Allow me to take a short paragraph to gloat. For years I have railed against the “United States is the greatest country in the world” bullshit. First, there is no such thing. Second, the admittted advantage the US gained was built upon the death of previous natives and the slavery of many. Some legacy. But now it is becoming obvious to people who are other than liberal like myself that this greatness is an illusion. We are, in comparison to others, not all that great in many areas. So I am gloating. Woohoo!

Okay, gloating over.

The evidence: our health care sucks compared to others though we spend more than any other country. Our education system is woefully inadequate. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We consume way more energy that we need to, contribute one-third of climate changing gases though our population is less than one-tenths of the world’s. We are highly in debt to other countries with no solution in site. Our murder and incarceration rates are among the top five on the planet. And as of late, our supposed miltary might is looking less capable than advertised. If anyone is keeping score. We ain’t doing so good. And this is a shortlist

So what does it mean for us? My hope is that we get off our high horse and realize that we are just like everyone else. That being the world’s policeman is a lose-lose situation. That we are lucky, not good. That much of our hard work only goes toward making the “man” richer and ourselves poorer on a relative basis. That we cannot depend on politicians to make decisions for us.

Okay, so I am hoping for a lot. But isn’t the first part of solving your problem realizing that you have one?

Of course, the converse is that ‘mericans will stick to their stubborn ways or worse. In a land that worships weapons and killing, the danger is that when things get worse, people will turn on others.

May you live in interesting times!

As a black man I am somewhat offended by equation of the gay marriage issue with the one of color. They are not the same.

People who want to marry their gay lover did not represent the ecomomic backbone that allowed European economies (this means all of them, Europe, Australia and the Americas) to dominate over all others. People who want to marry their gay lovers were not lynched as most of the population looked the other way. People who want to marry their gay lovers are not denied housing, education and the most of the same rights that the majority of the population enjoys. People who want to marry their gay lovers were not ripped from their homeland, made to serve an economy, while enduring substandard housing, healthcare and basic nutrtition. People who want to marry their gay lover have not had to endure flesh-ripping dogs, high-pressure firehoses, beatings and killings to gain their rights. They did not have to sit at the back of the bus, nor were they made to drink from specially designated water-fountains, eat at segregated lunch counters or denied the same opportunities that a more priveledged population did. No, they endured none of these gross injustices.

Does this mean I think they should have to go through the same experience? Obviously not. Nor does it mean that I don’t think that they should be denied any rights. But do I think gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage? No I do not. For one, gay marriage brings up the conception issue. Though certainly it is not the case of all of gay marriage–not everyone who marries wants children–the need for invitro-fertilization is increased. And yes, the whole babies coming from laboratories bothers me. We are already so removed from nature already that maybe it shouldn’t matter, but yes it bothers me to a great degree.

Beyond that gay marriage brings up other issues such as inheritance, divorce and child custody that have not been resolved. All of these need to be worked before many like me will wholly support it.

So no, I do not think right to gay marriage is the same as the right to worship as one wishes or just to live, love and fuck like everyone else. It is much more complicated and unresolved for me to throw myself on that sword. Work out the details, resolve unsettled issues, convince me that losing the rights we have all fought for are worth losing and I will support it. Until then I will not discriminate, but I will sit on the fence.

For an intelligent take on the massacre in Haditha, it makes sense to quote Justin Raimondo, one who has been consistently right about the situation in Iraq from Day One.

Raimondo, editorial director for the libertarian Antiwar.com site, reported last year about the administration’s “El Salvador Strategy,” a plan to ratchet up the brutality in Iraq similar to force used in Latin America in the 1980s.

Says Raimondo: “We are now seeing the results of this policy of desperation in practice. Haditha is not just an “isolated incident,” but evidence of a new strategic orientation by the U.S. military – a scorched-earth policy designed to stave off the humiliating prospect of impending defeat …

A pattern emerges: Haditha, Abu Sifa, Abu Ghraib, and all the others now bound to come out in horrifying detail. These place names will become the new slogans of the Iraqi insurgency, which will be fueled as never before – and perhaps immeasurably strengthened by rising Shi’ite anger. As we said in the beginning – nay, before the beginning – the occupation of Iraq will soon take on all the familiar earmarks of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Both Iraqis and Americans will be locked in a deadly embrace of indignities that will soon escalate into everyday atrocities. The Iraqis, like the Palestinians, will become captives in their own land, and their jailers will get progressively more abusive and cruel as a matter of sheer necessity.”

Fact is that the debate over the moral quality of the troops is besides the point. The real culprits are the people who put the troops in a situation that had little chance of success and an excellent chance of quagmire. Putting troops in a strange country amongst people who don’t want them there with no plan to win them over, and little effort to provide for the population’s basic needs, it’s a tinderbox waiting to explode that should be obvious to people who have ever read history.

It is difficult enough for a benevolent empire to control a conquered nation let alone one that has imprisoned and tortured large swatches of innocents whose hearts and minds we were supposed to be winning. The problem with Haditha is that it demonstrates an escalation in violence that is inevitable, unless U.S. policy changes dramatically. Unfortunately, George W. Bush doesn’t do change, which means bloodshed is likely to get worse.

I am not gay, and the likelihood of my ever marrying anyone, male or female is about the same as the likelihood of Cary Grant returning from the grave to pop the question. But my ambivalence towards marriage is mine and not forced on me by legal restrictions.

I am also not Black or Latino or Asian or Arab and the chances of my race changing are even worse than the chance that I’ll ever marry the ghost of Cary Grant in a Venetian elopement.

I come to my opinions on equality using what John Rawls called “the veil of ignorance”. The idea is that when designing a just society, the only way to do it is to imagine a veil that shields you from knowing what your place in the society you create will be.

So when I say you either believe people are equal or you don’t, it is because I have used that veil. If I came into society as a Muslim, I would want to be judged on my own behavior and not automatically presumed to be a violent terrorist. If I came into society as a black man, I would want to be given the same opportunity to work that everyone else gets. If I came into society as a gay man, I would still want to be free to elope with Cary Grant to Venice. I would not want to be handicapped by “civil unions” which are not real marriages and do not provide the same benefits, like healthcare or pensions or social security or tax breaks.

I don’t believe in compromise when it comes to equal rights. I know, there’s always supposed to be a middle ground- but not when it comes to basic equality. People deserve the right to live, love, fuck, work and believe however they wish as long as their living, loving, fucking, working, and believing doesn’t impinge on someone else’s right to live, love, fuck, work or believe.

Marriage equity does not impinge on straight marriage. There is nothing about giving gays the right to marry who they want that prevents straights from marrying who they want. Nothing. But straights not allowing gays to marry does impinge on someone else’s right to live, love and fuck.

So yeah, I think it is cowardice to back away from equal rights issues because they are not politically popular. It assures us that we will end up with the worst sort of “politicians” instead of the better sort of “statesmen” because only the cowards will get pushed through.

This issue has come up before, but I feel a clearer definition is required.

The temptation to equate gay marriage movement with the civil rights of the 60s is high. But should they be equated or are they separate issues? I already know what the Red Queen feels: ” You either believe that all people are equal or you don’t.” I on the other hand am more cautious in this assumption. While I support civil unions, I am not sure I support gay marriage. And, being a little more centrist, believe many share my views.

To be more revealing, I feel that bringing up the gay marriage issue during the 2004 election was damaging to the Dems; and that fully embracing falls into the trap the right has set out: by falling on our sword for gay marriage proves to the ever important middle where we stand on everything in American life. RQ sees putting the issue on the back-burner as cowardice or worse.

Will we reach resolution on our differences? Probably not. But I don’t think there is one right answer either. A quick perusal of the Internet proves the same. In that light I am posting some links on the issue:

Pro-marriage ads rally people of color

Chinese Americans unsettled on same-sex marriage

Navajo Head Vetoes Gay Marriage Measure

California NAACP Endorses Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Gaily ever after: is gay marriage the new civil rights struggle or has it co-opted a legacy?

Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?

ENVISIONING EQUALITY

The Stakes in the Gay-Marriage Wars

Radical Women statement at the Seattle rally against a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage

Racial Divide in Queer Communities on Marriage Debate

Okay, I admit, its a bit of work, but a quick glance shows there is no easy answer on the issue, even among the left. If so, why commit ourselves to falling into a dangerous trap when even the left is not of one voice?

The smart thing may be to let the issue advance to Congress with little commitment; as bad as we think the atmosphere is, the likelihhood of the Marriage Amendment passing is small. By letting the right show their true colors, we may be able to open up debate on the issue in a less volatile way. It ain’t the 60s anymore so why act like it is?

As you all know, there is a battle going on in my backyard between the Morning Glories and the Blackberries. After what I thought were successful negotiations last summer and a quite winter, the two plants were back at it with a force this spring.

This weekend, after hostilities were no longer tolerable to peaceful neighbors, my trusty crew of rake, weedeater and I initiated UN style peacekeeping operations. The only way this was going to work was by cutting back both sides to a bare minimum. I am proud to say that after much struggle, peace has been achieved.

Alternet has an excerpt from Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg. It’s a strong call to arms for secular humanists and she makes some good points.

“The top three ‘gainers’ in America’s vast religious marketplace appear to be
Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational
Christians and those who profess no religion,” the survey found. (The percentage
of other religious minorities remained small, totaling less than 4 percent of
the population).

This is a recipe for polarization. As Christian nationalism becomes more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we’re likely to see a shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.

Maybe, the loss of the middle in this context is exactly what is needed. Maybe it’s time we brought the battle to a head. I’m not one of those people that believes there is always a middle ground, there are certain things that are either true or not. If we were reduced to a country of Christian nationalism, then those of us who are fiercely agnostic or atheist would be forced to worship a religion we do not believe in. The converse is not true. If we are a country of secular humanists, then anyone can worship or not worship however they choose, but they cannot inflict their choice on someone else.

I know there are quite a few of you who are religious progressives, and my declaring that the loss of a middle ground (which would include religious progressives) may seem like I wish to discount your beliefs. I don’t and honestly, the only way you all will be able to continue being religious progressives is to side the secular humanists. It is not just us non-believers that will be forced into the tyrannical religious mold of the right, but if you have a different view of Christianity from the right wing version, you are going to be forced to practice religion in a way that goes against your beliefs.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. After reading John Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven I discovered that Mormonism is the fastest growing religion in the western hemisphere, there are now Mormons on the planet than Jews. Because of their rapid growth, and within 60 years it is expected that it will be impossible to govern the United States without the cooperation of the Mormons and the Church of Latter Day Saints. If polygamy is a central tenet in the fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s religious ideal and it was outlawed by the church only because of political pressure, then polygamy and forced marriage becoming legal is a definite possibility with an increase numbers and political influence.

In her article, Goldberg suggests that the solution is to fight the “anti-urban bias built into the structure of our democracy”. Sounds like someone read The Stranger’s Urban Archipelago article after the last presidential election and took it to heart.

The Stranger:

The Republicans have the federal government–for now. But we’ve got Seattle,
Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York City
(Bloomberg is a Republican in name only), and every college town in the country.
We’re everywhere any sane person wants to be. Let them have the shitholes, the
Oklahomas, Wyomings, and Alabamas. We’ll take Manhattan.

Goldberg:

According to Steven Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy, the combined
populations of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Colorado,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alaska equal that of New York and
Massachusetts, but the former states have a total of nine more votes in the
Electoral College (as well as over five times the votes in the Senate). In
America, conservatives literally count for more.

I’m tired of conservatives counting for more. Aren’t you?

In our post-modern world progress is a given; we expect new inventions, products and lifestyles almost weekly. Of course, post-modern life is also full of irony. In this context we need to wonder when progress is no longer progress? When does are all consuming quest of the new become counter-productive?

There are some obvious examples: global-warming and habitat depletion must be considered a step backward, not forward. The upcoming demographic time-bomb also suggests another instance where moving forward may cause a step back. Emotional alienation, so common today, along with the transience that comes with abilty to regulary travel over distances our ancestors could not even dream shows more evidence of how technological advances come at a price. And yes, though the Internet connects us in ways yet to be imagined, it also puts in a position where a comfortable life requires constant connection to the network. Along those lines, the constant threat of pedophiles, indentity thiefs and other electronically based lurkers and ne’er-do-wells shows another area where something on which we have come to depend also threatens us to some degree. On a broader level, the temptation of governments to track every keystroke, phone call and transaction leaves us all in a position where freedom may fall prey to technology. Amazingly, this list is far from complete. A reread of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock and The Third Wave would help more make sense of this topic.

A little history of progess is in order. Until the Renaissance no one expected progress of any type. Innovation and experimentation were shunned since precious resources could not be sacrificed. Also, only members of religious orders and the courts had the leisure time to spare for developing new methods and technologies. Most innovation came in the field and changes were guarded with extreme secrecy. With the Renaissance a sense of the new started to creep into consciousness, but stay limited to a few of the elite. Only after the Industrial Revolution did progress begin to seem possible to all classes, but this feeling pretty much remain limited to European based societies. In short, a sense of progress, the feeling that the next few years will be different from the next is new to us, so new that as whole, societies around the globe have not adapted to it.

So do we or can we stop progress? Obviously not. We have come to far to start living as we once did. Instead, we need to become more aware of our impact. The progress we take for granted takes its toll on less fortunate societies, our entire ecosystem and the cohesiveness of our social fabric. We could do better by not assuming that progress is something that should triumph over other areas of our life. We should be thankful for what we have and make more of an effort to spread the wealth over a broader spectrum. Certainly, we should not continue with the attitude that moving forward is more valuable than protecting the environment, an attitude that assuredly threatens everything we have built until now.

Yes, this is a recurring theme for me, but not one I invented. Karen Armstrong, for one, constantly brings it up through her mythos vs. logos illustrations. In fact the theme goes back to the Romantic Era wherein its propenents naively called for a return to nature. Nor do I suspect will the issue go away for quite some time. In all cases, we are better off accepting the reality rather than denying its existence.

Esphyr Slobodkina (Rus. 1908-2002) Levitator 1950 oil on masonite 25″ x 35″

Actually, most of Esphyr Slobodkina’s paintings make me swoon. For mid-century abstracts, her paintings are geometric while still being loose and free. If you think of other geometric abstracts, say Mondrian’s boxes, there is rigidity that cannot be loosened every by the addition of bright colors. Slobodkina’s paintings feel more organic because of the use of muted colors and her creation of depth by layering shapes and colors is fantastic.

I love this particular piece for the strong diagonal lines. She uses an interesting trick here. T shapes usually imply stability, diagonals imply movement. Slobodkina takes a T shape and twists it into a diagonal so you have movement to each corner of the painting with a firmly anchored center.

Ruthzilla (who likes to get me drunk and make me a rock star groupie) sent me this little bit of happy.