Ignore the Big Picture at Our Peril

 

As we stagger toward the final day of the quadrennial slugfest for the White House, we continue to see talking heads regaling us with stories of undecided voters.

How anyone who has a pulse and is not in a coma could have gotten to this Halloween day without knowing which of the two candidates has the best chance of delivering the leadership most likely to take the country where he or she thinks it should go is far beyond my ability to understand.  For better or worse, most of the people we encounter on these pages have had their minds made up for what seems like decades.  And therein lies the quagmire.

This election cycle is no place for one-trick ponies.  Recently on Open Salon there have been a barrage of political posts.  Many, if not most, are supportive, in varying degrees, of the re-election of President Barack Obama.  But there are also those that are passionately against the President.  Some don’t like either candidate and call for votes for third parties.  Others seem to support voting for Mitt Romney, but that support seems a bit tepid and comes across as more of a “not-Obama” stance.

It’s the economy, stupid!

This is the resurrected motto of those people who care primarily about the state of the union’s economy.  The President had four years to make it better.  He hasn’t (or so they insist.)  He has to go.  Next!

He’s a war criminal, dammit! 

This is the verbal bomb launched by those who cannot forgive the President for deciding not to prosecute Bush administration officials believed to have violated the boundaries in the treatment of foreign prisoners of war, as well as the use of drones in current engagements in the Middle East.

He’s weak in foreign policy!

This is usually when the hackneyed expression “Apology Tour” comes up. The recent handling or mishandling of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, is usually thrown in to the mix for this argument.

He’s a socialist.  He’s a Wall Street puppet.  He is a Muslim.  He is cold.  He is a big spender.  He is a liar.  He is leading a government takeover of healthcare.

I am not here to defend or refute any of these familiar arguments.  They are either valid or invalid, depending on your point of view.

My point here is that there are a hell of a lot more things for American voters to be equally concerned about when choosing the man who will lead for the next four years.

I sense in America a strong tendency to let one or two special interest issues sway their votes.  There doesn’t appear to be enough thinking about the totality of issues that are affected by the election of a President. 

My friend Amy Abbott recently posted an excellent explanation of how important the single issue of abortion is in her native state of Indiana. Sure, many of the people of Indiana who are pro-life depend upon Medicare and Social Security.  Clearly there are many poor Hoosiers who at one time or another have benefited from food stamps and other forms of aide from the government.  But, without giving much consideration to the futures of those programs, Amy says, those pro-lifers in Indiana will vote for Mitt Romney.

For the far left voters who have written off President Obama as a George W. Bush clone and are supporting Dr. Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson, little has been said by them of the likely outcome of expending their votes in those directions.  Although none of those voters who support third-party candidates would be content with Mitt Romney in the White House, they have chosen to make a statement with their votes, and by doing so, will likely strengthen Romney’s chances to win.  What of the long-term effects of such a statement of principle?  What about the two Supreme Court Justices Mr. Romney will likely appoint?  They are seated for life, now matter who wins the White House in future elections.

Possibly more than ever before, a vote in this election needs to be well-thought out.  The bigger picture needs to come into focus for each of us.  What are ALL the ramifications of your vote?  How sure can you be of the performance of the challenger once in office?  If Barack Obama is a mini-Bush, what do you think a Romney Presidency will look like?  Is your political statement against the two-party system and its efficacy going to send the country in the direction you seek, or will it drive it in the opposite direction?

If you are reading this and you haven’t yet voted; if you still have not decided which candidate will get your vote; and if you really care about all the people in the country and not just a privileged few, please THINK before you cast your vote.

Dear God:

 

You already know I don’t think you exist.  I really wanted to believe.  It would make all the hell we are experiencing on this Earth at least worth it if we knew we would eventually land in a sky-based paradise of eternal bliss.

However, there seems to be a horde of people living today that do believe, so just in case I’m wrong – Lord knows… I mean everybody knows I have been wrong a lot – I’m asking for your help.  If you don’t exist, as I suspect, then no harm done.  If you do, you will forgive me for even doubting your existence, because that is what a Loving God would do, in my humble opinion.

One of your true believers, Indiana’s Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, has made what I consider a ridiculous statement about the crime of rape.  He told a group of voters yesterday he believes if a women should get pregnant as a result of a rape, that is what you intended, so the fetus must be allowed to live.  He said this in order to support his desire to outlaw abortions in the case of rape.

Now, God, you are supposed to be all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful.  With all the people we have crowding this planet, while adding more at warp speeds, what kind of purpose would be served for you to intentionally create a new life by subjecting a woman to a brutal invasion of her person and mind? 

Yes, I’ve heard that you work in mysterious ways, but such an approach makes no earthly sense.  If it does make sense in heaven or wherever it is you reside, then mankind’s visions of the afterlife have been decidedly off the mark.

Because men like Mourdock tend you blame you for all their cockamamie notions that defy science, a lot of your boosters are refusing to consider the possibility that you hate man’s inhumanity to man even more than I do.  These would-be disciples of yours are bullying the American populace, especially the women, into losing their personal rights to determine what is best for their own bodies, and they are doing it all in your name.

Call me crazy, but in my mind, no Loving God would want to subject any woman to rape, let alone to delivering a child as a result of that rape.  No Loving God in my admittedly limited imagination would force that child to be carried to term to face all the hardships that will undoubtedly face him or her as a result of his or her conception.  I have heard of women who were raped, became pregnant, delivered the child and found it impossible to love that child because of the circumstances surrounding the conception. Would you, a Loving God, really intend such a burden for an innocent child?

Religious fanatics who want to use the word of God as a hammer to beat into submission all Americans in the name of Jesus Christ have got to be mistaken.  If you are God, which they say they believe, then why would you need their help in keeping the great unwashed among us in line?  Why isn’t it enough for them to follow their beliefs as they see fit and leave me and others like me to deal with you individually?  You are God, so you can handle the workload, right?

So here’s how you can help me out.  Would you mind sending an archangel or somebody down here to inform your flock that they will have to find another, more honest, way to achieve their political aspirations?  These fire and brimstone poseurs are starting to give you and your son a bad name.

The Current Political Discourse is Messing with My Head

It has been said about me that I may be black, but I’m not “black enough.”  I might be presumed black, because I don’t look white, but I don’t “think black” and I don’t “act black.”
News flash:  I AM black, just as the President of the United States IS black.  The fact that we have equal amounts of white genes was declared irrelevant centuries ago in America, with the One Drop Rule.  That hasn’t changed, especially and profoundly for those of us who cannot pass for white – not that we would want to.
I  had a telling dream last night.  I was back at my college for a reunion.  This college in Wisconsin is in a town that prides itself as being The Birthplace of the Republican Party.  I had a great four years there – better than most, it could be argued.  Many of the white students from staunchly conservative families in that state found themselves in a battle with the Powers That Be in Mississippi to override their sorority’s “race clause,” which was preventing them from inviting me to join them.  At the time, I was the only black girl on campus.
When I returned there in 2010 for our 44th class reunion, it was as if no time had passed at all.  These were my friends, my sisters in the bond of sorority.
In my dream last night, I was treated as if those same “sisters” and friends had never seen me before.  Wherever I went, conversations stopped.  Plans for special activities were kept from me.  No one wanted to share a meal with me.
In real life, nothing even remotely similar to this dream had ever happened to me.  Due to the luck of the draw or an accident of birth, I grew up in an environment  where what we called prejudice was tastefully hidden behind lowered voices and Midwestern decorum. 
Yes, I had my feelings hurt, more than once, by the parents of school friends who wouldn’t go along with their own child’s choice of me as a friend; meaning, I wasn’t welcome in their homes.  But it took me a few years to figure that out, because the truth was always sugar-coated by “polite lies.”
My intense interest in politics here in my later years has caused an apparent sea change in my psyche. Because I believe it is important to keep up with what the opposition is saying and doing, I have been exposed to some of the most explicit racist language I have ever heard in my life.  I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a sizeable group of white Americans who despise Barack Obama just for being alive and not just for his so-called failed policies.
My world is being rocked by this process.  When challenger Mitt Romney told the President of the United States, in effect, to sit down and shut up on national television, I was shocked.  I have never seen a man holding that office be so blatantly disrespected to his face and in front of the world. 
When writers such as Open Salon blogger Chauncey de Vega, in his signature no-nonsense style, makes the case for the racism that is driving a good portion of the opposition, conservative readers attack him for being a race baiter, whatever that is supposed to be.  Is he?  I don’t think he is.  I think he is unusually gifted in his ability to articulate what the rest of us are seeing, hearing, and feeling.
Earlier this week I received a link, from a person I once loved, to a far-right-wing website.  He directed me to a writer who had collected Tweets from black people that in various ways stated if Obama loses the election, they are going to riot.  With the link was one word from the sender: “scary.”
Why did I get that message?  What am I supposed to make of it?  Does this ignorant rhetoric from reckless young people indict the entire black community?  I have no idea.  I’m sure there are people out there who will want to use such a loss as an opportunity to behave like morons.  I am not one of them.  Nor am I sure that there aren’t comparable Tweets out in the ether from white supremacists who will want to tear up some real estate if President Obama wins a second term.
I have prided myself as being a person who exhausts all other reasonable possibilities before I decide a situation is racially driven.  I give everyone the benefit of the doubt – or at least I used to.  Today, I am suspicious of anyone and everyone who supports the election of Mitt Romney, especially those who are doing so only to get rid of Obama. 
That’s not how I usually roll.  I don’t like the feeling, but there it is.  This election cycle has been toxic to me, personally. 

Backlash from Black Americans

 

It used to be a kind of “family” secret.  Before Twitter and Facebook, we were able to keep the intra-community ugliness under wraps, more or less, while we shot each other with poison arrows via the grapevine.

Stacey Dash, star of the 90s hit movie, Clueless, announced her support of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney last Sunday.  The beautiful actress of African American and Mexican descent appears to have been dumbstruck by the negative reaction to her choice by some African Americans on Twitter.

Superstar actor Samuel L. Jackson tweeted:

"Wait, did Stacey Dash Really endorse Romney today?! REALLY????! Is she CRA...........??!"

Non-celebrities weighed in with similar thoughts:

"You're an unemployed black woman endorsing @MittRomney. You're voting against yourself thrice. You poor beautiful idiot," tweeted one critic.

"Wait stacey dash is voting for romney? you get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. two things romney hates," tweeted another.

"Still clueless," quipped another.

You see, there is a large segment of the black community that believes all black people should think, act and believe alike.  Obviously, that belief is held by many African Americans from all social and economic strata.  They don’t care how important you get, how much money you amass or what belief system appeals to you more; if you are black, you support blacks, period.

Stacey Dash has a net worth of $8 million, according to a Forbes list.  She has spent about half of her 46 years living and playing among the Hollywood glitterati.  It is not hard to imagine why fixing the economy would be at the top of her criteria when it comes to choosing the recipient of her presidential vote.

For me, it is hard to imagine that she wouldn’t be equally concerned about social issues.  Stacey wasn’t born with a silver spoon (or foot) in her mouth, hailing as she does from the Bronx.  But, hey, this is America and in America ALL Americans have the right to think and choose whichever way makes them comfortable.  For Stacey, it seems, she’d be more comfortable with Romney for the next four years because she believes he knows how to fix the economy.  It’s not like she didn’t vote for President Obama four years ago.

In a lot of ways, an independent thinker has a rough row to hoe in the black community.  When I decided to marry my WASP, Reagan Republican second husband, I was not oblivious to the snickers, sneers and whispers behind the brown hands of some of my black friends.  I just chose to ignore them, something I learned to do early on in order to survive in a sometimes hostile community.

Just as Kermit the Frog of Muppet fame croons about it “Ain’t Easy Being Green,” it takes a strong set of gonads to go your own way among some African Americans.

Before I started working full-time for a living, I was free to focus my political energies entirely on social justice issues.  After spending a few years working my way up the career and salary ladders, economic issues began to rise on my list of priorities.  Much like everyone else around me, I was eager to retain the things I worked so hard to get. I listened far more carefully to arguments for financial stability and I bristled at the thought of yet another percentage point of tax.

Enter the disparaging term “sell-out.”  The same people who marched and ranted against the Establishment in the name of equal access to opportunity for minorities, now turned on me for getting that access and wanting to keep it.

Yes, I will admit to being suspicious of black conservatives.  I don’t quite understand their priorities.  I wonder if they understand fully their dubious welcome among the conservative base.  Are they delusional?  Or is it that they are hopeful?  Perhaps just selfish.  All such thoughts do cross my mind.

But, doggone it, men and women of all colors and creeds have given their lives and continue to do so in order for Americans to have the right to think for themselves and speak their own personal truths.  Stacey Dash should be able to publicly support anyone she chooses without being attacked. 

Then again, that too is part of what it means to be free.  America, the beautiful.

Euphemisms: who needs them?

 

The other day I got involved in a Facebook exchange about the Presidential campaign in general, which was triggered by a discussion of the October 3, 2012 debate between the President and Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

I asserted that one of the explanations I’ve heard for President Obama’s unimpressive performance that night was that he was frustrated – possibly even angry – by Mitt Romney’s exuberant and repetitive lies.  In fact, I said he was spewing lies.

The person I was “talking” with told me she thought the words “spewing” and “lies” are loaded and designed to “fan the flames” of negative, unproductive rhetoric when used in this way.

It didn’t take much thought on my part to agree that the word “spewing” has definite negative power that evokes an image of someone doing something rather disgusting.  I could have said “telling lies” instead and gotten my point across.  So, I gave her that one.

I remember as a child being taught never to accuse my sister (or anyone else) of “lying.”  I could say she was “fibbing.”  I could say “she is not telling the truth.” I could say she “isn’t telling you the whole story.”  But I could not call her a liar. 

Euphemistically speaking, What the Heck?

So, culturally, there has long been a tendency in America to soften the accusation of misrepresenting the truth with intent to deceive or mislead. Did palliating the accusation change the facts of the matter at hand?  Not one bit. I could have called it roller skating and she still would have been lying.

My Facebook friend went on to explain that calling a high-ranking Mormon such as Romney a liar is as grievous as calling him a drunk.  To which I thought, uh-huh…and?

Mormons do not have a corner on the preference among religions to observe all Ten of the Commandments.  If Barack Obama makes an assertion of something known or believed by him to be untrue with the intent to deceive or mislead the public, he is just as busted in the eyes of God as Romney would be. 

In my own simple set of priorities when it comes to human interaction, the very worse thing a loved one can do is lie to me.  I taught my son as a child that nothing he could do that was wrong could be worse than lying to me about it. 

So, no, I don’t apply the words “lie,” “lies,” “lying,” “lied,” or “liar” lightly at all.

There is no way Mitt Romney could have been mistaken, misinformed or misspeaking when he asserted during that October 3 debate that “he did not plan to cut taxes for the wealthy.”  If he had only said it once, perhaps even I might take into consideration a brief cranial short-circuit and give him the benefit of the doubt.  But he said it more than once – with escalating gusto.

MR. ROMNEY: Let me — let me repeat — let me repeat what I said — (inaudible). I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That's point one. So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that's not my plan.

I don’t care how high in what church Mr. Romney has ascended, that assertion is a lie. 

His supporters want to argue that it is “just a difference in interpretation of numbers” – that Mr. Romney was simply splitting hairs because the $5 trillion figure doesn’t take into account the expected growth in the economy that the cut on tax rates for businesses would ignite. (We are back to trickling down) However, that is NOT what Romney said. 

Let’s say he was being creative with his choice of words.  “My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.”  You and I are supposed to parse that statement  ourselves to reach the conclusion that while he IS planning to cut taxes by $5 trillion, he is also planning to close tax loopholes and tax deductions to balance the cuts. When the projected growth in the economy is taken into account, there will be a net zero change to the deficit.  Oh, yeah, and you are also supposed to know of his plan to increase the defense budget by some $2 trillion, so those loopholes and canceled deductions had better be pretty much wiped out.

For a compelling argument as to why the Romney plan is not even almost possible, read this.

The politicians and pundits who find it necessary to substitute nonsense such as “less than truthful," “somewhat untrue,” “fast and loose with the facts” for the word “lie” are simply playing the political game.  Their euphemisms change nothing and buy nothing except favor with the party prevaricators. 

A lie is a lie.

A Photograph for the Ages: American Black history in the flash of a bulb

If you have never been the parent of an African American child, you may not fully understand the impact of this image of President Barack Obama bowing to allow Jacob Philadelphia, then 5, to touch his hair so Jacob could determine if the President's hair felt like his.

First Lady Michelle Obama was a guest on the newly minted Steve Harvey Show, another afternoon talk show hosted by the comedy star and best-selling author.  During their light-hearted conversation about life with the President, Harvey put his image up on the monitors and asked why it is the only photograph that isn't allowed to be moved, while all the others are rotated routinely by White House staff.

I can answer that without even listening to Mrs. Obama's response. 

It is because this image is worth even more than those proverbial 1000 words.  It is a study in history, sociology, psychology, irony and innocence.

The history is the most obvious.  I know of no other time in the history of America when the only person who was NOT black in a photo taken in the Oval Office was the photographer.

No other man of any known measure of African descent has ever called 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. home. 

Now, the house that was partially built by black slaves who served as skilled carpenters and masons in the stone quarries that supplied the stone for the White House and other government buildings; the house where Thomas Jefferson and his successor James Madison, who held slaves all their lives, didn't stop when they took up residence in Washington.  To have a half-African American now calling the shots in that residence brings the shameful history of slavery in America full circle.

Or does it?

According to a May 2012 article in the New York Times little Jacob and his older brother are the sons of a Carlton Philadelphia of Columbia, MD.  The former U.S. Marine was leaving his tw0-year post on the National Security Council in 2009.  As is customary for departing staffers, Philadelphia requested a family photo with the President. 

Each Philadelphia son was told they could ask the President one question, but they didn't have to tell their parents what their questions would be.

I look at this picture through misty eyes.  Little Jacob is the spitting image of my son Stephen when he was that age.  Even at such a young age -- even with all that assumed innocence -- Jacob seemed to be having trouble believing that someone who had hair just like his closely-cropped curls could actually be the most powerful person in the whole country.   Jacob needed a reality check.  And thus, the bow.

We have not yet come full circle.  Full circle would mean that a child would not be concerned about things such as hair texture and skin color.   He would have had no conversations in his kindergarten class about why his kinky curly hair was somehow less desirable than his classmate’s silky blond locks.  He would not have been "advised" by another child of his differences.  Full circle would mean children would look at skin color and hair texture as simple variations on the plumage of the human species. 

No, we aren't there yet, but we're getting there.  Jacob, now 8, is probably not the only little black child truly believing he has a shot at being the President of the United States or anything else he sets his mind to accomplish.

Why Online Friendships are Real

 

How often have you been tempted to mention one of your online friends to a family member, then thought twice about it for fear of being ridiculed?

Over the three years I have been a frequent blogger, I have had numerous snarky remarks from online readers who insist that the internet is not reality;  that only face-to-face interaction has any validity; that the people with whom we connect online via blogging are only one or two steps away from being imaginary.

And yet, there they are, reading what I write.

Maybe for those who write statements like that, it is true.  For me, it is not and I’m here to tell you why.

The same anonymity that provides an environment which allows mentally unbalanced trolls to lurk in the shadows of a blog site and pounce on just about every writer they read with rude and judgmental zingers, usually ending with an exhortation to “get a life!” – that same sense of privacy gives an outlet for individuals who are suffering all categories of life’s challenges to vent and share and obtain feedback from like-minded people with whom they have established some level of rapport. 

But that’s not reality! say the skeptics and contrarians. 

I say it is.  It is just a different kind of reality and no one can prove to me there is only one kind.  Reality has at its core the matter of perception.  Take a hypochondriac.  Just because there is no medical basis (as far as our still-limited medical sciences are concerned) for a symptom or set of symptoms in a patient, it doesn’t mean that the symptoms are not real to the patient.  Whether they are spawned from physiological or psychological origins, the symptoms are as real to the patient as real can get.

So when a person who has just experienced the death of a child or is muddling through the impending death of a spouse for whom all feelings of love took a hike 15 years ago reaches out to his or her online community for support, the only real difference between that support and what the person could get in, say, group therapy, is the distraction of seeing the faces, bodies, and mannerisms of each other. 

I call those things distractions because they interfere with the receivers ability to concentrate on the messages.  Instead of reading the words offered – without the benefit/disadvantage of nonverbal add-ons like tone of voice, facial expression, possession of physical traits that trigger biases (e.g., some people don’t believe they can get real advice about weight control from an overweight person), – the person needing support gets side-tracked and begins to evaluate the input on the basis of something other than the written word.

I have friends on my blogging spaces about whom I know more than I do my best friend.  Real life friends are sometimes reluctant to share their personal demons for fear I might think less of them.  If the woman I’ve known since we were both in elementary school had problems coping with the death of her mother when my friend was a pre-teen, I don’t know about it.  It is not a discussion she would ever have with anyone.

And the regular readers of my posts know a hell of a lot more about me than my own mother does. 

So, no, I do not concur with the notion that virtual reality in the form of online friendships is bogus.  Do some people embellish the truth?  Probably.  Do some people create bogus personae?  It has been proven to be so.  But it has also been proven to be so with what online detractors call “real acquaintances.” 

Many of the people I interact with on my blogs have reached out at helped online friends offline.  Some have made connections to secure jobs for unemployed and desperate writers or readers.  Some have made extensive trips to meet each other in person.  And currently, a seriously ill writer of extraordinary talent is receiving thousands of dollars in donations to allow him to complete his book before his disease robs him of his gift.

Could someone create an elaborate scam similar to this man’s dilemma in order to dupe unsuspecting softies out of their money?  Of course, but not with the support of scores of stand-up people who have stepped in to vouch for this writer. 

Any person who can be tricked on the internet can likely be tricked in person, too.  It’s not about the venue, it’s about instincts and critical thinking and deductive reasoning.  So, for those who are inclined to ridicule those of us who enjoy the camaraderie of blogging in a community of writers, perhaps a personal inventory of your own instincts, critical thinking skills, and powers of deductive reasoning  is in order.  The rest of us are doing just fine.