Roland Burris IS the junior senator from Illinois, whether or not Harry Reid likes, or accepts, it. The theatrics surrounding Burris's constitutionally-accurate appointment and the Democratic Congress's attempts to keep from seating him have provided a heyday for the 24-hour news cycle, but simultaneously displayed the ugly underbelly of American politics no single savior (sorry, Obama) can overcome.
Rod Blagojevich is, no doubt, a scumball politician, among the worst of his kind; not just because of the pallor of his actions, but the brazenness of them. And yet, his appointment of Burris, as anyone with even a passing understanding of the rule of law in this country understands, was entirely constitutional, legal and, from all indications, above-board. The desire to punish and restrain Blagojevich should never have become Burris's burden. A healthy debate can be made regarding Burris's acceptance of Blagojevich's offer, considering circumstances, but absolutely none can come regarding the appointment once made.
And yet, the Democratic Congress (save for those who still have a few aggies in their possession - I mean you Dianne Feinstein!), under the 'leadership' of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have made several concerted efforts to block Burris's appointment, including refusing him entry with all other Senators this week on the grounds that his appointment paperwork had not been signed by Illinois' Secretary of State (not a constitutional requirement). This means that on the very day Reid and others were sworn in for their latest terms, during which they promised to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, their first act was to go against their oath and ignore the Constitution.
In the days since, Reid, in particular, has behaved even more badly. First, he made a point to publicly say he did not "work for" President-Elect Obama. While accurate, given the separate/equal government branch system, it signaled nothing more than the start of a pissing match regarding just who had the power to chart Washington's course. Next, he apparently tried to broker a deal with Burris that would allow Burris his constitutionally-dictated appointment (as if it were Reid's to allow), as long as Burris agreed to vacate the seat in two years and not run for reelection. Burris wisely declined. Later, Reid followed that up with an idiotic, poorly delivered and even more poorly disguised bit of racist condescension by way of a press conference following a 'private' meeting with Burris, during which he said the following about the U.S. Senate's only African-American member(-to-be): "He presents himself very well. He's very proud of his family, got two Ph.D.s and two law degrees. And he talked about how proud he was of everyone having those degrees." Was Burris expected to exit the meeting room carrying Reid's briefcase and reply to this glowing assessment of his character and accomplishments with, "Why, thank you Massa Reid?"
Let me be clear: Rod Blagojevich is emblematic of a great deal that is wrong with American politics. Greed, corruption, money, power, position, self-interest, hubris and a complete disregard for law should have no place in government; rather, they have become its hallmarks. But, let me be equally clear: Harry Reid is equally emblematic of what is wrong with American politics. The focus of our elected officials should not be on elections, reelections, fundraising, power, leverage or who you like and who you don't. As such, I have a message for Senator Reid and those like him:
Save political theatre for Mark Russell. Get to work. Get your heads out of your collective asses and get over yourselves. You are only career politicians because the people you devalue and disregard allow you to be. The more ridiculous you become, the more we pay attention. And, believe me, after the past eight years, we're paying attention.
We hear lots of talk about "the first act of Congress" and what it should/will be. My suggestion? Read the Constitution. Read it and keep rereading it until you get it through your thick skulls. That should be act one. Act two? Dump Harry Reid and elect Senator Feinstein as Majority Leader. After all, Reid will have plenty of rereading to do.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Garden of Ignoble Ignorance
"When ignorance gets started, it knows no bounds." - Will Rogers
Fifteen days. The countdown began almost immediately after his reelection, of course, but has grown only more insistent in the years, months and days since. In fifteen days, George W. Bush will no longer be President of the United States, leader of the free world or, in any conceivable way, capable of impacting policy or progress from this point forward. Americans, many gleefully report, will finally be free of him. Free of him, perhaps, but free of ourselves?
Debates rage about just how awful the Bush presidency has been, as a nation consumed by list-making argues about just where to squeeze W. Between Harding and Pierce? Below Nixon and Buchanan? While there are certainly worse pastimes (The Real Housewives of just about anywhere, for example), most Americans (myself included) don't know enough about American presidential history to accurately assess such a ranking. (Sad, since immigrants seeking legalization are required to recite American history as part of an oral exam few "natural" citizens could pass.) What qualifies someone or something as "best" or "worst"? There are legitimate standards to be applied, but in the end, don't we all come to such blunt conclusions based on a subtle assessment of our "gut instincts"? We do when unchallenged to do otherwise - the real Bush legacy.
It takes human beings all of two seconds to make a "snap" judgment about a new person or situation (time enough for W. to wink and come off as the born-again Christian with whom most Americans wanted to have a beer); thankfully, human beings possess the capacity to use that "snap" as information with which to move forward, continuing to assess and reassess as more information becomes available. Bush survived into a second term precisely because in his instance, and, at his insistence, additional information was neither forthcoming, nor valued.
Americans did not give Bush a second look - they were either horrified by his mismanglement of the English language and wrote him off, or they were enchanted by his folksy, no-nonsense style and followed him blindly toward the promised land. Only well into his second, disastrous term, when the mendacity in the run up to the Iraq war became impossible to ignore and the economy entered a free-fall affecting Wall & Main street (let's forever retire this phrase, heretofore), did the American people take a second, harder look and wholeheartedly reject everything they saw. His disapproval ratings have made history, further bolstering the raging debate as to whether he is our nation's worst president. He will leave office two weeks hence with the lowest American support of any U.S. president since such polling began. But before we rejoice, happy at his constitutionally-dictated end, we should pause and consider this: How did he, and we, get here?
Bush ushered in an era of ignorance, prideful in its rejection of critical thinking and questioning status quo and hateful in its degradation of experience and higher education, turning these things into "elitism," something somehow more distasteful than violating the international rules of law. For this, he should be roundly criticized, harshly judged and never missed. But, the fault does not lie solely at his cowboy boots. We Americans bought it - hook, line and stinker!
The so-called "elites" ignored Bush, certain he'd become a one-term, Supreme Court-appointed do-nothing, mocking his syntax and simian stylings and thusly playing their elitist parts to perfection. The so-called "real Americans" adored Bush, certain he provided the strong leadership our uncertain times (9/11, global terror, the impending End of Days, natch) required. Whatever side our snap judgments took us to, none of us (or at least most certainly not enough of us) sought more information or gave value to the information available to us. We allowed those snap judgments to thrive and bloom in a garden of ignoble ignorance, planted by Bush and continually watered by us. While American men and women died in combat, lost their jobs and homes, gave away constitutional rights to an overreaching government and allowed their representatives to sanction state torture, we did nothing but count the days until we'd be free of him.
Well, we're almost free of him. Aren't we lucky?
Fifteen days. The countdown began almost immediately after his reelection, of course, but has grown only more insistent in the years, months and days since. In fifteen days, George W. Bush will no longer be President of the United States, leader of the free world or, in any conceivable way, capable of impacting policy or progress from this point forward. Americans, many gleefully report, will finally be free of him. Free of him, perhaps, but free of ourselves?
Debates rage about just how awful the Bush presidency has been, as a nation consumed by list-making argues about just where to squeeze W. Between Harding and Pierce? Below Nixon and Buchanan? While there are certainly worse pastimes (The Real Housewives of just about anywhere, for example), most Americans (myself included) don't know enough about American presidential history to accurately assess such a ranking. (Sad, since immigrants seeking legalization are required to recite American history as part of an oral exam few "natural" citizens could pass.) What qualifies someone or something as "best" or "worst"? There are legitimate standards to be applied, but in the end, don't we all come to such blunt conclusions based on a subtle assessment of our "gut instincts"? We do when unchallenged to do otherwise - the real Bush legacy.
It takes human beings all of two seconds to make a "snap" judgment about a new person or situation (time enough for W. to wink and come off as the born-again Christian with whom most Americans wanted to have a beer); thankfully, human beings possess the capacity to use that "snap" as information with which to move forward, continuing to assess and reassess as more information becomes available. Bush survived into a second term precisely because in his instance, and, at his insistence, additional information was neither forthcoming, nor valued.
Americans did not give Bush a second look - they were either horrified by his mismanglement of the English language and wrote him off, or they were enchanted by his folksy, no-nonsense style and followed him blindly toward the promised land. Only well into his second, disastrous term, when the mendacity in the run up to the Iraq war became impossible to ignore and the economy entered a free-fall affecting Wall & Main street (let's forever retire this phrase, heretofore), did the American people take a second, harder look and wholeheartedly reject everything they saw. His disapproval ratings have made history, further bolstering the raging debate as to whether he is our nation's worst president. He will leave office two weeks hence with the lowest American support of any U.S. president since such polling began. But before we rejoice, happy at his constitutionally-dictated end, we should pause and consider this: How did he, and we, get here?
Bush ushered in an era of ignorance, prideful in its rejection of critical thinking and questioning status quo and hateful in its degradation of experience and higher education, turning these things into "elitism," something somehow more distasteful than violating the international rules of law. For this, he should be roundly criticized, harshly judged and never missed. But, the fault does not lie solely at his cowboy boots. We Americans bought it - hook, line and stinker!
The so-called "elites" ignored Bush, certain he'd become a one-term, Supreme Court-appointed do-nothing, mocking his syntax and simian stylings and thusly playing their elitist parts to perfection. The so-called "real Americans" adored Bush, certain he provided the strong leadership our uncertain times (9/11, global terror, the impending End of Days, natch) required. Whatever side our snap judgments took us to, none of us (or at least most certainly not enough of us) sought more information or gave value to the information available to us. We allowed those snap judgments to thrive and bloom in a garden of ignoble ignorance, planted by Bush and continually watered by us. While American men and women died in combat, lost their jobs and homes, gave away constitutional rights to an overreaching government and allowed their representatives to sanction state torture, we did nothing but count the days until we'd be free of him.
Well, we're almost free of him. Aren't we lucky?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Resurrection of Sarah Palin
"god help you if you are an ugly girl
course too pretty is also your doom
cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
for the prettiest girl in the room
and god help you if you are a phoenix
and you dare to rise up from the ash
a thousand eyes will smolder with jealousy
while you are just flying back"
- "32 Flavors," Ani DiFranco
Sarah Palin wants you to know it's not her fault.
Likely spurred on by the repugnant post-campaign chatter to the contrary, the former GOP Vice Presidential candidate has instinctively, and smartly, started a one-woman reconnaissance mission, declaring that she is not a down-home diva and ignoramus, nor the reason for the McCain-Palin ticket's loss. And while some in the media continue to lap up the drama, perplexed by Palin's decision to do something other than retreat to Alaska with her pit bull tail between her legs, I can't help but smile at her savvy.
Surely, this time out, she lacked the couth and global curiosity required of candidates for national office. That notwithstanding, Palin's potentially fatal blunder came not during her campaign for the Vice Presidency, but before it. When asked to be a Vice Presidential candidate, she should have said 'no.' She was not ready to campaign or govern on a national level and she should have known it. So, frankly, should have those who cunningly and cynically selected her to provide a boost to McCain's campaign - which, let's be fair, her selection did, in fact, provide. They got what anyone with eyes that work should have expected: a dangerous mix of ambitious hubris and a stunningly sheltered naivity that has derailed politicians seemingly far more talented than she (Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, et al).
But, they also got something else, something they couldn't have expected, something that clearly inspired the jealousy and hatred that led to their decision to try to blame and defame her before the campaign was even over: a phoenix resolute in her plan to rise up from the ash.
One week out from the election, McCain staffers cried foul, saying Palin was "going rogue," had "left the reservation," was "campaigning for 2012," and "going off-message." What they knew, and were responding to, was that the man at the top of their ticket, despite his considerable knowledge and experience, was being left in the dust of his own making by someone far less knowledgeable and experienced, because she had a skill he did not, one that is vital for political survival: instinct.
Palin has been a greater presence post-election not simply because she's free from the protections of a campaign that mistrusted her, but also because she knows instinctively that she must be. The impression of Palin that would linger and calcify in a post-election absence, is one she cannot politically afford. She knows she must remain a presence on the national stage, disallowing her future to become inexorably linked to McCain's dreadful, antiquated, losing campaign. And let's be clear: It was McCain's campaign. And the loss was not Palin's fault. Palin can, and should try to, survive it. And, may her God bless her, that's exactly what she's doing. In the political game of "Survivor," she's proving she has the instinct to outwit, outplay and outlast.
Now that she's had a taste of national politics, her international curiosity and involvements can grow. She can learn that which she doesn't know, without losing the aw-shucks-ness that so endeared her to those for whom such curiousity will not grow. She can be a national presence as governor, honing her instincts and tailoring her ambitions to be better paced with her knowledge and experience. Rather than wait for the next door to open unexpectedly, she can wait outside the door of her choosing and walk through it not as a former Vice Presidential candidate and perceived albatross, but as the Governor Palin and soaring phoenix she is savvily showing herself capable of becoming.
She will, of course, continue to be vilified by those still sifting through the Arizona senator's and GOP's ashes. But that, perhaps more than anything else, is all the proof she needs that she has risen.
It will take years to know if she will become the Republicans' savior, but today there should be no doubt: the resurrection of Sarah Palin has begun.
course too pretty is also your doom
cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
for the prettiest girl in the room
and god help you if you are a phoenix
and you dare to rise up from the ash
a thousand eyes will smolder with jealousy
while you are just flying back"
- "32 Flavors," Ani DiFranco
Sarah Palin wants you to know it's not her fault.
Likely spurred on by the repugnant post-campaign chatter to the contrary, the former GOP Vice Presidential candidate has instinctively, and smartly, started a one-woman reconnaissance mission, declaring that she is not a down-home diva and ignoramus, nor the reason for the McCain-Palin ticket's loss. And while some in the media continue to lap up the drama, perplexed by Palin's decision to do something other than retreat to Alaska with her pit bull tail between her legs, I can't help but smile at her savvy.
Surely, this time out, she lacked the couth and global curiosity required of candidates for national office. That notwithstanding, Palin's potentially fatal blunder came not during her campaign for the Vice Presidency, but before it. When asked to be a Vice Presidential candidate, she should have said 'no.' She was not ready to campaign or govern on a national level and she should have known it. So, frankly, should have those who cunningly and cynically selected her to provide a boost to McCain's campaign - which, let's be fair, her selection did, in fact, provide. They got what anyone with eyes that work should have expected: a dangerous mix of ambitious hubris and a stunningly sheltered naivity that has derailed politicians seemingly far more talented than she (Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, et al).
But, they also got something else, something they couldn't have expected, something that clearly inspired the jealousy and hatred that led to their decision to try to blame and defame her before the campaign was even over: a phoenix resolute in her plan to rise up from the ash.
One week out from the election, McCain staffers cried foul, saying Palin was "going rogue," had "left the reservation," was "campaigning for 2012," and "going off-message." What they knew, and were responding to, was that the man at the top of their ticket, despite his considerable knowledge and experience, was being left in the dust of his own making by someone far less knowledgeable and experienced, because she had a skill he did not, one that is vital for political survival: instinct.
Palin has been a greater presence post-election not simply because she's free from the protections of a campaign that mistrusted her, but also because she knows instinctively that she must be. The impression of Palin that would linger and calcify in a post-election absence, is one she cannot politically afford. She knows she must remain a presence on the national stage, disallowing her future to become inexorably linked to McCain's dreadful, antiquated, losing campaign. And let's be clear: It was McCain's campaign. And the loss was not Palin's fault. Palin can, and should try to, survive it. And, may her God bless her, that's exactly what she's doing. In the political game of "Survivor," she's proving she has the instinct to outwit, outplay and outlast.
Now that she's had a taste of national politics, her international curiosity and involvements can grow. She can learn that which she doesn't know, without losing the aw-shucks-ness that so endeared her to those for whom such curiousity will not grow. She can be a national presence as governor, honing her instincts and tailoring her ambitions to be better paced with her knowledge and experience. Rather than wait for the next door to open unexpectedly, she can wait outside the door of her choosing and walk through it not as a former Vice Presidential candidate and perceived albatross, but as the Governor Palin and soaring phoenix she is savvily showing herself capable of becoming.
She will, of course, continue to be vilified by those still sifting through the Arizona senator's and GOP's ashes. But that, perhaps more than anything else, is all the proof she needs that she has risen.
It will take years to know if she will become the Republicans' savior, but today there should be no doubt: the resurrection of Sarah Palin has begun.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Where the Clouds are Far Behind
- Dorothy: Oh will you help me? Can you help me?
- Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.
- Dorothy: I have?
- The Scarecrow: Then why didn't you tell her before?
- Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: Because she wouldn't have believed me. She had to learn it for herself.
Tomorrow is election day. Tomorrow is today. We are again confronted with the fierce urgency of now. And, should we not move past indecision and into action, by electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States, we will be too late - too late to salvage our international credibility as Earth's last best hope, too late to turn the tide of division that threatens to culturally fracture us once and for all and, worst of all, too late to realize we've had the power to go back (or forward) within us all along.
The oughts of the twenty-first century, and the 2008 election cycle it understandably spawned, have provided more than their fair share of reasons for outrage to those paying attention and more than was fair of the sort of hapless leadership that left the led feeling helpless. Beginning with the curse of the butterfly ballot eight years ago, our nation slid into disrepute at an alarming rate, with most of us too numb for too long to even realize the great power that still lay within us. No one can ever-again convincingly argue that votes don't matter. Even those who voted for Bush (twice) would acknowledge that our world is radically different than it would otherwise have been had a few thousand votes in Florida and/or Ohio gone differently. And, yes, even some of them might agree with me that it is radically worse.
Tomorrow provides an opportunity to transform ourselves and our world. And all such transformation requires of us is the courage of the American patriot willing to trade life for liberty, the heart of the American abolitionist willing to lead others from the darkness, and the brains of the American inventor willing to conceive the inconceivable, achieving the seemingly unachievable.
I did not enter, or exit, the Democratic primaries supporting Barack Obama. And, though, my hardcore liberal Democrat ideology would never have allowed me a vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in the general election, whomever he or she turned out to be, I am, for the first time, going to vote for a presidential candidate in whom I believe. Obama has the thoughtfulness, the incisiveness and the steadiness that defines great leadership. He knew something years ago I willingly admit I did not: there is such a thing as being too late, and he is and always was, the perfect leader for these imperfect times.
I will be proud of my country when he's elected president tomorrow (when, not if - I am no longer a doubter). I will be proud of myself for casting a vote in his support. And, more, I will be proud of the campaign he ran, the foresight he displayed and the future he will help us deliver to ourselves.
Obama hasn't told us anything we didn't already know or were apt to disbelieve - about our troubles, our missteps, or our need, or capacity, for change. Despite ignorant claims to the contrary, he hasn't stepped forward as some chosen "one," puffed up by an arrogant belief that only he can lead us through these harrowing times, traversing the difficult journey from today to tomorrow. Rather, he's watched, with great care, as we've taken this journey for ourselves - a journey wherein we've learned that, once we so chose, we didn't need to be helped at all.
Change. Hope. Progress. America. These are not places or possessions, not things for which we need go in search; they are neither outside nor beyond us. They are within us. And they have been, all along.
Tomorrow, we will return home - certainly not a place where there isn't any trouble, but ours nonetheless - and show the world what we've learned.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Dyspepsia
The McCain-Palin campaign simply can't catch a break. Now, even Pepsi has endorsed Obama. Yesterday, they unveiled a new logo that looks an awful lot like Obama's...
I'm guessing the Donner Party (my new name for the GOP) won't be washing down Palin's "whack job," "diva" flesh with Pepsi now. Eh. Maybe their homeboy J.C. can turn some water into wine for them. After all, the Last Supper is a-comin'.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The "So What" Election
I have a theory.
As media outlets desperately try to find an interesting through-line for the final days of the presidential campaign, as pollsters pore over battleground state results searching for any signs of unforeseen movement, as the proverbial fat lady does trills backstage, I've wondered myself if there was anything more to say about this seemingly over election. How many different ways can those of us paying attention to the same developments write about said developments interestingly? All anyone wants to know at this point is, "How will it end?"
Today's NY Post warned that the protracted drama of 2000 could occur again. CNN posted a story about the five scenarios in which the election could end in an electoral college tie: 269-269. And, a psychic with a self-proclaimed on-going relationship with the long-dead Nostradamus, is trying to convince anyone who will listen that McCain will suffer a stroke this weekend, permanently incapacitating him, causing President Bush to suspend the election and rioters to flood the streets. Interesting diversions, each and every ridiculous one, but, as I said, I have a theory of my own - one I think might just give us a clue as to how this election's likely to turn out.
There are many cultural indicators of a nation's mood and temperament at any given moment in history. But, in the modern rock era, are any more or less valuable than the music we embrace? I know. It sounds ridiculous. But, stick with me for a moment. In order to become the #1 single, a song has to be played on average a minimum of 9000 times per week in total across the country - or about as often as an Obama campaign commercial in Ohio. And, in order for a song to be played that often, people have to like hearing it. Over and over again. Which means something about that song has to agree with the public consciousness or give voice to their feelings in the moments they sing along in their cars. Our music, despite its increasing diversity, is something (like "Dancing With the Stars") that bonds us. It says something about who, and where, we are. And, I think, it holds the key to this election's outcome.
At the time of the 2004 presidential election, the #1 song in the country was "My Boo" by Usher and Alicia Keys. Consider these sample lyrics, in view of that year's choice between incumbent President Bush and rival John Kerry:
"There's always that one person
that will always have your heart
You never see it coming cause
you're blinded from the start
Know that you're that one for me,
it's clear for everyone to see
Ooh baby, you will always be my boo...
Even though we use to argue it's alright
but you will always be my boo."
See, despite the arguments, despite the "other man" who entered our lives that election year, the majority of Americans still felt a blind allegiance to the man who'd kept them safe. Bush was their boo. And they opted to keep him.
The #1 song this time around? "So What" by Pink - a post-divorce anthem of self-empowerment that, this week, accomplished what only a handful of songs in the rock era have done: surpassed 10,000 plays within a week's time. Consider these lyrics for this post-Bush election:
"I got a brand new attitude
And i'm gonna wear it tonight
I wanna get in trouble
I wanna start a fight
You weren't there
You never were
You want it all
But thats not fair
I gave you love
I gave my all
You weren't there
You let me fall
So so what?
I'm still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And i don't need you
And guess what
I'm having more fun
And now that we're done
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool."
Americans are divorcing Bush, the "tool." They're not happy about where they've been, but they've survived with their tongues firmly-in-cheek, convinced that they're going to be alright. How? The same way we all do when we leave a bad relationship behind. By not making the same mistake again.
My theory? In this "So What" election, Obama the "rock star" (as McCain's campaign once called him) is gonna put a boot in our boo's ass. And we're all gonna be just fine, singing along at the top of our lungs.
As media outlets desperately try to find an interesting through-line for the final days of the presidential campaign, as pollsters pore over battleground state results searching for any signs of unforeseen movement, as the proverbial fat lady does trills backstage, I've wondered myself if there was anything more to say about this seemingly over election. How many different ways can those of us paying attention to the same developments write about said developments interestingly? All anyone wants to know at this point is, "How will it end?"
Today's NY Post warned that the protracted drama of 2000 could occur again. CNN posted a story about the five scenarios in which the election could end in an electoral college tie: 269-269. And, a psychic with a self-proclaimed on-going relationship with the long-dead Nostradamus, is trying to convince anyone who will listen that McCain will suffer a stroke this weekend, permanently incapacitating him, causing President Bush to suspend the election and rioters to flood the streets. Interesting diversions, each and every ridiculous one, but, as I said, I have a theory of my own - one I think might just give us a clue as to how this election's likely to turn out.
There are many cultural indicators of a nation's mood and temperament at any given moment in history. But, in the modern rock era, are any more or less valuable than the music we embrace? I know. It sounds ridiculous. But, stick with me for a moment. In order to become the #1 single, a song has to be played on average a minimum of 9000 times per week in total across the country - or about as often as an Obama campaign commercial in Ohio. And, in order for a song to be played that often, people have to like hearing it. Over and over again. Which means something about that song has to agree with the public consciousness or give voice to their feelings in the moments they sing along in their cars. Our music, despite its increasing diversity, is something (like "Dancing With the Stars") that bonds us. It says something about who, and where, we are. And, I think, it holds the key to this election's outcome.
At the time of the 2004 presidential election, the #1 song in the country was "My Boo" by Usher and Alicia Keys. Consider these sample lyrics, in view of that year's choice between incumbent President Bush and rival John Kerry:
"There's always that one person
that will always have your heart
You never see it coming cause
you're blinded from the start
Know that you're that one for me,
it's clear for everyone to see
Ooh baby, you will always be my boo...
Even though we use to argue it's alright
but you will always be my boo."
See, despite the arguments, despite the "other man" who entered our lives that election year, the majority of Americans still felt a blind allegiance to the man who'd kept them safe. Bush was their boo. And they opted to keep him.
The #1 song this time around? "So What" by Pink - a post-divorce anthem of self-empowerment that, this week, accomplished what only a handful of songs in the rock era have done: surpassed 10,000 plays within a week's time. Consider these lyrics for this post-Bush election:
"I got a brand new attitude
And i'm gonna wear it tonight
I wanna get in trouble
I wanna start a fight
You weren't there
You never were
You want it all
But thats not fair
I gave you love
I gave my all
You weren't there
You let me fall
So so what?
I'm still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And i don't need you
And guess what
I'm having more fun
And now that we're done
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool."
Americans are divorcing Bush, the "tool." They're not happy about where they've been, but they've survived with their tongues firmly-in-cheek, convinced that they're going to be alright. How? The same way we all do when we leave a bad relationship behind. By not making the same mistake again.
My theory? In this "So What" election, Obama the "rock star" (as McCain's campaign once called him) is gonna put a boot in our boo's ass. And we're all gonna be just fine, singing along at the top of our lungs.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Heaven and Hall
Last week, Pfc. Jeremy Hall opted to discontinue his lawsuit against U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Army Major Freddy Welborn and the Defense Department, choosing instead to simply discontinue his military service next spring. Hall's is a tale that fits neatly, and just as disturbingly, in the midst of the ramped up discussions of pro- and anti-American individuals and ideals. And, not surprisingly, one that hasn't received the attention it deserves.
Hall is an Army Specialist on active duty in Iraq who declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the Thanksgiving Holiday at Combat Operations Base Speicher in 2006. It's what occurred next that captured the attention of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, best described in the lawsuit they helped Hall file: "Immediately after (Hall) made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist. The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response so infuriated the staff sergeant he told plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Over the course of the next several months, Hall endured retaliation and harassment by fellow 'evangelized' soldiers, told he might be blocked from re-enlistment, threatened with potential military charges, and, after successfully setting up a group meeting for fellow atheists and free thinkers, was told by Army Major Welborn, "People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!”
In September 2007, Hall, with the assistance of MRFF, filed a federal suit alleging that his First Amendment right to be "free from state endorsement of religion" had been violated. As first reported by the AP, "the lawsuit cited examples of the military's religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians, including programs for soldiers, presentations by 'anti-Muslim activists' and a 'spiritual handbook' for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East."
Hall's decision to discontinue the suit is entirely informed by his decision to leave the armed forces, and MRFF has vowed to continue Hall's fight for religious freedom. They are to be applauded. Make no mistake: within the armed forces, an apparently unimpeachable 'Pro-American' institution amongst those with the most-famously narrow definitions, something fundamentally anti-American is occurring. America was not founded as a Christian nation. This lie has been propagated by those on the far right for far too long.
The Founders specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) The goal was to ensure that there would be no single, official, national religion - like the one, in England, they fled. The Declaration of Independence was written to clearly state that the power of the government is derived from the governed, a radical idea upon which a new nation was born, making it the first not to claim ruling authority granted specific men by God. And, in the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, it just as clearly states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion."
The truth of our nation's founding does not lie in the lie that Americans sought freedom to build a Christian state; rather, it lies in the bedrock principle that all men, believers and non-believers alike, have the unalienable right to pursue faith as they see fit, without interference of the state. Yet, there does remain a religious test within this country. Some will not vote for Barack Obama for fear that he's a Muslim, since such a faith would most obviously make him Anti-American in their view (as shamefully suggested in a recent "Hardball" interview by congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who subsequently called for a McCarthy-esque "expose" on the 435 members of Congress to root out the anti-Americans). My sense is that a candidate's Muslim faith would give the Founding Fathers less pause than the inescapable fact that in order to become a serious contender for the presidency one needs to declare a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
We've many demons to overcome in our national transition from adolescence to adulthood, many of which have been on full-display this election cycle, but none that threatens the very backbone of our national identity like the one bravely fought against by Pfc. Hall. He demanded, rightly, that the country he fought to protect, fight just as hard to protect the constitution upon which it was founded. Tell me, Ms. Bachmann, what's more Pro-American than that?
Hall is an Army Specialist on active duty in Iraq who declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the Thanksgiving Holiday at Combat Operations Base Speicher in 2006. It's what occurred next that captured the attention of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, best described in the lawsuit they helped Hall file: "Immediately after (Hall) made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist. The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response so infuriated the staff sergeant he told plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Over the course of the next several months, Hall endured retaliation and harassment by fellow 'evangelized' soldiers, told he might be blocked from re-enlistment, threatened with potential military charges, and, after successfully setting up a group meeting for fellow atheists and free thinkers, was told by Army Major Welborn, "People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!”
In September 2007, Hall, with the assistance of MRFF, filed a federal suit alleging that his First Amendment right to be "free from state endorsement of religion" had been violated. As first reported by the AP, "the lawsuit cited examples of the military's religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians, including programs for soldiers, presentations by 'anti-Muslim activists' and a 'spiritual handbook' for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East."
Hall's decision to discontinue the suit is entirely informed by his decision to leave the armed forces, and MRFF has vowed to continue Hall's fight for religious freedom. They are to be applauded. Make no mistake: within the armed forces, an apparently unimpeachable 'Pro-American' institution amongst those with the most-famously narrow definitions, something fundamentally anti-American is occurring. America was not founded as a Christian nation. This lie has been propagated by those on the far right for far too long.
The Founders specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) The goal was to ensure that there would be no single, official, national religion - like the one, in England, they fled. The Declaration of Independence was written to clearly state that the power of the government is derived from the governed, a radical idea upon which a new nation was born, making it the first not to claim ruling authority granted specific men by God. And, in the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, it just as clearly states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion."
The truth of our nation's founding does not lie in the lie that Americans sought freedom to build a Christian state; rather, it lies in the bedrock principle that all men, believers and non-believers alike, have the unalienable right to pursue faith as they see fit, without interference of the state. Yet, there does remain a religious test within this country. Some will not vote for Barack Obama for fear that he's a Muslim, since such a faith would most obviously make him Anti-American in their view (as shamefully suggested in a recent "Hardball" interview by congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who subsequently called for a McCarthy-esque "expose" on the 435 members of Congress to root out the anti-Americans). My sense is that a candidate's Muslim faith would give the Founding Fathers less pause than the inescapable fact that in order to become a serious contender for the presidency one needs to declare a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
We've many demons to overcome in our national transition from adolescence to adulthood, many of which have been on full-display this election cycle, but none that threatens the very backbone of our national identity like the one bravely fought against by Pfc. Hall. He demanded, rightly, that the country he fought to protect, fight just as hard to protect the constitution upon which it was founded. Tell me, Ms. Bachmann, what's more Pro-American than that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
