A Mercy December 5, 2008

A quick note: Toni Morrison’s new book, A Mercy, is a bullet where her other books are adrift… though it’s sharper and leaner than Paradise or Song of Solomon, it’s still Morrison at the top of her game. It still gives you chills, it still weaves together all of its threads at the end, and it opens up those vast and deep caverns of womens’ experience and human bondage that take immense courage to peer into. That hurt is so vast, it threatens to overwhelm us, but Morrison has the courage to bear those stories and bring them into permanent record with the written word. But I digress…

I had the opportunity to see Morrison speak last night at 6th and I Synagogue in DC. She is gracious and sharp; although she’s a Nobel laureate, she is humbled by the grand reception her new novel has received. Morrison read selections from A Mercy for about 20 minutes, and went on to answer questions from the audience. She spoke about the way she felt the morning after Obama’s election: the curious absence she wasn’t expecting, a feeling that a steel band she didn’t know had been wrapped around her forehead was lifted. Asked for her response to a literary critic who says she writes too much about slavery, Morrison simply whipped back: “Who?”

She elaborated on why the door can never be closed on the history of genocide and human bondage, but her one-word response was enough to blow that criticism out of the water. Besides, she’s only written on slavery twice. I can’t blame those critics for feeling overwhelmed by Beloved, though– it haunts me still.

Maybe that’s why people brought copies of every single book she’s written, even the nonfiction pieces in paperback or library sale copies. Morrison was patient and kind, and she signed everyone’s books, uncomplaining, for about 90 minutes after the event. I brought two, and was overwhelmed when she signed my copies of Love and A Mercy. We are so lucky to have Morrison among us, writing and teaching, and being kind enough to meet and speak to her fans. Oh, and everyone should run out and buy this new book… because it’s great.

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.

Let’s talk about guns for a minute. June 26, 2008

The Supreme Court’s first-ever ruling on the Second Amendment– a sharp 5-4 split striking down the Washington, D.C. ban on handguns that’s been in effect since I was a child– touched off a lively discourse between myself and my significant other about politics, guns, and the law. It also revives the “bitter-guns-religion” comment the RNC seeks to use against Obama every day between now and the general election.

So let’s talk about it for a minute. Let’s talk about why the handgun ban was (and remains) entirely appropriate, why Bittergate is founded on a comment that, linguistically, makes a whole lot of sense, and why the positions I hold don’t run counter to my belief that law-abiding deer-hunting, target-practicing, crime-avoiding citizens in all 50 states have a protected right to own firearms. (AND I support the Brady ban.)

First of all, the argument for gun ownership that’s predicated on the immediate availability of a citizens’ militia is a joke. It would take a catastrophe we can’t even imagine for United States citizens to get off their sofas, load up their guns, organize, and take on an enemy. Prime example: on 9/11, I didn’t see all the gun owners protecting the Pentagon or encircling the gates to airports cracking down on passengers and sniping potential terrorists. The U.S. military & government handled that. Besides, wars aren’t fought by troop formations in militias anymore. The closest thing I can foresee to minutemen enforcing the law of the land is a solo vigilante enforcing his own brand of justice across the land. We call those “mass shootings.” The closest thing I can see to Americans protecting their way of life from a meddling or misguided government? Waco. So don’t tell me that gun ownership is some form of national security. It isn’t. That’s why we have a military and defense budget that are beyond compare.

Next up: The handgun debate. I grew up an hour outside of Washington, D.C. and I remember (even after the handgun ban was in effect) being keenly aware that Southeast was a good place to go if you wanted to get clipped by a stray bullet. Now, I know what you’re going to say: Handguns legally purchased by law-abiding citizens aren’t the issue in gun crime. And you’re right. They’re probably not. But the D.C. handgun ban is an important tool for law enforcement agencies. If they spot pistols on petty criminals who can’t be charged with much else, there is a law on the books that allows prosecution of those individuals, instead of letting them drive up the rate of gun violence. Banning handguns in the District gives law enforcement reason to believe that anyone who would willfully break that ban and carry a gun is probably not going to use it for shooting Pepsi cans.

The handgun ban doesn’t necessarily stop handguns from getting into the hands of would-be criminals. But it does create a scarcity of handgun dealers within the District. If handguns are outlawed, you can bet fewer stores will stock the clips and magazines for 9- and 8mm guns or .357s. The ban does make it just a little bit harder to commit a gun crime… and when one is committed, it makes the punishment a little harsher.

So some do-good lawyers are up in arms about this (no pun intended, but I’m keeping it). It’s a total violation of civil rights. Right? Is it really, or is it a wedge issue that the right wing can dramatize to keep their coffers full of donations during a campaign cycle? If the self-professed small-government types were that concerned about civil rights, they’d take up the issue of tweezers and shampoo in a carry-on bag long before they’d take up handguns in D.C., don’t you think? Oh but wait. That’s no longer a civil rights issue, it’s a national security issue?

Washington D.C. is unique from all the other states in the union. It’s not a state, and it’s not a city belonging to the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia. It’s an independent federal district governed by Congress. D.C. is the international representative of the United States across the world, home to our embassies, our agencies, and our entire judicial, representative, and executive system. There are all kinds of bizarre laws that apply to the District and its residents– diplomatic immunity, an absolutely zero-tolerance DWI policy (if you get pulled over after one beer, it’s off to the chokey), can’t build higher than the top of the Capitol. You can’t even carry a pocketknife there. Why? Because it’s the nation’s capitol. And it’s different.

If banning handguns in the District of Columbia is part of a program to dramatically reduce overall crime (which it did) and make D.C. that much closer to a model city, I don’t see the problem. Owners of rifles, shotguns, and anything else that could be construed as a recreational firearm are welcome to own them in D.C. But handguns don’t make law-abiding citizens that much safer– in fact, in situations where the victim pulls a handgun on their attacker, they’re more likely to have the weapon turned against them than they are to debilitate the attacker. If you’re really that worried about it, get some damn mace!

Now, onto Bittergate. Let’s parse this sentence, and I’ll explain to you why Barry would have defended it if the average American newsviewer didn’t have the attention span of a hamster. About the former Southern Democrats, the Blue-Collar Blue Staters who have gone red, Barack Obama said the following:

“So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government” … In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it.”

And the kicker:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Please tell me what is wrong with that statement? Because I understood it the first time I read the transcript. And this is not me parsing words, this is just me paraphrasing what I hear in that statement:

“People in working-class areas feel frustrated with their government because, 25 years after manufacturing jobs have packed up and left town, it feels like their government’s economic policy has forgotten them. They don’t feel like trusting government solutions anymore because they have been burned. This economic mistrust has translated into a broader general mistrust of the United States government. Since the broader economic worry isn’t something that’s easily divided or articulated, these voters focus on easy explanations and arguments about illegal immigrants stealing jobs, or whether the government is interfering with their right to own guns, because they are easier positions to debate and defend. Since the government isn’t listening to them about the economy, they speak up about more divisive, hot-button issues in order to express their frustration.”

Now are you seriously going to tell me that isn’t totally true?

In conclusion. President Obama isn’t going to take away your .386 deer rifle, and he’s not making fun of your religion. He might try and put some windmills on your Appalachian mountains in place of the mountaintop coal removal that’s decimating the landscape, but he’s not going to destroy your way of life. You don’t need a pistol in the District of Columbia and you don’t need a damn M-16A2 to shoot opossums.

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.