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.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)