Thursday, May 28, 2009

Does Gay Marriage Matter?

On Tues, May 26, Californians got disappointing, if expected news. The state's supreme court ruled in favor of the voter approved ban on gay marriage. As a liberal, I've been inspired by feminist and gay liberation writers. What is marriage, I thought, but sexual imperialism? I've been uncomfortable with an institution that seems primarily economic, and that involves one person becoming the personal possession of another, right down to the name change. Granted, I wasn't necessarily a sought after guest as my friends and relative got married in the 1980's. In addition to the imperialistic aspects of marriage, it seemed to me like an incredible stress factor in a relationship, and cost a good deal of money that might be better spent as a down payment on a house.

In the 1990's, I was best man at my brother's wedding. I was also best man for my best friend in a holy union service performed by my father. I never cried at a wedding; I was usually nervous. In those two instances, I was in a cold sweat about my duties arranging the bachelor party and giving an appropriate toast.

Like gays in the military, gay weddings aren't a really a part of my life. As a pacifist, I wondered why anyone would join the military. A wise friend explained to me that the military was the only option for many rural and southern youths that didn't have the middle class background I had, and whose only recourse was to join the military. It was the only way that many could get a higher education. Seen in that light, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is cruel to people who are trying to better their lives.

Several years back, on a sleepless night, I surfed late night television and found a show on gay weddings. Most of them were, to me, boring and predictable. One, however, was so touching i actually cried. Two Jewish lesbians were actually happy at their wedding, at least, so it seemed on TV. The thing that seemed missing from previous weddings was--- joy. In photo albums of relatives, most seem nervous or fearful even for their wedding pictures. Then there is the photo of my great-grandparents. The camera caught a certain look in their eyes, the happy confluence of lust and love. Call it joy.

There is nothing like forbidding something that makes people want it more. I'm not in the age bracket for marriage, and my circumstances are such that a wedding is remote. I've read that after age thirty five, you're more likely to be attacked by a terrorist than to get married. So I won't get married. So I won't join the military. Maybe marriage is an imperialistic institution. Maybe love alone should be what keeps people together, a la Sartre and de Beauvoir. But California's ban on future gay marriage is simple discrimination, organized by some small minds with deep pockets. And telling me I can't have it only makes me want it more.

Does Gay Marriage Matter?

On Tues, May 26, Californians got disappointing, if expected news. The state's supreme court ruled in favor of the voter approved ban on gay marriage. As a liberal, I've been inspired by feminist and gay liberation writers. What is marriage, I thought, but sexual imperialism? I've been uncomfortable with an institution that seems primarily economic, and that involves one person becoming the personal possession of another, right down to the name change. Granted, I wasn't necessarily a sought after guest as my friends and relative got married in the 1980's. In addition to the imperialistic aspects of marriage, it seemed to me like an incredible stress factor in a relationship, and cost a good deal of money that might be better spent as a down payment on a house.

In the 1990's, I was best man at my brother's wedding. I was also best man for my best friend in a holy union service performed by my father. I never cried at a wedding; I was usually nervous. In those two instances, I was in a cold sweat about my duties arranging the bachelor party and giving an appropriate toast.

Like gays in the military, gay weddings aren't a really a part of my life. As a pacifist, I wondered why anyone would join the military. A wise friend explained to me that the military was the only option for many rural and southern youths that didn't have the middle class background I had, and whose only recourse was to join the military. It was the only way that many could get a higher education. Seen in that light, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is cruel to people who are trying to better their lives.

Several years back, on a sleepless night, I surfed late night television and found a show on gay weddings. Most of them were, to me, boring and predictable. One, however, was so touching i actually cried. Two Jewish lesbians were actually happy at their wedding, at least, so it seemed on TV. The thing that seemed missing from previous weddings was--- joy. In photo albums of relatives, most seem nervous or fearful even for their wedding pictures. Then there is the photo of my great-grandparents. The camera caught a certain look in their eyes, the happy confluence of lust and love. Call it joy.

There is nothing like forbidding something that makes people want it more. I'm not in the age bracket for marriage, and my circumstances are such that a wedding is remote. I've read that after age thirty five, you're more likely to be attacked by a terrorist than to get married. So I won't get married. So I won't join the military. Maybe marriage is an imperialistic institution. Maybe love alone should be what keeps people together, a la Sartre and de Beauvoir. But California's ban on future gay marriage is simple discrimination, organized by some small minds with deep pockets. And telling me I can't have it only makes me want it more.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Dick Can't shut His Hole

Those of us who heard President Obama's speech this morning heard the sober thoughts of a reasonable man. If you followed the election closely, you knew that Barack Obama is no liberal. As a lib myself, voting for him was a no-brainer. He is no Socialist, he is not French, he is not gay. The only welfare he wholeheartedly supports is the welfare the Republicans support: corporate welfare. The fact that he is so vilified by the Republicans and right wingers is a chilling reminder, as if we needed one, of just how dark this country's dark ages have been.

Dick is only too glad to remind us. He had to open his pie-hole before the president finished speaking, blabbing the same old talking points. I had to turn the radio off. Hearing his voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. He instills the same visceral repulsion I felt when former president Chucklenuts spoke. Chucklenuts could be counted on to giggle girlishly whenever death was discussed.

There's not much to be said about Dick that hasn't been said better by Jane Mayer or Ron Susskind. On some level, Dick knows he was a failure. He did nothing to prevent 9/11, although there were warnings. He overcompensated for his neglect by becoming a torturer.

We all operate under illusions. We have to survive. Dick operates under the illusion that torture isn't illegal, and that he hasn't ruined this country's reputation. I, and probably you, if you are reading this, operate under the illusion that we aren't living in a Dick-tatorship, and that the nightmare of the last eight years is over. But Dick won't let us forget. Maybe, as Ed Shultz suggests, he is trying to influence the jury pool for upcoming war crimes trials. If only. We can dream.

Although Freud is discounted in this country, some of his ideas are still discussed by, who else, the French. According to Freud, via Lacan, civilization is always pulled into two different directions, the desire for life, and the deathwish. Dick is the ultimate symbol of what is plainly the Death Kultur. Torture, punishment, murder: Dick has almost taken the role of Chucklenuts, the gleeful giggling Texas executioner.

Countries, like people, are caught in the tension between the desire for life and the tendency towards death. We've lived in the shadow of Death Kultur for the last eight years. Obama wants to look ahead, to pursue life. I wish I were more hopeful. Every time Dick opens his hole, this country dies a little more.

Dick Can't shut His Hole

Those of us who heard President Obama's speech this morning heard the sober thoughts of a reasonable man. If you followed the election closely, you knew that Barack Obama is no liberal. As a lib myself, voting for him was a no-brainer. He is no Socialist, he is not French, he is not gay. The only welfare he wholeheartedly supports is the welfare the Republicans support: corporate welfare. The fact that he is so vilified by the Republicans and right wingers is a chilling reminder, as if we needed one, of just how dark this country's dark ages have been.

Dick is only too glad to remind us. He had to open his pie-hole before the president finished speaking, blabbing the same old talking points. I had to turn the radio off. Hearing his voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. He instills the same visceral repulsion I felt when former president Chucklenuts spoke. Chucklenuts could be counted on to giggle girlishly whenever death was discussed.

There's not much to be said about Dick that hasn't been said better by Jane Mayer or Ron Susskind. On some level, Dick knows he was a failure. He did nothing to prevent 9/11, although there were warnings. He overcompensated for his neglect by becoming a torturer.

We all operate under illusions. We have to survive. Dick operates under the illusion that torture isn't illegal, and that he hasn't ruined this country's reputation. I, and probably you, if you are reading this, operate under the illusion that we aren't living in a Dick-tatorship, and that the nightmare of the last eight years is over. But Dick won't let us forget. Maybe, as Ed Shultz suggests, he is trying to influence the jury pool for upcoming war crimes trials. If only. We can dream.

Although Freud is discounted in this country, some of his ideas are still discussed by, who else, the French. According to Freud, via Lacan, civilization is always pulled into two different directions, the desire for life, and the deathwish. Dick is the ultimate symbol of what is plainly the Death Kultur. Torture, punishment, murder: Dick has almost taken the role of Chucklenuts, the gleeful giggling Texas executioner.

Countries, like people, are caught in the tension between the desire for life and the tendency towards death. We've lived in the shadow of Death Kultur for the last eight years. Obama wants to look ahead, to pursue life. I wish I were more hopeful. Every time Dick opens his hole, this country dies a little more.

Friday, May 15, 2009

My future husbands

    Stephanie Miller refers to men she admires as "my future husbands." I'd like to steal that label, and discuss some of the men on her, and my, list. Yes, I am not ashamed to admit I have "man crushes." In my case, the future is far more distant than for Miss Miller. Here in the backwater of California, gay marriage is illegal, unlike those liberal states such as Iowa. Besides, these heroes, what I call my future husbands, aren't gay. Details, details. If Keith Olbermann has ever said anything I disagree with, it doesn't come to mind. Russ Feingold is soooo fine. I guess I have to call Barb Boxer my future wife. She is great. Now, at the top of the list: Dennis Kucinich.

    Ed Shultz interview Rep. Kucinich yesterday on his television show. The "K-man" talked about the financial crisis. In words and sentiments a lefty like me could understand, he described the twentieth century American economy. We began the last century with industrial capitalism, and evolved to financial capitalism. Instead of making things which broadens the base of wealth, we trickled up to enriching the pencil pushing crooks on Wall Street. Now, in its latest stage, we are at protocapitalism. In this stage, about one percent of the population owns almost half (40%) of the nation's wealth.

    There is a lot of blame to go around. We can start with Reagan. He began a massive redistribution of wealth with tax cuts for the rich and an all out war on unions. Clinton didn't veto "welfare reform." The irony of terms like "trickle -down economics," which actually trickled up, and welfare reform, meaning the abolition of social services, must be noted.

    I believe that outsiders are in a unique position to cry foul. Racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, union workers, economic outsiders, the disabled, sexual minorities--- we can see that the system is rigged. The TARP program is nothing more than privatizing profits and socializing loss. Like trickle down economics, the name of the program is the exact opposite of what it does. Each of us has to find our future husband and organize. Maybe we should aspire to become the man we want to marry…

    Stay tuned for my next installment on torture: Why Won't Dick Shut his Hole?

My future husbands

    Stephanie Miller refers to men she admires as "my future husbands." I'd like to steal that label, and discuss some of the men on her, and my, list. Yes, I am not ashamed to admit I have "man crushes." In my case, the future is far more distant than for Miss Miller. Here in the backwater of California, gay marriage is illegal, unlike those liberal states such as Iowa. Besides, these heroes, what I call my future husbands, aren't gay. Details, details. If Keith Olbermann has ever said anything I disagree with, it doesn't come to mind. Russ Feingold is soooo fine. I guess I have to call Barb Boxer my future wife. She is great. Now, at the top of the list: Dennis Kucinich.

    Ed Shultz interview Rep. Kucinich yesterday on his television show. The "K-man" talked about the financial crisis. In words and sentiments a lefty like me could understand, he described the twentieth century American economy. We began the last century with industrial capitalism, and evolved to financial capitalism. Instead of making things which broadens the base of wealth, we trickled up to enriching the pencil pushing crooks on Wall Street. Now, in its latest stage, we are at protocapitalism. In this stage, about one percent of the population owns almost half (40%) of the nation's wealth.

    There is a lot of blame to go around. We can start with Reagan. He began a massive redistribution of wealth with tax cuts for the rich and an all out war on unions. Clinton didn't veto "welfare reform." The irony of terms like "trickle -down economics," which actually trickled up, and welfare reform, meaning the abolition of social services, must be noted.

    I believe that outsiders are in a unique position to cry foul. Racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, union workers, economic outsiders, the disabled, sexual minorities--- we can see that the system is rigged. The TARP program is nothing more than privatizing profits and socializing loss. Like trickle down economics, the name of the program is the exact opposite of what it does. Each of us has to find our future husband and organize. Maybe we should aspire to become the man we want to marry…

    Stay tuned for my next installment on torture: Why Won't Dick Shut his Hole?

Monday, May 11, 2009

Jesus and Marx

    During a recent holiday, I visited with both my own family, and the family of a close friend. It was exhausting for some reason, and it made me remember why I dislike holidays. Many people do. What bothered me most this time was the realization that I am the poor relation. In my day to day activities, I can forget this unpleasant fact. Every family has a poor relation. I never thought it would be me. I didn't work and strive my whole life for this. No one grows up thinking, "I hope I'll be the poor relative when I grow up. What fun!" Becoming the poor relative is something that just happens. Since sad country music songs often serve as the backdrop for my life, I found the song "Lazarus" in my mind. You probably know the old tune. It's about Lazarus at the rich man's gate. "He was some mother's darling, he was some mother's son/ Once he was fair and once he was young/ Some mother rocked him, her darlin' to sleep/ But he's only a tramp found dead on the street." Cheery.

    The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a problem. Poor Lazarus (not the Lazarus who is raised from the dead) begs for crumbs from the rich man's table. The rich man, of course, denies him. After they both die, the rich man is in a very warm place, and begs for cool water from Lazarus, who is vindicated after death. Jesus is sometimes flippant about poverty--- he tells a disciple "the poor you will have with you always." Even Jesus' more radical teachings, "blessed are the poor," are diluted in later gospels to read "blessed are the poor in spirit." The idea of justice in the world to come may offer hope. This pie in the sky by and by approach is why Marx calls religion the "opiate of the people." If the poor are taught to accept their lot there can never be social change.

    The poor, it seems to me, are naturally Marxists. They, or should I say, we, understand that it is all about economics. We have understanding of the inequity of wealth. Some rich people may be convinced they are special, they have worked harder, they deserve more money. That may be true. Certainly Reagan's radical right wing philosophy taught that the poor chose to be poor. Reagan believed in blaming the victim.

    The causes of poverty are many. There is illness and bad luck. In my family there is a sad old saying that when poverty and babies come in the door, love flies out the window. Wealth, it seems to me, is more singular in causation. The poor can cite reasons for poverty. Some of these may be justifications, rationalization, whatever. No doubt many are poor due entirely to personal weakness. But people are wealthy not so much due to virtue or intelligence, but because the system is rigged.

    In her interpretation of Jesus, Dorothy Day concluded that when Jesus advocated for the poor he wanted people to question the status quo. According to Day, in helping the poor, we come to question a system that ensures a very few are rich, and the many are poor. The group she founded, Catholic Workers, tries to marry Jesus and Marx.

    In my lifetime, the gap between rich and poor has widened. Bush's tax cuts for the uber rich have privileged the wealthy beyond all measure. What Reagan started, Bush pushed farther. Justice in the after life or a future messianic age is small comfort. Revolution has rarely worked. The solution, if there is one, is to work for slow, incremental change. Consciousness of the fact that the system is rigged may help us to avoid blame, self-pity and resentment.

Jesus and Marx

    During a recent holiday, I visited with both my own family, and the family of a close friend. It was exhausting for some reason, and it made me remember why I dislike holidays. Many people do. What bothered me most this time was the realization that I am the poor relation. In my day to day activities, I can forget this unpleasant fact. Every family has a poor relation. I never thought it would be me. I didn't work and strive my whole life for this. No one grows up thinking, "I hope I'll be the poor relative when I grow up. What fun!" Becoming the poor relative is something that just happens. Since sad country music songs often serve as the backdrop for my life, I found the song "Lazarus" in my mind. You probably know the old tune. It's about Lazarus at the rich man's gate. "He was some mother's darling, he was some mother's son/ Once he was fair and once he was young/ Some mother rocked him, her darlin' to sleep/ But he's only a tramp found dead on the street." Cheery.

    The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a problem. Poor Lazarus (not the Lazarus who is raised from the dead) begs for crumbs from the rich man's table. The rich man, of course, denies him. After they both die, the rich man is in a very warm place, and begs for cool water from Lazarus, who is vindicated after death. Jesus is sometimes flippant about poverty--- he tells a disciple "the poor you will have with you always." Even Jesus' more radical teachings, "blessed are the poor," are diluted in later gospels to read "blessed are the poor in spirit." The idea of justice in the world to come may offer hope. This pie in the sky by and by approach is why Marx calls religion the "opiate of the people." If the poor are taught to accept their lot there can never be social change.

    The poor, it seems to me, are naturally Marxists. They, or should I say, we, understand that it is all about economics. We have understanding of the inequity of wealth. Some rich people may be convinced they are special, they have worked harder, they deserve more money. That may be true. Certainly Reagan's radical right wing philosophy taught that the poor chose to be poor. Reagan believed in blaming the victim.

    The causes of poverty are many. There is illness and bad luck. In my family there is a sad old saying that when poverty and babies come in the door, love flies out the window. Wealth, it seems to me, is more singular in causation. The poor can cite reasons for poverty. Some of these may be justifications, rationalization, whatever. No doubt many are poor due entirely to personal weakness. But people are wealthy not so much due to virtue or intelligence, but because the system is rigged.

    In her interpretation of Jesus, Dorothy Day concluded that when Jesus advocated for the poor he wanted people to question the status quo. According to Day, in helping the poor, we come to question a system that ensures a very few are rich, and the many are poor. The group she founded, Catholic Workers, tries to marry Jesus and Marx.

    In my lifetime, the gap between rich and poor has widened. Bush's tax cuts for the uber rich have privileged the wealthy beyond all measure. What Reagan started, Bush pushed farther. Justice in the after life or a future messianic age is small comfort. Revolution has rarely worked. The solution, if there is one, is to work for slow, incremental change. Consciousness of the fact that the system is rigged may help us to avoid blame, self-pity and resentment.

Friday, May 8, 2009

What is it with the Presbyterians?

My research this spring has been mainly focused on Presbyterians. On a recent trip to Albuquerque, I visited the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum. The Presbyterians were accused of cultural genocide because of their role in Indian Boarding Schools. Presbyterians were involved in three Indian Boarding School in the state, one of which still exists, although its ties with the church are looser. I am hoping to get this article published soon.

In last month's Nation magazine, Presbyterians were accused of anti-Semitism in an ad posted by FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East. Presbyterians have made some incredible blunders in the past few years. I thought they just alienated gays, but they've caused offense to Jewish groups. Way to go, PC(USA)!

What is it with the Presbyterians?

My research this spring has been mainly focused on Presbyterians. On a recent trip to Albuquerque, I visited the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum. The Presbyterians were accused of cultural genocide because of their role in Indian Boarding Schools. Presbyterians were involved in three Indian Boarding School in the state, one of which still exists, although its ties with the church are looser. I am hoping to get this article published soon.

In last month's Nation magazine, Presbyterians were accused of anti-Semitism in an ad posted by FLAME, Facts and Logic About the Middle East. Presbyterians have made some incredible blunders in the past few years. I thought they just alienated gays, but they've caused offense to Jewish groups. Way to go, PC(USA)!

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Presbyterians and controversy

I'm writing a brief article on Presbyterians of Jewish descent. Doing research, I've come to the conclusion that once again, the church has it wrong. In trying to straddle the fence between conservatives and liberals, it has made both sides angry. For as long as I can remember, this is what the church has done.

The denomination has sought to please evangelicals by funding an outreach that will seek to convert Jews. It has tried to appease liberals by condemning Israel's incursions into what should be, could be, a Palestinian homeland. This is the kind of dual response Presbyterians have aimed for over the past decades. And, in its tradition of postponing a final decision, it has decided to "study" these questions.

I wonder how long the Presbyterian church can continue. Sooner or later it will have to decide a course. Each Sunday, as I look over a sea of gray and white heads (like mine), I wonder how long this denomination will continue to function. I personally have reasons to stay in the denomination, but I wonder how long even this historical connection I have to the church will keep me there.

Presbyterians and controversy

I'm writing a brief article on Presbyterians of Jewish descent. Doing research, I've come to the conclusion that once again, the church has it wrong. In trying to straddle the fence between conservatives and liberals, it has made both sides angry. For as long as I can remember, this is what the church has done.

The denomination has sought to please evangelicals by funding an outreach that will seek to convert Jews. It has tried to appease liberals by condemning Israel's incursions into what should be, could be, a Palestinian homeland. This is the kind of dual response Presbyterians have aimed for over the past decades. And, in its tradition of postponing a final decision, it has decided to "study" these questions.

I wonder how long the Presbyterian church can continue. Sooner or later it will have to decide a course. Each Sunday, as I look over a sea of gray and white heads (like mine), I wonder how long this denomination will continue to function. I personally have reasons to stay in the denomination, but I wonder how long even this historical connection I have to the church will keep me there.