Life Goes On

The election is over and the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States cannot arrive soon enough. But still, life goes on. Personally, I'm trying to re-focus on schoolwork. It's a little difficult after the rush of excitement that was election day. Instead, I still find myself constantly refreshing political sites. Hence, I came across this NY Times article on how the South is becoming rather irrelevant to national politics. In so many words, it actually calls southern whites racists. And through both empirical and anecdotal evidence, I wouldn't disagree with it. Really, maybe we should have just let them leave when they wanted to.

Which brings me to my next point: the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which constitutionally banned the newly-won right to same-sex marriage. I haven't blogged about this mostly because my thoughts are confused. Obviously, I'm horrified that such a liberal state like California (come on, marijuana is practially legal there!) would actually write discrimination into its state constitution. Still, I can't help but feel optimistic that change will come. If you look at the breakdown of the electorate, 18-29 year-olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8. The older you go, the more bigoted you get. Time is on our side.

What is Freedom?

From this blog:

FDR named the four freedoms that have become standard-bearers in liberalism: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Right wingers seem to have changed these up for themselves to be freedom of speech (for right wingers), freedom of religion (for misogynist Christians), freedom from thinking, and freedom from challenge. The latter two seem to be the underlying values of all right wing culture war movements. Gay rights and evolutionary theory violate their “right” to be free from having their beliefs challenged so that they have to think about them. Birth control, abortion, and the right to die with dignity make it hard for them to make the “right” choices because they’re sorely tempted to make choices that have the power of reason behind them but are in violation of their religious beliefs. Having options forces you to think about what you want, and that violates their freedom from thinking.

Vacay Is Fun

And sadly, it's coming to an end. This is my last weekend at home and next Tuesday, I'll be back at school. Hmm, what am I gonna call the blog then?! But until then, I know you've all missed my witty, intelligent political commentary, so let's pick up where we left off.

The Democratic National Convention was delightful. Hillary Clinton's speech kicked PUMA ass. But John McSame was not to be denied. Pretty much equating every politician with a vagina to Hillary, John McAncient chose first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) as his VP running mate. Really. The Republicans must think Clinton supporters, especially women, are retarded (But that's unsurprising). You can't just pick a political unknown, have her drop Hillary references like they're going out of style, and expect Democratic women to flock to you, especially when you stand for the complete opposite values and issues that Hillary stood for. The McCain-Palin ticket smacks of desperation and their treatment of Sen. Obama and us, his supporters, embodies the divisiveness, hatred, and fear-mongering that is Karl Rove-style politics.

There is no better example than the Republican National Convention. It seemed that every speaker was trying to out-do the previous one in attacking Obama and the Democrats. The bitter cherry on the hate-filled sundae was Palin's acceptance speech. Now I am a fan of sarcasm and snarkiness, but to praise "service" one night and then ridicule the years Obama spent as a community organizer the next reeked of self-righteous hypocrisy. Yes, Palin can deliver a good speech, but it was as substance-less as you would expect from someone so unqualified to be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

Fortunately, the Daily Show and Colbert Report coverage of the RNC so made up for it. I especially love this clip. Apparently the only small-town value is homophobia.

Ciao!

How Many Houses Do You Own?

I'm gonna have to change the name of the blog again since I'm back in the States :(

And of course, from the moment I got back here, I've been voraciously following the political news. Obama's expected to announce his veep pick tomorrow, and the Democratic National Convention starts on Monday! But the real gem is this:

When asked how many houses he owns, John McCain DIDN'T KNOW!! His exact words were "I'll have my staff get to you."Really? You actually have people to keep track of how many houses you have? Oh God, please let this be the "Kerry-gone-windsurfing" moment of this campaign. All over this country, people are losing their homes to a financial system gone haywire, but for the extremely wealthy, like the McCains, who have profited enormously from the Bush presidency, there is no worry about putting a roof over their head. The actual count is somewhere between 7 and 12 (depending on the definition of "home") 7 houses?! And yet, Obama is the elitist, dincha know? Only in the senile delusions of a sad, old man would that make any sense.

Please people, this country cannot afford a 3rd Bush term, please vote American, vote Democrat.

So we like Obama, get over it

So here goes a political post on, again, why Obama should be president. This is my first attempt at "analyzing" the presidential race, so don't be too hard on me.

Apparently, John McCain and his campaign team aren't exactly thrilled that Obama is so popular in the U.S. or here in Europe. McFailure posted a new YouTube video that pokes fun at the media's (mostly MSNBC and no Fox "News") coverage of Obama, basically saying they're "in the tank" for him. His newest attack ad, blaming Obama for $4+ gas, features audio of chants of 'O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma.' One of McAncient's top aides also attempted to make fun of how the news anchors of NBC, ABC, and CBS are traveling with Obama on his overseas trip this week. He said '''The One' went to Europe and homage must be paid."

Let's get the easy one out of the way first. For a long-ass time, McBush and the press have had a pretty cozy relationship. This only strengthened during his upset victory in the 2000 New Hampshire Republican primary and definitely continued to this campaign. He even called the press his "base." I, for one, have definitely given up on any hope of having a journalistic class that is committed to reporting the truth fairly, because if that were the case, they would have questioned everything the Bush "Administration" has done to ruin our nation over the last 7 1/2 years. I think they've just become so lazy that they find the easiest narrative possible and stick with it, come hell, high water, or facts. So, McSame is a "maverick," and his military service automatically qualifies him to become president, and anyone who disagrees with that is unfairly attacking a "war hero." Suddenly, this new, young, inspirational guy shows up and starts drawing huge crowds, the media starts reporting this, and this means we're all naive, stupid rubes who go ga-ga over pretty words? Come on McCain, if you're jealous, just say it.

For me, yes, Obama represents change, but I know he's not a perfect "messiah." I understand he's a politician, and will make compromises I'm not comfortable with. But despite that, I support him because he supports issues I care about: further equality for LGBTs, universal health care, a more progressive tax code, a more realistic and compassionate foreign policy. Not to mention he's is way smarter than the absolute moron that is our current president. The fact that he's a good orator and can communicate his ideas well is just icing on the cake.

As for Obama's popularity in Europe, since when is it bad thing that the rest of the world actually likes someone who could be our next president? Really. Can someone tell me just how having the rest of the world despise George Bush makes us better off? Like Arianna Huffington says,

Of course, at no point does the McCain campaign or anyone in the media point out what, exactly, is the danger to America if our closest allies actually, you know, don't hate us.

They also fail to mention that along with being our allies, the European countries Obama is visiting are also democracies -- so it's a lot easier for their leaders to make nice with us if their constituents don't view our president as an object of disdain and ridicule.

Being in Spain, one of the inevitable questions is something on the presidential race. In fact, my first day of work my boss said how happy she was that Obama won the primary.

Basically, McCane should stop worrying about Obama's popularity, and maybe, focus on boosting his own. After all, if he does win, wouldn't he want the rest of the world to like him?

You Can't Make Me Straight!

So here goes another rant. From this Slate article. The point of the article is that, as many of us knew, being gay is not a "lifestyle choice." Science has discovered that well it may not be genetic, it is natural, has natural, uncontrollable causes, and thus, makes it an immutable characteristic, worthy of the government's protection against discrimination.

But the author, brilliantly, gets at something else. The science is increasingly pointing at hormonal factors in the mothers womb. Hence the title "The gay culture war is about to turn chemical." Some of the religious right is strongly advancing the idea that if you can chemically alter a fetus so that it won't grow up to be gay, then it should become standard medical procedure. Without delving too much into the hypocrisy of a member of the religious right now turning to science, I hope you see how wrong this is. But you might not.

"If the idea of chemically suppressing homosexuality in the womb horrifies you, I have bad news: You won't be in the room when it happens. Parents control medical decisions, and surveys indicate that the vast majority of them would be upset to learn that their child was gay. Already, millions are screening embryos and fetuses to eliminate those of the "wrong" sex. Do you think they won't screen for the "wrong" sexual orientation, too?"

I can understand this feeling of parents; I'm sure my parents feel it all the time. Not because they don't love me for who I am, but because they know how hard life has been and will continue to be for me. (There's also the whole "I might go to hell thing," but that's a topic for another post.)

Which is why ALL OF US need to work to make our society more acceptable of gayness. The sooner we start changing minds that being gay means a worse life, the less the possibility that chemically-made straightness will become widespread. We have time; research is still trying to find out what actually happens in sheep, so it will be some years before this is even remotely viable in humans.

But it is coming, and we need to be aware of that. And when we see prejudice against anyone, we need to stand up. Change is natural, so societal "values" can and do change. When being gay is no longer "considered disordered," then little gay and lesbian fetuses can grow up to be who and what God destined them to be. That's my prayer.

A Rant against the Rich

I'm writing this mostly because I'm bored, but I really want to know what you all think. The Nation's issue this week is focusing on America's astounding income inequality, and reading a couple of the articles got me thinking. Now as most of you know, I come from a very humble, low-income background, and some of you do too. And many of you are very active in that fount of good works that is PBHA. So I'm sure it pisses you off too that today, the top 0.01% "earn" 976 times more income than the bottom 90%.
In reality, as the Nation points out, we've merely recreated the same financial scenario that preceded the Great Depression. Hopefully we won't get to the depression phase because we still have some of the safeguards the New Deal put in place, but the fact is it could happen. Now, I'm no economist, but imagine what we could do to better the world if we increased taxes on the super-rich. In 2005, people making more than $1 million paid 23% of that in tax; in 1944, they paid 65% in taxes. Income for the bottom 90% has fallen since 1980, while the income of the top 1/100th of 1 percent ballooned from $5.4 million to more than $29 million. Is this fair? I don't think so.
It is painfully obvious we need real tax reform, and not John McCain and the Republican's usual nonsense about "lower taxes for the rich actually help poor." Because something is wrong when $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices means my family and other poorer families spend more of the shrinking incomes just to survive, let alone have the occasional luxury. Something is wrong when hedge-fund managers or CEOs totally screw up, lose millions, if not billions of dollars, and get paid millions more to leave. How seriously f***ed up is this country when ordinary people have to slave away competently and professionally, yet still don't have enough time with their kids, don't have enough money to save, and are only one unexpected diagnosis or car crash or minor natural disaster away from complete ruin, yet some yuppie scum can be the most incompetent ass and make millions.
I, of course, place most of the blame on the Republicans. But they were and still are very complicit Democrats, who all work to gouge regulations, leading to things like sub-prime mortgage crises where people are losing their homes.
But we should also blame ourselves. After all, the farmer in Kansas, or the coal miner in Pennsylvania will not vote for Obama, even though his tax plans are so much more progressive than McCain's. But they'll fall for the Republican's shading of truths and outright lies that assuage their own biases and prejudices, and most of all, fears. They may not cling to God and guns because they're bitter, but there must be some reason they're willing to vote against their own economic interests and reward the greed of Cheney et. al.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day. I hoped you enjoyed. And more importantly, if you want to make a difference, make this nation a more fair and just society, I sincerely hope you'll look at both Obama and McCain and make the judgment for yourself as to who is more on your side, economically.

Oh, the Gays at Harvard

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522310

I was going to take some time (maybe like a week or two) before posting again, but reading this Fifteen Minutes article in The Crimson changed my mind. The subject of gay life at Harvard is particularly close to my heart, mostly because I spent a year and a half on the BGLTSA executive board, last semester as co-chair (go me!). Even though Boston's promise of an actual gay life was one of the deciding factors that convinced me to go to Harvard, during freshman year, I never participated in the BGLTSA or went to any of their events. In fact, I only ran for my publicity chair sophomore year because a good friend asked me to. But, I quickly became a devotee of the club and its mission, a result that has put me at odds with some gay students. I feel really strongly that the fracturing of the gay community into so many smaller clubs is not the best solution for our socialization problems. I believe that the BGLTSA, being the oldest, largest, and most recognized LGBT student organization, with its widely-worded mission, is best equipped to help bring gay students socialize, educate the straight community, and politically advocate for gay rights inside and out of Harvard.

I tend to agree with the article when it says most gay Harvard students who choose not to come out do so because they're so obsessed with their future. After all, gay business leaders, officeholders, and the other elites we hope to become some day are few and far between. We can't all be Tammy Baldwin. But I don't think that's a valid excuse anymore.

Personally, I think a lot of the closet cases who perennially gripe on Bored@Harvard about the BGLTSA types being "too gay" comes from deep-rooted jealousy that we have the balls to come out and they don't. I'm not saying that every gay has to subscribe to the BGLTSA list and come to all the events (though that would be phenomenal), but a little solidarity would be nice. We only make up a tiny part of the population, even at Harvard. We need to come together and stop self-segregating ourselves into the lesbians, the stereotypical white gay boy, etc. I, and so many gay friends, want to have an environment where we can meet the man, woman, or zemale (?) of our dreams. Sometimes, instead of dancing like there's no tomorrow (thanks Paula Abdul!), some of us want to take on the man, storm the Capitol, and run the rainbow up the flagpole. All I know is that staying together and talking out our differences, instead of walking away to start yet another student group, is the key to fulfilling all those dreams.

But we don't stay together. We let our inner divas come out in our open letters on the email lists instead of the dance floor, where they belong. Like the rest of Harvard, the gays suffer from too many chiefs and not enough indians. We all (myself included) want to be the head honcho, instead of reining in our sometimes-unbearable pride and egoism and work hard to get the job done. I get sad when I think of all the really great ideas that BGLTSA members have had that have died because we couldn't get enough people or interest to put them into action. I get angry when the walk-outs turn and criticize the Board for the deficiencies that their apathy and arrogance cause.

Fortunately, there is some hope, because Clayton, Michelle, and the rest of the BGLTSA board this semester are doing a really great job at trying to bring the community together and put on fun events. I hope they succeed and that I can go back to the gay Harvard I always wanted to go to.