If you watch as much bad TV as I do, you probably remember the ubiquitous Lexus holiday commercials over the last few years that invariably featured a pristene stone house with a circular driveway, a dusting of new snow and a Lexus LS450 parked in front with a large bow tucked around the hood. The holiday gift was revealed when the blindfold was removed. All was good. Of course, I imagined more goodies under the tree that had already been opened: ivory cashmere throws, sterling serving pieces, silk shantung jackets and at least a few ironic, but nevertheless expensive, items that would elicit a chuckle from the shiny wife or shiny husband.
Over the last boom years, I never got the Lexus (damn it) but I certainly got and gave the gay male couple equivalent of the rest of it. I'll admit it. I loved every second of it. My beloved even took care of the charitable bit to the point it seemed like we were tithing.
Lap dissolve to 2008. He's in finance (laugh or feel sorry for me; I don't care) and I made the spectacularly well-timed decision to give up my steady public sector law gig for private practice.
I'm trying, like most folks, to rethink what it means to be generous - all of this without resorting to the easiest answers gleaned from The Grinch Who Stole Christmas or The Charlie Brown Christmas special. This is difficult. The last time I made something (chocolate truffles), I placed them under my parents' tree on Christmas Eve and by morning they were covered with ants that must have traveled down the trunk of the tree and looked heavenward at their good fortune.
This year, like so many of us, I have pared back. My mother convinced me that the best thing we could do this year was to give a family gift to the local food pantry and have a Recessionista Open House for Christmas - food-centered. I think she's right.
Maybe I'll even go to Midnight Mass this year. That would be a big stretch but if I can get past the politics, I might give it whirl.
Happy Holidays.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
California's Proposition 8
Although my partner and I live in New York and have no plans to marry, I was sad but not necessarily surprised to see that California voters decided to write discrimination into their constitution.
Many will think it ironic that the same reliably blue state that voted overwhelming for Barack Obama also voted for Proposition 8. Indeed, the numbers indicate that nearly 70% of African-Americans voted in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage. I certainly don't mean to single out African-American voters. Asian voters also overwhelming voted in favor of the ban.
It doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand why. Religious devotion - or at least devotion to the teachings of particular churches - drives elections.
I have never been a complete fan of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC commentator on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann). I often disagree with his divisive tone and sometimes mean-spirited attacks on mostly conservative (or, let's admit, sometimes reactionary right wing) folks, but on this issue, the substance of his recent commentary reflected what so many of us are thinking: what on Earth does permitting same-sex couples to express their love and commitment through marriage do to damage the institution?
It is certainly not true that same-sex marriage devalues "traditional" marriages between men and women any more than divorce does. And, by the way, what is "traditional marriage"? If traditional marriage were all about procreation and promotion of "family", should we dissolve marriages between men and women who for whatever reason cannot or do not have children?
Let's also face the reality of the difference between marriages blessed by religious institutions and those given recognition via state law. A couple married in the Catholic Church is nevertheless entitled to divorce under the laws of their state. They are then free to remarry pursuant to those same laws. But without an annulment granted by the Catholic Church, the Church will refuse to recognize the new marriage and in some parishes will deny the newly married couple the right to participate fully in the sacraments. Of course, the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to sanctify any union it considers at odds with its teachings and even to punish or excommunicate those who stray from its teachings. But it does not have the right to nullify legally recognized marriages in a pluralistic society that has always separated church and state.
Marriages sanctified by religious institutions include a bundle of rights and obligations that are unique to a particular faith. Marriages sanctified by the state include a very different bundle of rights and obligations that are necessarily universal across all religions (or, dare I say it, no religion at all).
Barack Obama was, until very recently, a Constitutional law professor. He understands that depriving adults of the right to marry a person of their choice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. His personal beliefs, as he has stated publicly, come from his Christian faith. I am convinced that he understands the difference between the two and will announce one day that it is not only possible, but necessary, to reconcile personal belief with the promise of a civil society that respects religion but does not permit a religious majority from legislating away a minority's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The text of Olbermann's remarks are available by accessing the link below. Spend a couple of minutes if you have some time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743
Many will think it ironic that the same reliably blue state that voted overwhelming for Barack Obama also voted for Proposition 8. Indeed, the numbers indicate that nearly 70% of African-Americans voted in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage. I certainly don't mean to single out African-American voters. Asian voters also overwhelming voted in favor of the ban.
It doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand why. Religious devotion - or at least devotion to the teachings of particular churches - drives elections.
I have never been a complete fan of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC commentator on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann). I often disagree with his divisive tone and sometimes mean-spirited attacks on mostly conservative (or, let's admit, sometimes reactionary right wing) folks, but on this issue, the substance of his recent commentary reflected what so many of us are thinking: what on Earth does permitting same-sex couples to express their love and commitment through marriage do to damage the institution?
It is certainly not true that same-sex marriage devalues "traditional" marriages between men and women any more than divorce does. And, by the way, what is "traditional marriage"? If traditional marriage were all about procreation and promotion of "family", should we dissolve marriages between men and women who for whatever reason cannot or do not have children?
Let's also face the reality of the difference between marriages blessed by religious institutions and those given recognition via state law. A couple married in the Catholic Church is nevertheless entitled to divorce under the laws of their state. They are then free to remarry pursuant to those same laws. But without an annulment granted by the Catholic Church, the Church will refuse to recognize the new marriage and in some parishes will deny the newly married couple the right to participate fully in the sacraments. Of course, the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to sanctify any union it considers at odds with its teachings and even to punish or excommunicate those who stray from its teachings. But it does not have the right to nullify legally recognized marriages in a pluralistic society that has always separated church and state.
Marriages sanctified by religious institutions include a bundle of rights and obligations that are unique to a particular faith. Marriages sanctified by the state include a very different bundle of rights and obligations that are necessarily universal across all religions (or, dare I say it, no religion at all).
Barack Obama was, until very recently, a Constitutional law professor. He understands that depriving adults of the right to marry a person of their choice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. His personal beliefs, as he has stated publicly, come from his Christian faith. I am convinced that he understands the difference between the two and will announce one day that it is not only possible, but necessary, to reconcile personal belief with the promise of a civil society that respects religion but does not permit a religious majority from legislating away a minority's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The text of Olbermann's remarks are available by accessing the link below. Spend a couple of minutes if you have some time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Everyone Wins
Although they may not know it yet, the folks who didn't vote for Barack Obama in this election don't have much to worry about. I am convinced that President-elect Obama listened very carefully to their hopes and fears and that the inevitable public-policy changes that will take place in January, 2009 will not harm anyone.
Let's not forget that the 49% of folks who voted for John McCain are demographically less wealthy than those who voted for Barack Obama. They struggle as much or more with a lack of health insurance. They buy gas at the same stations everyone else does. Their kids have the same hurdles in affording higher education. Their homes are going into foreclosure at the same or higher rates than Obama supporters. They suffer just as much from a tax system that rewards dividends more than work. Their kids are in Iraq in the same or greater numbers than those who voted for Barack Obama.
With a great deal of help from the same folks who elected him, plus some more who didn't, President Obama can make progress on fixing what's broken for everyone.
There will be some changes that will initially confirm some of the 49-percenters' worst fears: 1) the Supreme Court won't be stacked to overturn Roe v. Wade; 2) we will start to listen again to other nations, not to create a world government that supplants our own, but to work together to solve common problems; 3) we will be less tolerant of labeling our fellow citizens "other" or "un-American" or "deviant" because they don't share our religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
I believe that those fears can be minimized for the vast majority of McCain supporters. We need to keep listening to the anti-choice message, reach out, and help find ways to really support women who choose (without any interference) to carry their pregnancies to term while making sure that the choice is between them and their doctors. We need to point out the benefits of building coalitions of nations to eradicate terrorism, dictatorships, disease and poverty. We need to respect religious devotion and make sure that the devoted understand that the fundamental messages of the world's religions are not really at odds with each other. It's only the evil folks who use religion for personal political purposes that make it seem that way. We need to show each other the millions of examples of ordinary people who will finally shatter all of the tired racial, ethnic and sexual orientation stereotypes.
I believe we will get there.
Let's not forget that the 49% of folks who voted for John McCain are demographically less wealthy than those who voted for Barack Obama. They struggle as much or more with a lack of health insurance. They buy gas at the same stations everyone else does. Their kids have the same hurdles in affording higher education. Their homes are going into foreclosure at the same or higher rates than Obama supporters. They suffer just as much from a tax system that rewards dividends more than work. Their kids are in Iraq in the same or greater numbers than those who voted for Barack Obama.
With a great deal of help from the same folks who elected him, plus some more who didn't, President Obama can make progress on fixing what's broken for everyone.
There will be some changes that will initially confirm some of the 49-percenters' worst fears: 1) the Supreme Court won't be stacked to overturn Roe v. Wade; 2) we will start to listen again to other nations, not to create a world government that supplants our own, but to work together to solve common problems; 3) we will be less tolerant of labeling our fellow citizens "other" or "un-American" or "deviant" because they don't share our religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
I believe that those fears can be minimized for the vast majority of McCain supporters. We need to keep listening to the anti-choice message, reach out, and help find ways to really support women who choose (without any interference) to carry their pregnancies to term while making sure that the choice is between them and their doctors. We need to point out the benefits of building coalitions of nations to eradicate terrorism, dictatorships, disease and poverty. We need to respect religious devotion and make sure that the devoted understand that the fundamental messages of the world's religions are not really at odds with each other. It's only the evil folks who use religion for personal political purposes that make it seem that way. We need to show each other the millions of examples of ordinary people who will finally shatter all of the tired racial, ethnic and sexual orientation stereotypes.
I believe we will get there.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Healing
Despite recent poll numbers, it is hardly clear that Barack Obama will win this election. But if he does - and does so with a substantial majority of the popular vote - my party runs the risk of turning a presumed mandate into a terrible mess in the 2010 election cycle. Both parties have a history of becoming smug and believing that an election victory is an opportunity to shove it in the other's face. Each has used its "mandates" to attempt more change (admittedly some change for the better in some cases) than is realistic or even desired by the electorate.
Will we learn from past mistakes? I think that there are a few things we can all do to pull back from a nasty campaign and begin to build some bridges with those who believe that we are just a bunch of spendthrift, Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, Prada-wearing windsurfers who want to take away everyone's guns, shutter churches and smelt flag pins.
If you don't think this is important, consider this: on November 5th, the losers will spend a day licking their wounds and on November 6th hatch a strategy to 1) stop change from happening; 2) enlist an army of angry folks to donate money and run for every local, state and national office there is. They'll need to scare the daylights out of folks in order to do it effectively. If they are smart, they will ask potential supporters to recall conversations with their neighbors and friends who disagree with them.
In that spirit, a little unsolicited advice:
1. Keep some things to yourself. Be gracious. When you speak to your Republican/conservative friends and neighbors (yes, you certainly have some), don't snicker about the choice of Sarah Palin as VP candidate or otherwise make clever or cute comments about how poorly the RNC ran its campaign. Nobody likes a wise-assed winner.
2. If you have an issue that is near and dear to your heart, do your best to personalize it rather than politicize it. If I hated anything during the last 8 years, it was a Republican who tried to lecture me on supply-side macro-economics, the fundamental underpinnings of traditional marriage or the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. If marriage equality were my big issue, I would talk about it in terms of promoting stable, loving relationships and a more generous view of "family values" and point out that there is no real marriage out there that is threatened by constructing a bigger tent. When our policy views are supported by real human stories, they resonate much more deeply and chip away at the us-versus-them mentality that pervades so much of our politics.
3. Find common ground. "I know that we both care about young people finding good jobs in this community rather than having to move far away and I think we need to try new ways of making that possible" is a much better way to start a conversation than "60 billion spent to create green jobs will do a whole lot more to keep your kid within driving distance of your house than waiting for something to trickle-down from some investment banker." The first line makes you a good neighbor who gives a damn. The second one is the fastest way to be unfairly labeled the Socialist F*** Down the Street.
4. Don't confuse being gracious with being weak. Listen carefully to what you are hearing from folks who express anger or fear about the election results. If these folks are anything like me, they developed a very personal, vested interest in their candidate and what they believed he represented. In order to get there, they more than likely developed some very jaundiced views about the other guy. Unless they are talking about violence, it's not necessary to defend against every attack. It is far more useful to listen and try to understand where it is coming from and to point out in a non-patronizing way that you really believe that the world will get better and that they will not lose out because their guy didn't win. (By the way, if they're advocating violence, double-lock your door, go on-line to get the number and report it to the Secret Service. Make sure you give the correct address.)
5. Dump your own anger. When your guy wins, it's an opportunity to move forward and fix what you think is broken. Telling those who "lost" that (insert issue) is a mess because of these @#$%&*@#$% neo-cons gets you absolutely nowhere in fixing the problem. If you have to express it, find your like-minded friends and have a good rant and, if it's by email, no forwarding to unknown addresses permitted.
None of the above are original ideas. They are all variations on what our mothers taught us all along. It's more a way of life than a political strategy but it sometimes seems to me that we imagine that life's lessons don't apply to politics. As naive as it may seem, I believe that they do.
Will we learn from past mistakes? I think that there are a few things we can all do to pull back from a nasty campaign and begin to build some bridges with those who believe that we are just a bunch of spendthrift, Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, Prada-wearing windsurfers who want to take away everyone's guns, shutter churches and smelt flag pins.
If you don't think this is important, consider this: on November 5th, the losers will spend a day licking their wounds and on November 6th hatch a strategy to 1) stop change from happening; 2) enlist an army of angry folks to donate money and run for every local, state and national office there is. They'll need to scare the daylights out of folks in order to do it effectively. If they are smart, they will ask potential supporters to recall conversations with their neighbors and friends who disagree with them.
In that spirit, a little unsolicited advice:
1. Keep some things to yourself. Be gracious. When you speak to your Republican/conservative friends and neighbors (yes, you certainly have some), don't snicker about the choice of Sarah Palin as VP candidate or otherwise make clever or cute comments about how poorly the RNC ran its campaign. Nobody likes a wise-assed winner.
2. If you have an issue that is near and dear to your heart, do your best to personalize it rather than politicize it. If I hated anything during the last 8 years, it was a Republican who tried to lecture me on supply-side macro-economics, the fundamental underpinnings of traditional marriage or the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. If marriage equality were my big issue, I would talk about it in terms of promoting stable, loving relationships and a more generous view of "family values" and point out that there is no real marriage out there that is threatened by constructing a bigger tent. When our policy views are supported by real human stories, they resonate much more deeply and chip away at the us-versus-them mentality that pervades so much of our politics.
3. Find common ground. "I know that we both care about young people finding good jobs in this community rather than having to move far away and I think we need to try new ways of making that possible" is a much better way to start a conversation than "60 billion spent to create green jobs will do a whole lot more to keep your kid within driving distance of your house than waiting for something to trickle-down from some investment banker." The first line makes you a good neighbor who gives a damn. The second one is the fastest way to be unfairly labeled the Socialist F*** Down the Street.
4. Don't confuse being gracious with being weak. Listen carefully to what you are hearing from folks who express anger or fear about the election results. If these folks are anything like me, they developed a very personal, vested interest in their candidate and what they believed he represented. In order to get there, they more than likely developed some very jaundiced views about the other guy. Unless they are talking about violence, it's not necessary to defend against every attack. It is far more useful to listen and try to understand where it is coming from and to point out in a non-patronizing way that you really believe that the world will get better and that they will not lose out because their guy didn't win. (By the way, if they're advocating violence, double-lock your door, go on-line to get the number and report it to the Secret Service. Make sure you give the correct address.)
5. Dump your own anger. When your guy wins, it's an opportunity to move forward and fix what you think is broken. Telling those who "lost" that (insert issue) is a mess because of these @#$%&*@#$% neo-cons gets you absolutely nowhere in fixing the problem. If you have to express it, find your like-minded friends and have a good rant and, if it's by email, no forwarding to unknown addresses permitted.
None of the above are original ideas. They are all variations on what our mothers taught us all along. It's more a way of life than a political strategy but it sometimes seems to me that we imagine that life's lessons don't apply to politics. As naive as it may seem, I believe that they do.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Palin's Clothes
I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but what on Earth are we doing spending time talking about her clothes or the RNC's spending on them? It's plain old sexism and ignores the fact that women are judged by different standards than men are. I will agree that $150K sounds excessive, especially when cast against the economy and McCain's populist message, but I really couldn't care less whether Governor Palin wears Prada or Walmart. I care what she thinks and where she would take us.
Here is the test: If the RNC had made a different decision and spent $1500 on thrift store clothes for its VP candidate and then touted its decision as a reason to vote for the ticket, would you be swayed? I hope not. It's about the issues. Sure, we can say that it is hypocritical to talk about Joe Sixpack while shopping at Saks but that isn't exactly very revealing about who is best to lead the country. Spending on clothes is not what makes the RNC seem tone-deaf. Its policy positions do the job very nicely.
Here is the test: If the RNC had made a different decision and spent $1500 on thrift store clothes for its VP candidate and then touted its decision as a reason to vote for the ticket, would you be swayed? I hope not. It's about the issues. Sure, we can say that it is hypocritical to talk about Joe Sixpack while shopping at Saks but that isn't exactly very revealing about who is best to lead the country. Spending on clothes is not what makes the RNC seem tone-deaf. Its policy positions do the job very nicely.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
There is nothing wrong with a good fight, but...
I'll start with a disclaimer. I am opinionated. I would likely be classified by lots of folks as left of center. I live in New York City. I am gay. If that was the whole story, I wouldn't waste my time expressing my opinions or asking for yours. You would know exactly what to expect from me and I would either love or hate your perspective.
But the whole story - just like yours, I suspect - would fill a book. Even though I live in New York City now, I grew up on a dairy farm. I went to a great university with lots of help from scholarships, government grants and loans. I paid my own way through law school. I have been a labor organizer and spent many years in management for a big employer. I love my partner of 15 years but, although I care about marriage equality, it is not at the top of my list of issues that will change my vote in an election. I worry about the economy not just for myself, but for my young sister who is just getting started and for my mother who is retired and wants to live her life with dignity. I worry about my hometown that has struggled for two decades to keep and expand job opportunities. I worry about my friends who come from every socio-economic strata you can imagine. Many have young kids and are afraid about the future.
How do we finally find some common ground? How do we speak honestly with each other without cutting each other off? How do we get past old prejudices and honor lives that we don't always understand? How do we get rid of the fear of changing our opinions when the evidence is clear that we need to reconsider old habits of mind?
If your posts try to answer some of these questions and do it respectfully, here is your forum. Yes, it's true that I'll be the judge of whether you met that modest standard, but I promise you that I won't censor opinions because they don't necessarily go along with mine.
Let's start something.
But the whole story - just like yours, I suspect - would fill a book. Even though I live in New York City now, I grew up on a dairy farm. I went to a great university with lots of help from scholarships, government grants and loans. I paid my own way through law school. I have been a labor organizer and spent many years in management for a big employer. I love my partner of 15 years but, although I care about marriage equality, it is not at the top of my list of issues that will change my vote in an election. I worry about the economy not just for myself, but for my young sister who is just getting started and for my mother who is retired and wants to live her life with dignity. I worry about my hometown that has struggled for two decades to keep and expand job opportunities. I worry about my friends who come from every socio-economic strata you can imagine. Many have young kids and are afraid about the future.
How do we finally find some common ground? How do we speak honestly with each other without cutting each other off? How do we get past old prejudices and honor lives that we don't always understand? How do we get rid of the fear of changing our opinions when the evidence is clear that we need to reconsider old habits of mind?
If your posts try to answer some of these questions and do it respectfully, here is your forum. Yes, it's true that I'll be the judge of whether you met that modest standard, but I promise you that I won't censor opinions because they don't necessarily go along with mine.
Let's start something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)