democrats would have done the same thing (in fact, Barack Obama just sent his 2 million supporters an email asking them to donate to the Red Cross relief effort). It's not the outpouring of support that bothers me, it's the ferver with which they have preemptively responded to the impending doom that I find so unnerving.
I'm reminded of the line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I know, I know: these Republicans can never win. They totally neglect New Orleans after Katrina, and we're all over them for being heartless, racist bastards. This time, they respond with an outpouring of attention and generosity of spirit, and we're all over them for being cynical opportunists.
Now I'm willing to admit that I'm being tough, perhaps even unfair, but I just don't have it in me right now to cut the Republicans any slack. Not after Bush and Cheney, not after these last eight years.
The simple reality is that Republicans have a branding problem, one that has led to a strong (and in my opinion, accurate) perception that they don't give a damn about the least among us, don't care at all about ordinary people, don't have any interest in helping people who are struggling or in a bad place.
This is the principal reason I laugh every time the GOP claims the mantle of Christianity.
What would Jesus do? Probably vote for Democrats.
Gandhi once said: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
The same can be said of Republicans.
Now this is terribly sacriligious, but I'm going to ask anyway: what if the storm isn't nearly as bad as Katrina? What if there are relatively few victims of the storm compared to last time? What if, as Ray Nagin has suggested, New Orleans residents will be able to return to the city by Wednesday?
I understand the panic and scramble among Republicans to scale-back their convention this week. I'm sure the Democrats would have done the same thing (in fact, Barack Obama just sent his 2 million supporters an email asking them to donate to the Red Cross relief effort). It's not the outpouring of support that bothers me, it's the ferver with which they have preemptively responded to the impending doom that I find so unnerving.
I'm reminded of the line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I know, I know: these Republicans can never win. They totally neglect New Orleans after Katrina, and we're all over them for being heartless, racist bastards. This time, they respond with an outpouring of attention and generosity of spirit, and we're all over them for being cynical opportunists.
Now I'm willing to admit that I'm being tough, perhaps even unfair, but I just don't have it in me right now to cut the Republicans any slack. Not after Bush and Cheney, not after these last eight years.
The simple reality is that Republicans have a branding problem, one that has led to a strong (and in my opinion, accurate) perception that they don't give a damn about the least among us, don't care at all about ordinary people, don't have any interest in helping people who are struggling or in a bad place.
This is the principal reason I laugh every time the GOP claims the mantle of Christianity.
What would Jesus do? Probably vote for Democrats.
Gandhi once said: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
The same can be said of Republicans.
Tracking Gustav
Mike Lizza's NYT blog, "The Lede," is tracking Hurricane Gustav's landfall. It's a good source for up-to-date information on this potentially devastating storm.
Right now, FEMA officials are saying that Gustav will wreak considerable havoc, but won't be as bad as Katrina. Meanwhile, Mayor Ray Nagin predicts that residents of New Orleans may be able to return to the city as early as Wednesday.
Right now, FEMA officials are saying that Gustav will wreak considerable havoc, but won't be as bad as Katrina. Meanwhile, Mayor Ray Nagin predicts that residents of New Orleans may be able to return to the city as early as Wednesday.
A Late-Night Prayer
I am off to bed now.
As many of you know, I'm not especially religious, and I don't often pray.
But tonight I will be praying for all those who have already suffered the wrath of Gustav, and for my compatriots in the Gulf, who will need all the strength and courage and faith they can muster in the morning.
Godspeed, brothers and sisters.
As many of you know, I'm not especially religious, and I don't often pray.
But tonight I will be praying for all those who have already suffered the wrath of Gustav, and for my compatriots in the Gulf, who will need all the strength and courage and faith they can muster in the morning.
Godspeed, brothers and sisters.
Palin Pregnancy Revisited
Joining the weekend's blogosphere frenzy over the Palin pregnancy rumors, Andrew Sullivan defends our right to ask tough questions about it, but concludes that Palin probably did give birth to her fifth child last spring.
I agree with Sullivan that it would be easy enough--and advisable--for the McCain campaign to provide conclusive evidence to put these salacious rumors to bed.
(Salacious, indeed, but still extremely pertinent given Palin's self-fashioning as a family-values, abstinence-only, truth-telling conservative.)
Why, then, the silence? I can't imagine either candidate is too happy with all this buzz.
Perhaps McCain and Palin are hoping it will all be washed away by Gustav. But as the recent John Edwards scandal shows, these kinds of stories have real staying-power, especially in the blogosphere, where fictions and facts, truths and tall-tales, credible sources and conspiracy theories have a weird habit of blending together.
Which is all the more reason for us to ask tough questions, and for McCain and Palin to provide honest answers. If Palin did indeed give birth to her fifth child last spring, fine. Case closed. But until there is credible evidence, the rumors will continue to circulate.
We may not like it, but this is the political culture we inhabit in the 21st century.
I agree with Sullivan that it would be easy enough--and advisable--for the McCain campaign to provide conclusive evidence to put these salacious rumors to bed.
(Salacious, indeed, but still extremely pertinent given Palin's self-fashioning as a family-values, abstinence-only, truth-telling conservative.)
Why, then, the silence? I can't imagine either candidate is too happy with all this buzz.
Perhaps McCain and Palin are hoping it will all be washed away by Gustav. But as the recent John Edwards scandal shows, these kinds of stories have real staying-power, especially in the blogosphere, where fictions and facts, truths and tall-tales, credible sources and conspiracy theories have a weird habit of blending together.
Which is all the more reason for us to ask tough questions, and for McCain and Palin to provide honest answers. If Palin did indeed give birth to her fifth child last spring, fine. Case closed. But until there is credible evidence, the rumors will continue to circulate.
We may not like it, but this is the political culture we inhabit in the 21st century.
August 31, 2008
Gustav and the GOP
As the Gulf Coast braces for tomorrow's landfall of Hurricane Gustav, the nation wonders: will this be another Katrina?
Lord, I hope not. The terror of incompetance and inaction that followed the so-called "natural disaster" of Hurricane Katrina remains a heavy burden on the nation's collective conscience, a blight on its soul.
Many of us continue to ask: if our government cannot respond swiftly and effectively to such a crisis here at home, how on earth can we export democracy abroad?
Indeed, Katrina proved that the American fault lines of race and class are still as treacherous as ever, especially when forced into sharp relief by a callous, condescending political regime.
And that is precisely why Republicans are scrambling to figure out whether and how to proceed with their convention this week. As the herd of GOP faithful descended upon Minneapolis-St. Paul this weekend, Hurricane Gustav hurtled through the Caribbean, scheduled to hit the Gulf Coast tomorrow morning.
(Hey GOP: if you're looking for someone to blame for all of this, try this guy. Disgusting.)
Already, the convention schedule has been scaled back, with President Bush and Vice President Cheney deciding not to speak tomorrow evening (Bush may still address the convention by video later in the week). This may be a blessing in disguise for Republicans, who are no doubt looking to distance themselves from these wildly unpopular lame ducks. Of course, the irony is that with another deadly storm about to hit the Gulf Coast on the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, it will be impossible for them to do that.
For his part, John McCain has dramatically tossed out the convention script, declaring that "we will act as Americans," not as partisans, even as GOP operatives worked overtime to make sure that McCain would capitalize on every last drop--as it were--of the impending tragedy.
A few of the highlights:
--Instead of staying in Minnesota, Gulf Coast delegates will be transported back to the region on a jet chartered by the GOP (I'd like to know, on whose dime?)
--Instead of George Bush and Dick Cheney touting their records during prime time on Monday night, we will be treated to Laura Bush and Cindy McCain at the podium, instructing the nation about how to help with the relief effort (I'm already feeling nauseous).
--And instead of delivering his acceptance speech from the floor of the convention hall, McCain may speak via satellite from the Gulf Coast (perhaps he'll surround himself with whatever National Guard troops aren't already serving their third or fourth or fifth tour in Iraq).
Brace yourself folks: this week, in a desperate act of overcompensated compassion, the GOP will transform Katrina's neglect into Gustav's exploitation.
Now don't get me wrong, almost all politicians exploit tragedy for political gain. The Bushies are masters of this (see 9/11, War on Terror, Iraq). But Democrats do it, too. Even Obama is guilty of it.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm guilty of the same old cynicism I try to fight in others.
Perhaps the GOP has learned from its mistakes post-Katrina.
Perhaps John McCain and his Republican "friends" are ready to own up to the fact that they are responsible for the biggest domestic disaster in modern American history.
Perhaps.
Lord, I hope not. The terror of incompetance and inaction that followed the so-called "natural disaster" of Hurricane Katrina remains a heavy burden on the nation's collective conscience, a blight on its soul.
Many of us continue to ask: if our government cannot respond swiftly and effectively to such a crisis here at home, how on earth can we export democracy abroad?
Indeed, Katrina proved that the American fault lines of race and class are still as treacherous as ever, especially when forced into sharp relief by a callous, condescending political regime.
And that is precisely why Republicans are scrambling to figure out whether and how to proceed with their convention this week. As the herd of GOP faithful descended upon Minneapolis-St. Paul this weekend, Hurricane Gustav hurtled through the Caribbean, scheduled to hit the Gulf Coast tomorrow morning.
(Hey GOP: if you're looking for someone to blame for all of this, try this guy. Disgusting.)
Already, the convention schedule has been scaled back, with President Bush and Vice President Cheney deciding not to speak tomorrow evening (Bush may still address the convention by video later in the week). This may be a blessing in disguise for Republicans, who are no doubt looking to distance themselves from these wildly unpopular lame ducks. Of course, the irony is that with another deadly storm about to hit the Gulf Coast on the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, it will be impossible for them to do that.
For his part, John McCain has dramatically tossed out the convention script, declaring that "we will act as Americans," not as partisans, even as GOP operatives worked overtime to make sure that McCain would capitalize on every last drop--as it were--of the impending tragedy.
A few of the highlights:
--Instead of staying in Minnesota, Gulf Coast delegates will be transported back to the region on a jet chartered by the GOP (I'd like to know, on whose dime?)
--Instead of George Bush and Dick Cheney touting their records during prime time on Monday night, we will be treated to Laura Bush and Cindy McCain at the podium, instructing the nation about how to help with the relief effort (I'm already feeling nauseous).
--And instead of delivering his acceptance speech from the floor of the convention hall, McCain may speak via satellite from the Gulf Coast (perhaps he'll surround himself with whatever National Guard troops aren't already serving their third or fourth or fifth tour in Iraq).
Brace yourself folks: this week, in a desperate act of overcompensated compassion, the GOP will transform Katrina's neglect into Gustav's exploitation.
Now don't get me wrong, almost all politicians exploit tragedy for political gain. The Bushies are masters of this (see 9/11, War on Terror, Iraq). But Democrats do it, too. Even Obama is guilty of it.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm guilty of the same old cynicism I try to fight in others.
Perhaps the GOP has learned from its mistakes post-Katrina.
Perhaps John McCain and his Republican "friends" are ready to own up to the fact that they are responsible for the biggest domestic disaster in modern American history.
Perhaps.
Palin's a Hit!
You guessed it, Sarah Palin has fired up the conservative base!
The pro-gun, anti-choice, abstinence-only Creationist is a big hit among Christian evangelicals who have been skeptical of John McCain. But McCain--who once referred to people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance"--has spent the last couple of years working hard to make nice with that segment of our political culture that seeks to control a woman's body against her will, values fetuses over actual children, supports the denial of basic civil rights to gays and lesbians, and sees the Second Amendment (routinely misread for ideological purposes) as a sacred text, second only to the Bible itself.
DNC Chairman (then Presidential candidate) Howard Dean may have taken a lot of shit for it, but he was absolutely right when he suggested that Presidential elections should be about more than tired Republican obsessions: "God, guns, gays, and abortion."
If there's one thing the featured Democratic speakers--Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Claire McCaskell, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama--accomplished last week in Denver it was to highlight the sharp distinctions that exist between Democrats and Republicans. Gore reminded us, painfully, that back in 2000, conventional wisdom (fueled by Ralph Nader's insurgent candidacy) held that there was very little difference between the two parties. In retrospect, that view was extraordinarily, breathtakingly wrong.
(Confession: I voted for Nader in 2000. Granted, I voted in New York, a reliably "blue" state, and would never have voted for Nader in Ohio or Florida. Still, I deeply regret that vote.)
There are many differences between Democrats and Republicans, one of the most important being this: Republicans think that any government is the problem; Democrats think that bad government is the problem.
Certainly there has been ample evidence of bad government these last eight years. But come January, Democrats will have a glorious, if daunting opportunity to put government back on track, to resume working actively and effectively on behalf of ordinary Americans who are struggling in a world made far less safe, far less secure, and far more unjust by the disastrous policies of President George W. Bush.
The pro-gun, anti-choice, abstinence-only Creationist is a big hit among Christian evangelicals who have been skeptical of John McCain. But McCain--who once referred to people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance"--has spent the last couple of years working hard to make nice with that segment of our political culture that seeks to control a woman's body against her will, values fetuses over actual children, supports the denial of basic civil rights to gays and lesbians, and sees the Second Amendment (routinely misread for ideological purposes) as a sacred text, second only to the Bible itself.
DNC Chairman (then Presidential candidate) Howard Dean may have taken a lot of shit for it, but he was absolutely right when he suggested that Presidential elections should be about more than tired Republican obsessions: "God, guns, gays, and abortion."
If there's one thing the featured Democratic speakers--Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Claire McCaskell, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama--accomplished last week in Denver it was to highlight the sharp distinctions that exist between Democrats and Republicans. Gore reminded us, painfully, that back in 2000, conventional wisdom (fueled by Ralph Nader's insurgent candidacy) held that there was very little difference between the two parties. In retrospect, that view was extraordinarily, breathtakingly wrong.
(Confession: I voted for Nader in 2000. Granted, I voted in New York, a reliably "blue" state, and would never have voted for Nader in Ohio or Florida. Still, I deeply regret that vote.)
There are many differences between Democrats and Republicans, one of the most important being this: Republicans think that any government is the problem; Democrats think that bad government is the problem.
Certainly there has been ample evidence of bad government these last eight years. But come January, Democrats will have a glorious, if daunting opportunity to put government back on track, to resume working actively and effectively on behalf of ordinary Americans who are struggling in a world made far less safe, far less secure, and far more unjust by the disastrous policies of President George W. Bush.
The Mendacity of Hype
Once again, Frank Rich slices through the poop and punditry to tell us why Barack Obama both exceeded and defied expectations on Thursday.
His NYT column today is a must-read!
His NYT column today is a must-read!
Horrible Hurricanes
On the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, another devastating storm--currently a Category Four--has just hit Cuba.
Fearing another disaster, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has called on residents and tourists to evacuate immediately.
My prayers are with the people of the Gulf Coast tonight.
Fearing another disaster, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has called on residents and tourists to evacuate immediately.
My prayers are with the people of the Gulf Coast tonight.
Palin Pregnancy
It's not clear yet whether or not Sarah Palin has covered for her 16-year-old daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy by claiming the child as her own, but the Daily Kos has a pretty compelling analysis that she did, complete with pictures and circumstantial evidence from those close to the story.
If this is true, it's the end of Sarah Palin's "historic" Vice Presidential bid, the end of the McCain candidacy, and the end of the Republican Party's "family values" charade.
I was at a wedding in Chicago tonight, where lots of people were discussing this. Here are a few of the more choice reactions: "this is some Jerry Springer shit"; "what was McCain thinking?"; "just another example of Republican hypocrisy"; and "Jesus, I hope this is true!"
If it is true, Sarah Palin will have made history in a very different kind of way.
Again, I'm not sure this is true. As of this post, no major news outlet has reported on it. But I'll bet the ranch that they're all vetting this story very carefully--far more carefully, it seems, than McCain vetted Palin before he selected her as his running mate. If the MSM does come up with credible evidence to confirm these allegations, you can be sure they'll run with it, at which point the Republican convention--if not already in troubled waters because of the pending disaster of Hurricane Gustav--will be doomed.
How fitting would it be that the GOP Convention--whose attendees all walked by the airport bathroom where Larry Craig tried to get his groove on last fall--was torn asunder by another Republican politician who can't seem to practice what she preaches?
If this is true, it's the end of Sarah Palin's "historic" Vice Presidential bid, the end of the McCain candidacy, and the end of the Republican Party's "family values" charade.
I was at a wedding in Chicago tonight, where lots of people were discussing this. Here are a few of the more choice reactions: "this is some Jerry Springer shit"; "what was McCain thinking?"; "just another example of Republican hypocrisy"; and "Jesus, I hope this is true!"
If it is true, Sarah Palin will have made history in a very different kind of way.
Again, I'm not sure this is true. As of this post, no major news outlet has reported on it. But I'll bet the ranch that they're all vetting this story very carefully--far more carefully, it seems, than McCain vetted Palin before he selected her as his running mate. If the MSM does come up with credible evidence to confirm these allegations, you can be sure they'll run with it, at which point the Republican convention--if not already in troubled waters because of the pending disaster of Hurricane Gustav--will be doomed.
How fitting would it be that the GOP Convention--whose attendees all walked by the airport bathroom where Larry Craig tried to get his groove on last fall--was torn asunder by another Republican politician who can't seem to practice what she preaches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
