Abraham Lincoln did not run on a platform to free the slaves. Nor did he win in 1860 because people thought he would. He ran on the promise to save the Union. Freeing the slaves in 1863 was as much political ploy as it was an attempt to tilt the war to the side of the north.

Lyndon Johnson did not win in 1964 on the promise of assuring Blacks could vote. No matter what nobility can be seen in his successful effort to pass the voting rights act, Johnson was ever aware of where he stood with the American public. A book entitled “Cannan’s Edge” details the ultimately nasty reality of what really happened between and to both Johnson and Martin Luther King. Both for a time used each other for their own gains. That’s how politics works. Don’t take my word for this. Read the review..

Politicians who run solely on principle turn into “lobbyists”. It is an ugly reality, one that the left needs to not only take to heart, but one that it needs to learn up and down, backwards and forwards.

Until then, pray for miracles, but cover your ass!

Anyway who knows me knows I am on the extreme left on most issues. I do have my doubts about the gay marriage issue, but let’s disregard that for the moment.

On this forum I have sometimes taken a middle-ground, devil’s advocate stance. Face it. We live in very liberal, accepting Seattle. Right or wrong, we are often clouded by where we live. As the last few elections have shown, our views are not shared by many in this nation. As musch as I like The White Papers, I don’t enjoy preaching to the choir; I will sometimes take a more middle ground to foster debate (sorry, I don’t know how to be a right-wing Nazi!). Please understand my strategy and motivation in this.

Having said that, if I had to choose between a politician who will lose based on his/her principles and one who might win because s/he knows how to make intelligent compromises, I will pick the latter in almost all cases. I am liberal (progressive, whatever) but I am not blind.

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.

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?

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.

From “Last Comic Standing”:

I saw a homeless dude with a dog. The dog must be saying: this sucks. I mean, do we ever get to go home. I love long walks, but this is ridiculous!

Without being judgmental, I want to share my feelings about Chrisitanity and religion in general. Like many, I only accept that Jesus existed. He must have been an extradorinary person, but I cannot believe that God existed through him. In fact I am unsure that “God” exists. I do know that most of what Christians preach, all humans should accept better ways of being human; if you do good in your life and there is an afterlife, then you have nothing to worry about. If there is no afterlife and you have done good, that is enough to make life in itself worth living; if all lived like that at all times. live on earth would be a cakewalk.

I admit, I am close to being one of those who thinks religion has outlived its usefullness. while I don’t think science replaces religion, its role is not up to helping the contemporary. Perhaps, this makes me jaded, but it is an opinion I am happy with.

My biggest problem with religion is that I think it is a personal choice that few people want to keep themselves. If there is a God, there is no right way to worship him/her. From another perspective, my belief is that religion is a personal choice, but I don’t go around trying to convert others to my point of view.

Having said all that, I do hold that we need some type of belief to help our unrational selves; science is not a substitute; it simply is what it is. I guess this is way of saying I accept the need to embrace others as wonder attempts, but I would like to leave the Jesus part out of it.

An article in the NY Times points to the other side, but seldom heard part of the debate: selective immigration. As I pointed out before, the immigration debate when it comes to jobs that pay poorly is different than the one for high-skilled positions: Congress wants to raise the quota for immigrant nurses. This action hurts poor countries in many ways that are better explained in the article. But there’s more. There are enough qualified applicants for nursing positions in this country, but not enough people willing to accept the lousy pay to teach them. Hence, our misguided one-sided, every nation must bow to us attitude not only drains much needed asssitance in places where it is needed, it also prevents willing participants here from taking jobs that would help the economy and their local communities.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems!