19 posts tagged “politics”

All of these states that have laws prohibiting same-sex marriages make me think of some older laws that (thankfully)have long since been repealed, older laws that many people may have forgotten. There used to be laws prohibiting certain groups of people (Asians, primarily) from owning real estate. There used to be laws that kept women from holding or even applying for certain jobs. There used to be laws that prohibited interracial marriages.

On Tuesday, we as a people collectively elected the first bi-racial President. It's an exciting time. It shows that we as a people have collectively moved past the social injustices imposed upon an entire group, that we as a people are collectively able to see beyond a person's skin, that we as a people collectively value ideas and substance more than appearance. When I heard the results Tuesday night, when I watched his speech from Grant Park, when I listened to his words and knew it was real, I was elated, relieved, and so proud to be an American.

On Wednesday, as I saw the results of many of the ballot initiatives trickle onto the news websites, I felt a little of that pride from Tuesday eroding.

On Tuesday, we showed the world that we as a people collectively accept a person regardless of skin or gender. But on Wednesday, we also showed the world that we as a people collectively are unable to look beyond a person's sexual orientation.

*          *          *          *          *

When I was a little girl, one of my most favorite people in the world was Uncle Pepe. He really wasn't my uncle, rather a close family friend, but I absolutely adored him all the same. My mother would remind me of a time, I wasn't much older than three, when, in a huff, I grabbed my favorite blanket and a small bag of my worldly possessions and stood out by the street waiting for Uncle Pepe to come and take me away from my mean parents. He loved my sister and me - and all the other girls we grew up with - as if we were his own daughters. And the seven of us all loved him as if he were a real uncle.

I had known both Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob, his best friend, my entire life. They befriended my parents when they moved to the United States in 1972. I remember looking at old photographs of my sister with Uncle Pepe (who still had hair back then) at Disneyland and Marineland... Even before I was born, Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob were already an important part of our family.

Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob were inseperable. I never knew how they met; I just knew they were good friends, roommates who kept each other company and genuinely cared about each other. I knew that Uncle Pepe's ex-wife and children wanted nothing to do with him, but I never understood why because he was the nicest, most wonderful man in the whole world. And so Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob were each other's family, and they were a part of our family, too.

My sister got married when I was 21, and it was only then that I learned that Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob were life partners. I certainly didn't know, and it didn't change my opinion of them. And when I learned that Uncle Pepe passed away four years ago, it felt as though I had lost family.

*          *          *          *          *

When I think of Proposition 8 and Amendment 2, I think of Uncle Pepe and Uncle Bob. These two men loved each other so much, and they were together for more than 30 years - far longer than the duration of most heterosexual marriages. I knew them my entire life, including and especially those early, formative years. I loved them like uncles and treated them with the same respect as I would any other grownup.

And yet my father - my own father and their good friend - voted in favor of Prop 8. I was stunned.

I really don't understand the animosity directed towards homosexuals. It doesn't make sense to me. After all, it's not like homosexual people are infringing upon any of my rights.

*          *          *          *          *

My friends and I went to a couple of bars on my 21st birthday, one of which happened to be a gay bar. A woman approached me and offered to buy me a drink, but my friend stepped in and told her that I was straight. Even though I was tipsy, I remember the exchange. It was funny.

"No, no, man," my friend M said. "She's taken."

"Who are you? Her girlfriend?" the woman asked.

"No, she's straight," M clarified. "And she has a boyfriend."

The woman shrugged and said, "That's okay," then turned to me and said, "You're very pretty."

And that was the end of it.

The thing is, even if I were at a straight bar and a man offered to buy me a drink, I would have still been taken, and I would still have had a boyfriend, and I still would have turned down the offer. Or, at least, my friends would have done it for me.

*          *          *          *          *

I believe that a person's sexual orientation has no effect on my person. I also firmly believe that my marriage will not be affected by another couple, gay or straight. I believe that the vast majority of homosexual people are good, decent people like Uncle Pepe, just as I believe that the vast majority of heterosexual people are good, decent people like my husband.

I would put one's sexual orientation in the same category as religious beliefs: I am immediately turned off if either are aggressively "pushed" at me. Don't think you can magically make me interested in women, and don't think you can magically turn me into a religious zealot. (Don't think you can make me an Atheist, either.) Trying to convince me that I'm "wrong" because of whom I love or what I believe (or don't believe) violates my basic rights as an individual to feel however I want, love whomever I want, and believe whatever I want.

I firmly maintain that things like gender, racial identity, religion and sexual preference are largely superficial, and that people should not be judged based on these things. Sure, combined, they make us who we are as individuals, but separately, they do not define us as human beings.

Just as we as a people have collectively looked past racial identity and have elected the first Black (really, bi-racial) President of the United States, I only hope that we as a nation can one day collectively look past a person's sexual preference, as well.

And I hope it doesn't take another 50 years for the nation to come around to it.

One of my neighbors posted a link to this as a comment on another neighbor's blog. I wanted to post it here because I found it hilariously funny!

Doonesbury

I've been hearing chatter over cubicle walls all morning, and I'm tired of it. Since I promised my husband I would lay low and keep quiet, I'll argue my points here, just to get it out of my system.

Obama didn't win because he's Black. People may have voted for him because they liked his ideas, his fresh perspective, his ideals and rhetoric. People may have voted for him because they think he's smart. People may have voted for him because he seemed to understand the plight of the Middle Class better than his opponent. People may have voted for him because they believe he offers hope. And people may have voted for him simply because they didn't like John McCain. Hell - people may have voted for him because they though Michelle Obama had more poise in her interviews than Cindy McCain. Whatever their reasons, I refuse to believe that 52% of the voting public voted for him because he's Black. I refuse to believe that 80% of Young Voters (adults 18-34) voted for him because he's Black.

I refuse to believe that McCain lost because of the color (or lack thereof) of his skin.

The last time a Presidential Candidate energized the Youth Vote was in 1992, when a governor from Arkansas promised us hope. Prior to that, a former Attorney General named Bobby energized the entire nation - but especially younger voters - and was poised to take it all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue until he was assassinated in 1968.

What Obama has in common with both of these men is the ability to reach the people, regardless of age, race, creed, and, in many respects, socioeconomic levels. Did Obama win this election by a major majority the way Reagan did in 1984? No, but I don't think anyone was expecting Obama to win 82% of the votes cast. (I don't think anyone was expecting McCain to do that, either, for that matter.) And given the state of partisan politics these days, I think it will be a very long time before we see an outcome like that again.

Obama won this election, fair and square. More than half of the votes cast were clearly in his favor. He knows that he didn't convince everyone to vote for him. He acknowledged that in his speech.

But please please don't make this about race. You can say it's about private funding versus public funding. You can blame it on SNL, Katie Couric, Jon Stewart, and the Liberal Media. You can say that Bush ruined it for the GOP, that the economy worked in favor of the Dems, that Sarah Palin went rogue too many times.

But please don't make this about race. Obama never did. And to hear someone say it all came down to the color of Obama's skin, that makes me think that person can't see past a person's pigmentation.

And as someone who isn't White, herself, that makes me very, very uneasy, indeed.

I am so incredibly proud to be an American today, having just helped President-elect Barack Obama defeat his opponent in this Presidential election.

Yet, I am also so incredibly disappointed in many respects.

Now that we know who our next President will be, I've turned my attention to myriad initiatives on ballots across the country.

Topping the list of interesting initiatives is Prop 8 in California. At last glance, results were showing it was likely to pass, which just disappoints me to no end. I knew how certain counties would vote. Kern, Ventura, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego counties were always more conservative zones, though I was pleasantly surprised to see how Santa Barbara voted. But what I found disappointing (and quite surprising, I must say) was how my old home county voted: 20,806 votes in favor of it! And if that isn't enough, my own father voted in support of it. (I am still appalled by that fact, by the way.)

The similar Amendment 2 in Florida looks like it will pass. I mistakenly thought proponents needed a 67% majority for it to pass. That majority size only applies to changes in taxation laws; all other amendments only require a 60% majority. And as it looks like 62% of the voters were in favor of it (my current home county showed 70% in favor of it), it will be written into the Florida State Constitution. [sigh]

Would somebody please take this to the United State Supreme Court already?

Arizona passed Prop 102, and Arkansas passed Initiative 1. Apparently, bigotry based upon sexual orientation is still alive and well in this great nation of ours. [sigh]

Colorado's Amendment 48 looks like it has handily been defeated (thank God), which has been the bright side of the dismal ballot initiative news. I'm so glad that 70+% of the voters agreed that the State should not determine the start of human life. Besides which, if it passed, it would have raised a whole slew of questions, including whether a woman who miscarries should be tried for negligent homicide. It's bad enough you have to deal with the trauma that comes with a miscarriage to begin with - now you could potentially be found liable! Ugh. So glad this did not pass.

Another bright side is Michigan's Prop 2, which will allow stem cell research to be conducted in that state. I wonder, though, if someone from, say, Minnesota, would be able to "discard" their embryos in Michigan so that they could be used for research.

I feel like the country won with Obama as our new President elect, but the results of these ballot initiatives also make me believe the country may have lost, too.

I took advantage of early voting in this great swing state of Florida and voted on October 25. I know how much my vote matters, not just for the presidential race, but for a key and controversial amendment on the ballot: the Florida Marriage Amendment.

This is the exact wording of the proposed amendment:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

This proposed amendment is obviously targeted at gay marriage supporters, but what proponents of this amendment are failing to acknowledge is that domestic partnerships (which can be heterosexual partnerships, as well) will not be recognized as legal unions. (Domestic partnerships fall under the "substantial equivalent" category.)

If the sanctity of marriage is what is truly at stake, then I would propose an amendment banning divorce. Think about it. It's not like the existence of a married homosexual couple threatens my marriage. Only one thing can end my marriage, and that's divorce.

[sigh]

This proposed amendment is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at legalizing bigotry.

Of course, the irony is that many of the supporters of the Florida Marriage Amendment were also supporters of an amendment that passed two years ago that required a two-thirds majority vote in order for any future bills to pass. That passed by less than 60%, but as the majority of voters voted for it, it was written into law. In order to overturn that amendment now, 67% of the voters would need to agree to overturn it. Likewise, 67% of the voters would need to vote in favor of the Florida Marriage Amendment for it to be written into the State Constitution.

That said, I don't care if 51% of the voters are in favor of this proposed amendment. I don't care if 61% are in favor, just as long as 34% of the voters are in opposition. I will very surprised indeed if this amendment passes, but if it does...

Let's just say I hope at least 34% of the voters oppose this amendment!

I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin. There - I've said it. But this story really got my goat.

A wardrobe costing $150,000? With another $15K, you can pay off my entire mortgage. For $40K more, you can buy a house - with a pool - in my neighborhood.

I don't shop at Neiman Marcus. I don't buy clothes at Saks. And do you know why?

Because I'm a hard-working, soccer-mom-in-training who has had an $87 pair of boots resoled and re-heeled more times than she can count because it's cheaper than buying a new pair.

The last dress I bought myself $20, and it was for a wedding. (I contemplated a $30 dress but decided I wouldn't get enough wear to justify the expense.)

I shop at outlet stores and Target, and I've been holding onto a $50 gift card to Nordstroms because I can't find anything I need there for close to that amount. (I will probably buy The Boy's next pair of shoes from there, though.)

I clip coupons and scour the newspaper for sales and don't go to the mall because, among other reasons, I don't want to see a $75 dress that I absolutely love but can't afford.

In short, I don't shop there because I can't afford it.

And yet, here's this politician who's telling me that she knows what it's like to be me, traipsing around in Manolos and Jimmy Choos (not that I would even know because I certainly can't afford those) that were paid for by the Republican National Committee. Here's this politician, backed by the Republican Party, wearing stuff that costs more than I make in a week, sympathizing with my Middle Class life.

Okay, so she didn't go shopping. Other people went shopping for her. You know what I think?

I think it's crap.

Campbell Brown argues that Palin's image is a critical component of her job. And I'll agree with her - it definitely is. But if you're going to promote yourself as a down-to-earth hockey mom that can relate to the average American family, well, dress like it.

"Oh, but what about Hillary's pantsuits?" you may ask. "Why aren't you complaining about that?"

Two reasons: One, Hillary never tried to sell herself as one of the middle class. She was born into a prominent family and has remained well-off her whole life. Secondly, the Democratic National Committee didn't pay for her wardrobe in the guise of campaign accessories.

[sigh]

...but I found a great quote from Sarah Palin that I hope will come back to haunt her on November 5.

In an interview on Focus on the Family, she said:

I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.

I wonder if she will still believe this if when Obama is declared the winner of this election.

Socialism: So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

socialism An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition)

Okay, now that we have the definition out there, let's see what CNN had to say on the Obama-as-Socialist remarks (I've italicized my favorite parts):

Powell said he had grown tired of McCain's negative campaigning and that the American people would prefer to focus on issues like education, infrastructure and the economy. He specifically slammed Palin's allegation that Obama's tax plan is socialist, calling it misleading.

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools," President Bush's former secretary of state said. "And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less.

"For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate."

While not endorsing either candidate, political analyst Larry Sabato pointed to what he said was a flaw in the Palin assertion: the recent approval of a $700 billion bailout which, in part, will pump billions of dollars into failing banks.

"The fly in the ointment for this socialism argument is the recent bank bailout. That's probably the most egregious example of socialism in American history," said Sabato, who heads the University of Virginia's nonpartisan Center for Politics.

In a Fox News interview Sunday, however, Palin said the bailout was not socialist.

"I believe that there are those measures that had to be taken by Congress to shore up not only the housing market but the credit markets -- also to make sure that that's not frozen -- so that our small businesses have opportunities to borrow. And that was the purpose, of course, and that part of the bailout and the shoring of the banks," Palin said.

McCain, too, in his interview with Fox's Wallace, said the bailout was not tantamount to socialism.

"That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington," he said, summing up the bill, which he criticized for bailing out banks rather than homeowners.

"But you voted for that," Wallace said.

McCain replied, "Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank."

He added, "That's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and in a time of crisis, to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn't Main Street America that caused this; it was Washington and Wall Street.

Forgive me, but I think someone needs to educate Governor Palin and Senator McCain on the principles of Socialism.

I'm getting tired of all this "socialist" talk.

Bernanke just said this morning that he recommends that government pass another economic stimulus package before the end of the year. By all accounts, it sounded like he meant something akin to this past summer's stimulus package, in which most taxpayers received $600 ($1200 for married couples and $300 per child).

Receiving money back from the government? The government, in this case, "spreading the wealth around" in hope of reinvigorating the economy? Doesn't that strike of socialism?

What about all the talk of pumping more spending into our (public) school systems? Socialism again!

And the fact that we have the Armed Services at all, rather than relying on mercenaries? Socialism!

Let's face it: Any time the government intervenes in business, it could be considered a socialist move. Any time the people receive aid from a government entity, whether it's welfare, free health insurance for children, or an FHA loan, that's a result of a socialist program. Any time the government steps in to ensure merchants aren't price gouging because of natural disaster or other horrific events (or even just in general), that's a socialist action. And any time we enjoy our national parks, our neighborhood parks, our beaches, libraries, and museums at little or no cost to us, we're all reaping the rewards of socialist programs.

And don't get me started on churches. It doesn't matter what denomination a person happens to practice. If you freely give hard earned money, donate your precious time, or participate in the church in any way, you're contributing to the largest socialist group there is. Don't tell me you can dictate where your donations will go. You can't - no more so than you can dictate where your taxes go. And I don't see any bleeding heart Bible-thumpers pissed off about that.

Apparently, socialism is only bad when it's convenient. Socialism is a dirty word when we don't realize that we are all recipients of some form of it. (Yes, I can blanketly state all. There isn't a single entity in this country that hasn't benefited from one "socialist" act or another.)

Well, guess what, America? We have a mixed government that has had strains of socialism in it since its inception! We have a mixed economy that has always had socialist elements embedded within it! And until you get your head out of the sand, look around, and see how many socialist programs you enjoy every day, you're just going to make us all look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Anarcho-capitalism does not exist - nor is it the answer.

So, yeah. I'm over it.

I grow weary of listening to some of my coworkers discuss the current political climate and tell others that the outcome of this election will determine if we remain a capitalist society or begin to embrace socialism.

Let's get something straight here:

Pure capitalism is an economic theory that does not exist in the resl world.

It simply can't exist in the real world. Human nature wouldn't allow it. The existence of government regulation in any form is proof that we do not live in a pure capitalist society.

What irks me about their discussion is not that they are supporters of capitalism (I'm a laissez-faire supporter, myself), but that each of them uses and/or benefits from, for lack of a better word, socialist programs (i.e., WIC, public schools, laws against price gouging, government pensions, etc.). As far as I'm concerned, if you believe any form of socialism is wrong, you shouldn't reap the benefits of them. If you disagree with socialist principles, go ahead and pay the market rate for private schools in the area (or homeschool your kids), pay the going rate for gasoline (especially after a hurricane or other natural disaster), pay the uninsured rate for health costs for yourself and the rest of your family, and certainly don't accept any economic assistance from the county, state, or country.

It kind of puts things into perspective when you think of it that way.

Pure capitalism doesn't exist because (most) human beings have heart and feel empathy (if not sympathy) for those less fortunate than themselves. Besides, truly pure capitalism would have to be anarcho-capitalism, in which a government is not present at all. Pure communism doesn't exist because people will always be lumped into classes, whether it's the ruling class vs the non-ruling class.

Our economy has always been a mixed economy; our government has always had some socialist undertones. Has there been excessive government intervention in some areas of business? Absolutely. The $700B "stimulus plan" is evidence of that. Are we dangerously close to a socialist society? Absolutely not. Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and other large corporations are evidence of that.

Basically, the way I see it, if you disagree with socialist principles, that's awesome for you. Just don't be hypocritical and denounce government programs as you cash your pension check or drop your kids off at a public school. Keep in mind those are things provided by the taxpayers, or, in simpler terms, the rest of society.