Sunday, December 19, 2010

Ask If It Matters To You; Tell If You Want To

Finally, after millions of hours, millions of dollars and millions of blog posts and other Internet chatter, gays and lesbians can serve in the military without fear of discharge if they choose to reveal their sexuality. From arguments about protecting "unit cohesion" to avoiding "unwanted advances", opponents of dumping a hastily drafted policy on who merited the right to serve in their nation's military lost their fight. Their fight included some of the nastiest, uninformed, poorly reasoned comments I have ever heard. Both my father and stepfather served honorably in the military during the 1960s. Despite my father's relative conservatism and my stepfather's relatively progressive views, they both agreed that it was profoundly stupid to imply or directly state that one's sexual orientation had anything to do with honorable service. They both served with men whom they knew were gay and both told me they never, ever had a problem befriending or working with gay military personnel. Frankly, it would not have mattered to me if they said the exact opposite.

Although votes were taken and the end of the debate was reported as coming from the U.S. Senate, the extenstion of full civil rights are not about majority rule. Civil rights guarantees are embedded in the United States Constitution and are in many cases designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Social mores change. The beauty of the Constitution is its modern relevance and elasticity. It practically invites us to search every day for those who have been left out of its promise of equality and work to include them in it. It is perhaps the best living document on the planet and has helped make us a wealthy, stable, forward thinking global power. What weakens our influence abroad is the abandonment of the principles we preach to other nations as essential in a civilized society.

This past week is one important example of how a civilized society can come to terms with social change with little or no bloodshed. It is part of the reason so many people try desperately and even risk their lives to emigrate to the United States, despite its unresolved flaws. My heart goes out to the families and friends of gay soldiers who were dishonorably discharged because of who they loved or were or in some cases paid for their service by being murdered by their fellow soldiers. They are heroes and they deserve our recognition and our gratitude.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Are Sarah Palin and Diana, Princess of Wales Sisters Under the Skin?

I admit I did a bit of a double-take when I read the squib on AOL about likening Sarah Palin to Diana, Princess of Wales, including a shot of anger that is, admittedly, mostly political. I initially bristled at the suggestion that the two women had anything in common and that Diana has been dead for over ten years and obviously could not defend herself even if she chose to do so. Then it occurred to me that there might be a kernel of truth in the piece and even famous political families I admire (including the Kennedys and the Bushes, believe it or not) share an ability to mold their images through managing their media coverage that even Bill and Hillary Clinton have to envy to some extent. Let's also not forget Brooke Astor, the second (or third?) wife of John Astor, who apparently had one of the first pre-nuptial agreements amongst 20th century blue-bloods. She took what she got (which admittedly was a lot) but became one of the most admired, recognizable charitable givers of the last century despite her aversion to uncontrolled media coverage.

Although most people except rabid haters of royalty considered Diana an iconic beauty, most of them would also be constrained to admit that she - as many of her detractors preferred to highlight - pursued little formal education and was not considered intellectually gifted. Palin, no matter who does her hair and make-up, is not by any measure an iconic beauty but is quite pretty, and is roundly considered intellectually bankrupt despite having a bachelor's degree. Diana was clearly a clothes horse. Palin showed us early on she likes $3,000 suits even though she denies caring much about clothes. Both women shied away from unflattering media coverage and ended up learning - probably on their own - how to manage it and manipulate their images to suit their needs and desires.

The differences between Sarah Palin and the Princess of Wales are equally stark. Diana was thrown into a role at the age of 19 with little support and, at least from the perspective of the royal family, had three main jobs to do - produce heirs to the throne, look attractive and follow her husband's lead in her service to her subjects, all while knowing early on that her marriage, as she so deftly put it in an interview, "was a bit crowded". She took care of the first two expectations about as flawlessly as anyone could have done and once she discovered her husband's inability to part with his mistress and barely made an effort to hide it, she excused herself from following her husband's lead in any arena and did the bare minimum when it came to public appearances with him. Palin was thrown into her role with extraordinary support, at a time in her life when she should have been expected to know more about the world around her and did not have to contend with a philandering husband that might have destroyed her self-esteem. Those are big differences. Had Diana lived, what would she be doing right now? I suspect she would be counseling her sons and lending her name to charitable pursuits and would likely have married again and pursued a life much more like Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's than Sarah Palin's, even with Palin's new wealth. Diana and Onassis were never seriously accused of exploiting their children or failing to raise them to become solid citizens. The same cannot be said for Palin. Diana's lack of formal education did not stop her from being curious about global politics. Palin still shows no real signs of being curious about anything except how to make more money. Few ever questioned that Onassis was more than a triple threat: a protective mother, great pedigree, beautiful, well educated, curious and perhaps the best media player of her generation.

Obviously, the biggest difference between Diana and Palin is that Palin has time to study if she cares to do so, has more technology at her fingertips to mold her image while bypassing mainstream media and lives in a country where bootstrappers - or perceived bootstrappers - are admired by most citizens. She has the freedom to change at a reasonably young age and to soften at least some of the harsh rhetoric that made her famous in the first place. Diana never engaged in harsh rhetoric and is frozen in time as a budding global ambassador whose interests ran to helping the most vulnerable people on the planet rather than Ms. Palin's obvious interest in pandering to her admirers' worst fears and hatreds.

Whatever one's political stripe, we can be sure of one thing. We won't likely see Sarah Palin in a boat with an Arabian man and we won't see her repurposing a $10 million necklace into a headband at a State Dinner at the White House. Prince Charles may truly love Camilla and certainly hated Diana's ability to upstage him whenever she chose, but had he shoved Camilla to the side or was at least more discrete and learned to respect his first wife a bit more while she was alive, there would be no question about his eventual ascendency to the throne. Jack Kennedy - even though he was a known philanderer himself - at least had the common sense and confidence to say so famously, "I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris." The reason Charles might not become King is, in my view, because of the worst character defect of all: making everything in life about yourself.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Is the Presidency Too Much for One Person to Handle?

Newsweek recently printed a piece questioning whether the job of President of the United States is too big and complex for one person to manage. Online comments to the article are often hateful, racially-charged, or involve 7th grade name calling.
Fawning over Obama never truly helped him. Even Hillary Clinton underestimated the importance of early success in caucuses and the momentum that got him nominated. Using GW Bush as a foil instead of focusing on McCain was helpful in the general election but serves little purpose once the reigns were in Obama's hands. It is his to clean up. You can blame others once or twice. Then you have to govern. All Presidents start off with the baggage left behind. Surely, President Obama and his staff knew that. The question is what they do with problems created by the old Administration or new problems. The economic crisis was not of Obama's making, nor were foreign policy and military blunders. GW Bush, with little or no help from John McCain and support from then-candidate or President-elect Obama, set up our initial response to the economic/credit crisis. We all have a right to expect a statute of limitations on blaming prior administrations for every failure of the current one. Otherwise, the message is of blame, not hope. If that's what some Democrats are doing, voters will surely sense it and vote accordingly. If Republicans attempt to take advantage of big issues that are unresolvable in one term, they run the same risk in the next election cycle. People who vote regularly tend to be older and have the sophistication to understand the difference. I do not believe the modern presidency is too overwhelming for one President. The roots of Obama's problems are aloofness, lack of visibility and the huge risk he took in pushing his agenda almost solely based on the votes of Democrats. We won't know if it paid off until the spring of 2012. We won't know what issues will be the biggest or whether Obama will deserve credit for steering the country for 3+ years or will have confidence in giving him a second term.
Name-calling in the meantime will not fix anything. Americans voters are often impatient people, including me. Bill Clinton was written off in 1994 but was handily reelected in 1996. Ronald Reagan was written off in 1983 but overwhelmingly won another term the next year. To me, the two big priorities right now are taking rational steps to increase job creation and stablilize the economy and to either make important strides toward or actually resolving Middle East issues. The Presidency is certainly an exhausting, frustrating job but I do not believe Barack Obama is unable to handle it. What troubles me more than that portion of the debate is trashing politicians on the basis of where they went to school.
Most Presidents in modern times, with the exception of Reagan and Johnson, either had a West Point or Ivy-League education. Obama and Clinton lacked wealth but went to elite universities because they were innately smart. I thought that was what we wanted: a nation that rewarded boot-strappers. GW Bush has an MBA from Harvard and did his undergraduate work at Yale. Many people have concluded that the younger Bush was Ivy League because his father intervened to make it happen. I have no idea whether that is true or not but it doesn't matter at this point, if it ever did. If you voted for GW Bush and think he did a good job, you can't say Obama is an elitist or broadbrush every politician as out of touch because they went to an elite college or university. There is nothing dishonorable about attending less prestigious schools, nor do Ivy League graduates have a lock on intellect and problem-solving skills.
Even Sarah Palin - on the six or seven year plan after hopscotching through a number of second or third tier schools - should not be cut out of the political process because she didn't go to Harvard. The problem is not the school(s). The problem is the lack of lifelong curiosity and the inability to admit when you lack knowledge on a subject but refuse to consider new ideas and change your mind without licking a finger and sticking it up in the air to determine which way the political wind is blowing.
There is some history to suggest that some politicians actually can change their minds. Robert Kennedy comes to mind. He didn't seem to have much of a problem with our country's involvement in Vietnam until the middle and late 1960s. Cynics may say he changed his mind to have a viable opportunity to be elected President or because he hated Johnson. I sincerely doubt those were the main reasons he shifted to the left. Yes, Lyndon Johnson's handling of the war was about has ham-handed as it could be but Kennedy knew there remained a huge conservative consituency that would make his run very difficult, especially considering that his brother had escalated the war before Johnson was sworn in in 1963. They were all Cold Warriors back then and continued to believe there would be a domino effect if they did nothing. RFK was in on almost every major decision his brother made. Had he lived to debate Nixon, you can bet Nixon would have attempted to shred him for being a hypocrite. He might have got a lot of traction out of it. Sadly, we'll never know for sure but that isn't the point. The point is that smart people, from whatever alma mater, can listen, learn, grow and change. Don't forget that Hillary Clinton had been a Goldwater Girl before she entered Wellesley in 1965 and by the time she was finished with law school at Yale she was assisting the Senate in the effort to expose Watergate and impeach Nixon. If that is not change, I don't know what is.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Shall We Meet for Tea at 4?

American voters show each other over and over again how fickle they are. They say they want change and when a Presidential candidate articulates the type of change he would work toward, describes what he would do in Iraq and Afghanistan, knows the world economy is in the toilet before he is even elected and undertakes to address those issues, suddenly voters say "wait a minute; we weren't that serious about change".

Democrats took a huge political risk in passing bold legislation with no Republican support in the House and very little in the Senate. They set themselves up to be unfairly viewed as steamrollers, entirely ignoring Republicans. That was never true. Republicans made their own wager, assuming their lock-step failure to support any change proposed by Democrats would give them easy cover when the economy did not bounce back from a nearly catastrophic global recession in two years. Few thinking people believed it would but the Republicans were right in assuming the average voter expected it would.

As cynical as that appears, Democrats needed to listen more to their constituencies and, perhaps, slow down the pace of change. Nancy Pelosi might have been too good at her job or she might have been in over her head, depending on how one looks at the job. She certainly - with help - whipped her fellow Democrats into line and was tough on Republicans. She claims she tried to reach across the aisle but, even as a moderate Democrat, I did not see much of that. Governing should not be about humiliating one's opponents but for the last couple of decades, it is exactly how the game has been played. For those of us who believe that the policy choices were right, particularly not permitting the country and the world to slip into a full-blown depression, the question is not whether Democrats are bold enough and smart enough to devise long-term solutions to problems. The question is whether the majority of voters really want long-term solutions or would rather stick with what they know: sloganeering masquerading as policy, name-calling as a stand-in for explaining different approaches and a throw-the-rascals-out mantra that leads us to having a revolving door of rascals going in and out of office.

We could easily call Tea Party Republicans a right-wing group of disaffected, frightened people who were used by powerful interest groups to halt any meaningful policy change. With all of the technology, media outlets and competition for television viewers, most of us prefer catchy names that conjure up an image with no explanation. Most of us are too bombarded with garbage to take the time to consider anything more sophisticated than can fit on a bumper sticker. And, frankly, most Tea Party adherents hate Democrats because so many of us smugly consider ourselves smarter, better educated and better prepared to lead. Take yourself back to high school. The smart kids usually hung around together, studied, did well on their college boards and went on to university. The less smart kids hung around together, smoked in the parking lot, loathed the penny-loafered "rich" kids, lobbing insults at them while some of their friends dropped out of high school or community college before getting a degree which, of course, made it almost a certainty they would be the most economically vulnerable adults. A precious few of them quietly went on to college even though it was a struggle. We call them moderately conservative swing voters. I don't see much difference here.

It all comes down to what I believe is the development of a certain kind of deafness and lack of connection that afflicts powerful elected officials. It certainly afflicts Republicans and Democrats but when the party in power is afflicted, it's a fair bet they'll be taught a lesson, especially during an off-year election. The kids smoking in the parking lot grew up. They're still pissed off. Maybe they have a right to be. The problem is the reason they're still pissed off is - whether they realize it or not - right wing Republicans voted against nearly every piece of legislation that may have helped them find better, more plentiful jobs, opportunities for post-high school education and health care. In other words, by permitting an underclass to exist, cynical politicians and special interest groups can corral them in times of electoral crisis and persuade them to vote against their own interest.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Anderson Cooper and the Interview with Eminem

Anderson Cooper, at least from many of the interviews I have seen him conduct, is a decent reporter. Cooper's recent 60 Minutes interview with Eminem was more than disappointing. At best it let this guy off the hook too easily for his homophobic slurs that pepper his art form. At worst, Cooper and CBS are complicit in the rash of gay bashing, including the suicides, murders and general violence that keep young gay men in fear and destroy their self-esteem.

One of the reasons it has become easier for lesbians and gay men to be honest about their sexuality over the last two decades is because organizations like GLAAD have applied pressure to media outlets to include positive images of lesbians and gay men and to point out and speak loudly when media outlets back track. My age group - I'm 45 - was the first to benefit from GLAAD's mission. I wish it happened sooner and that I had an opportunity to see some positive images at a critical moment in my transition from adolescence to adulthood but I appreciate that by the time I was in my early 20s, I no longer felt ashamed of that part of who I was and am.

I took a calculated risk coming out in my mid 20s but I thought it was important not just to me, but to younger men and women as well. When I dived into what I assumed would be a very cold pool, it was not easy. While in law school, I was shouted down and publicly threatened after speaking before a community school board meeting in Queens (ironic, no?) on inclusiveness and its importance and spent a lot of time marching around demanding equal rights. I made sure my resume included unmistakable information so potential employers would know beforehand that I was gay. About two years into one job, the guy who hired me and engineered my successive promotions to executive-level titles asked me why I made sure my resume was so clear. I told him that I would not work for an organization that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. I did not want the hassle of lawsuits nor did I want to waste my time in interviews with bigots. If some employers folded my resume into a paper airplane and threw it at the trash can for that reason, shame on them. They threw away a smart, dependable attorney. I'll never know if that happened or how many times it happened. I honestly don't care. What I found out was that many people with whom I worked thought it was courageous, including many straight men far older than I was. One senior executive wouldn't work with other attorneys in my office. He was a bombastic, hot-tempered, smart guy who told my boss I was his lawyer because of his perception of my skills and ability to strategize and fight for him. I think he liked the idea that whatever assumptions he had about gay men, I didn't fit his stereotype and could claim he was more enlightened than others. I came away from that experience more confident than ever that if you worked hard, played by the rules, were your authentic self and treated others respectfully, a gay man in a big company could do very well.

During that time, I think I blazed a small but significant trail. A fair number of closeted colleagues came out with no ill effect on their careers and, in my opinion, became better lawyers and employees. (It takes a lot of time and energy to stay closeted that could be better spent on actual work.)

I hope Mr. Cooper, CBS and all media don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Let the Fox network specialize in hate-mongering so we can understand the difference between journalism and garbage. They are masterful at throwing garbage at its audience and need no competition. I hear Ann Coulter thinks she is being out-bigoted by Tea Partiers and is looking to establish a new ideological beach head. When Ann Coulter is afraid she isn't bigoted enough to command her usual audience, you know we're in for a long, tortured slog. Fasten your seatbelts. We're about to experience a little turbulence.

Are We Always Destined to Repeat History?

Our culture is littered with opportunities to learn from past mistakes. Whether it involved writing slavery into the U.S. Constitution, denying suffrage to and treating women like chattel, denying real voting rights to minorities, giving up on the League of Nations, incarcerating Japanese-Americans during WWII, conducting witch hunts of individuals suspected of advocating communism, engaging in covert surveillance of American dissidents, lying to the public about our involvement and strategy during the Vietnam War, sleeping through the first 5-10 years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, stealing the 2000 Presidential election, starting a war with a country that had not attacked us and using bogus intelligence to justify it, the country I love has a track record of making mistakes. We are lucky those mistakes - and others - did not ruin the American promise and all of the weight this country carries as an example of a type of freedom too few people enjoy.
We fixed most of those mistakes, sometimes based on public outcry and sometimes based on the leadership of a President of the United States and Congress. It is sad to know that we continue to make mistakes that directly impact 15-20 million lesbian and gay Americans, many of whom simply want the same rights as the other 280-285,000,000 take for granted. They are even willing to pay more individual income taxes, serve their country in times of war and get thrown into the mix of the general population. No one should be surprised. The last time I checked, lesbians and gay men love their country, too. All they really want is the right to fully participate in the ongoing project of fulfilling the promise of equality on which this democracy was founded.
Adults and children who are suspected of being lesbian or gay or announce their sexual orientation are subject to violent physical attacks, job discrimination, isolation from their communities and in extreme cases, kill themselves out of shame or embarrassment. Many live in fear every minute of every day. How is it possible that we have not learned or remembered the corrosive effect of discrimination against nearly every ethnic group we can imagine?
We can fix this just like we fixed so many other mistakes. It's not as complicated as we have been led to believe. Federal action is necessary. Laws which would grant full equality would be a good start but it has to begin with parents who teach their children it is wrong to bully, wrong to engage in violence based on immutable differences and wrong to stereotype. It's not happening. Under the cloak of organized religion, there are far too many supposedly pious adults who are unwilling to look past three or four sentences from religious texts that are repeated over and over again by bigoted pastors and who would send us back to 1950. At nearly 46 years old and to quote Fannie Lou Hamer addressing Congress in the run-up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired." It harms no one to extend nationally recognized same-sex marriage rights. If one's only justification for discriminating against lesbians and gay men is based on religious scripture, consider looking for real estate in a country that did not invent the separation of church and state.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Are Women Tougher than Men?

To ask the question is to answer it. None of this is particularly new but we rarely remember it until Mother's Day rolls around. This is not meant to trash men. Many men are terrific at helping out and sharing responsibilities, love their kids and are happy to cook some meals. None of this necessarily applies to women in same-sex relationships and doesn't necessarily apply to men in same-sex relationships. I realize these are generalizations but there is a reason they are generalizations: they are mostly true.

1. On average, women earn 75-80 cents for every dollar men earn. Most women under 50 work as many hours as their husbands do.
2. Women do most of the child rearing in this country, often while holding a full or part-time job.
3. Women do most of the regular housekeeping and indoor cooking (often as a short order cook for picky kids) even if they work full-time and arrive home from work at or about the same time as their husbands.
4. Women do most of the food shopping and clothes shopping for the entire family. They are charged with remembering everyone's sizes - including relatives on both sides of the family in the event they need to buy a gift. If a gift item is particularly expensive, despite who makes the purchase, women do the wrapping; men sign the card.
5. Most women do the majority of holiday gift shopping, remembering birthdays, wrapping, and sending invitations, congratulatory, thank-you and condolence cards.
6. Most women do most of the ferrying of kids to sports, music and dance practice and are expected to attend all of the events associated with it.
7. Women tend to keep all of the medical records of their kids, including innoculations, etc., and ensure that the kids get regular medical check-ups.
8. Many women pay all of the household bills, keep a budget and try to stick to it.
9. Most women are expected to be photo-ready before leaving the house to do anything, including stopping at a garage sale. They are expected to look younger and slimmer than their husbands regardless of age.
10. If their husbands are not handy or not interested, women are expected to learn the mechanics of all HVAC, electrical, plumbing and appliances and find the appropriate contractor or service provider to come on schedule for routine maintenance or in an emergency.
11. If widowed (women's life expectancy is longer than men's), a woman is expected to look like Malibu Barbie no matter what their age in order to attract a sloppy widower who is most interested in whether Malibu Barbie can cook and has a recliner chair and a wide screen television.
12. Women who drink a little too much are labeled drunks. Men who drink a little too much are labeled men who are stressed out.
13. Women who are good at their jobs and supervise or offer advice to others are bitches. Men who are good at their jobs and supervise others or offer advice are rising stars.
13. To paraphrase Ginger Rogers when discussing her film career with Fred Astaire: women do everything men do but it's harder for women because they have to do it all backwards.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Where Are the Parents?

When will this end? The young college student who was surreptitiously videotaped by two of his classmates, outed on the Internet and who took his own life by jumping off the George Washington Bridge is only the latest example of how much more work there is to do to before lesbians and gay men can expect their privacy will not be violated and will be able to lead their lives without shame, fear or discrimination.

These sorts of things do not just happen with no explanation. Where were these kids' parents or guardians and what were they teaching them as they grew up into twisted, homophobic criminals? This is much more than simple bullying. I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist and I am not a parent. All I know is what most gay men know. Some of us never come out because we are afraid of psychological or physical violence, being shunned by family and friends or losing a job in a state with no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Two months before I came out 20+ years ago, I intentionally cut myself off from some of my oldest and dearest friends, my family and others just to see what it would be like to permanently lose it all. It was torture to do it but for whatever reason, I had to know. At the end of two months I realized it would be traumatizing and it would take a very long time to repair my self-esteem but I no longer felt like a I had a choice. I also resolved that I would never work for any employer that would promote or tolerate that type of discrimination. I used some of my time reading about the courageous people who formed the Mattachine Society, those who bravely stood up to police during the Stonewall riots and the legions of black men and women who fought for their own civil rights. I knew I could find new friends and could live in gay ghetto for the rest of my life and find a way to be happy. All I wanted was to find one man to love and who loved me. I confess I did not even consider the possibility that marriage would ever be an option during my lifetime. I started to join LGBT organizations, speak before crowds (ironically the first time I was not petrified to speak before large groups), be interviewed on radio and television and put all of it on my resume.

It worked.

Very few people abandoned me. My parents, sister and the rest of my family embraced me. My friends did the same and, by the way, had been waiting for a long time to hear from me what they already knew. A handful were shocked because I did not fit their stereotype, perhaps because I knew how to tune up a car.

I found my partner a couple of years later. For the past 17+ years, we have built a life together. It's not perfect. I did not expect it to be perfect. To shatter another myth, our relationship remains completely monogamous.

I faced some discrimination along the way. I assumed I would. But I was hired by unions and then by the largest mass transit company in the United States and regularly promoted. When I started a solo practice as a neutral labor arbitrator a couple of years ago, my mentors were mostly well-established, well-known, straight male arbitrators before whom I appeared as an attorney/advocate and who all said their profession needed more diversity and, to hear them tell it, I would probably end up being - at least for awhile - the only openly gay arbitrator in the state.

Despite right wing salesmen of hatred in the name of religion or politics, I didn't lose a sense of who I was and was not ashamed. I knew that my sexual orientation was a part of who I was but it was not all that I was or am. Sadly, thousands of men lacked any sense of their own value and many died of complications from HIV/AIDS, wiping out nearly a generation's worth of would-be activists, friends and contributors to all facets of society. I am grateful my partner and I dodged that bullet. I am most grateful for my parents who always believed that every human being deserved to live their lives free from discrimination and were not afraid to say it to anyone, even those who might have disagreed with them. They didn't count on my little revelation (on Father's Day, no less), but it didn't take them long to ask two questions and audibly exhale after my response: was I telling them this because I was sick and was I prepared to deal with discrimination? The answers were no and yes, in that order.

If we want a truly modern civil society, everyone must have a place at the table. I did not make a choice to be gay. I made a choice to make it known that I was gay. There is an enormous difference between the two. Even my parents' neighbors, some of whom are politically very conservative, are very happy to see me during holidays and other times when I visit. (Well, maybe it's because I am helping my mother keep her lawn looking nice and improving their view from across the street but I think it runs more deeply than that.)

None of it would have happened had so many people I never knew failed to demand equal rights long before I was old enough to tie my own shoes. We can't stop now, even if marriage becomes available as an option in every state in the country. Every kid, no matter where he or she might live, needs to understand that if they realize they are lesbian or gay, they can lead a full, rich life. There is no prayer that will change one's orientation. There is no pill, shrink or ministry that will do it, either. It should be up to us grown-ups to make sure they are free of fear, violence and discrimination no matter where they choose to go to school, where they decide to live or what occupation they choose. Until that happens, kids will continue to be killed or take their own lives. That, ladies and gentlemen, is unacceptable no matter what your religious leaders tell you or your own personal beliefs are. If you are complicit in promoting discrimination and keeping silent about violence, you are complicit in maiming or killing innocent people who have never caused you one bit of harm. No legitimate creed or religion teaches anyone to permit the death of another who has done you no harm. To the parents of the kids who caused their classmate to jump to his death, I hope your children and you think about that young man every day of your lives and make some attempt to atone for your own sins.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Sarah & Laura

You knew it would happen. Sarah Palin and Laura Schlessinger are apparently teaming up to teach us about their First Amendment rights and how the "liberal media" is interfering with their quest to talk to millions until they are hoarse. I can't wait to see Ms. Palin standing next Ms. Schlessinger on the same dais. Schlessinger spent a fair amount of time during her radio broadcasts to ask the question so many other Americans did in the last election: couldn't John McCain have found a woman with kids who also had the intellect and sophistication to lead the country if McCain was unable to complete his term in office?

The old saying - the enemy of my enemy is my friend - does not apply here. Dr. Laura was no fan of Palin but it appears they are no longer enemies (if they ever were). They are cut from the same cloth. It was only a matter of time before Dr. Laura - who unfairly attacked the integrity and intelligence of many women who called her for advice - would see more dollar signs and jump on the Palin Express to wherever it is going. These women don't care about you or your families. They care about making money and being celebrities. Don't confuse that with ex-presidents who command six figures for a half hour gig in front of friendly crowds. Whether or not you believe any of Obama's predecessors did a good job, they have a measure of credibility by virtue of sitting in the Oval Office making decisions.

The First Amendment has always protected both women, no matter how stupid, hurtful or uninformed their pronouncements sound. There are few checks on First Amendment rights. As long as you don't yell fire in a crowded movie house, avoid advocating radical overthrow of the government or make defamatory or libelous remarks about a person with nothing to back it up, you are pretty safe. Both women like to talk about how tough they are but when they are legitimately attacked for spewing hate speech or for sounding like a 7th grader, they immediately cry foul. It's hypocritical and, more important, dangerous. If either woman's rights are elevated over the rights of the general public, we're in big trouble. To get their attention, see what happens when there is no audience and no paycheck. Boycotts worked well during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s. If they move to satellite radio, cancel your subscription. If they appear on television as commentators or guests, call the station and tell them you won't be buying any product advertised and will not watch the channel any longer. (Make sure you also tell the advertisers.) Neither woman has a First Amendment right to be paid for speaking nor is it illegal to keep them off the air unless they want to buy some time on a public access station. Reporters should simply skip reporting their every utterance. They are not making news. They are thumbing their noses at legitimate news outlets by refusing to answer legitimate questions about their level of understanding of various topics. They aren't required to answer those kinds of questions but if they are not willing to answer, stop covering them as if what they are saying is newsworthy. They can blog all they want but we don't have to buy the products advertised on their websites or buy the ideology they are selling. I'll give them credit for having the street smarts to bamboozle millions of people into believing they have something genuine and relevant to say. That's not easy. The good part is that it doesn't take very long for the substance of what they say to end up forgotten and hauled to the political dumpster.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Dr. Laura

The vitally important news is out. Dr. Laura is "retiring" so she can play victim and claim that dangerous, mean racial minorities and white liberals are stomping on her First Amendment rights. She seems very happy when dispensing her particular brand of hate-mongering, insulting diatribes against everyone who is not like her. If you agree with her, you are a First Amendment champion. If you disagree and do something about it - like boycotting advertisers - exercising your own First Amendment rights is just too much for Dr. Laura to bear. She's made millions with her brand of sociopathic hatred of those with whom she disagrees but can't seem to handle being challenged and embarrassed when she utters things so incredibly stupid that they don't even bear repeating here. Don't worry. She'll continue to build her wealth in different venues and pack the houses at places where angry white folks congregate. Her First Amendment rights are very well protected - at least better than mine are. I'm one of those over-educated East coast white guys she fears the most because we won't just stand by and let her get away with dividing my country along racial, ethnic, religious and social lines. The only questions are how long she can milk the victim bit and how much money she'll make doing it. I'll guess the victim bit will last as long as it takes to get a book advance and publish her sage wisdom about every topic imaginable. It seems like the hardest thing for Americans to say is "I can't form an opinion because I don't know enough about the topic yet." If someone can find a moment when Dr. Laura has said anything remotely like that, I'd love to know. Otherwise, she is a blowhard - a very well paid one.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Tweeting About Mosques

It should surprise no one that Ms. Palin, freed from her gubernatorial responsibilities, with a loyal following, and with enough cash on hand to do and say what she pleases, would weigh in on the wisdom of building a mosque and Muslim community center in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site. Encouraging her supporters to reject the mosque is, at least in some ways, akin to encouraging them to reject the construction of a denominational Christian church and community center within the vicinity of the Murrow building destroyed by Timothy McVeigh - an American who claimed he was a Christian - who committed, along with Terry Nichols, the worst single act of domestic terrorism the country had experienced in modern times when he made a crude bomb that killed hundreds of innocent people.

Mr. McVeigh was not a real Christian. The WTC and Pentagon hijackers, including the thwarted hijackers headed directly for the White House, were not real Muslims. They were all terrorists. No mainstream religious figure in any established religion teaches their flock to kill others. The 9/11 terrorists had hatched a warped religious justification for their planned murders long before they killed thousands in the name of Islam. Few things could be more damaging to a religion whose roots began in Christianity in the middle of the first millenium following Christ's crucifixion. I would agree that mainstream Muslims in this country and others have not done enough yet to separate their religion and its teachings from these evil people. Ms. Palin's comments do not help. Osama bin Laden wants political control over Middle Eastern treasure and social control over men and women who inhabit the Islamic world. He's a classic despot, in the mold of Hitler and Stalin, and has walked away from his religion (if he was ever truly a peace-loving Muslim), reinterpreted it to justify his own goals, and uses the American occupation of Iraq to help him recruit desperate men and women to do things they would otherwise find abhorrent.

The earliest European Pilgrims risked their lives to journey here to create a nation that respected religious difference, something lacking in their home countries in the 16th century. By the end of the 18th century, they participated in fashioning amendments to the American Constitution. The First Amendment makes clear that the government must guarantee religious freedom and not favor one religion over another. Ms. Palin ought to know this, especially if she chooses to remain politically influential.

I would have skipped over the poorly written "tweets" Ms. Palin sent out to supporters because everyone makes or could make mistakes in their use of technology to push their message. However, Ms. Palin's apology for the poor vocabulary in her messages was not an apology at all. Instead, she purports to apologize and then almost immediately likens herself to William Shakespeare in defending herself as if she had intentionally made up a new word or two when she clearly knows that she had made a mistake. The inability to genuinely admit a mistake or a gap in one's knowledge or education - formal or not - is perhaps the most dangerous and depressing part of Ms. Palin's ascendency in the Republican Party. Ms. Palin's currency and gift is her ability to sound homespun and cheerful while validating and encouraging the fears, hatreds and insecurities of her admirers. Pandering to legions of citizens who are insecure about their own knowledge base or education is simply cynical. Many will say that Bill Clinton did nothing different when he lied about his affair with a White House intern, but it is different. His failure was lying about his private acts, not his public ones.

I am sometimes pessimistic about our nation's future, not because Sarah Palin put out a few tweets, but that there are many voters want to read them and feel better about themselves while trampling on others' free exercise of religion. She makes it easier to hate. She is just the latest in a long line of hate-mongering men and women who sometimes get elected to public office. History usually treats those people poorly but it is usually after their corrosive politics have damaged my country. The rest of us end up working to clean up their messes while they sit in some luxury that their followers could never afford.

I hope that Ms. Palin at some point realizes that she need not promote fear, hatred and hypocritical piety. She could very easily become a political force for good. She could call upon her followers to be their best selves, to remain vigilant but forgive and to acknowledge our own country's blunders that have made international relations more complicated and more dangerous. I have no confidence that will ever happen but I do have confidence that other national figures will emerge that challenge the notion that we must hate in order to survive and prosper.

Our best moments as a nation have always been when we seek to be better, more careful, more generous, less divisive and, yes, listen to each other.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Living Simply

Based on some news accounts available on the Internet, about 13 million Americans visited Europe in 2006, about 4% of the population. If you take away business travelers and people who went more than once, the number of regular travelers is less than that.


Many people cannot afford the airfare or hotel rates (especially right now) or simply want a different kind of vacation. That's fine. I love beaches, too. The reason I cite the statistic is because I think we could learn a great deal more about different, less expensive and appealing approaches to daily living by actually witnessing how many Europeans live. While I am not advocating confiscatory income taxes or value-added taxes that are common in Europe, I do think that our quest for energy independence and a "greener" way to live starts by learning from people who have been doing it for far longer than we have. I know that many people will immediately shun this as emulating "socialism" but if we could suspend judgment and labels for just a few minutes we could take some ideas - cafeteria style - and make them as American as apple pie.

To start off, most Europeans live in dwellings considerably smaller than most Americans. Unless they are farmers, Europeans tend to live much closer to one another, at walkable distances to markets for fresh food and when they want to travel, they have invested in rail systems that will take you practically anywhere on the continent in far less time and far more efficiently than it would take to drive. They don't tend to tear down and throw away perfectly good buildings in favor of building 5,000 square foot houses where half the house is never used but has to be heated and cooled. They shop for food on a daily basis in many cases, often in farmer's markets, buying only what they need for a day or two instead of stockpiling food and other items as if the world were coming to an end.

The differences between rich and poor are far less stark. That does not necessarily mean that there are not super-rich people and very poor people but the homeless plague that exists in many American cities and towns is much less a problem in Europe than it is here. Their universal health care systems are not exactly what they are cracked up to be - long waits for elective surgery, etc. - but life expectancy is at or above what we have. On the other hand, their obesity rates are lower; their heart disease rates are lower.


I have no interest in copying everything Europeans do. There is a good case to be made that our brand of capitalism with a less generous social safety net does a better job at rewarding creativity and entrepreneurs that invent things that make life more pleasant. It is easier here to move from one economic stratum to another but the likelihood that most people of my generation will do better economically than their parents is pretty low.

If you get the chance to visit, give it a shot. I think most people will come away from the experience with a better sense of how to live well without landing in bankruptcy court or being perpetually dependent on nations that hate us to supply us with petroleum and credit.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Thrift, Wealth & Velveeta Cheese

I guess the new trend spawned by the Great Recession is to adopt "thrift" as our operating theory although I am not altogether sure "thrift" is good for job creation, at least in the short run.

Many people could probably benefit from thinking about thrift and true wealth in terms of being less ostentatious and less insecure. If you came from or ever hung around "old money", you're likely to find the family wearing clothes that they have owned for 20+ years, driving orange diesel-fueled Mercedes Benz wagons from the early 1980s, letting parts of their houses go to Hell, slipcovering old furniture, talking about ideas, books and music instead of other people and never, ever, talking about what material things they have or don't have. Save money, buy quality stuff and never get rid of it until it's completely destroyed. The Lily Pultizer shift dress, purchased in 1962, still looks good. If it still fits, why get a new one?

You probably won't find a flat screen television in their houses. (By the way, it's "houses", not "homes", i.e., "I live in a neighborhood where all the houses have marvelous shade trees" or, "what a wonderful house..." Trust me on this.)

You will often see their philanthropy listed at the back of a publication under the name "Anonymous". They are quieter, better listeners and if they talk about politics or religion, they'll be gentle about yours and won't talk much about theirs. Often, they are lousy cooks but superb bartenders so by the time you're eating, you don't care what they made or who made it. (Please wait until the hostess picks up her fork before you pick up yours and compliment whatever was burned in your honor.) You'll leave knowing very little about them because they value their privacy more than whatever cash they have lying around (which probably isn't as much as you think). They probably spend far less than you do on an annual basis except for property taxes. If they trust you, you're a friend forever - but probably not too close. If they don't trust you, they will be even more polite than if they did trust you. They appreciate a hand-written thank you note, lending them a book you enjoyed or inviting them to a picnic instead of a restaurant. Obviously, not everyone can or would want to live that way, but if I had limited choices, I'd probably choose that lifestyle over many others. The best part is that you can adopt any political stripe you like, be eccentric and wonderfully witty and will never be nervous hosting a dinner party and can even run for office if you're genuinely humble and let others deal with fundraising.

Happy Father's Day

One of the most depressing things about getting older is the reality of losing our parents. I had two fathers - my natural father who died over 10 years ago and my step-dad who died a little over 2 years ago. Both deaths were robberies. They were young by modern standards. In the land of entitlement I have created, I thought it was my right to have both of them around until I turned at least 60. Fat chance.


So much political debate, particularly around issues of poverty, sexual orientation and women's reproductive freedom rights, centers on fathers. We're told that fathers are necessary to keeping children out of poverty, that fathers are necessary to raising well-adjusted children unless, of course, they happen to be gay and there are two fathers instead of one in which case, the right wingers tell us that mothers are indispensible. We can honor fatherhood and its importance without making kids without fathers feel like they are destined to rob liquor stores and live in squalor.


For many kids, 2 well-adjusted parents, living in the same house, of opposite genders, sounds like Disneyworld or sounds so foreign to them that they might wonder if they know anyone who has a life like that. Having been through much of the good stuff and some of the bad stuff that comes along with "traditional" family life, I can say from those experiences that what matters most - and is often repeated - is showing up and doing the best you can. Human beings can only lose what they have made for themselves, something they have been given or something they gave away. Defining what we have lost has to be about what was actually taken (or sometimes given) away.

Being a father is not always about biology. It's often about unconditionally loving a child and treating the child as if you shared their DNA.

To me, that means there are far more fathers out there than we could count on birth certificates. All of them deserve to be honored, even when their own imperfections or fears left them incapable of doing all of things we might have wanted them to do. If they remain on Earth, forgive their shortcomings. If they are no longer with us, honor what was good about them and make it a part of yourself. If you can do those things, I am convinced that you will feel less loss and more gratitude for what you did get.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Borrowing Away Our Freedom

I have never considered the federal and state tax systems to be unjust because they are marginally progressive, even as my own income grew and I got kicked into higher marginal tax rates. People who make more money ought to pay higher marginal rates because, in my view, they benefit the most from our country's brand of free market capitalism. The questions are whether we should single out one or two industries and tax compensation in those industries at higher rates than we do others and, if we do, how much more should people working in these industries pay?

By the late 1970s, the top marginal federal income tax rates were in the neighborhood of 80%. Both political parties were involved. Part of it grew out of having to pay for the Vietnam War and other misadventures. Part of it involved notions of fairness that have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Leaving aside flat-tax advocates and those who would simply tax consumption (the most regressive), the income tax is more than likely here to stay. When marginal rates were slashed during the Reagan administration and then slowly and modestly grew back in the 1990s, compensation managers were working hard to maintain competitive advantage in attracting talent in any number of industries. If the top marginal rate went up, increased compensation and perks followed. Lawyers and accountants got more creative.

When states like New York faced deficits, they borrowed rather than increase income tax rates. When the federal government passed unfunded mandates on state governments, they often borrowed more. Borrowing just to keep the government running is usually considered poor management but many states did it because their legislators were afraid of being associated with increasing taxes for any reason. When increased revenues were needed, "sin" taxes, lotteries, increased fees on toll roads and other strategies were used to help balance budgets. Wealthy people might have complained but most of the fee increases hit poorer people the hardest. Legislators were more interested in getting re-elected than in making wise policy decisions.

As a general rule, Americans are not stupid. They knew what was happening but lacked the political will or organization to make changes. In lieu of a real solution, many people began to attack those who made what they considered too much money. In some cases they might have been right. CEOs and other senior executives of publicly traded companies making $10-20 million per year irrespective of the profitability of the company were easy targets. Confiscatory taxes were not and will not be a solution. Financial industry executives started private hedge funds with their compensation being considered capital gains, taxed at 20%. Energy company executives could move to hedge funds, energy trading or any number of other industries.

Good governments pay their bills and balance their budgets and have the political will to eliminate tax loopholes and reserve borrowing for infrastructure improvements and other long-lasting projects like expanding public transportation. It's not that much different than a household that borrows for vacations they can't afford to take or a flat-screen television to replace a perfectly serviceable tube television but will not borrow or bother to replace a leaking faucet or purchase more energy efficient appliances. Priorities get shifted around and sometimes turned on their heads. When credit was easy to get, we forgot that our parents and grandparents actually saved money and used it to purchase luxury items and were unwilling to borrow for necessities. They bought houses they could afford with a large downpayment and drove at least one of their cars for 10 years instead of trading them in every three years. Most were not poor. They were frugal, responsible and lived within their means. If we held our legislatures to the same kind of principles we would not constantly face the prospect of huge deficits or, if we did, we would have a rainy day fund that governors love to talk about but rarely, if ever, establish.

The biggest tragedy of the second Bush Administration was its squandering of a budget surplus that could have been used for any number of good reasons. You can't fight an expensive war - whether the war is necessary or not - and cut taxes at the same time. If we didn't believe it then, we ought to believe it now. You can't borrow most of what you need from foreign countries and expect to keep control over your own economy. You can't tell states that since the federal government can't afford to fund a program, the states will have to pay even if they, too, face deficits. That's what our government has done. It did not have to happen. We let it happen.

It might help if we turned our national focus away from divisive social issues (gay marriage and reproductive freedom chief among them) and zero in on how to become energy independent and stop relying on the Chinese and others to keep us afloat by lending us billions - perhaps trillions - and all of the control that is associated with being a lender.

If you doubt me and your grandparents are still alive, ask them. I am pretty confident they would agree with me.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Energy Independence

I have read and listened to politicians', oil industry executives', scientists' and citizens' reactions to the crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I do not believe British Petroleum intended to lose an extraordinary amount of money - perhaps risking bankruptcy - or harm its reputation, but I do believe that BP was grossly negligent in failing to have multiple back-up plans in the event of a technological failure. The government deserves some of the blame by its obvious failure to demand and evaluate them prior to permitting off-shore drilling. In our desperate attempt to maintain at least some energy independence from Persian Gulf states and other international sources, we ignored or minimized risks associated with off-shore drilling.

In the short term, capping the well has to be the first priority. When it happens, I hope we ignore those who give themselves pats on the back for fixing something that never should have happened in the first place. Also in the short term, we will have to continue finding energy sources, including crude, to ensure that we are not hostages to oil exporting nations who either hate us or intend to take advantage of us.

Conservation, improving solar power technology, using wind power when possible, moving products via rail to the fullest extent possible and leaving large, gas guzzling vehicles to those who need them for their livelihoods might make a huge difference if we were serious about it. I don't know the answer but I wonder if we could all accept that a 1986 Honda Accord was once considered a perfectly good car for most families even though it is far smaller than the current Accord (The Accord is just an example; there are plenty of other vehicles that have become increasingly larger in the last quarter century after our brief dalliance with driving even smaller cars in the 1970s.) With safety advances and more efficient power plants, I wonder how much gasoline we would have saved over the years if we didn't demand ever larger vehicles as if it were a national birth right. For years, we have had special High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage car pooling. At the same time, we marvel at 4 cylinder engines that push out over 200 horse power. Very, very few of us need 200 horse power. For five years I drove a 1988 Subaru Justy (considered quite a safe vehicle given its small size) that had a 3 cylinder 66 bhp engine. I drove back and forth from D.C. to Upstate N.Y. at speeds exceeding 65 miles per hour. It got about 40-45 mpg on the highway and in the low 30s in the city traffic. Would we lose our national identity if we decided it was more responsible to drive those kinds of vehicles?

I'll leave nuclear power alone as a solution because I don't believe I am sufficiently informed about its safety, particularly storing spent nuclear fuel.

What about railroads? A number of large cities have excellent, energy efficient public transportation options. Is riding a subway, commuter train or bus such a burden? Could we invest (admittedly at great expense) in high speed rail that reached most people in the country? Could most of us walk 20-30 blocks to visit a store or a friend instead of automatically driving? I think we could do all of these things. Again, I do not know the initial cost or the ultimate savings in energy use but I am persuaded that we could learn a great deal from countries that already do these things. Most are European. Does that matter?

I know one thing for sure. If we were completely energy independent, the likelihood that we would involve ourselves in wars in the middle East - with the exception of counter-terrorism and the protection of Israel - would be much lower, perhaps lower enough to take some of our defense budget and build a smarter transportation system right here.

None of what I am saying is new. It's all about developing a national willingness to try. $5/gallon gasoline might change a few minds.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Softball

My previous post about Elena Kagan was written before I learned that the New York Times and others had begun to question Ms. Kagan's sexuality. It was already known that she was in her early 50s, had never married and had no children. I should have predicted that if her detractors were unable to make much out of the fact that she had not appeared in court very much and was never a judge, they would sink to the bottom like a stone and go after her for the possibility she might be a lesbian. Lots of people love to trot out the Salem Witch Trials when explaining this sort of phenomenon but I think it's a little shopworn at this point.

The reality is there are many, many men and women who are qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That should surprise no one. We have a lot of lawyers in this country, many of whom are scholarly, hard-working and are experts in Constitutional law. The interesting question is what disqualifies an otherwise qualified nominee. It's certainly not gender, race or religion any more. Is it sexual orientation, real or perceived? Certainly there are many people who would answer that question in the affirmative. There are also many people who would think that is preposterous. Put me in the latter camp.

It sometimes seems as if there are as many advocacy groups in this country as there are people. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT for those who didn't know where the acronym comes from) people have developed their own advocacy groups - some political and some social. Some focus their attention full equality and try to move the political debate by defining what true equality means or should mean. Even Republicans who advocate on behalf of the LGBT community (Log Cabin Republicans, e.g.) would say that sexual orientation should never play a role in employment decisions.

Call me crazy, but when a woman picks up a bat to play softball, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a lesbian. Deciding not to marry or working so hard that you never find a suitable mate doesn't necessarily mean someone is gay or lesbian.

Assuming for argument's sake that Ms. Kagan is a lesbian, Senators in a position to vote on whether to confirm her as an Associate Justice should be very careful. If it is obvious that bigotry played a role in her failure to get the job, I predict that more than a few people in Washington, D.C. - many of them in Congress and other very visible positions - will wake up a couple of days after the vote on Ms. Kagan and find out that their name is on a list of closeted lesbian and gay government officials, many of them doing a fine job in their roles. Some will be married. Some will have children. Some will lose a bid for re-election. I don't advocate "outing" anyone but others don't share my views. If there is a mass "outing", it will change politics forever and those who are working hard to keep the LGBT community from achieving equality will have to work a whole lot harder than they are working now.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Elena Kagan

Unless there are disturbing revelations in Elena Kagan's appearance before the Judiciary Committee, I am hopeful that she will receive the support necessary to her appointment as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many people have already commented on Ms. Kagan's lack of courtroom experience but no one can deny that she is an exceptional scholar - legal and otherwise - and has held a diverse array of jobs that insulate her from any charge that she is out of touch with ordinary Americans. Harvard University and the University of Chicago would never have risked their reputations to hire a woman who was not prepared to teach at the highest level or to be dean of the most prestigious law school in the country. Her family background is marked by a father who was a lawyer, a mother who was a school teacher and siblings who attended the best universities in the country and became teachers themselves. No one can call her a dilletante with dynastic wealth. She is a product of what many people still believe is the American Dream.

It is difficult to say at this point what her judicial philosophy is or the way she would analyze a variety of cases. I believe she will answer those questions with candor and confidence but will not answer direct questions about whether she believes that Rowe v. Wade ought to be overturned or that, despite her statements about the lack of constitutional support for same-sex marriage, how she would rule on various challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). No nominee, except perhaps for Robert Bork, ever revealed what they might do in hypothetical cases. That - and his supreme arrogance - derailed his nomination.

Some left wingers are disappointed. Some right wingers are disappointed. That's exactly where she ought to be. Nominating individuals to serve on the Court is clearly an important Presidential responsibility but over the last few decades has become so overly-politicized that it is easy to become cynical about the process. I didn't like the idea of a Chief Justice Roberts but there was little question that he was fit for the job. Conservatives didn't exactly like the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would ascend to the Court but they, too, had to agree that she was prepared to do the job. They frequently disagree with each other. In a balanced Court with a diversity of background, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation, the moderates have much of the control in decision-making. Most of those moderates believe that there is a place for divining the "original intent of the framers" and a place for recognizing that the nation is not what it was in the 18th century and that the Constitution is a living document. There are times when both philosophies work hand-in-hand when analyzing and deciding important cases.

For those of us who will watch or listen to the confirmation hearings, I hope that we pay as much attention to the questions Ms. Kagan is asked as we do to her responses. When we hear an unfair question or one primarily designed to pander to a Senator's local constituency, I hope we will organize to complain loudly. In this role, at this moment in time, each Senator has the same constituency: all of us. When politics gets out of control, we get Clarence Thomas. When it remains in check, we get Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and a host of other jurists who have never been completely predictable. Unless there is someone out there who knows every case that will come before the Court during the next 25 years, the search for predictability will always lead to a dead end. It was designed that way over 200 years ago. It is perhaps the only time I will agree with Antonin Scalia's orginalist dogma.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Happy Mother's Day

A clear majority of my friends would say that I love my mother more than any other person on Earth. The only dispute I would have with that is that I romantically love my partner just as much and that my brotherly love for my sister is equivalent, even if it's different. Thank goodness that I don't have to choose. I truly believe that the best mothers' hearts grow larger with each child and that there is no limit to our ability to love others unless it is self-imposed.

I can tell my mother almost anything (I spare her intimate details about my partner's and my relationship as soon as it involves anything sexual or otherwise qualifies as "too much information") and she almost invariably finds a way to make me feel better about myself. She was and remains my cheerleader-in-chief. She pushed me and my sister to do sometimes difficult but important things and did whatever she could to smooth the way for us. Often, it involved letting us go our own ways and left her more physically isolated from us as we moved, got different jobs and became busy adults. She has never been afraid to say those were difficult things to do but she did them anyway and knew - and still knows - she made the right decisions.

I'll admit (I've already discussed this with her) that I sometimes was embarrassed when Mom would blow into my elementary classrooms dressed like Erin Brockovich and deliver cookies when it was her turn to do so. She doesn't apologize anymore for that. I'm glad. By the time my parents' marriage was over, so was her desire to let other people define who she was and truly believed - but rarely said it aloud - that despite 35 years of teaching English, her biggest accomplishments were helping get her kids into the most rarified places they could be. I don't ever recall her trashing other women for choosing a different path or a different way of parenting unless she was being attacked for not doing things that seemed so standard. Even then, she blamed herself for not trusting other women enough to confide in them. She lost trust in men, too, ultimately concluding that they were often weaker than she was, and almost pitying them.

That's not to say she didn't try to fit in. She did. Unfortunately for her contemporaries and fortunately for me and my sister, she didn't begin to fit in until she hit her 60s. I think that happened because, by then, women who had either shunned her or belittled her saw the results of what she very privately spent so much time and energy doing. How do you raise a lawyer and doctor with middle class wages, no woodie station wagon and very, very little baking or knowing where the vacuum cleaner is on any given day? It sounds like a tough question but it's actually pretty easy. You set priorities, talk to your kids, cry with them, laugh with them and tell them long before it was ever said in a movie theatre that "my kids will never sit at the back of the bus."

Last year, I recall overhearing a conversation on the day of my sister's rehearsal dinner which was being staged at her house under a tent in the back yard. She said that she couldn't believe how smart her kids were and that it scared her to death. How was she going to handle what she believed were 'these incredible gifts? I felt this overwhelming responsibility to make sure they got what they needed and wasn't at all sure I could handle it.'

She did.

To every mother who loves her kids, I wish you a Happy Mother's Day. I don't need to say it to Mom because she knows exactly what I think.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Toughening Up

I sometimes wonder whether I ought to toughen up a little bit and make my reactions to things that are said or happen in my personal life resemble my reactions to things that are said or happen in my professional life.

The professional part is so much easier for me. I don't think too many people would disagree that an insult, however obnoxious, can be easily shaken off, particularly when your job largely involves working with lawyers who are expected to zealously advocate for a client. As most trial lawyers would probably tell you, they have been insulted, threatened (not with violence for the most part), belittled, laughed at and otherwise treated uncivilly by opponents, judges, arbitrators, employers and clients. Most learn very early that it is an occupational hazard and is ordinarily not necessarily personal. My favorite insult (if one can have a favorite insult) was lobbed at a friend of mine during a hearing when her opponent suggested that she consult a psychiatrist to get past what he considered to be some character defect on her part. In some ways, trial practice has become a sport where substance often takes a back seat to style and where an advocate cannot necessarily depend on a judge or arbitrator to admonish a particularly obnoxious lawyer who behaves as if the case is about him and the other lawyer - not the clients. When I was an advocate, I was repeatedly told that personalizing a case and making it about the lawyers was the worst thing you could do for your client and among the worst things you could do for your professional reputation.

After a couple of decades of advocacy, mostly as an attorney and mostly before neutral arbitrators, I have not seen a great deal of evidence that personalizing cases or hurling invectives at opponents makes any real difference in the reputation of the lawyers who engage in that kind of behavior. In fact, some lawyers are bold enough to go after the judge or the arbitrator (my very unscientific survey suggests to me that it happens to arbitrators much more than it does to judges). I admit to having made some snide remarks to my opponents, mostly when I was provoked and mostly when I thought my opponent was late to hearings or in some other way was wasting everyone's time and dragging out the process for no reason other than to bill the client for more time than was necessary to try the case. Ideology (or presumed differences in ideology) is sometimes to blame. Being overworked can contribute to it as well.

I think the first thing I learned was that the louder and more personal my opponents sometimes were, the more obvious it was to me that they did not have much of a case and knew it. There is the old adage that when the law is on your side, pound on the law; when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither the law nor the facts were on your side, pound on the table. The last bit of strategy happens more frequently than we like to admit. Early in my career I recall telling my boss that I wasn't sure I had the temperment to try cases because I have no natural inclination to yell or engage in name-calling. He told me that I did not need to change my personality to do my job and if I tried, no one would believe it was authentic, anyway. I don't know whether that was the best advice I ever received but it's pretty close. The more my opponents yelled and "pounded on the table", the quieter my own voice became. Whether it is universally true or not, the arbitrators before whom I appeared would actually lean in to listen to my arguments and attempt to tune out the yelling. I didn't always win but I am certain I was heard. The many times I was personally attacked, I said absolutely nothing and just smiled (or, sometimes, let's face it, smirked) back at him or her. Ironically, that usually infuriated my opponents more than if I had "given as good as I got." A former colleague of mine was defending a case before an arbitrator and while her opponent wasn't listening, she told the arbitrator in the presence of all parties that she acknowledged that her client was wrong from a contractual perspective and that she would grant the relief sought by her opponent without the necessity of an arbitrator's decision. Her opponent then continued the earlier argument until the arbitrator told him that my colleague had rendered the case moot because she was willing to grant the remedy sought. Rule? Listening is a good skill.

When I stopped advocating cases and became an independent arbitrator - something I had long wanted to do - I had at least a dozen examples to follow given the number of arbitrators before whom I appeared over the years. Arbitrators have their own personal styles of conducting hearings, come from different backgrounds and often disagree amongst themselves about the 'right way' to behave as a neutral. As soon as I was present at a hearing as an arbitrator, a few things became very clear to me. I cannot copy anyone I had appeared before whether I want to or not. I am not predisposed to asking lots of questions of witnesses and instead rely on the advocates to put on their cases the way they choose, rule on objections and limit my questions to clearing up any confusion I might have had relating to their testimony. I may change as I mature but if want to be happy with my work, I have to remain true to myself, subject of course, to contractual and legal constraints to which every arbitrator must adhere. There is a lot of room for many different approaches, one of the best parts of choosing this as a profession.

As I indicated earlier, the separation of one's personal life from one's professional life presents its own challenges. Busy arbitrators are used to a certain amount of deference and have much more control over events than they may have at home. Spouses, families and friends can say very personal, sometimes hurtful things to each other and even if I object, I don't get to write a final and binding decision at the end telling them that I am right. Life doesn't work that way. It shouldn't. I am lucky that I am not subjected to very much criticism when I am at home. When I am, it is sometimes more than a little unnerving but is often understandable and is usually out of love. I have discovered that I am not a particularly good advocate for myself and rather than argue, my typical reaction is to remain silent or apologize. I'm not sure if I need to work on that but I get hurt like everyone else, especially when I feel powerless to defend myself. I suppose the answer to my own question - whether to toughen up a bit more or not - depends on being less sensitive or even ignoring what I believe to be unfair criticism and to develop a better sense of humor. I think it also has to include a deeper understanding of the people I love, especially their own frustrations with me or something else. That's the hardest part which means it's probably the most important part.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Tea Parties

I visit my local deli almost every morning at about 5:45 a.m. to get a mint tea. It's a sort of soothing ritual until I realize that the guy at the cash register at 5:45 a.m. is still there at 5:00-6:00 p.m. when I pick up some milk or some other item. The guy is about my age and is always really nice to everyone and seems almost oddly cheerful (or delerious). I think he works about 16 hours a day.

To me, that ought to be the basis for a Tea Party movement. (I already have the wardrobe and slogan in my head: "I sell or serve tea 16 hours a day and all I get is this lousy t-shirt.") I'll get the numbers a little bit wrong but a very large plurality of Americans pay no federal taxes (except their share of payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare). It's not because they don't work. It's because they don't make enough money to justify the government taking a nickel from them.

I pulled double shifts when I was a kid working in a restaurant. (Not only does it build character as our parents probably told us; for many of us, it solidified our desire to get through undergraduate and graduate school.) I hardly ever logged the minimum hours when I became a manager at a state agency. Usually, it was about 10 hours a week more. Most of my colleagues did the exact same thing. Most of my colleagues ate at their desks. The difference is we were already getting paid a living wage and had health insurance.

Shouldn't the Tea Party movement be about the guy at my local deli? That would mean that people who do pay taxes would advocate for those whose incomes don't justify taxes. They would have to demand universal health care access and an increase in the minimum wage along with a willingness to pay more for groceries brought to your local market by people who earned a living wage. Wealthier people might not like to hear it, but they get government subsidies every day. They can usually write off mortgage interest for two residences. Renters can't. Their grocery bill is subsidized by tolerating poor wages for farm workers (and then decry the fact that we have uncontrolled, undocumented immigration that no concrete wall will fix). The domestic services they pay for are rarely above minimum wage. Those services are often supplied by the same ethnic groups who are undocumented immigrants who are afraid to speak up and risk deportation.

The economic elites in the Tea Party movement conveniently forget how lucky they are and then recruit poor people to show up at their events to protect the rights of the elite and work against their own interests.

Am I missing something here? I'm going to finish my tea, now.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Women and Economics

Since the middle part of the 1960s my mother earned more than either of her husbands. I am well aware of the general rule that women in the U.S. earn about 75 cents on the dollar as men do. That statistic, however, does not tell the whole story. Women of her generation with bachelor's and master's degrees could at least count on earnings sufficient to be economically independent of their husbands provided they worked full time and didn't spend much time on maternity leave. That fact alone probably contributed more to the quality of her relationships than anything else - good and bad. She had the power to abandon any men she believed were harmful to me or her, in that order.

We're still sold on the idea that men make more money than women who do the same work. One of the only places where that is not true is teaching. Leaving aside the benefits, including better-than-average health coverage, teaching is generally a pretty safe career with good pensions and a couple of months off per year.

When these women become widowed, as my mother did in 2008, they may be horribly depressed, despondent and alone for a year or two but their retirement income prevents them from being pulled from their houses. That's a big deal. It is an especially big deal to their children. In my case, my sister and I don't need to worry about my mother's economic situation. We can visit our ancestral home without the fear that she sold all the paintings, rugs, etc., in order to pay the mortgage, the pool guys and the utilities. She can travel modestly when she chooses.

Every time I hear a misogynist rant or a call for "traditional marriage", I always go back to my own life history. I loved my father and my stepfather but I know that the reason we lived a middle class life was because of her profession and willingness to stick with it even when times were tough. For those of you with daughters, take heed. They need to find their way to economic freedom. If you value having choices, it's doubly important.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

So You Can't Afford Mandatory Health Coverage

Now that a watered down version of health care reform is law, I have a prediction that isn't exactly novel: people who abhor anything that sounds like a government mandate will be out in force trying to pick off Democractic congressmen and Senators in the November elections. Just to be fair, there are a number of state and federal mandates that most of us seem to be pretty comfortable with:

All drivers of vehicles must be licensed by a state; drivers of larger and/or commercial vehicles need a special license in most cases. Most states require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.

Except in a few states, most vehicles on the road require regular inspections based on state standards. If the car doesn't pass, the owner has to fix the problem.

Most states require, at a minimum, that a car owner carry liability insurance in the event of an accident.

With very few exceptions, children are expected to attend school at least through the 8th grade, whether it's through public, private or home schooling.

Blood tests are usually mandatory for couples in order to get a marriage license.

It is mandatory for immigrants to pass a civics test in order to become a citizen of the United States. Many native born Americans would fail it.

It is mandatory for school staff to report suspected child abuse to government authorities.

In many states, a pack of cigarettes is taxed at a rate about 100% higher than they would otherwise be sold - still at a profit to the retailer and supplier.

The common thread? In part it's because we don't want to end up paying for the irresponsibility, unacceptable risk-taking or unluckiness of others. If we are willing, we want to minimize the amount.

I will agree that for some people, the cost of 'mandatory' health insurance will be more than they believe they can afford. They may actually be right. What puzzles me is that some of these people will suffer a catastrophic illness or injury that, if not covered by insurance, I and others will end up paying the bill. This group of people who will refuse to purchase coverage will still expect someone to pay the bill if they can't or will ask for assistance from the government if they can't afford to pay their mortgage bill or rent. They will tell us that it wasn't their fault that they got sick or injured and that it wasn't their fault that they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. Maybe some of them will be right about that. If that's true, I have no problem subsidizing the insurance purchase through additional taxes. In fact, if a person without health insurance can demonstrate to the government - through a tax return or other means - that they truly cannot afford it, I think the government (meaning us) ought to give the individual a tax credit to cover the amount, even if they have paid no state or federal taxes at all based on their income.

The problem I have is that even when I visit my hometown - hardly a wealthy enclave - I rarely see people driving old cars or cars that get reasonably good gas mileage. I don't know many people who don't have cable television, don't eat out at a restaurant on occasion or don't have a cell phone. Some of these people will be the same ones who say that they cannot afford even the most basic health insurance. That makes me just a little bit angry. I'm not interested in subsidizing people who think they are entitled to a number of luxuries that, taken together, are probably about as expensive as basic health coverage.

I spent a brief period of time - during law school - when I went without health insurance. I drove a car that at least got 40 mpg, didn't have a TV, much less cable. Going out to dinner involved getting a slice or two of pizza. I didn't feel poor but had no one else who depended on me for their own economic security. None of that made me a better person than anyone else but I think I had my priorities reasonably related to my economic reality. I would have jumped at the chance to have health insurance at an affordable rate or a subsidy if I still couldn't pay the entire amount.

That's what this legislation is, in part, trying to fix. Put your political party aside for a minute and think about that.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Governor Patterson's Farewell

When Eliot Spitzer imploded under the weight of his own hubris, the newly sworn Governor Patterson seemed like the perfect foil. His intellect, sense of humor, apparent humility and record in the State Senate restored my hope that New York State would start doing bold, smart, forward-thinking things. It didn't take long to realize that the new Governor's honeymoon could be counted in minutes. He was in a tough position given the economic realities he inherited and lacked the perceived power (or perhaps desire) to push his own agenda. Despite Spitzer's abuse of office in trying to get rid of Joe Bruno - I admired the goal but not the method - Patterson learned very little from it.

Domestic violence may not be the third rail of American politics but I wouldn't mind if it were. If you can't feel safe in your own home, what else matters? If a husband or partner gives a woman a morning gift of a black eye, how do we expect that the victim will have the ability to show up at a march to support more money to find a cure for cancer, volunteer at a hospital or make it to work? Ironically, many women do. They need to feed their families. They apply a little foundation make-up or invent a story to deny the reality. Why do they do this? Many are afraid to report it for a variety of reasons, some of them economic. They also know that the criminal justice system and their elected officials do a terrible job of protecting them when they do report it. For some, orders of protection are useless or come too late. For others, they blame themselves for the violence and don't know where to turn for help. Some churches will continue to tell some of these women that their sacred vows cannot be broken even when their noses change shape every year. Some of them are killed by their abusers.

If it is true that Governor Patterson improperly used his office to interfere with a criminal case involving domestic violence by encouraging the victim to keep quiet or change her story, he should not only lose his job. He should lose his law license and maybe spend some time in jail. It's not just about this case. It's about the entitlement of all victims to a government that is committed to protecting them, however imperfectly. It's about children who should never have to watch a parent sit in an emergency room to get her nose or arm reset only to return to the scene of the crime hours later, wondering when it will happen again and if it will be worse the next time. If you don't believe that it affects kids that much, I can tell you from personal experience that it does.

We imprison people who sell dime bags of marijuana. Fine. We imprison poor people who shoplift food. Not so fine. We usually wait until a domestic abuser violates an order of protection to send them to jail and it's because they are in contempt of Court. Not fine.

I would like to believe that this story, if true, will ensure that our state government will take it seriously, improve the criminal justice system and provide real protection for victims. I don't believe it will, though. My lack of optimism is a practical response to what I have known since I was a kid. Women still lack the political and economic power to stop it. Because the vast majority of domestic violence is between straight couples with females being the typical victims, it could take decades to get it right. Too many women will be injured or killed in the meantime. Maybe women who are not victims of domestic violence could make it their business to organize their husbands or partners to stand up and march to Albany. That might get someone's attention.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Getting Fit

Caveat: I am not a nutritionist, personal trainer or medical professional. Having said that, I read a recent article about First Lady Michelle Obama speaking out about obesity, proper nutrition and other related topics, all in an effort to encourage us to be healthier. There was typical commentary about the government getting involved in this issue in any way. Most of those comments said (quite rightly to some extent) that individuals and families ought to be left alone to deal with obesity issues. The problem is they are either not doing it because they don't care or because they lack access to quality, affordable food, the time to prepare it and do not have the time to exercise.

There is nothing wrong with the First Lady's involvement as a spokesperson, role model and cheerleader. Let's not forget that she is working for free. Let's also not forget that the government pays billions to states for Medicaid which means that we are all paying for the treatment of obesity-related diseases on some level. The government has a right and, to me, a duty, to work at espousing the virtues of getting fitter than we are. There are so many stories of people with Type II diabetes who lost a significant amount of weight and are no longer diabetics.

I realize it's not easy to drop weight. It requires some planning and real commitment. Other than a few years in college and just afterwards, my body weight at 45 is the same as it was when I was 18, give or take five pounds. Some people think I'm too thin and I occasionally agree but my Body Mass Index is within the low end of what is considered healthy. I was genetically lucky, as well. Neither of my parents ever gained enough weight to be considered obese and it was never an issue at all until my father was in his 50s and my mother in her late 50s/early 60s. I don't think it's just genetics, though. My father tried to watch what he ate and my mother loves mayonnaise more than she loves some people but tries to stay away from it. Genetics notwithstanding, I think there are a few things most people can do to become fitter and healthier.

Excercise more. Whether aerobic or through weight training (it's a myth that women who lift weights get bigger. They get leaner and may even gain weight because they are replacing fat with muscle.) Muscle is heavier than fat. Park the car far away from whatever supermarket or store you are visiting. It's raining? Get an umbrella. Go ahead and take the advice to eat 5 small meals a day instead of three bigger ones or one huge one. I do exactly what everyone seems to say is the worst thing you can do: eat one large meal a day. It's really about the calories you consume. If you eat fewer calories than you burn off, you'll lose weight. Get enough sleep. Don't open the refrigerator every time you enter your kitchen. Get rid of the sugared soda. Drive past fast-food restaurants. I think gum chewing is an ugly habit but if it keeps you away from bad snack food, by all means chew gum. If you can, even if you are alone, sit down to eat and try to do it slowly, giving your body the time to tell you when you are really full. Don't deprive yourself of everything but understand that a candy bar is a treat, not a daily part of your routine. If you have kids, try to eat at least 5 meals together every week and while doing so, talk to each other about something other than the food on the table. My mother insisted that we eat dinner together on weekdays, regardless of whether a sports practice got the last person in the door at 8:00 p.m. Become an omnivore. I am always shocked to find out that the people with the greatest number of food phobias are heavier than people who have a more accepting palate. If all you like are fried chicken nuggets, pizza and pasta, you are probably doomed to weighing much more than you need to. Look at your thinner friends and try to do what they do. You'll find that many slimmer people eat half their restaurant meal and have the rest wrapped up for the next day's lunch (and probably throw it away when they get home). If vanity is your motivation - fine. If setting an example for your kids is your thing - that's great, too. Unless you are a diabetic, skipping a meal or two won't kill you. I eat between 7 and 10 meals per week. I might have a handful of roasted almonds during the day but not much more than that. Apparently, at my level of exercise, I burn off about 2200 calories a day. I probably eat about 2200 calories a day if you take an average over a week. For most of us, just reducing that number to 2000 or 1800 will, in time, result in slow, sustainable weight loss. It's not rocket science. And, for God's sake, have some bread if you want it. Just don't ask Appleby's to refill the basket. Better yet, ask them to give you the salad before the bread comes.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Health Care Reform

I wouldn't give up on health care reform just yet, but I no longer think it will be the kind of real reform many hoped to achieve. What saddens me the most is that much of the rhetoric from the right has focused on the inclusion of a publicly-run option that would compete with private insurers. If they truly believed that a publicly-run option would ultimately be inferior, it is cynical to suggest that those seeking health insurance would choose that option in the first place.

I sound like a broken record but, as I have said many times, we already have a "public option" and have been paying for it for many years. When sick people have no insurance and no primary care physician to turn to, they turn to emergency rooms, the costliest way to deliver care for non-emergency, non-life threatening illnesses. Hospitals bill the uninsured emergency room patient who obviously cannot afford to pay; some of these patients who can't afford to pay make a choice between paying their hospital bill or their rent or mortgage. Many will pay the hospital and risk foreclosure. Many will pay the mortgage and fail to pay the hospital. Those of us with health insurance will watch their property values deflate due to foreclosures happening all around them. Many will watch their hospitals drop specialties that are not self-sustaining and instead rely on the overall income of the hospital to stay in business. Businesses do this all the time. Restaurants may lose money on some of the food they serve but make up for it by relying on beverage service to stay solvent. It's not that different for non-profit hospitals.

It's also convenient to overlook the fact that people with no insurance and no primary care physician are denied access to preventive care, typically the cheapest and best way to deliver care for common ailments - Type 2 diabetes, respiratory infections, etc. Untreated diabetes, for example, can certainly land someone in an emergency room because of the damage the disease can do to vital organs and even limbs.

If we end up with watered-down health care "reform", little will change. We will not spread risk, resulting in higher premiums for those with insurance. If that's not a part of paying for health care for the uninsured, I don't know what is.

If you do not believe that access to affordable health care is a moral obligation, I am sorry to tell you that it doesn't matter when it comes to what you pay for your own health care. We have a "system" right now that guarantees an economically inefficient delivery of care. The difference is that we had little control over its establishment - done piecemeal and without much debate. I wish we would all wake up and realize that it is better to elect people with the courage to replace the current "system" with an actual plan that makes getting and maintaining health care insurance possible for most, if not all of us. It turns out that we are sometimes our brothers' keepers, whether we like it or not. It's not a question of whether we do it piecemeal or comprehensively. Doing it comprehensively just sounds much more rational to me.