Everything Made of Marble/A Moment of Pleasure

While at work on Thursday I got an email from a man that works in my office inviting me to come to a function put on by Jobs with Justice. I'm on one of the committees for the organization, but since I hadn't been around for a month, (and let me tell you that month felt like forever) I felt like an intruder rather than a committee member. I decided to go, mostly because I did want to see my fellow JWJ committee people, and because a few of my coworkers were going. I like my job, but I actually get to work on projects with a small group of people and I thought it would be nice to get to know some other people in the office better.
What I didn't know was that the ceremony was being held in the infamous 32BJ building on Canal Street. I'm reading this book right now "Solidarity for Sale" which talks about the corruption of unions and how it has undermined the labor movement; 32BJ, one of the most mobbed-up unions in American history has a prominent place in it. I'd heard stories about the penthouse at the top of the union office, the elevator that only had two stops- the garage and the penthouse floor. The Vegas casino style security cameras The presidents office (now used for accounting) that had floors of marble, 360 degree panoramic view of the city, all the furniture plush leather. I couldn't go up to the penthouse of course, but even on the bottom floor, all of the walls were made of beautiful black and white marble. It was something out of a corrupted dream. Calling it ostentatious would be far too kind. I can imagine a gaudy mob boss telling the architect that he wanted EVERYTHING to be made with marble, no matter the cost, it'd just come out of the workers pension fund or something.

I work in the labor movement, it's tough sometimes to come to grips with the legacy that it's steeped in, even when you are close to not being a part of it. It's some good mixed with a whole lot of bad. Fitch's thesis in "Solidarity for Sale" is that the entire set-up of the American labor movement is flawed. He says that the local union set-up naturally devolves into nothing more than a Middle Age era fiefdom, given time. Union bosses play the role of lord/patron doling out jobs and access, while the members are the serfs/clients, their union dues analogous to the crops given up by the serfs of old. Fitch does a good job of explaining why, once the client/patron system had solidified, the labor movement in the United States developed the way that it did; the corruption, the clientelism, the gradual takeover of the Mafia, the dwindling density, and the inability to pass any meaningful pro-worker legislation. What he does not do a good job of explaining is why American unions did not go through the metamorphosis that European unions did- from trade unions based on jurisdiction, to more centralized labor unions with a diverse occupational mix. Fitch dismisses the cultural claim for why American unions are more corrupt (Americans are more violent, Americans have less communal connections) stating that countries like Italy and Japan have flourishing criminal organizations that do not infiltrate the labor unions.
And yet, Fitch implies that cultural reasons play a part in the differences through describing the distinctions between the two types of unionism. European unions are centralized and bureaucratic- in American unions "the individual exchanges loyalty for protection," a more individualistic mindset. Our country's predisposition to federalism and local control definitely played a part in how our unions developed, with unintended consequences. Local control certainly has its strong points, particularly greater knowledge of occurrences on the ground, and the speediness with which the organization can act absent a large bureaucracy. What local control lacks is the ability to foster best practices and higher operating costs because of the inability to take advantage of economies of scale. Add that to the fact that the unions are based on territory and territorial jurisdictions need to be protected from encroachment. Without clear territorial legislation (like there is for cable television) who is going to provide that protection? Think about what our business environment would look like without the government setting up clear protection of property rights. It's no wonder that the thugs quickly got involved in the labor movement, who best to provide some much needed muscle.

I haven't come up with a coherent plan of action for labor unions yet (don't worry I'm working on it). I think the key, however, is to focus on helping out all workers. Organizing and getting members is important as it helps to pay for our efforts, but regardless of whether or not someone wants to join a union, we still want to do what's best for them. Having greater union density would help, but having a clear legislative and economic plan would be even better. And the plan can't be scattershot- we can't preach global solidarity while at the same time championing protectionism for certain domestic industries. It has to have an education plank that examines the viability of all options and that emphasizes integration and the equalization of opportunities. If it means revamping the set-up of teachers unions in order to better our education then we should do it. All institutions look out for their best interests, but the difference is that as unions we say that we aspire to something higher, and we should. If we want to play by the rules that apply to corporations, then we're in the wrong game.
Our thoughts have to be global; I actually break with many union members when it comes to things like free trade. If we truly care about justice and the plight of all working people we have to come to some kind of consensus on how to best incorporate people in the developing world, and in the short-term that may mean higher prices and more job losses, but if we do it right we can pick up the pieces. It's not easy, but it's most certainly worth it.
________________________________________________________
The actual event was pleasant, a few people gave really good speeches, some people were endearing but long-winded. The food was good, the open bar was even better. I stayed the entire time because a coworker needed to talk to one of the award recipients, I sat in the shadows or chatted with some of my JWJ buddies while he did. This blond-haired woman who came by herself sat next to me, smiling as she nibbled on one of those cheese squares, I think it was cheddar. She was a little wrinkled, maybe an inch past 35, and she was reading this Tarot card book which kept smacking against this monstrosity of a clear bracelet that she wore on her right wrist. It looked like a clear hard-plastic hoola-hoop, she could have worn it around her waist for God's sake. I know how it feels to be alone at an event so when she smiled at me I gave her a little smile back.
"So what brings you out here," I said.
She put her book down on the table.
"I got an email, thought I'd come by," her Lower Eastside accent was strong enough to pull a train, it almost hurt my ears.
"Yeah, me too. So where do you work?" I asked politely.
"1199, right on 42nd Street. I'm usually on the 7th floor but I work out of Brooklyn too," she said.
"I'm right in that building too, work on the 9th floor. Maybe we'll pass ways some time." My voice was full of pseudo-excitement. She too a loooong sip of merlot.
"Yeah, maybe. I just got back from Michigan, though. They sent us all out for the election."
"Yeah, same here. I was in Milwaukee for a month, working on logistics. Didn't get to knock on a single door," I said between bites of my sandwich.
And then she got this look, of very mild disgust- and she laughed, but it was more like a snort-laugh, a snlaugh. The kind of snlaugh that escapes the nasal cavity of sophisticated Lower Eastsiders who wear a gray t-shirt and jeans to a classy event when they so much as hear about some podunk town in the Mid-West.
"Ugh... I went there for the primaries.. let me tell ya," she said with another one of those exruciating snlaughs. "That's one place I'll never go back to you know."
Now, I could have played this a few ways. Naturally, I couldn't agree with her because that would be a betrayal of my mother's home and of a city that I use to live in and like. I could just say that I liked Milwaukee and that I had a fun time. I could have said nothing, taken a sip of my wine, and changed the subject. I mean, I'd only lived there for three years, my dad was in the Navy, and I wasn't REALLY from anywhere....
"Well, I'm from Milwaukee and..." I didn't have to finish, I just loved the transformation of her face, the sheepish grin, the eyes looking downward, such sweet revenge.
"There goes my foot right in my mouth," she said, her lips still smashed like silly putty into the shape of that same goofy grin.

Serves you right you cocky ass New Yorker!

Playing Politics

Just a few things-

So it seems like Joe Lieberman might keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee so long as he apologizes on the floor of the Senate. Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd have been two of the main senators speaking on Lieberman's behalf while Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders have been two prominent senators who want him ousted. Lieberman has said that if he does not retain his chairmanship, he'll caucus with the Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader has reciprocated, offering Lieberman an invitation to caucus with the Repubs if he leaves the Dem caucus.

My take on it? You have to let Lieberman go. The Dems will not have the 60 votes necessary to stop filibusters with or without him, so that's off the table. More importantly, he SLAMMED your nominee for President. If he did not want to support Barack Obama, that's fine and that's his coice. He could have sat out the campaign. He could have been like Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska and endorsed the oppositions nominee but stayed out of day-to-day campaigning activities. But no, Lieberman was actively campaigning against his party's nominee for President; he SPOKE at the Republican National Convention. He tried to scare Jewish people into voting for McCain by saying an Obama victory was dangerous for Israel. There is NO WAY he should be allowed to keep a major chairmanship in the Democratic Party.

Look, I think it's fine that Lieberman had a conviction that he thought McCain was the better man for President. People should stand on their convictions. But you have to know there are consequences for your actions. When it comes to legislation, I think that playing politics should be kept to a minimum, particularly on legislation that is of utmost importance to the American people. Vote your conscience, vote for the policy that you think will help the American people, regardless of your party line. When it comes to the inner workings of the party apparatus, I'm all for playing politics, and you crack the whip on those who cross the line. You mean to tell me that the Dems can play politics when it comes to something like the bailout or stimulus package, but they're suddenly "above it all" when it comes to ousting a turncoat from a major chairmanship? Perhaps they're just really concerned about that one vote- but Lieberman will still be who he is even if he caucuses with the Repubs, a socially liberal hawk who because he believes in abortion rights, won't have much of a place in the Republican party. He might have to do a few more favors for some social conservatives but he won't be nearly as dangerous outside the party as he is made out to be.

Keeping him in however, would undermine party leadership and cohesiveness. It would show other senators that they have an enormous amount of leeway in their actions against the party. As an added bonus- Lieberman lost his last Dem primary but won as an independent probably because there were more than a few Dems who probably thought that he'd still caucus with the party. He'd lose a lot of those votes if he started caucusing with the Repubs. So remove his chairmanship and call his bluff- now is the perfect time to play politics.

The Republicans Art of Relativism

One of the most interesting aspects of Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" is his discussion of Albert Einstein. It's pretty amazing how a scientist (admittedly of the once in a few generations variety) could amass such a stature in popular culture- tot he point where everyone knew not only who he was but could recite and (in many cases) explain his most famous equation. As Hawking explained it, the reason behind Einstein's mainstream fame was that the theories of relativity were applicable not only to the physics and cosmological world from which they came, but also to almost every other facet of life. Relativity and relativism literally chanted the way people thought about the world around them; suddenly there was a coherent argument stating that there was no universal center, no universal truth which applied to everyone. Truth, centrality, and objective authority all depended on where you were situated, on your point of view.

I don't know the extent to which scientific relativity informed the social science concept of relativism- it's been a few years since I last read Universe- but I recall it being substantial. For instance, relativism complicates any notion of a universal morality taught by religion. It's harder to teach supposedly objective accounts of historical events as facts without presenting other points of view. Relativism as a concept brought many benefits to academia and the world, particularly by making possible different cultural studies programs as different points of view were given the same value as more dominant ones. Old sources of authority were questioned and forced to justify their positions. Anything that allows for more critical questioning, I think, is always a welcome development.

I am a big believer in self-reinforcement and relativism, which started out by saying that there are multiple valid opinions, reinforced that position to the point where it became ALL opinions are valid and further more, ALL opinions are equally valid. I'm definitely exagerrating the extent to which this sentiment was broadly expressed, but certainly many people had grown weary of the endless march into a sea of relative murkiness. There had to be some things that were certain, right?

This is just my mildly (mis)informed opinion, completely unresearched, but the rise of conservatism and the appeal of people like Ronald Reagan may had had something to do with achieving a degree of balance with the liberal relativism from the academic elite that said we should not judge but try to understand that hood nigga who mugged us after our delightful dinner date downtown.

But Pandora's Box cannot be unopened, and relativism of a different strain has entered the Republican party/conservative movement and is threatening to break it apart. The first thing that has made this infilitration possible is the relativism of the news media. After years of being accused of having a barely concealed liberal bias, the media has gone out of their way to be deferential to both sides, to the point where they will no longer call out blantantly wrongheaded drivel when they see it, but instead just present both sides of the story without passing judgement. Kind of like just laying out two sandwiches without telling you which one has the poison in it, even when they know. This has allowed the right wing to put out blatantly false statements without fear of retribution- because it could/can/is true from their point of view. This has made the use of testimony and evidence based in fact unnecessary.
The second thing is the new populism to which the Republican party has hitched their wagon. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Jorunal entitled "The Perils of Poopulist Chic." The article quoted NYT columnist David Brooks as saying that the base of the GOP started out attacking elite liberals but that attack has transformed into an attack on ALL elites even conservative ones. It's what makes the base believe that "Joe the Plumber"'s statements on economics and foreign policy deserve the same amount of attention as an economic policy professor's at Princeton. It's what makes Sarah Palin a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination and not a colossal embarrasement to her party.
The problem is that it's just not true- the TRUTH is that Joe the Plumber's opinion is NOT as valid as someone learned in foreign policy and Sarah Palin is NOT even remotely qualified to be a head of state. When relativism goes too far it creates these kinds of false equivalencies that must be stopped on both sides, but mostly on the Republican side. Just because someone's opinion IS valid does not make their opinion AS valid as someone else's. The problem with eleites is that they are often times... well.. elitist and they can become guilty of not believing the first part of my statement. Just because they can become elitist though does not mean that we do not need elites to temper the base instincts of the base though. There has to be some kind of balance between taking into account all opinions without making them all equivalent- a balance between securing a place for the common man in the decisions of our country and discounting for the fact that common people are not as versed in all of the relevant subjects. That's the prevailing conondrum of democracy, but as long as the Republicans place all their chips on the opinions of their lowest base, I have a feeling they won't have to worry about being in power anytime soon.

A Striking Resemblance/A Truly Lost Cause

To me at least, it's only natural that your siblings end up being your best friend(s). My brother is my best friend and has been every single year of my life. We were forced together really, we shared a room from the moment he was old enough to not sleep with my mother until I left for WashU, except for a glorious few months in the summer and fall of 2002 when my sister went off to college. We separated amicably, it was the least we could do after 16 years together. Unfortunately, she moved back in December and we were reunited once again.... But it's more than being forced together. As you get older, you start to realize the other major advantage to growing up with siblings your own age- you manage to get almost all of your siblings references, references that no one else could possibly understand. When I was 14/15 and just starting to try and really understand who I was, I resented my brother for liking the things that I liked, because it made me less of an original. While I was desperately trying to cut the rope attaching us together, he was busy tying it back up. Now I feel the opposite way, I wish we had more time together so we could foster the interests that we share, and so we could laugh about all of the things we remember growing up together.

So I was talking to my brother election night, MSNBC having just reported that Ohio had been called for Obama, essentially sealing the election for our current President-elect. We talked excitedly about the sheer awesomeness of a Black president, the return of an intellectual to the office, of George Bush's ultimate legacy, and the future prospects of the Republican party. Finally, we talked about John McCain of 2000, the one who stood honorably as W. and Rove diced him to pieces on the primary battlefields of South Carolina. He'd sold his soul in order to be President this time around, and I think he knows it. Many of his supporters, particularly the ones most turned on by the farce of Sarah Palin, were vicious hate-mongers. The transformation of my opinion on John McCain was the most complete I've ever had about a political figure. In the beginning I thought he'd be a respectable candidate who I disagreed with on issues- instead he and his campaign became a reprehensible, divisive force that deserved the loss they received.

But that wasn't the only thing on my mind as we talked about John McCain. I was also thinking about the last speech I saw him give on TV the day before election day. He looked tired and old, almost resigned to the fact that defeat was in his grasp and that he'd unwillingly have to cling to it like a piece of driftwood. He got to his standard closing, where he told his audience to stand up and fight for a whole host of cliches, national security, reform, change, for your country. I'd heard this ending numerous times, most notably during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, and it always struck me as a pretty weak closing, lacking a coherent message and really any true enthusiasm. But this time, it struck me a little, I was taken aback. To call it moving would be wildly inaccurate- but I got a feeling inside myself that I hadn't felt in ages. It was a mix of sadness and sympathy, pity and scorn, with the final ingredient being a healthy dose of ridicule. His speech brought me back to a time I was 6 years old, sitting on the floor watching commercials on Nickelodeon with my brother, waiting for my favorite Nicktoon to come back on. John McCain's closing argument reminded me of watching the greatest biscupid in straight-to-video's illustrious history... the one... the only.... Timmy the Tooth!!!!!!!!!

My brother instantly knew what I was talking about. For those of you not in the know, Timmy the Tooth was a puppet that went on various adventures with his pal Brushbrush (some kind of toothbrush dog). His main enemy was the Cavity Goon and he had friends with names like Ms. Flossie, Mr. Wisdom, and Johnny Paste. Despite all of those dental names (and the fact that he was, you know, a tooth), the series wasn't even about making sure your teeth was clean. Instead of going on adventures where he'd try to foil the Cavity Goon's secret plot to make everyone eat Jolly Ranchers for dinner, Timmy would do things like fly planes, rescue Brushbrush, and go on your standard childhood show adventures. (Where the hell was the American Dental Associations marketing agents when this show came out???)
Anyway, although this all sounds bad enough, this was not the reason I felt sorry for Timmy. I felt sorry for Timmy because, I knew, in the bottom of my 6 year old little heart, that there was no way in hell that I'd ever want or ask my parents to buy The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth. Even more imporantly, I knew that NONE of my friends would want to Timmy either. The commercial was fighting a losing battle; what made the creators of Timmy think that kids were just dying to watch a talking molar? I didn't know anything about business or marketing when I was 6, so I projected all of my feelings on the subject towards Timmy himself.

"I know you're not a bad guy Timmy, but why do you have to be so lame?"
"Why can't you be cool like Thomas the Train Engine, everybody likes him."

What made it even more sad was the fact that in the middle of the commercial as the announcer is describing some of Timmy's daring adventures, Timmy gets up and says "Who's with me?" and immediately after there's a moment of silence. Just hearing him say that, in his adorably pitiful little voice and then having that second of silence where there is no sound made me want to cry. I knew full well that I and the rest of the cartoon watching world was not with him, that we did not want him, and that we were just waiting for his commercial to get off the air so that cool cartoons could come back on. And yet everyday Timmy's commercial came back on; the loser. Looking back, somebody had to be watching/buying the video, otherwise they would not have played it so often. Then again, the cost of advertising mid-morning on Nickelodeon was probably not that expensive. Either way

My brother and I had a good laugh about the Tooth/Mccain connection- so far he's the only person I know who remembers Timmy the Tooth. It's more than a bit unfair to compare the Republican nominee to a two-legged tooth puppet, especially after McCain's gracious concession speech. But it did get me thinking about the nature of lost causes, the nature of being going down in defeat in honor, about the ability to feel empathy for someone in that situation, without having that empathy turn into pity. I do not pity John McCain, but I scorn the tactics that he used. I do not have empathy for the man, but I am sad about the man he became (always was?). He could have been the Bob Dole of this campaign, a man who was doomed to lose an election from the moment he entered but did not lose the respect he had garnered in the process. It has to be tough to keep your honor when the only prayer you have of winning is to throw it all away. And, I think, the man I heard in that final speech before election day, certainly the man I heard conceding to the first Black president, knew how tough it was also.

Black Ball Pt. 2

It took me a little longer to get to this than I wanted; I still haven't really wrapped my head around the fact that I was in Wisconsin for a month, I worked all those hours for a month, every single day. No matter- we were victorious on both the national and state level, and as an added bonus I'm on a bus to DC to see my girlfriend.

When we left off, roughly a month ago, we were talking about the declining percentage of black players on major league rosters. Like I said before, the percentage peaked during the mid 1970's and has fallen to a low point in this decade. WHen I ask my black friends why they do not enjoy watching or playing baseball, they always say that it's boring. When I was younger I use to get offended when somene said that- it hurt my feelings. To me, when someone said that my favorite sport was boring, it was an indictment on who I was and my ability to discern what was entertaining. Like many Black kids who were above academically and liked weird things, I was also sensitive to accusations that I "acted white" and tried to minimize those moments as much as possible. The fact that I liked baseball was something to hide. Now that I'm older, I can accept that just because someone doesn't like what I do doesn't mean that they think that somethings wrong with me, well at least most of the time.
Besides, I can understand why some people would find baseball boring. The pivotal matchup is between the batter and pitcher, so there are not a lot of moving parts, except when a ball is hit. Even more importantly, the people in charge of baseball do not seem to understand that they are selling entertainment. Not to say that there aren't many people who find baseball to be entertaining; MLB has shattered attendance records every year for the past few years now. But there are definitely ways to make the game more entertaining.
When I lived at home and we had ESPN Classic, I use to love when they played classic baseball games, particularly from the 1970's. Obviously, these games were "classic" so chances are that they would be enjoyable, tempered only slightly by the fact that I already knew what would happen at the end. What was immediately striking though was how quickly the game was played. There was no stepping out of the batters box every five seconds, no incessant changing of pitchers to get the key matchup for one batter. When the pitcher received the ball he almost immediately stepped back onto the rubber and delivered the next pitch. The players were different too, they were wirey, built more for speed and defense than power hitting. Even the big sluggers looked like the middle infielders of today. The parks were larger, which meant less home runs were hit. The fields were turf which not only rewarded speed, but made it an almost necessary component to any successful team. There were more triples, more stolen bases, it was just a more action packed environment. I love baseball in any era, but the baseball of that era was just so exciting because of the combination of speed, power, pitching, and hitting.
John Kruk, the portly former Padres and Phillies first baseman and current talking head for Baseball Tonight once told a lady "I'm not an athlete, I'm a ballplayer." Well, in my opinion, baseball was built more for athletes and less for "ballplayers" during the 1970's than it is today. The action of the game was more fluid and the actual athletic ability of the players was more apparent- the game was just a much better showcase for those skills Of the three major sports, baseball is undoubtedly the one that takes the most specialization in order to play well. The skill set it takes to succeed in baseball doesn't come as naturally to athletes; except for a few notable exceptions (Bob Feller, Al Kaline, Robin Yount, Alex Rodriguez) no one can step off of a high school diamond and even begin to compete in the major leagues. Further more, the way baseball is played today- on grass fields, with small parks, instead of in large parks on turf fields, it blunts the differences between the really good athletes and the big fat guys who can just hit home runs.*
* Side note, this has nothing to do with my feelings on strategy or anything of the like. With the way parks are today (grass/small) it is not optimal strategy to have a bunch of fast guys who slap at the ball, steal bases, and play good/great defense. I love how you can be successful with many different kinds of body types in baseball, I just think that as entertainment it would be beneficial if the advantage to good/great athletes was greater than it is now.

I think it's the combination of the two that is the ultimate culprit. The way the game is played today means less casual fans, less fans who are not roped in by tradition, perhaps less Black fans. Less Black fans means less Black people to pass the game on to their children, meaning less Black people playing the game, which means less Black athletes to choose from. I think the key is starting with the fan base- making the game more accessible, which would really just require some tweaks around the edges rather than a complete overhaul. Baseball competed for the Black fan and Black athlete even when football and basketball around, there is no reason why they cannot again.

One final reason that I often see sited in articles addressing this problem is the lack of access to college scholarships for baseball players as compared to football/basketball. Obviously, college football and basketball are the two cash cows of the college athletics industry so it is in the universities interest to pay for the best players to come to their schools. Baseball is not, which means that there are much less scholarships and that most of them are for half-tuition or something like that. For a poor Black kid from the city, it's not too difficult a choice about which sport to persue; the one that will pay for four years of school with plenty of national exposure, plenty of groupies willing to do whatever I want, and plenty of boosters willing to pay for things for me. Or the other sport. The flipside, of course, is that baseball is the only major sport where you can still be drafted right out of high school, even though the salary is low in the minors, top prospects still get millions of dollars in signing bonuses. Besides, it's not like there are that many who have to choose at this point. It is important first to build a new fan base, getting them to choose baseball is later down the road.

Do The Right Thing

Oh man am I royally pissed.
Tonight was supposed to be completely joyous. Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States. The first Black president, but more importantly, he is intelligent, thoughtful, has very capable advisors, and will bring much needed sanity to the White House after eight years of the Bush debacle. I am happy that John McCain gave a gracious concession speech which reminded me why I liked him back in 2000 when Bush and Rove dragged his name through every mud pit they could find, why I liked him 2004 and thought he might be a good running mate for John Kerry. Unfortunately, his supporters were ridiculously ugly during the speech, booing their next President loudly. It just goes to show you that right wingers are not as patriotic as they say they are, they are only true patriots when the person they want is in charge.
Anyway, all of this isn't what gets my blood boiling. What makes me so angry is that Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage in California, passed. And what made the difference is the votes of Black people, the very same Black people who came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama. From exit polling, 69%... SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Black people voted to ban gay marriage. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that Black people would so openly and heavily discriminate against another group of people, after all we've been through. How and why should someone, through referendum/proposition/constitutional changes, tell another adult how to love ANOTHER ADULT? This is not about children, not about teaching different kinds of sexuality, this is not about religion. This is about the states ability to tell two adults whether or not their relationship is recognized under the law. I don't want to hear that it's an argument over semantics, over whether or not civil unions are legally equal to marriages. Seperate but equal? Where have we heard that before?

What it really comes down to, is gay sex, and more specifically, gay male sex. Homosexuals are not seen as human beings; in this context they are seen only as sexual beings whose only goal in life is to fuck every man that moves. Well, I think Twizzlers are nasty and not only that, but we are feeding them to our children, IN SCHOOLS!
What's funny is that, as Andrew Sullivan (the conservative writer for the Atlantic, who is also gay) put it, marriage would go a long way towards helping Americans accept gay people outside the context of sex. When I think of married couples, I think of people raising a family, of sharing responsibilities, both the good and bad times, about having a companion to grow old with and bounce ideas off of.

People always go back to religion on this. The Bible (the Quran, the Torah, etc.) says it's wrong, it's a sin. I love the selectivity with which people apply the "it's a sin argument." People I went to high school with, who had pre-marital sex, cursed, drank, smoked, disobeyed their parents, and did badly in school would nevertheless say, "being gay's a sin," when we would have discussions about civil rights. We as a community have an enormous amount of problems, economic problems, educational problems, self-esteem problems, problems that will take vision and dedication in order to solve and it's a shame that instead of concentrating on building coalitions we are tearing them down, expelling our gay brothers and sisters from our community and repelling the goodwill we could generate from the gay community at large. How about these huckster, pimp/preachers concentrate on helping Black people solve some of those problems instead of trying to push their incredibly skewed views of religion on to an entire state. Let's be real about this, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but the Old Testament of the Bible is a book of myths, like Greek myths or Norse myths, only it's also packed with a bunch of boring lists. Regardless of what you believe, can you honestly say that a free society, which purports to separate church and state, should rely on 6000 year old books as a basis for its laws? Leviticus, the book with the most widely used anti-gay scripture quote, calls homosexuality an abomination. You want to know what else is an abomination? Shrimp and wearing clothes made of two different types of material, among other things. So, of course we should make it illegal to eat at Red Lobster. And it's a sin to have that nice blue and white polycotton blended shirt in your dresser. Snarkiness aside, why should our society have to subscribe to a skewed view of Christianity, or any religion?
I'm not anti-religion, like I said before, I love the mystical aspects and the emphasis on service that some religions have. I just don't buy arguments that are based on religion in these circumstances. The fight has to continue on, and hopefully those that have already fought so hard can help to persuade others to help fight this civil rights issue. As T. Coates, another writer from the Atlantic said, "You don't have to like black/gay people in order to do the right thing." Here's hoping that we eventually do the right thing.

PS: I am VERY DISAPPOINTED in Barack Obama for taking such a milquetoast stand on this "controversial issue." He's on record opposing gay marriage but for civil unions, a political tool me thinks. I guess it's because of his religious beliefs which, would make him inconsistent to say the least.

Just Want to Say

I just want to say.. being in the war room right now is so much fun! The excitement is so high! Can't wait until we're done with payroll so I can sit down and just sit in awe as we elect the first Black President. I will cherish having this opportunity, however small my role was.