The GOP needs REAL change…

In the wake of sweeping national losses last week, the GOP finds itself in the unenviable position of having to “take stock” of who it is. There have been many proposals; but one thing seems to be sure—they do not want to abandon their social platform.  One talking head suggested that it’s not the platform itself that is a problem, but the in way in which it is presented. Really?  How do you find a “nice” way to promote taking away reproductive freedoms from women? Another person said that the GOP should simply not talk about their core beliefs, but instead focus on what is popular with the general public. But do they really think that gay families will “forget” to ask what their position is on gay marriage or gay couples adopting children?

If the GOP wishes to succeed in the future, they will have to do more than simply pay attention to women and minorities.  It’s not enough to put a token minority candidate on their ticket—especially if that candidate holds the same revolting views that their white counterparts hold. No, the GOP must undergo a real change—one that lives up to the smaller government they so readily champion.  A smaller government would let adults decide whom they want to marry, allow women to control their reproductive lives, and so on. The GOP must stop its campaign to make all Americans follow Judeo-Christian principles.  The America of today is not Judeo-Christian; yes, many folks are Christian, but many more are non-affiliated, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, or simply “spiritual”.  If the GOP wishes to capture these folks, they must understand that. The GOP must also let go of its cult-like Christian patriotism.  Just because one is not a Christian, is gay, or believes in protecting the planet does make them unpatriotic.

If they want to be relevant, they will have to abandon the core social beliefs that so many other Americans have already moved on from.  They can no longer deny climate change.  They must stop trying to turn the clock back on women’s rights and reproductive freedoms.  They cannot insist that only heterosexuals get to experience the union of marriage. They will have to stop blaming the poor for the disadvantaged circumstances they find themselves in.  They will have to really care about people—not just say it. And perhaps more than anything, they will have to understand that for many Americans, government is not the problem.  Corporations that have unlimited power to exploit their workers and the planet are the problem.  Education budgets that have been cut are the problem. Bad neighborhoods that lack enough police and community programs are the problem.  Laws that continue to diminish our freedoms are the problem (think Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage).  The GOP has much to consider, and their social agenda is a great place to begin.

How liberals view the world...

Someone commented recently (on NPR) that the Democratic convention not only looked different from the RNC’s convention, but it felt different, too. I thought about that for a while, and I am pretty sure I can point to one reason why that is: we view people in very different ways.

Among the many issues at the fore this election season are social-safety net programs funded by the government. Ask a republican what they think about, say, food stamps, and they will likely tell you of their concerns about waste and abuse. Many will insist they know of actual cases where people were loafing off the system and getting more benefits than they were entitled to (or for longer than they really needed said benefit). Ask a democrat what they think of food stamps, and you will get a very different response—they will likely tell you of their concern regarding the opposing party’s plan to cut food stamp benefits, and how they worry about the many families that will go hungry without such essential assistance.

Why the difference? It’s simple, really—liberals see the good in people.  We know some people abuse the system, but we believe most do not. We choose to see the positive, and focus on the good programs do. Conservatives appear to be focused on the negative—because a few bad apples have benefited from the system (that we know of), then there must be way more, and the whole program should just be reduced to a bare minimum. People are lazy and bad, and will choose a free ride whenever possible.  However, such thinking only diminishes the reality of what poor families really go through, and that will never eliminate the need for such programs. Being in a place of need can be hard enough—we don’t need others to add to the humiliation by suggesting that those who take advantage of social programs are simply bad people mooching off of the rest of us.

Childless women and Lesbians, Ann’s not talking to you…

When Ann Romney gave a shout out to the women in the RNC crowd last week, declaring, “I love you women”, I was foolish enough to think she might be addressing all women.

Turns out, I was wrong.  Ann Romney loves women—straight women with children. “The moms of this nation really hold this country together”, said Romney in her RNC speech. "You are the best of America…I very much believe it’s going to be an economic election. And I think a lot of women may be voting this cycle around in a different way than they usually are. And that is thinking about the economy. Thinking about their own jobs, their husbands’ jobs, but also thinking about the future…they care not about their own job, and their children’s job and their husband’s job, which they do care about because they’re worried about those. They are also caring about the legacy of debt that we’re leaving their children.”

Romney talked endlessly about mothers and children, even lamenting that some folks want more children, but simply cannot afford it. She was concerned about moms who’d rather be home with their kids: “moms who love their jobs but would like to work just a little less to spend more time with the kids”—as if suggesting that dads are not also interested in such things. “I’m hearing from so many women that may not have considered voting for a Republican before,” she continued, “that said it’s time for the grown-up to come, the man that’s going to take this very seriously. And take the future of our children very, very seriously.” Never mind the mean-spirited suggestion she’s making about the President…

Ann Romney was smart enough to address different kinds of moms—single, married, divorced, widowed—but she left out a larger portion of women—the ones who don’t have kids (by choice or otherwise) and women who have no intention of ever having a husband in their life. It’s as if those women (of which I am a part) have no place in the Romney vision of America. Women who don’t have kids lack a narrative that Romney can relate to—rather than reach out any way (even if it risked being uncomfortable), she left us out altogether. It’s bad enough that society and tradition looks down upon childless women (think of the “old” term barren), and that Americans still cannot seem to grant equality to our LGBT neighbors, but to have that reaffirmed on a national platform by a woman who wants to be the First Lady is even more sad. Romney cannot choose the citizens she’ll lead in the same way that she and her family have chosen their cloistered life. Either she is the First Lady of all Americans, or she need not be one at all.

The real intent behind voter I.D. laws…

When the voter identification argument hit the mainstream, I didn’t necessarily see it as a problem.  Supporters pointed out that most things in everyday life require a photo I.D.—getting a library card, renting a car, making certain purchases, buying alcohol. So, why not require I.D. at one of our more sacred activities in a democratic society?

But there is more to it than that—something which became quite apparent to me as I read an article in our local paper one day.  The story featured the daily routine of some of Greensboro’s homeless families, including the use of a day center. They used the day center to get out of the weather, access computers, and even have an address to put on a job application.  An address. Well, there’s someone who might not have an I.D.  Without an address, getting proper photo identification can be quite difficult. And what if you’re one of the many seniors who no longer drive? You may not have a current photo I.D., either. The argument that  “everyone needs an I.D. for daily life” quickly deteriorates at that point.

And then I saw it.  Something that liberal commentators had been saying all along. Something I brushed off as mere conspiracy theory: those behind the legislation don’t want everyone to be able to vote. Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people; they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

The people most likely to be impacted by strict voter identification laws, voter roll purging, and other creative tactics are minorities, the elderly, and younger voters.  In others words, Democrats.  For example, in Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted shortened the early voting period by 3 days.  In 2008, nearly 30% of the total ballots cast in Ohio came during early voting.  Obama won Ohio in ’08, and naturally, the state is in play this election cycle. The only way to “beat” those who’d rather not see us at the polls is to be there—no matter what laws they pass to block us from exercising our right to vote.

Enough already...

Enough is enough. I’m tired of being accused of being a thief, anti-American, and intolerant just because I care about others and gasp!—I’m a liberal.  In the last few weeks, I’ve heard several accusations that have really disturbed me. The first was a remark made be Sean Hannity on his radio show.  He was discussing the Obama tax policy when he led into a story about Obama’s family members that live in Kenya.  His guest commented that they live in abject poverty, and that Obama, who clearly is not poor, has done nothing to elevate his family from that situation. Hannity’s response left me fuming: “Liberals don’t give their own money—they take from you and me and give that away”. In other words, liberals don’t donate financially from their own “coffers’, but instead rob the wealthy via taxes and then wrongly give that money to the poor through government programs (which then keeps the poor wanting “free handouts”). I don’t know what the situation is with Obama’s family—that’s not really my concern.  What I can say is that his assertion is false and does nothing but widen the divide that already exists between Americans who do not share the same views.  I am a liberal, and I give a minimum 10% of my income to charities and my Quaker Meeting. I donate to cause after cause—and while I support the notion that those who make more should pay more, I have never thought that I should not have to give of my resources simply because the government does that in certain cases.

In another instance, a guest on the Glenn Beck Radio Program was discussing the resent success of Beck’s Restoring Love Event and the community projects that were done as part of the weekend celebration.  Beck’s guest remarked, perhaps off-handedly, but still dishonestly, that liberals “would never pitch in to help their community”. Really? I happen to know many a liberal that donates time to the local food bank, feeding the homeless, tutoring kids to read, walking dogs in the shelter, and many more community-improving activities—all with no pay.

We’re now being accused of being intolerant because many of us no longer wish to buy our heart-attack inducing fast food at a certain chicken establishment. Yet, the owner of said establishment is being just as “intolerant”—he doesn’t support equality.  So we don’t want to give our money to a company that doesn’t support equal rights for all Americans—who is really the intolerant one in this situation?

Finally, liberals are constantly being bashed over the head for not being swept off our feet by America.  Last week, I heard a conservative commentator say that maybe now Michelle Obama can be proud of her country since we did a pretty good job at the Olympics.  What a way to take a comment (from fours years ago, no less) out of context. To be honest about our past and ourselves is, in the eyes of the Conservative, to be hateful of our country.  To suggest that America is anything less than exceptional (or that it even needs to be) is heresy.  But why?  To improve things, one must be honest.  Let’s look at some facts.

Among industrialized nations, the U.S. has the:

• Highest poverty rate
• Lowest spending on social safety net programs by the federal government
• Worst score on the U.N. gender inequality index
• Lowest social mobility
• Highest healthcare costs
• Highest infant mortality rate
• Highest number of people who go without healthcare due to cost
• Highest carbon foot print
• Highest rate of failure to ratify international agreements
• Third lowest scores for math performance
• Highest homicide rate
• Most people in prison   

 I cannot look at the above and be “proud” of our country.  Who could?  But that doesn’t mean I’m anti-American or hate the U.S. No, I love my home, and want to see the above change.  As a liberal, I happen to think that a compassionate, earth-friendly, community-centered approach is more helpful than the no-holds-barred free market, small government (except in the case of intimate matters like reproductive rights or marriage), pro-big corporation ideas promoted by some on the Right. But that doesn’t make me a thieving, intolerant, anti-American.  It makes me a thinking American.

[Above stats taken from the book, "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt"]

50 years--but nothing learned...

Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published. It is credited with giving birth to the environmental movement--or as Conservatives like to say, spineless, tree-hugging communist anti-American dirt lovers. Carson wrote of the damage being caused by the careless use of pesticides and other chemicals on our land. She also wrote of the unintended consequences that occurred when humans tried to “re-do” the land to their advantage—an activity no less indulged in today. It was meant to scare readers, no doubt, into action.  But it was also a cautionary tale for future generations about what can happen when we try to "manage" nature for our use and convenience.

Sadly, as I read this book today, I see words unheeded. We are a nation that continues to use more pesticides than we can handle. We have so many chemicals in our homes and yards that we have absorbed them into our bodies. We have contaminated our drinking water with "patented" chemicals via the drilling process known as fracking, in an effort to get cheap fuel. We have contaminated our air with industrial pollutants and carbon emissions that warm our planet and cause erratic (and even deadly) weather patterns.  We have caused drought and floods in our futile attempt to control rivers and streams. And we waste. We are urged to buy "easy" disposable products that end up in landfills for generations and add to the already dirty mess we've made.

Was Rachel Carson's environmental classic all for naught? In many ways, we have not listened to her warning. But the strides made in the 1970's, and the creation of the EPA, are steps in the right direction. But there is still so much work to do. Reducing our carbon load and chemical impact as a nation is a big part--but that can only happen if we speak up and support projects and legislation that promote those things. On a small scale, recycling, halting the use of pesticides in your home and on your lawn, buying organic food and free-range meat & eggs, and being more conscientious about how you live in general can make a big impact on the people and land around you. It starts with us.

A loud, gasping death...

So, it passed. The big one.  The amendment that gives discrimination a sacred place in our State Constitution.
But was does it's passing really mean?  I don't mean legally--for those of us against the measure, the implications--and dangers--were very clear.  What I mean is, what are the cultural implications?  How does an amendment like this pass in 2012?  How does it pass when national support for gay marriage is so "high"?  Some polls suggest that 50% or better of the population is in support of making gay marriage legal.
I have an idea.  It involves the last, gasping breaths of a culture about to turn the corner of history.  Some deaths are quiet, peaceful processes.  Others are fought to the bitter end, with gasps for air and pleas to a higher power to grant more time on this side of Heaven. Just as other cultural beliefs--on the whole--had to die, so this will too.  When women fought for the right to vote, there were loud, guttural protests from a culture that did not want to relinquish its political power to women.  When civil rights were finally granted to Black citizens--as they always should have been--once again the cries of a dying cultural system could be heard.  This is no different. It is painful for all of us--those who have already walked the path in support of equality, and those of us who will come along kicking, screaming, fighting, and voting in support of another time in History.

My marriage is under attack...

That's right.  My traditional, supposedly God-ordained Biblically-based marriage is under attack. By whom, you ask? Perhaps it is all the unmarried people who choose to live together rather than marry. Or maybe the people who marry for "love", but have no intention of producing children (isn't that the true purpose of marriage?  I've heard it said many times...). Maybe it's the gays and lesbians who want to undermine this sacred, honorable institution by having the state bless their union formally. 
Nope. In fact, I don't have a problem with any of the above arrangements, nor do I believe that a gay couple wishing to marry undermines the institution of marriage. I don't believe that giving the gay community access to marriage dishonors the institution in any way, and I don't think that folks wanting to marry are attacking my marriage.
Is my marriage under attack?  Some days. But it has nothing to do with my gay friends wanting to marry.  It has to do with the two people who make up my marriage.  We don't make time for each other, and sometimes we don't even care.  We choose our personal interests over each other.  I'd rather watch TV than have sex.  He'd rather play video games than talk politics with me. I work late and come home when he's asleep.  He has meetings, so I eat at home with our "kids" by myself. We argue. We have good times, too, of course--but I'm specifically discussing the ways in which my marriage is "under attack".  It has nothing to do with others.  The longevity of my marriage is up to two people, and no one else. For others to say that marriage is threatened by anything but the individuals who comprise the union is disingenuous at best, and homophobic at worst.  If we really think marriage is the sacred, honorable institution we claim it is, then we will do three things: make it easier for people to enter into it, insist that each couple "own" their marriage and not blame others if things go wrong, and stop telling people who they can and cannot marry.

A little Easter blog...

Happy Easter to those who are celebrating today!
I thought I'd take a break from working and stuffing myself with Cadbury mini-eggs (Cadbury was once owned by a Quaker family) and say a little something about Easter. Like many a liberal Quaker, I cannot decide if I believe in the resurrection, or if I even believe it to be essential. But, I do really love Jesus. He's a great teacher and friend, and when I read about him, I can't help but think he was an amazing example of what it means to love and serve our neighbors and the planet. Each Sunday I listen to a quirky radio program called "The Jesus Christ Show". Now, those who know me well are likely to find this surprising. I'm not the type to enjoy "churchy" music and evangelistic style preaching. But that is not what this show is. It's a guy who, in the words of the show's producers, does "interactive radio theater designed to teach people about themselves and the historical person of Jesus". Basically, he takes on the role of Christ--you can call and ask him anything you want. And often, his answers are surprising. They sound nothing like the somber, near-apocalyptic words often spoken by those like Pat Robertson. Rather, they are kind, gentle, free of judgement, and dare I say--maybe even a bit liberal. And really, that's not so surprising--in fact, it's quite consistent with the Jesus I have come to love and chosen to follow.
***For more information on "The Jesus Christ Show", check out their website: http://www.thejesuschristshow.com/ To hear the show in the Greensboro area, tune your radio to 94.5 FM***

If you don't support our troops, let them shoot you...

You read that right. I saw it on a bumper sticker. The actual words were "If you cannot stand behind our troops, then stand in front of them". I just extrapolated the real meaning.
I was pretty dismayed, to say the least. There are a multitude of reasons why someone might choose to stand away from our troops, instead of behind them (or in front of them for that matter). For me, it is my Quaker convictions about peace. In real life--that is to say beyond the realm of the deeply-thought world of religious hypothetical events--a tragedy helped me see the fallout from violence. My neighbor died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound. It was a sad, cruel end. And the rest of us were left to pick up the pieces, as is often said. As someone who played a very minor role in his life, I was struck by the grief I experienced. I thought I would never recover. I was an acquaintance. What about his family? How much worse has it been for them?
What does this have to do with war? Nothing. But violence is violence--whether it is on behalf of the state or due to a fractured mental state. The result is the same--someone dies, and the rest of us are left to make sense of such a cruel end.
No, I cannot stand behind our troops. Yes, it's because I am a Quaker. But it's so much more than that. What about you? On what side are you standing?

Do you know why?

Why?
I have been asking this question for weeks now. Why are women's reproductive rights under siege? Our access to a safe, legal abortion is being threatened. More hurdles than ever are placed before a woman that is seeking an abortion—a medical procedure that we legally have a right to receive. Some politicians in Virginia—mostly men—want a law that requires a woman to have a vaginal ultrasound--from personal experience I can attest that this is very invasive--before she has an abortion. And I thought Republicans wanted the government out of our lives.
Why do so many want to roll back access to preventive healthcare for women? Legislative ideas put forth would deny many women access to affordable birth control--and just so everyone knows, birth control isn't always used to simply prevent pregnancy. There are a host of reproductive disorders that can be controlled with the use of hormone-based contraceptives. But really, what is the problem with a woman preventing pregnancy?

What motive is there to rip away all the gains we've made in healthcare, family planning, and even the work force (no birth control means a lot more pregnant, stay-at-home moms)? Who benefits from such draconian measures?

Watch out for these "types"...

I'm a bit behind. In reading the paper, that is. I just got caught up on last weekend's Sunday paper yesterday. The opinion section is always one of my favorites--I am a political junky and love reading what both the newspaper staff and local folk have to say about current issues. But one letter stood out, especially in light of the fact that Alan and I had just attended an event in support of gay marriage a few days ago.
A man from Graham (poor guy, he signed his name and town) wrote a rather nasty and ill-informed letter regarding his views on the issue. He was disgruntled about a billboard his saw on a major highway--this particular billboard is well-known in the community of activists who oppose the embarrassing proposed amendment to our state Constitution. The billboard declares that to really protect families, one must defend all families, not just straight ones (well, that's the "Reader's Digest" version of what it says). He pointed out that if we defeat this proposed amendment, it won't be long before some lawyer gets the current law taken off the books--that would be the law that already makes gay marriage illegal in our state. Then, in his expert opinion, it would simply be a mater of time before North Carolina "would be infested with these types, many who have HIV/AIDS".
Really? Infested? Like the show on Animal Planet? But isn't that about "pests" like bugs and snakes? As far as his facts regarding HIV statistics--only one of those "types" is in the highest risk group for HIV/AIDS--gay men. Lesbians in fact have among the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS. Straight women are more likely to contract the virus than lesbian women. And as far as there being some great influx of HIV+ cases--guess what? We already have really high numbers, and more people with AIDS die in the South than in any other U.S. region.
Poor fool. He has to go and show his face around town after writing that despicable diatribe.