This is for my bitches November 6, 2008

This is for everyone who said we couldn’t rock the youth vote…

This is a referendum on the poor choices that 51% of the electorate made in 2004…

It’s a real mandate for change, instead of a Supreme Court-delivered sham victory grotesquely twisted to allow a group of diabolical men to wreak havoc on the United States under the guise of a “mandate from the voters”…

It’s my generation standing up and saying, We’ve done this your way for 40 years. It’s not working. It’s our turn.

This is about realizing that it’s Christian to stop worldwide hunger, pollution, rape, and needless death at least as much as it is to blindly prohibit abortion.

This is me saying I didn’t just vote Obama for selfish reasons — I did it for my mom, and for my grandmother, because I believe he is the right choice for young and for old, for Americans.

It’s my answer to four years of asking, America, do we misunderstand each other so fatally?

This is me having my Michelle Obama “proud” moment. Not just feeling patriotic about living in a country where civil liberties most people only dream of are guaranteed; the pride that must have been felt by greater generations when they realized their achievements were more than the sum of their parts.

This is about the right to belief being contingent upon upholding the Constitution that protects it.

This is the first day of the end of Republican anti-intellectualism. This is the rejection of Karl Rove’s tactics. This is the moment when attitudes of individuals around the nation will start to shift as they learn that the quality of a person’s mind is more nuanced than the color of his skin.

This is not going to fix everything, but it’s a start.

Candidate pop quiz: religious wackos March 20, 2008

So, my man Obama’s been getting that “vetted and tested” media trial the Clinton camp has long said he deserves. I’m all for it. Hold him up to some scrutiny, and he delivers one of the most cogent and mature discussions on American race relations– and how to get past them– that our citizenry has ever had from a politician.

All because his Reverend, Jeremiah Wright, made some statements from the pulpit– using arguments and rhetorical techniques that are unique to the Black church– that were easy to divide into some 24-hour news network soundbites. You know, kind of how Obama’s Philadelphia speech on “A More Perfect Union” was boiled down to “he refuses to renounce Wright” word-parsing by those seeking to paint Obama as unelectable.

Whether Americans will be intellectual enough to swim for longer than thirty seconds into the more fundamental questions at hand regarding race relations, religious affiliations, and personal responsibilities to God, family, and church that the Obama-Wright debacle raises remains to be seen. Surely, there are those who will now categorically refuse Obama based on his church’s “extremist” approach to promoting pride within the Black community. On the other end of the spectrum are those who will seriously consider how to confront race– and the evolution of socioeconomics it has affected– in modern society.

Yet none of those same media outlets, supporters, or detractors seem to be asking McCain to denounce– or reject, refute, or otherwise semantically define his disagreements with– a fundamentalist megachurch preacher who calls for the destruction of Islam. I wonder why? Is it because we all respect and admire principled, maverick John McCain and are reluctant to see him affiliated with someone similar to those Falwells and Robertsons he decried as divisive during his last run for the Presidency? Or is it because we know the typical Faux News viewer just might not find those statements too unappealing? Because John McCain quietly needs to garner the votes of those bread-and-butter Bush Republicans who think Iraq is responsible for 9/11 and want to see Iran bombed into a parking lot?

I’m just saying. If we’re going to run Barack Obama through the ringer because of his preacher’s statements, we should do the same for each candidate. After all, if politicians have to explain away– or refute/renounce/reject– the statements of every single unsolicited endorser they receive, John McCain has some explaining to do. Starting with his tolerance of preachers like Parsley.

Changing the establishment from within January 29, 2008

I’m receiving messages asking why I’ve chosen to support Barack Obama’s presidential campaign– both general questions, and specifically why, when Ron Paul is running. My political philosophy is, essentially, libertarian; I believe government involvement in the private lives of citizens should be limited, that in the U.S., states are more apt to govern their citizens appropriately than the behemoth of national government is, and that people and trade should be essentially unregulated. Theoretically.

Problem is, this isn’t the way the world, or our government, works. The national government is not going to stop taking at least 50% of the average American’s income away from them anytime soon. Hence, I support a candidate who I believe will at least funnel those dollars into causes I can support: environmental initiatives to lower carbon emissions, financial aid for college students, international charitable aid. The government is not going to stay out of my body or my bedroom; I need a president who will support my right to choose abortion, advance the causes of gays and lesbians, develop a plan (however flawed) to provide some kind of healthcare to people like… me in an economy where pharmaceutical companies are top blue-chip earners.

Then there is the issue, as much as I hate to admit it, of electability. Ron Paul is not going to win a general election. Kucinich isn’t going to, either (especially now that he’s out of the race). Those figures are important– the candidates on the fringe, though they lack the massive financial resources that are unfortunately needed to win a national election, bring new issues to the forefront of discussion. People like Paul and Kucinich are often chosen as Cabinet members, advisors, or experts on subjects about which they are passionate. For me, Obama displays the blend of charisma, general appeal, and sound policy positions needed to win an election. Fortunately, I can support him without secretly wishing I were supporting someone else– he has squarely held my vote since early 2007.

Toni Morrison said something unique in her endorsement of Obama. She described his star quality– the trait that sets him apart from Clinton and Edwards– as wisdom. That statement articulated for me the singular trait of Obama’s inspirational quality. Morrison wrote the following:

“In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.”

Surely the other candidates exhibit education. Clinton has an excellent Democratic pedigree and there is something understandable in the argument that she “deserves” the nomination. If the nomination were a promotion within a private company where time of service were a factor, she’d be the one who “deserved” the promotion. But the 2008 election is not about the ascension of a party insider, and it’s not about maintaining the status quo. It’s about a seminal moment in our history as a nation, one in which I truly believe a radical shift in the perspective of our governance is required in order to maintain the United States’ position as a world leader.

Unipolarity cannot last forever; it is being challenged every day, by China, India, and the radical Islamic movement. The US’ image abroad– not just our image, but our substance as a nation, our character– has been badly damaged by our government’s actions during the Bush administration. I honestly believe the only catalyst for radical change is the radically different candidate. Obama has the internationally experienced perspective, leadership skills, and humility needed to see our international relations in a new light. The very green-ness that so many question is part of his appeal; he isn’t promising to enforce the same party policies of the past 20 years that essentially don’t apply in this new world. And that is precisely why he’s set apart from the other candidates.

Others are beginning to come around. Many of my favorite party figures– Leahy, for instance, and Kansas’ governor– are endorsing Obama. He has shown me he should win, and he has shown them he is capable of winning a general election. I hope everyone reading this will head to www.barackobama.com and check out his positions… DC, Maryland, and Virginia’s primaries are Feb. 12.

Yeah, what is that? November 7, 2007

Allow me to quote from a film with which I am familiar, given its place in the modern cinematic canon:

Champ: What’s it like, Ron?
Ron: The intimate times? Outta sight, my man.
Brian: No, the other thing. Love.
Brick: Yeah, what is that?

In Anchorman, of course, the group begins singing “Afternoon Delight.” I stop at the question posed. What is love? seems like an overwrought blog topic, but it’s something I’ve pondered lately. Love, relationships, and how the two go together. What is love, and why does it matter, and what does it do?

The story of how my parents met is one I remember well, despite that they are now divorced and can’t stand one another. My mom and I lived in an apartment complex, and there was this obnoxiously loud, souped-up VW Beetle in the neighborhood. My mother cursed it constantly. When a radiologist from Bethesda Naval asked her on a date, my mom was shocked to discover that her date was the owner of that vented, chrome-exhausted monstrosity. In fact, she would ride in that vehicle to her first date with the man who would marry her, eventually adopt me, and with whom she would raise my little brother, Michael. They loved romantically and they married.

But, as I said, their marriage ended fifteen years later. And it hasn’t exactly been my model for healthy relationships. That model has been my grandparents’ marriage, one that endured my Poppop’s military career throughout Scandinavia, Canada, and the U.S. Through hardships to include their inability to conceive (leading to the adoption of my mother and uncles), my Poppop’s medical residencies, and many others that have surely gone unspoken, my grandparents maintained a relationship that has forever made me believe in the existence of true love and true partnership. The two of them were in love, passionately and romantically and emotionally in love, until the day my grandfather died, and I suspect they will be always.

Until I spent last Sunday with my grandmother on a long car ride, it hadn’t occurred to me to ask how they’d met. I’m sure I’ve heard the tale before, but I asked for a refresher anyway. Because I missed my Poppop, and because I’m still curious about love. My Mommom started the following story:

“When I graduated college, I was going on to teach science. But, I felt that I should have one year of practical lab experience before lecturing students.” At this point, it becomes apparent that my grandmother is a genius. Moving on…

“This was when Poppop was a first-year resident, and we would see each other around the lab. There was this handsome, handsome dark-skinned black man, African with beautiful skin, at the bench. He and I would talk during labs, and one day he said, ‘can I ask you a question?’ I said, ‘well sure.’ He asked, ‘are you a Catholic,’ and I said ‘yes, I am.’ And then your Poppop asked me on a date, and I said no. He would always ask sort of at the last minute, on a Friday for a date on Saturday, and I already had a date. He almost didn’t ask the third time!”

So, he sent his friend out to scout? A wingman to see whether you were Catholic?! “Well yes, and it was a nice thing, because that was important to both of us!” And how long did they date? “We’d dated for three years when we were married.”

Following the genius comment, three things about this story immediately strike me: My grandparents were concerned, first and foremost, with their own development as persons and professionals, not snagging a mate. My grandmother really was following that advice she’s given me to not date exclusively. And their relationship, evidently, was based on their Catholic faith even from the very beginning.

Finally, we arrive at my pondering point: Love, God, and how the two might fit together. The quintessential explanation of God to children is that “God is love.” The definition of a Catholic marriage is two people, cleaved onto one another and entering into a covenant under God and the guidance of Jesus Christ. How do the three connect– love, God, and marriage? Is is that two people of faith who fall in love make a good match for marriage? Or is it that love is created out of a marriage of two people of faith? The difference is enormous. The first is entering into a partnership with someone you love. The other is building love with a partner and God, or through God, maybe because of God.

So what is that? I feel sure I know love, but now I’m wondering whether there’s something else. And whether that love I’ve felt is the same thing that held my grandparents together for so many years. There was certainly romance– I’ll never forget an evening in the car with my grandfather, who called my grandmother with the Rat Pack-esque one-liner “Hello, Gorgeous” and held her enrapt on the other end of the line. That’s part of love, too. It’s got to be. I could hear her swooning over her husband of 25 years.

It has been said that love has the power to transform. I wonder if it is what transforms ordinary people into successful married couples. It’s worth pondering in an age when half of all marriages end in divorce. It’s worth questioning what our priorities are even when we date, if a marriage is eventually what we’re looking for. I wonder if we’re currently going about this dating thing all wrong. And I wonder why it seems like a different era altogether when people might say to one other, “This is who I am, these are my beliefs, and eventually I’d like to meet the person I’ll marry.”

Well, when I figure this all out, I’ll let you know. Somebody let me know I’m not alone in considering the subject.