The Free Speech Zone

Monday, March 24, 2008

More than numbers in Iraq

I’ve neglected my VITAL blog lately. In fact, I’ll even confess (with total remorse) that I’ve neglected the news, as well. I haven’t paid a damned bit of attention to what’s been happening in the world, nor in the world of politics (which I’m coming to believe are actually two separate things). I hope you’ll forgive me. Or not. Whatever suits your fancy.

Today, I pulled myself out of post-move haze to read through the headlines. And I found myself faced with a sad one. 4000 dead in Iraq, and the newest casualties seen as nothing more than the ones that helped cross that horrible benchmark. Why aren’t more people upset by this? Why aren’t more people upset the way they were in Vietnam? Remember the protests, the anger, the mass appeal to the government to stop an unjust and unpopular war? Yeah, I know it was a different time, politically and socially. But to me it seems like the passive way people disapprove of this war is indicative of the laziness, and the self-absorption, of our society. Ask most people what bothers them about the war and they’ll probably tell you it’s the ever-increasing gas prices. But 4,000 people, 4,000 American citizens, are dead. It’s a sad number; it’s a number that should never have happened.

But do you know how many Iraqis have died since this war began? Any guesses? I did a little googling because I didn’t know myself. All I knew was that the number is much higher than 4,000. There are estimates that pass over a million people. Yeah, I just said a million. We’re so worried about our 4,000 dead (and it is sad, don’t get me wrong) but we’re not getting the bigger picture: we’re in Iraq under misguided pretenses and we’re to blame for the deaths of over a million people. For what? What did they do to us, honestly? Tell me. I want to know.

I’ll leave you with this clip, that you’ve made seen or read. I think it says alot about this war, about our government, about how our passivity and our self-absorption has allowed so much destruction. Here’s our V.P. in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

My words aren’t as good as his

I have nothing to say today. Soon, there will be plenty to say about the politics of sex, but today the only thing I can say is that everyone, regardless of who they support in this election, ought to read Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union"-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/

Go do it now.

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, March 06, 2008

My cynicism is showing

Amy (our esteemed fellow blogger and also VITAL’s managing editor) asked Ted and I to blog yesterday about our thoughts on Tuesday’s primary. I didn’t want to. So I didn’t (those of you who know me are amazed at this small act of defiance!).

Now another day later, and I have some things to say. Amazing again, isn’t it?

Yesterday, I read Ted’s (my fellow political blogger) thoughts on the subject. I don’t have his patience, I think, because, to be honest, I’m pretty pissed that this primary race is going to drag out. I hate the thought of it being decided at the convention. I want to know NOW. And also, I have serious concerns about the party in-fighting, about all the negative attack ads going on so long that McCain won’t have to do anything but sit back and watch them destroy each other. He has the advantage now of being the nominee and getting to attack them both OR attack one specifically (Obama) and letting the double attack completely weaken the candidate. I mean, Hillary’s doing a great job of this- in a recent speech she actually said that she and McCain were the candidates of experience, the candidates who could handle a crisis; Obama’s track record, she said, just relies on one speech back in 2002.

And here’s the other thing that I’m not thrilled with: the media reports of Hillary’s huge win. Was it really a huge win? Has anyone looked at the delegate gains for each of the states she “won”? To me, it feels like a hollow victory much like those of Michigan and Florida- it’s a state to call a victory but it did nothing for her bottom line. And speaking of bottom line, the delegate math now looks iffy. For Hillary, it’s almost impossible for her to win; for Obama, he could still come up short. This is frustrating to me. Unlike Ted, I don’t like the idea of super delegates deciding anything. Some of these supers are barely old enough to vote; they’re not all party big wigs who actually care about politics and the responsibility. I want MY vote to matter, not some unknown entity’s. But, then, I’m selfish.

So, I think what I’m saying, and the reason I didn’t want to blog yesterday, is that I’m actually sick of this whole mess. The excitement is going out of the primary season for me. I’m losing interest fast in stalking CNN and having the up to the minute delegate count. And for someone like me, that’s a sad state to be in. I don’t want politics as usual. I don’t want attack ads and nasty sound bites and baseless accusations. I want change. I want things to be different. I want someone better than Bush to take office and give our country hope again. And yeah, I want Obama to win, but more than that I want the Democratic Party to pull itself out of the whole its dug in the last several years and be something we can be proud to be apart of. And right now...well, it feels like we’re just digging the hole some more.

(3) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Vote!  Speak Out! Stand Up!

I want to take a break today from election saga, from Clinton v. Obama and all that drama that goes with it (and there’s plenty of drama!) What’s particularly on my mind today is social activism. It’s a rare thing to find people who are true social activists; rarer still to find a business or organization who encourages its employees and patrons to be activists. Just think of how many people don’t even bother to vote, let alone DO something to encourage change.

Last night I went to the Miltown Kings show at the Miraramar. It was revue type night, with drag kings and king troupes from around the country, and the night as a whole was a good time. But there were two stand-out moments during the night, from a political perspective. The first was the evening’s “host” Jack-be-nimble encouraging the audience to vote. Jack didn’t campaign for a candidate, a party, or even a cause. Vote for “Dr. Seuss,” Jack said, but just vote. The crowd roared. I loved this moment because the encouragement was for electoral participation, not for partisan politics, and since the LGBT crowd is so affected by decisions made by candidates in office, it’s all the more important that we vote.

The second moment was at the end of the Miltown Kings final act. They did their own rendition of 9-5, sexual harassment and all, and wrapped up with huge poster-boards saying things like, “Unionize,” “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” and “Livable Wages” and “Universal Health Care.” The crowd got to its feet to cheer. These are the things we care about, not just as LGBT’s but as citizens, as the youth and the poor and the middle class. We care. I was so impressed with the enthusiasm of the crowd, with the level of social consciousness in that room. Are LGBT’s more prone to awareness and activism because they’ve so long been treated shabbily? Is poor treatment and/or oppression the thing that’s required to get people to care? It’s a terrible thing if that’s true. We all need to care. We all need to stand up for those things we do care about. We need to vote, to protest, to demand, to fight, to argue, to be passionate about something besides ourselves.

As I was talking to a friend today (the Slightly Crunchy Parent, actually) about social activism, she mentioned something really awesome that happens at Alverno. The college gives all their employees three hours of paid time off on election so they can vote. How great is that for the university to recognize the importance of the right to vote; how awesome that they encourage their employees to do their civic duty. More businesses need to do the same. The right to vote, as Jack-be-nimble pointed out last night, is a right that not everyone shares, and, so, we have the obligation to exercise it.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, February 29, 2008

Queers and running-mates: sadly, not actually the same thing

It’s interesting that late last night I had decided on two particular blog topics for the days to come, only to find both of them blogged about elsewhere this morning. I wonder if I’m sending out psychic blog messages or something. (Matt Wild- have I made you insane yet by mentioning blogs?!?).

So anyway, topic one: the Democratic candidates and the LGBT community. I was fairly incensed a few weeks ago by Clinton’s proof of commitment to the LGBT’s (one of her “proofs” was that she hires gay people- um, isn’t this like the argument “I’m not racist. I have black friends”?). Anyway, last night, I was thinking that I hadn’t heard much lately on the gay/lesbian front about the candidates, and I wondered if they’ve been reaching so much into the mainstream sect of the party that they’re ignoring this group. I’d planned to do a little research and give you the 411. Thank god, Alternet made this so easy! Evidently, Obama is actively campaigning directly to the LGBT community, at least in Texas and Ohio. See the article here: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/78162/ Obama’s approach, evidently, is ad buys in gay/lesbian publications, along with an “open letter” to the community; Clinton, on the other hand, has been doing interviews with LGBT (how many times can I write that?!) media. I find it interesting how differently they’re campaigning to this audience, and, for once, I think Clinton is right on. The ads are great, and so is his letter, but I think Obama’s really missing out by not doing more interviews (and interacting more directly) with the LGBT media. Getting LGBT endorsement is pretty important these days. I’ll be interested to see what happens in the days to come.

My other planned topic was a prediction of Obama’s running-mate. It’s early yet, considering he hasn’t even gotten the nomination, but I like to think ahead, and I’d really wanted to be the one in the know who could tell you all later that you heard it here first. Of course, I’m late to the damned party. This blog over on Alternet is a pretty decent take on what Obama needs in a running-mate: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/78222/. I have to be honest, though; these aren’t at all my picks. I think he’s right that Obama needs to pick someone who isn’t just there to make up for weaknesses; at the same time, I think it’s important that Obama pick someone who can help him win, not just be in total agreement with him. That said, I absolutely agree that Clinton is a terrible pick, and I hope to god Obama doesn’t go there. There’s too much discord between the two, and I’d always be picturing her plotting some kind of assassination attempt so she could move up. I do think, though, that Bowers left off a couple of viable possibilities, namely John Edwards and Bill Richardson. I understand Bowers position about Obama needing an anti-war running-mate, but I think the issue with Hillary isn’t so much that she supported the war initially, but that she failed to acknowledge it as a mistake for so long. If she apologized like Edwards and acknowledged it as a fuck-up, I really don’t think Obama would be able to continue to attack her stand on Iraq. Looked at that way, both Edwards and Richardson have alot to offer. Edwards is the anti-corporation guy, so he’d be great with Washington reform and health care; Richardson brings an outsider perspective as well, plus he has the added benefit of being Hispanic, and while the veep shouldn’t be picked just for his ability to win a demographic, it’s certainly a nice perk.

I personally think that picking someone too unknown for the position would be a huge risk. Obama is a relative unknown, and while that’s great in a way, it also makes the November election hard. People who don’t watch speeches, who don’t read every blog known to man, who don’t religiously watch the news, aren’t going to know who the hell Obama and unknown running-mate are, while McCain has his name totally out there. Of course, I’d love to see Feingold there, but I also think he’s doing far more good in the Senate and with the Progressive Patriots Fund than he would as the replacement for Dick Cheney.

That’s my 10 cents on the subject (what? You don’t think I’m worth a damned dime? Fucking cheapskates). What are your thoughts? Believe it or not, I actually want to hear them.

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink