http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/05/uselections2008-gayrights

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-bc-ca--electionrdp1stld-writethru,1,4784292.story

Last Edited on 6-Nov-2008 5:55 PM

At this point, I am less than pleased with the choice of Rahm Israel Emanuel. I think Obama is great and will appoint all kinds of people in his cabinet. I hope despite this pick he demonstrates understanding and empathy with the Palestinian cause and at the very least is a peace-broker. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Does the Zionist connections and pro-war vote of Emanuel make you feel better about Obama?

I only hope that he becomes the president you want him to be, and not a Clinton replica. Clinton modified his positions just enough to keep people thinking that he was doing a good job. Your president Obama will be much easier to beat in 4 years.

Back to experience, I think the claim that Obama is inexperienced is not at all valid. He has a really unique combination of national, state, and grassroots experience, combined a superlative education, in which he excelled, and a tremendously rich life story, that led him to deeply experience several places in both the country and the world. Yes, he is young, but at the prime of his life.

I think it is strange you would find him less experienced than W or Palin, especially since their careers were not that long either before they were thrust into national politics, and do not have even remotely comparable educations. Sorry, Bush's C average at Yale can’t be compared to being the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Not to mention Bush was at an Ivy League only as a legacy and Obama was at Yale only because of his intelligence and drive. Palin, who I think you defended and compared to Obama before, is much less educated than you or me, and apparently hasn’t made up for it on her own time. It is still less then clear that reads newspapers.

Therefore, I think Obama’s experience compares favorably to JFK. The totality of Obama’s knowledge of ground up, state, and national politics, gives him a really diverse, dynamic and substantive kind of experience. He had worked on international issues and his education demonstrates an exceedingly high level intelligence, analytical ability, exposure to ideas, and success. His personal story demonstrates how much of the county and world he has experienced. He is at the prime of his life, which I see as a plus. Furthermore, his ability to succeed under pressure, to learn and grow, has been evidenced throughout the campaign.

You say you are not partisan, so other than your pro-life position, I am unclear about your concerns regarding Obama, even if you preferred McCain. Interestingly, lots of conservatives like Obama. Therefore, even though I want him to be a much more progressive than he might turn out to be, he clearly aims for a big tent. So, I wonder why you are not more open to him and in this last post sounds so quick to diminish him?

Although I wish his politics were closer to that of Kucinich, Obama is not anti-military, he is not, as the silliest right-wing propaganda proclaimed, “a socialist.” So unless you make over 250K and don’t want to lose more taxes, what are your concerns?

Last Edited on 7-Nov-2008 12:18 PM

Obamas national experience is non-existent. The few years he spent in the senate were spent running for president. Just a few years ago he was in the Illinois legislature. Something you, or I, or even Joe the Plumber could aspire to without an unreasonable amount of effort. There is a difference between being a legislator(state or national) and a governor. Anyone can vote yea or nea without any proof of inefficiancy. Even the losing side of a vote still has many supporters. Being a Governor is directly more in line with having executive experience. Even a governor of Alaska, which can't be any less difficult than being a governor of a state like Arkansas, is better than a position in the senate where you have a hundred staffers doing all your thinking for you. Senators do not have the accountabilty that governors do.

As far as Bush being a legacy at Yale, can you be sure that Obama got to Columbia or Harvard completely on his merits?
You can make the argument that affirmative action balances out the legacies by providing the same opportunities, but then you can't use an Ivy league education as an example of intellect when referring to either one them.
Haven't you heard the story about how he became Editor of the Law Review? He cut a deal with the conservatives(I don't know which side initiated it) that gave him their votes in exchange for positions of influence that they would not have recieved under the usual liberals in charge.

As far as Palin having less of an education than the two of us, speak for yourself. Remember, you are talking to a community college drop out here. Sarah will be back, and she will be ready.

Your JFK comparison is accurate. It is all hype driven. He has the cult of personality like JFK, like Reagan, and also like Sarah Palin. You should know by now how politically ignorant the masses are. There are so many guys I know, that pay absolutely no attention to politics that voted for Obama, but also say Reagan was the greatest president of all time. They don't understand the contradiction. This is how in un-democratic countries you find so many people that support the dictators that rule over them.

I am not partisan, just like you aren't. We are both loyal to our own personal idealogies. I think I am a little more pragmatic than you, and I am far more willing to critique those that I support with the hopes that a better, stronger, representation of my beliefs will emerge.

250k? I will never come close to that in a year. The guy that I work for is worth 850 million dollars, and I know that every extra cent that comes out of his pocket, will also come out of mine. You cannot tax your way out of a recession. Remember, these are not only the people who already pay the bulk of the taxes and the salaries, but they are also the ones who supply the money for the soup kitchens and charities. Obama is a socialist. I think all democrats are.

Last Edited on 7-Nov-2008 5:09 PM

"you should know by now how politically ignorant the masses are..."

and elsewhere:

"Obama is a socialist"

If Mc Cain had got another 3 percent, i.e. if a few blacks had stayed at home like they usually do, wouldn't you to be saying that "democracy is good because extremism is not possible..." wouldn't you be saying: "socialism and democracy are incompatible, socialists have never been elected... that's why they hate democracy..."

etc etc

What are such opinions worth, where thought is based on hope, desire, revenge; rather than what actually is, what is out there in the world?

Both the utopians of the left and prophets of despair of the right, it must hurt to be constantly proven wrong and confused. How to cure it? Look at the world as it is first; and THEN decide how to change it, who said that, mmm that's familiar.... I'll have to find the quote for yous

:)

Although the Green Party itself seems to be shrinking in the public consciousness, a lot of these ideas are becoming more mainstream.

I’d like to have a conversation about how the world IS and then think of ways to change it. Please contribute some of your ideas.

Homosexuality! : So many erratic things going on here. I think that's what is so crucial about the thing. So why not analyze:

-making fun of gays as entertainment: cartoons, SNL, and more love to make fun of gays, and everybody loves it! I wonder how gays feel about it. Have we really become open minded? Even the now common urban idiom "it's gay" is mainstream! It seems gay is fodder for mockery. I think gay acceptance recquires a certain sensitivity in people that most aren't accustomed to. It's like a new language.. some people will say "what?! what did you say? i didn't understand, can you repeat?". But believe me, they never will understand.
-lesbians as porn: jock-college dudes hate the "sensitive emo kid" or the 2 guys holding hands, but they surely like those 2 hot girls making out in girls-gone-wild!! but then again, when its an old lady and her not-as-hot girlfriend... ewww.. So the visual male acceptance of two pretty ladies engaging in sex is widely accepted as mainstream, yet there is no mainstream esthetic appreciation of anything else that is gay. Actually, there is if you look deep enough or in the right places ( I live in LA, i know where it is) - but as a general idiom of society, I think its still lacking.
-marriage: man oh man... biblical times are upon us (forever). But I wonder how the aztec, mayan or native americans feel about it? I'm pretty sure there were gays among the ancient cultures. I am very curious to see how they went about it. It's 100% historical that there were LOTS of gays in ancient Greece and they say many men just had wives as 'assets' to make children.. for their true love was another man. So sexual 'alternatives' are not a new thing, nor anthing created by MTV or punk subcultures. And even though many of our modern society ideas and modes came from that time, now its looked down upon. I wonder if they suddenly approve gay marriage some people will respond : "that's gay".

So as far as homosexuality, I think that many people get it. They understand, accept it, they live day to day trying to tweak those things in their mind to see how normal it is, how it is just about love. Even in many places of Europe and California gay has become probably the accepted mainstream majority. But then again, there are many more (if not the majority) that will stop at : "It's immoral!", "It's gross!", "It's not God's command", and etc. etc. and do nothing to open their minds or thread new paths in their ideological milieu.

Racism: Obama's election is certainly a milestone in racism elimination. There are so many little things that I think will go through many people's minds (including racists) that will make them think twice about it. I mean... think about it... the USA elects a black man! So many never even thought it was possible... but it happens here, in their lifetime. Funny how I haven't heard about conservatives protesting his win... Is protesting only something democrats and left-wingers do? I am sure there would've been streets full of protesters if McCain had won!
Anyway.. racism is one of the things that I think about the most in my life.
Its such a thing.
What strikes the most about race is how strong the racial bonds become among people of the same race. Let's think for example, of black people. There are so many things that our society, or themselves too, have turned into 'black people' only things. Like I can't see any white man engage in a passionate, singing gospel mass, or rapping genuinely, or just having that way of speaking that is so unmistakably from black people. No one else can replicate that, and those that try, are labeled imitators, or worse. And black people seem to share a certain sense of community that is completely within them, a certain secret that no one else can know... and I call that: race!
And I actually myself sometimes I am wary of that. If some people become so entrenched in the benefits of their own race, do they also become racist and elitist in their own sense? Do they lose track of what other races/cultures mean, and what they represent and want? Could their own cultural guidelines become too narrow?
Even the term 'african-american' has always been kinda weird for me. Because when I ride the bus, when I walk the streets, I see american people. Black people that I see that are as american as the hot dog and I don't even think of Africa. I don't see them as even having a tiny bit of African culture in what they do but maybe the fact that most people in Africa are black but didn't we all come from Africa at some point? Even the term black, or any other racial term is a thing that should be questioned if we are to move forward as a human race. Interestingly I read an article on a newspaper that was about a man that felt uncomfortable in checking the check box for "african american". He said: "All I wanted to do is check "american"!", but he was struck with that conflict!
Because what if you're an American that really came from Africa?! What if you are really from the deep down African continent where seeing tribal garb and traditions is as common as seeing McDonalds every corner? Then lumping you with every other "african american" wouldn't seem so right, would it?
It's the same thing I feel when they talk about 'mexican-americans'. I lived in Mexico all my life, I know things that just having Mexican parents and living in LA don't teach... so there is a difference. I'm not the same as a 'mexican-american' with Mexican parents from LA! and yet, that is probably the 'systematic' way to categorize me. And even more! I'm not the same Mexican as a kid from Chiapas with campesino parents, or a kid from Guatemala that will probably be lumped as Mexican if he lived in the US.

So this phenomena of generalizing race happens with every race too, and not even just races: nationalities as well.
Think of what Americans like to call "Asian". They lump Philippinos, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, whatever, into the term "Asian". But do Philippinos share the same community sense and identity as Chinese!? no. Or Chinese and Japanese!? Definetely not!! But having the term "asian" name all these groups of people will surely become a problem when some people don't know of all the differences.. like "Oh, she's just asian.. she likes Buddha and stuff, and chopsticks... they all do".
I think that we are too used to having easy terms and easy ways out to just understand our world. Races is just another one of them. Generalizations are part of our language. Just call it "asian", "black", "hispanic" or "white". But when you think of each of those terms there are so many variations that the terminology is just melted away. So why do we need those terms? In this reasoning, we are excited that Americans chose a black president, but is it the thing to be excited upon?! Yes! unfortunately! Because of our extremely racist history! If black people had been treated equally from the start, no one would make a fuss about Obama's election being a thing that 'you thought you woulnd't see in your lifetime'. But... "black people treated equally from the start?!" that's like erasing the history of slavery of humanity. Yes. humans were once proud slave owners. Historically. Everywhere.

Would people of such so-called races lose their pride and would like to be called just 'people' like anybody else? Or is the sense or racial identity so strong that people will always cling to it?
Culture, pride, identity, race... They are all so strong that it seems that just saying "I'm not racist because I don't hate them" is not enough. And oh, have I seen so many people say "I really like black people", or whatever people, and then proceed to just make downright racist jokes about them but justify it with: "I don't hate other races". I think it's a philosophical and anthropological theme that should be explored more, because in the midst of so much diverstiy, and pride in diverstiy, there is also the need for unity and the elimination of color divisions.
Where do I stand on race? What do I think of my own race? Well, I don't even know that 'race' I am. I was born in the US but lived all my life in Mexico raised by Mexican parents, and don't even know the complete racial history of my grandparents. I do like the fact that my grandma had the squinty eyes, therefore hinting at mayan or asian influence; but who knows. On my father's side they came from Spain; it seems. So my race is not even a race.. I'm "HISPANIC" for all that matters. So the term is useless, it's not really determining a race, but a concept created to generalize anybody coming south of the border. Still, I do like the cultural perks that living in Mexico all my life has given me... but when I think of my own identity I don't think of my skin. I think of the universe and mysteries well beyond physics and science. But I guess thinking too much is hard so just saying "I'm a hispanic guy" is easy and convenient. :)

Last Edited on 12-Nov-2008 12:39 AM

I had a friend over here recently who made my question even more pointed. What is reality?

I think what you are doing, and what I do, is use a sociological lens as one tool to understand society. I think it is a really important question to ask someone, what tools do you use? I think most of us need and use tools to help make sense of reality.

A couple of years ago there was a NY times magazine story about how the term african-american has caused a rift between american born and african born blacks. Apparently those that are born here do not feel that the african born earned the right to be called african americans. I think their position was that the african born did not suffer the same history and should not be "entitled" to any of the benefits that go along with a protected minority status.

I think that there is a double standard in race relations. I think there is far more racist views coming from the black community compared to the white community. Their racism is ignored or justified on all counts. The prevailing thought is that if you are white you are a racist unless you prove otherwise. I'll accept that from a 70 year old man, but not his grandson.

And yes, any of these words feel crude, kind of ugly, and are innacurate.

Your charge, however, that there is more racism in Black communities is perculiar. I would be really interested in examples and then would want to know if you actually doubt that there are tenfold examples in reverse.

When fighting against a history of slavery, murder, segregation, and overt and covert racism, people will develop a culture, and it may not be one you understand. I think one way this "community" has built strength is through a strong culture and many subcultures. So you are probably responding to an awareness of race issues within Black communities that historically privileged white communities do not experience.

Do individuals and small communities say jerky things? Yes, Black, White, and individuals from any other group.

I do think it is silly to expect that fifty years after the Civil Rights Movement (less then one lifetime,) all of the history of legalized inequality and personally experienced racism, would be gone in a heartbeat.

But more importantly, instead of these kind of comparisons, why not be part of the solution to end racism, period? Understand what it is, why it exists, and how to move away from it. That would be more productive.

I was really surprised and, yes, somewhat amused that CA, about the pinkest shithole in this solar system, should adopt a measure like that.
-Three of my erstwhile haunts were heavily to exclusively gay. Of course you get into talking. And of course this entails having one sob on your shoulder because of heartbreak (Gawd. They can be so - human :)) or another explaining in very graphic detail how he does a better blowjob than any woman you will ever encounter (utterly credible; I mean, how is a woman to know how a willy works? Still, I´m not tempted ;b).
In that regard, I have to give them one thing: The openly gay always accepted a polite "no, thank you". I´d rate them as more civilized than my usual acquaintances.
OK, a friend of mine recounts a different kind of proposal (three stone more than your humble servant - who is not a sop - and very quick. Even I would, by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, stand no chance against him - so it was a classical case of Bad Idea). He left the fag lying in his blood on the restroom floor but took the pistol home as a souvenir. But outside the calaboose, things like that are exceedingly rare.
So much for my "homophobia".

However, I never heard any of them utter a yearning for the bliss of marriage. And if this were a gay issue, believe me, I´d have heard it. (Duh. The feminists have already reduced marriage to a sad joke and an instrument of extortion. Who in his right mind would want a piece of it?)

-There is no societal interest whatsoever in according special protection to homosexual partnerships. The points brought forth by libruls - hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights - already are no problem under current law.

What, then, are the motives of the gay marriers?

I can come up with only two:
1) A scam to force employers to pay for antiretroviral medication.
2) The cultural Marxist drive to further destroy the core family as the basis of society.

Both are, IMHO, not very good ideas.

What can I do to help that?
I don't think much of anything. I think there is a mistrust that inspires it, but that mistrust is part of the culture. It is re-inforced by the community activists and the educators. I don't think it is in anyone's nature to be prejudiced, it is something that is learned. I think they are put at a disadvantage when they go out into the larger community and have predetermined assumptions that the whites they will encounter are prejudiced. I think that is what the underlying factor is in their prejudice. It's a defensive reaction to something that they expect to happen, based primarily on what happened to others, a long time ago.

Nice to see you.

You are way off.

You claim "if this were a gay issue, believe me, I´d have heard it." Although I get a kick out of your colorful prose, your social circle is more limited than you realize. Your claims are absurd in light of the many Gay couples I know, who you can find most anywhere, in long term monogomous relationships. Some of these have pursued Commiment Ceremonies, some have pursued civil unions, some would like to pursue marriages, some have traveled to marry. Some want families, children. This is a natural and basic right. Remember, some are women.

You question the motives of Gay couples, lumping them into some ambiguous Marxist conspiracy. What is this paranoia rooted in?

The actual motives are so simple. These couples' motives are the same as anyone's motives to pursue marriage. Often, they is romantic, in the pursuit of love. Other motives: Security. Legality. Legitamcy.

You scoff at others wanting things that are yours for the taking.

To assume the motivations are different than heterosexual couples is very strange and makes me curious about YOUR thought process and fears.

This IS a civil rights issue. Easy to toss aside for those who already have this right. If it is the case that you don't want to marry, that's completely understandable, but why should diminish this right for someone that does?

Do tell.

But Jopaku, I don't understand the ire with which you approach the subject. You seem with angry. . . with who. . . about what? I do remember the personal experiences you recounted here about being mistreated. Is that what informs your anger and suspician?

You seriously pull the CLASS number on me? OK, I´m of rural pauper-turned-proletarian and refugee (back when "refugee" meant something) stock and neither the army nor the hard sciences provide much access to the artsy-fartsy circles. However, I deliberately chose not to. No sour grapes, I just don´t like the company.(it goes without saying that this is most heartily reciprocated ;b)

On the "commitment" argument, I´d say there are loads of unemployed Wiccans around who will perform à la carte ceremonies on the first nod. The issue is legal and I hold, therefore, that my arguments still stand.

-Yes, some of them are female. As a rule, I have found them a lot less friendly and sometimes rather defensive. (one of them is a judge. I shudder at the thought. -OK, she´s real nice and capable and a joy to talk to, but I hate female judges (g))

As for them having children, they will have to eat the toad and let a man in. There should be no shortage of volunteers for a nice threesome with a lesbian couple of childbearing age (it may be harder to find a donor of the desired quality ;b). I don´t know what the current law regarding sperm banks is (they once restricted their services to married couples) but I do not think that should be a problem either.
(However, JB, one day we will have to have some serious talk about your understanding of "natural right")
Adoption we have discussed already ("the toll of homophobia") and I still hold that almost anything is better than state care or a single household, but I´m unsure whether a homo home is an ideal place to raise children. This once, I have no solid numbers up my sleeve; I just don´t know.

The "race" and "hate" numbers I think should be discussed separately :)

If one does't encounter a large number of people different than one's self in lifestyle, appearance, or behavior, if one is not taught tools to process and understand difference, it is unlikely the tools are there.

Of course, there are individuals who will vary from the norm.

I'm sorry if this sounds elitist, but it is my wish that everyone has the right to an excellent public education affordable higher-education, and (in an ideal society) travel as a part of higher education, as well as work in diverse communities -- meaning different from ones own.

Firstly, please note the last post where I corrected myself to write "homogenous."

Of course I don't think any group is completely homogenous, since there will always be individual diversity and resistance. So homogeny is relative. Which reminds me, where did you get the idea Black people vote against Gay marriage? Oh yes, you read it.

Clearly, people who voted against Gay marriage did so either from a religious perspective or lack of exposure, just as did those who supported segregation a blink before our own childhoods. Why else would people legislate to take AWAY rights from decent people with noble intent for simply being who they are?

I do advocate education and I do advocate encountering other cultures. I know many people don't easily have those opportunities, and that is why I think public education has to be equitably funded.

With the notable exceptions of Mr. Goldstein of PS 41 and Mr. Banton of The United Nations International School, few of the people who influenced my thinking were "white liberals." However, many of them were activists, and activists of many cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

You say nothing has improved, but even with the great shame of the Bush administration, it obviously has. Society has progressed and activists of all backgrounds have made a difference. Women have more rights. Racism, while still alive, is being challenged more rigorously. The fact that many of us are activists for Gay rights is significant. And, hello, America looked past race to elect Barack Obama. You yourself claimed you did not believe this was possible. But it was possible through activism and community organization. Apparently there are more people who think a least a bit like me than I realized.

So I don't understand what you are saying people "on my side" need to acknowledge? I'll be the first to acknowledge my own privileges and struggles, but won't apologize for believing in "liberal education" being accessible for all, especially since I believe the extensive one I received was not "liberal" enough. It needed MORE diversity and representation, more critical thinking and self-examination, and while I learned a great deal in my last two graduate programs, I had to do a lot of self-teaching this way.

I'm glad to hear that you feel there is no anti-Gay preaching in New York City these days. There was when I was kid going to Sunday school. If your claim had a shine of truth, it would be a sign of progress that I applaud. I hope that the activism around Prop 8 puts pressure on churches around the nation to not preach segregation, hate, and injustice.

Did you just post a defense of this country's progress in race and gender issues? Hmmm....I'm still holding out for more. There have been individual cases, but it doesn't seem to have benefited the urban social landscape. The teen pregnancies, rampant welfare, crime, etc just doesn't seem to change. It has become a generational thing that goes on and on and on. I know the response will be better sex ed, job training, more funding for this and that, but the reality is that people do what is expected of them. Low standards and a perpetual excuse(racism!) is just reinforcing a communal lack of self esteem. That needs to change from within.

And don't sell the Bush family short in regards to racial progress. A supreme court justice, a War time National Security Advisor and Secretary of State is astounding progress that just didn't seem to happen under the Clinton administration.

Last Edited on 17-Nov-2008 4:32 PM