Son of Timatollah

I'm cleaning for company—Mack's sister and her long-term companion (aka "husband", see this)—arrive late this afternoon. We visited them several years ago for the Oyster Ridge Music Festival in their town of Kemmerer, Wyoming.

Also cooking. Have already baked a pumpkin pie and cooked green beans to heat up right before serving. In addition to those, we're having turkey breast, those sauteed sweet potatoes that The Minimalist guy from the New York Times has been pushing and that have been featured several places around the web, and some Pillsbury crescent rolls.

So let's get to a quick, incomplete, list of things I'm grateful for this Thanksgiving in the United States in 2008.

• The love of my life, Mack McKinley, who by being in my life has made everything better, more worthwhile, more intense, more important;
• A job I enjoy, since "teh kids" and my co-workers keep me on my toes and create the opportunity for me to learn something every day;
• A challenge for the rest of my life: Helping secure the rights that every human has by being born for those of us who are sexual misfits (misfits compared with some supposedly large chunk of the rest of humanity);
• A roof over my head, good food on the table, and a degree of comfort that the vast majority of humanity, now or in the past, has never had the pleasure of;
• Wonderful folks in both our families, at our workplaces, in our friendships (real and virtual).

Thanks to all for reading. May this Thanksgiving Day and the rest of the holidays—So the French get all of August off: Unless you are in the medical, emergency services, or retail fields, we basically get from the fourth Thursday in November until New Years Day with a substantially reduced or non-existent workload—bring you, those you care about, and all of us a chance to appreciate the gifts we were given just by existing, just by breathing.

Labels: 2008, thanksgiving

Wow. Here we are with my candidate for POTUS having won the election. It think it's a great decision on the part of the electorate. The situation with its challenges makes it an opportune time to approach long-standing issues.

But beyond the moment last Tuesday when the networks called it for Obama, I haven't had much occasion to celebrate. There's more to life than the Presidential election, and some of my time and treasure recently were put into the No on 2 campaign. I wish I had done more.

We got thumped. I don't know any other way to put it. I'm sure there are good signs in the numbers relative to where we were several years ago, but with the amendment approved, we have to swing 20% of the electorate if we are to reverse this at the polls. I was hopeful that the 60% threshold we approved several years ago would serve as an adequate block to this kind of nonsense, but 62% voted for the amendment.

I'm really kind of stymied about this. Friends and family don't seem to appreciate the degree to which having people vote on whether you're a complete citizen or not is repugnant in the first place, and distressing when they vote that, no, you're not. I know friends in California and Arizona understand.

California's getting all the news. The results there were similarly ugly, since their process only required a 50%+1 approval, they got beat by a smaller margin but with the same result.

I'm unsure how to proceed. The thoughtful part of me says we have to engage the opposition at all levels, from right-wing talk-radio personalities to everyday churchgoers who'd call me "an abomination." I'm very skeptical that yelling at them or protesting their churches is useful, but I remain very curious about true civil disobedience in the form of obstructing the ability of people to secure marriage licenses. I have to learn some history of the Civil Rights movement. Maybe it's time to hunker down and plan strategy rather than discussing tactics.

One things folks don't seem to get is that while there are clearly deep and substantive distinctions between the insults imposed on black people and those on LGBT people, when it comes to marriage—mixed-race or same-sex—the language of those opposed is the same. I recall hearing my sweet old uncle, Richard Gaertner of Chicago, say on seeing a mixed-race couple one day in the early 1970s, "See, Timmy. Isn't that disgusting?"

Luckily I had already decided for reasons I may never understand that it wasn't. I can only hope that others have already decided that my love for Mack isn't disgusting. That it's something to be cherished and celebrated, the same as any other two people's love for each other is.

Labels: 2008, election, gay marriage, no on 2, presidential, same-sex marriage

Did this Saturday night at the LA Times site.



Yeah, I'm an optimist. Sue me.

I know; I know. I'm probably wrong about Georgia and South Carolina. We'll see.

Labels: 2008, election, presidential

I worked Precinct 305 in Volusia County (my precinct in Debary—the local Methodist church) for No on 2 this morning. When I got there (late: about 7:30 a.m. when the polls had opened at 7:00) there was a line around the building, something I've never seen before here (but we only moved here in summer of 2005). The local candidates for mayor and council were at the street, with signs and banners, but no one else was working at the solicitation-limit line for anything, so I positioned myself there and proceeded to greet voters with a cheery "Good morning. Hope you'll vote 'No' on Amendment 2."

It went very well. Of course, the Amendment has its supporters, with recent polls showing it gathering more that 50% support, but not the required 60%, but most folks were pleasant enough back. There was one very tight-lipped woman who got out of an SUV with a "McCain-Palin" sticker on it who gave me a hard look, but I just smiled back at her. And there was an older woman who asked me incredulously how I could encourage anyone to vote "No" on Amendment 2, proceeded to tell me that I probably didn't believe in the Bible, and went off muttering "The Bible says it's an abomination." I really wanted to tell her that she was a good example of God having hardened someone's heart, but just asked her to "please reconsider."

There was quite a bit of good feedback, though, from the young straight couple with their toddler daughter who assured me they were against it, to the woman who told me after voting that she was so glad I was there explaining what the amendment really was to voters and asking them to vote "No."

I look at it like this: First, if I don't ask, why should voters vote the way I want them to. Second, if they're on my side and I ask them, it strengthens their desire to vote the way both of us already think they should. Third, if they're not on my side, it shows them that I'm standing up for my position, not theirs, and in a statistical sense, that's got to work to the advantage of my position. Fourth, my being there when there's not someone from the other side ought to demoralize and sow doubt among the measure's proponents; at least, I hope it did.

I couldn't stay all day: Had to get to work. But I'm glad I took the time. I hadn't done poll work like that in years (1978, I think, for the DEM ticket and the local congressional candidate in TN-7).

Labels: 2008, election, no on 2

Let's get real: There's no way the American people will return to power the candidates of the party that has screwed things up so badly over the last eight years. That would be "fool me three times" territory, and "fool me twice" has hurt too badly.

But you have to vote to make that so.

So if you haven't voted already, get out there and vote, and TURN THE RASCALS OUT! And of course vote NO on Amendment 2 (Florida), Proposition 8 (California), or Proposition 102 (Arizona). Just say no to hatefulness.

As for my GOP friends, just think of it as the tough love your party needs to get itself back in line with the nation.

You've let a cadre of extreme right-wing religious folk take over the party. But instead of trending back to the center, you're giving what might as well now be expressed as the Palin wing (previously the GWB wing) way too much credibility and power within your own ranks. Cede total control to them, and your next ass whooping will be far worse than what you're going to experience today, and today's going to be pretty bad for you.

Since the kind of self-righteousness displayed by Palin's and GWB's fans doesn't exactly lead to reflection and self-correction, I expect the GOP may be in for a generation or more of repeated ass whoopings and electoral disappointments, especially with the increased lack of clout for the rich folks resulting from world-wide financial and economic distress. Couldn't happen to a sweeter crowd (either the self-righteous religious or the rich folk who handed them the keys to power) or be better timed to ensure that the party that actually works for the broader swatch of people (that's the big-D Democratic Party, folks) gets a real chance to run things for long enough to make things happen.

Labels: 2008, democratic, election, no on 102, no on 2, no on 8, republican

Submitted for your perusal, the sample ballot that Mack and I marked up and used in the voting booth yesterday during early voting. The simple rules:

1. "Hold your nose and vote the straight Democratic ticket." (Thanks to Joe Fineman's mom.)
2. Keep judges appointed by Lawton Chiles; dump judges appointed by Jeb! (As with "Jeopardy!", the bang ('!') is part of the name.)
3. Locally, it's probably best to get some fresh blood in. George Coleman's a fine man, but he's had his chance. Given the (lack of) response to the TS Fay flooding, I don't see why we would keep him. Similarly with the City Council Seat 3 election.

In the weeds, we voted against the local option tax for community colleges, because I think that localities shouldn't be able to differentially support post-secondary education unless they want to go all out and charter their own school. Community colleges in Florida are state-chartered schools, and if the state doesn't want to pony up the money to support them, then we'd better quit electing pro-stupidity keep-'em-dumb Republicans to the legislature.

Labels: 2008, early voting, sample ballot, vote

I made my choice to support Senator Obama in this election a little less than a year ago. The blog post about that choice is here.

Most of my thinking then, ignorning what comes across as just plain silly towards the end, still holds. Two key ideas, I believe, remain important today: Building a winning and governing constituency, and bringing to the conversation even those you disagree with.

[A]t least he is building a constituency. The very nature of his candidacy is of being for something, and should he win the Presidency, he will have built a pool of good will and political capital on which to draw....

It was probably inevitable that the perception on building something more than a 50.1% majority would fall to the wayside after the major parties picked their nominees: the inability to influence the media to a sufficient extent to what is something other than either Bush/Clinton squeak-by or McCain man-bites-dog, but also because of having to put together enough electoral votes to win and not having infinite resources to pursue a true fifty-state strategy. But the appeal to our better but not clueless natures is a component of Senator Obama's approach. It's not naivete to argue we actually can do better, both at home and abroad.

Obama brings the quality of actually listening to others, of encouraging the participation of those you thoughtfully disagree with (see Donnie McClurkin), of listening to those you thoughtfully disagree with. I'm sure some of my colleagues on the LGBT-side of the universe will have a difficult time accepting that you have to treat those who don't treat you like a human being like a human being, that you have to listen if you expect to be listened to, but everything in my heart tells me that Obama is right about this.

The other aspect of actually listening to people you disagree with is something that almost seem foreign to the political culture in Washington and in the punditocracy. The claim, bought into by Senator McCain, that having a conversation with foreign leaders we disagree with legitimizes their, admittedly sometimes awful, positions is a bunch of bunk. That the same approach is practiced on the wide-but-small scale to such a degree that all too often we turn those we disagree with into outright enemies in our minds isn't the approach we need to build a better world.

Not just a place at the table, but a table at which all are truly welcome, even those you disagree with.

Early voting is already beginning, otherwise I'd wait until the night before Election Day to make this post. But in the remote event you're still thinking about voting for Senator McCain, please reconsider. I think our collective best interests are served by electing Senator Obama.

Labels: 2008, obama, politics, presidential

(1) Our Dems had a great convention. Mrs. Obama's speech was great. Senator Clinton's speech was great. President Clinton's speech was great. Senator Biden's speech was pretty good. Al Gore's speech was great. Senator Obama's speech was excellent.

My gut feeling had been all along that Senator Obama was comfortable with his role as his own happy hatchet man, and he played it perfectly. It was Reagan vs. Carter with the parties swapped. (I know many of my Dem friends still hate Reagan, but I still believe we all ought to learn from his ability to capture the good will of a goodly-sized majority of the American people behind his agenda, whether we agreed with his agenda.)

Of course, as a gay man, I regret that Senator Obama choose not to speak more forcefully for the rights of LGBT folk, even as he affirmed what, for some, remains a revolutionary concept, that our relationships ought to be respected. But, I don't want him to lose the election because of support for us, either.

(2) Senator McCain's nomination of Governor Palin ought to point out what an arrogant nutcase the Senator is. Or "becomes" if that suits your narrative better. The man doesn't have the right constitution to be President of the United States of America. I'm nearly certain that if you rounded up all the other POWs from the Vietnam era, you could find somewhere between five and fifty who would be better suited to the job of POTUS than McCain. And he has the balls to keep reminding people that he was a POW. He wasn't alone in that situation, and I look forward to some number of former POWs of the North Vietnamese reminding us of McCain's innate lack of good judgment, and, even, character.

(3) If Governor Palin had the judgment and temperament to be President, which the Vice President ought to have, then she would have rejected Senator McCain's offer, telling him, "You've got to be kidding?" That she didn't is face-value evidence of her not being suited for the position. And one doesn't even have to raise the degree to which McCain's offering her the position in hopes of bringing Senator Clinton's supporters to his side is insulting.

(4) Experience?

None of the candidates for executive positions have Federal executive experience, and Governor Palin's experience as governor as Alaska is hardly evidence for her being able to manage the Federal bureaucracy. Being a Senator may expose one to the workings of the Federal government, but it doesn't give one experience in managing that beyond the broad scope of helping pass laws.

(5) As none of the candidates have experience in the Federal executive, I turn to judgment and temperment as a discriminator between the candidates for President. It wouldn't surprise me if you, the reader, did, too. In those dimensions, Senator Obama is, and I use this word with a great deal of caution and reluctance, obviously the better candidate, regardless of one's Party affiliation.

(6) The chicken-sans-head activity of the GOP with a major hurricane bearing down on the Louisiana coast is laughable. There's not one whit of evidence that the GOP has learned any lesson except "try better to get away with being totally clueless about what to do" when it comes to disaster management, than they did when Katrina struck. GWB can go avoid the GOP convention by being at FEMA headquarters for photo ops all he wants. but there's no real reason to believe that they GOP has developed any greater empathy or concern for poor folk in harm's way than they had in the fall of 2005.

(7) There remains no evidence that the candidate who manages the campaign best, who expresses opinions in the most bellicose manner, or who appears to be "toughest" will make a good President. Consider again GWB.

Now I don't want to take away from Obama's managing a superbly run campaign, but neither that nor his ability to bitch slap Senator McCain (which I expect he'll be surprisingly (to the GOP commentariat) good at), or vice-versa, is evidence that he—or Senator McCain, should it turn out that he's better at that game (something I don't expect)—would make a great President, including as Commander in Chief. Again, let's turn back to temperment and judgment.

(8) When the hell will the left and Dems get their own network? MSNBC doesn't count, since GE is unreliable as a source of funding for left-of-center politicking. Back in the day (much of the 19th century into the first half of the 20th), it was common procedure for the party—or the executive of that party—to have a house-organ publication. In this day and age that means cable news network. Where is the sustainable response to Fixed (Fox) News?

Labels: 2008, al, biden, clinton, election, fox, gore, mccain, network, obama, politics, president, senator, vice-president

Mrs. Clinton makes it official. She's staying in with the expectation that someone will kill Obama. From the New York Post, here:

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

I hate to admit it that I thought it, but this is what came to me one day earlier this week as reason for her staying in: Waiting for someone to shoot Obama.

Questions remain: Are the Clinton's are sufficiently evil enough to get someone to do it or sufficiently competent to get away with it?

This might be the foot-in-mouth to nail-in-coffin moment for the Hillary campaign.

Labels: 2008, assassination, barack, clinton, election, hillary, kennedy, obama, presidential, rfk, robert

Election day is less than a year away. Time to settle in on a candidate.

I'm going with Obama.

I love the Clintons. I think the world of the Clintons. I've had enough of the Clintons. The last thing we need is a rerun of the '90s, with 50.01% (or less) elections and the Republican's pretty hate machines spewing vitriol against the new President every day. Mrs. Clinton is a great individual, someone I respect a lot, but her and her husband's style of politics is played. It's not that different from politics as played by the Bushies. And there's the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton angle. Not something I really care to see in the history books of 2083.

I like John Edwards. I supported him for the nomination in 2004. But, on deeper reflection, let's get real: He has no constituency in either the nation at large, among the political class in DC, or among the press. I'm afraid an Edwards presidency would be like Jimmy Carter's presidency: feel good for its moral superiority but almost completely ineffectual in terms of actual accomplishments.

I thought Bill Richardson might work out. The "no Senator has been elected since JFK" argument has something to it (although LBJ was a Senator prior to his serving as Vice President, and RFK, a Senator when he was assassinated, could likely have won the Presidency). But Richardson has provided, to this point, no compelling reason for his being President. He shares Edward's lack of constituency.

Dodd and Biden are both sharp, thoughtful, guys, but not Presidential.

Obama is something different. While he has some of the constituency problems that Edwards and Richardson have, at least he is building a constituency. The very nature of his candidacy is of being for something, and should he win the Presidency, he will have built a pool of good will and political capital on which to draw. (That could happen for Edwards, but the current approaches he's taking don't have that quality. To me at least.)

Obama brings the quality of actually listening to others, of encouraging the participation of those you thoughtfully disagree with (see Donnie McClurkin), of listening to those you thoughtfully disagree with. I'm sure some of my colleagues on the LGBT-side of the universe will have a difficult time accepting that you have to treat those who don't treat you like a human being like a human being, that you have to listen if you expect to be listened to, but everything in my heart tells me that Obama is right about this.

Not just a place at the table, but a table at which all are truly welcome, even those you disagree with.

So, I've made my choice, and I'm going to actively support Obama.

Of course, I'll gladgly support the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States of America. Mrs. Clinton, John Edwards. Dennis Kucinich, should events transpire. But I believe that Obama is the best candidate, the candidate who can take all the shit that the Republicans will throw without having to throw it back, the candidate who can change the process and the tone, making it possible to achieve more of the content of the discussion.

If you fall back on the old, "a black guy can't get elected," then you need to identify in your mind five people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black and call them on it. Let them know your thinking that thinking that way is unacceptable and inappropriate. It's not politically incorrect: It's uncivilized. It's unAmerican. It's brain damaged. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's guaranteeing that you won't consider some good fraction of the alternatives, when the best result is only as good as your best alternative. It's refusing to treat individuals like individuals, which, when it comes down to it, is all that each and every one of us is.

While we have to be confident in the individual for whom we cast our vote, we can't ignore the historical context with any of Richardson (Latino), Mrs. Clinton (XX person), or Obama (black but mixed, non-traditional cultural background). Given all we've been through regarding each of those populations, it seems to me most appropriate that we should address the not just non-white but basically black before non-male or non-Anglo. We all know there will be a woman President some day, a Latino President someday, but we still need convincing that someone who is black can be President.

This is the time to convince ourselves. This is the time to put so many bugaboos of the last 231, 220, 107 years behind us and get around to ignoring race. To make that happen, we have to pay attention to race. Deal with it.

Obama might be today's Abraham, today's Martin, today's John.

Hope is audacious.

Keep hope alive.

Keep hope alive.

Obama, 2008.

Now.

(Photo on Flickr by An Agent.)

Labels: 2008, obama, politics, presidential