Obama Must Sign Off

Text version of the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27740220/?GT1=43001


This just boggles my mind. I had no idea the president didn't have at least an inter-office e-mail address. Perhaps that makes me naive, but it honestly never occured to me that our country's leader will be unconnected to this degree in 2009. It's not hard to see why President Clinton wasn't sporting a hotmail account, since he was in office during the infancy and childhood of the Internet. But to look back on the past eight years and realize President Bush didn't even have a computer in the Oval Office is really unnerving. In some ways, I guess it makes sense considering the security risks, but there's still a part of me that shouts, "You have got to be kidding -- the leader of the free world isn't allowed to have e-mail!?" That's like telling Woodrow Wilson he couldn't use the telephone during WWI or that JFK wasn't allowed to address the public on television.

There's just something incredibly archaic about our country's leader not being able to use what most Americans consider basic tools for the efficient and successful operation of any office. Obama will effectively be confined to the same forms of communication that have been around for 20 presidents or more. And what's frightening is that the President -- who has the full weight of the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon, and everyone else you can think of -- can't be guaranteed secure electronic communication. What's that say for the rest of us?

America is dependent on electronic communication for everything from trading stocks to ordering lunch. I'm not suggesting Obama and Gen. Patreaus discuss exit strageties from Iraq in text messages, and I certainly don't want to discourage government transparency, but I really don't think it's enough to say this far ino the electronic era that he doesn't need electronic communication simply because everyone around him has it. Every piece of correspondence or information that isn't a hard copy should not have to be relayed through third party on its way to the Commander in Chief.

Also, the President is afforded a smigen of privacy: The White House residence area is off-limits to staff photographers and record keepers, personal letters are permitted, and almost all presidents kept a journal during their terms. I don't think it's asking too much to find a way for Obama to be able to send an electronic note to his wife asking what time she'll be done at the office.

But I also recognize that for every one technical, logistical, and privacy problem the information age poses for the general public, the government confronts 100, and there's certainly no one more deserving of protection from hackers than the president. But seriously, no e-mail? Even the Pope has it!

It's just unbelieveable that the country that brought us Google, Microsoft, YouTube, MySpace, online banking, eBay, and IMDB can't find a way to let the president communicate the format he and everyone else in this country has come to depend on. Is it really any wonder then that the country is in the shape it's in?

Right Versus Popular, Part II

This is the second in a two-part argument in support of same-sex marriage.

How is it that in the face of such progress there can remain so much bigotry?

The same day that we elected our first non-white president, signaling another milestone in the fight for racial equality that is as old as the country itself, we send a loud and clear message to another group of disenfranchised citizens that they do not deserve the same rights that the rest of the country’s citizen’s enjoy with abandon.

And yes, marriage is a right, not a privilege. A privilege is something enjoyed by a few above and beyond the rights of the majority, and it's also usually something that can be taken away. When was the last time a heterosexual person lost their right to marry? Anything that the vast majority of people are allowed to do without question or censure is a right. It doesn’t have to be specifically spelled out in the constitution to be considered something every citizen is entitled to.

A marriage is a union, a joining together of two parties. And it’s supposed to be something sacred, something held to the highest standard, and something that is supposedly so integral to our country’s welfare that if compromised by being extended to same-sex couples, it will rent the fabric of our very nation in two. I know this has been said ad nauseum, but it really does bear repeating: We allow just about ANY male and female couple get married, whether they are from two different religions, states, occupations, generations, races, social class, etc. A man and woman who’ve known each other for five minutes can get married. Two teen-agers can get married. People who have more marriages than toes can enter into that “sacred” institution time and time again. People who’ve committed adultery, rape, or even murder can get married. Yet somehow, the marriage of two men or two women is so threatening, so wrong, so damaging that people will dedicate months and even years of their lives trying to prevent it from happening.

Reasons abound – most of them religious – on why there is such vehement and sometimes violent opposition to same-sex marriage, but most of the justification is rooted in nothing more than personal aversion. There is only one, true reason people oppose same-sex marriage, and it’s the same reason people opposed women’s suffrage, integration, and abolition: It challenges their fundamental understanding of what they believe to be right. Americans have never before had to question their understanding of what constitutes a marriage or family, just as late-19^th-century men never had to question women’s role in politics. Women petitioning for the right to vote at the turn of the 20th century were spat on, taunted, called horrible names, hit, jeered, beaten, and even arrested. The anti-suffrage movement was every bit vocal and active as the so-called family values organizers are today. The only difference is the issue they oppose. Today’s protesters also refuse to see their opinions in the proper historical context, namely that they are just one more group of bigots trying to deny a marginalized group that which they are entitled to.

People can hide behind religious excuses until the end of time, but those reasons become less plausible as other biblical edicts go ignored. As a college student, I pointed out that people who break the Ten Commandments are not held to the same level of criticism and discrimination as gays and lesbians, and that other teaching of the Bible have been long overlooked because they have no place in the 21^st century. Rules about stoning virgins and female adulterers, rules about prohibiting divorce and remarriage, rules allowing polygamy and prostitution, rules about the treatment of slaves, rules against seeing one’s parents naked or allowing interracial marriage are outdated and irrelevant, so they are no longer enforced or even addressed. And the list goes on. This point has been belabored for years, but to no avail, because religion is only a smoke screen, and those who hide behind it aren’t interested in logic; they are only concerned with opposing homosexuality on any argument they can – plausible or not, consistent or not. Again, it’s that personal aversion to homosexuality, that challenge to one’s insistence on a "proper" – and narrow – order of things that is being hidden behind religious orthodoxy, and the result is some of the worst misuse of religion in American history.

If opposition to gay marriage is weak from a moral or religious standpoint, it’s blatantly unconscionable from a legal one. There is no legal or Constitutional justification for a nation that was founded on the individual pursuit of happiness to deny a segment of its population the right to enter into legal unions with the consenting adult of their choice. It is no different that telling black citizens that they can’t swim in the city pool or telling woman they can’t serve on juries or open up a line of credit in their own name. We live in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression and choice. To deny citizens their right to choose their spouse because others don’t agree with their choice is nothing less than discriminatory micromanaging of people’s lives. It’s the ultimate breech of authority, the likes of which we haven seen in decades. While some may find gay marriage morally questionable, personally repulsive, or even unnatural, the governing bodies that are sworn to uphold the rights of all citizens need to do what they’ve done in the past and legislate according to the precepts of the this country’s mission, not by the misplaced fear of a new generation of bigots.

Right versus Popular

This is the first in a two-part argument in support of same-sex marriage.

California’s Proposition 8 is the latest in a long line of setbacks for defenders of Civil Rights dating back to the 19^th century. In one day, voters repealed the marriage rights of millions of the state’s residents by declaring same-sex marriage unconstitutional – five months after those marriages began taking place. However, as history shows us, if left to popular opinion, there are many rights we take for granted today that never would have happened when they did. It was entirely because of so-called “liberal activist judges” of the time that segregation was ended in 1954, and because of one president’s actions that slavery came to a screeching halt in 1863 – two years after the Civil War began.

In the early 1950s, segregation was defended on the argument that there was no Constitutional right to racial integration. Had segregation gone to the voters in 1954 – as opposed to the courts – the measure very likely would not have passed. Even in the North, there was a shockingly minimal amount of support for integration. It took the objective and critical eye of those trained to explore and interpret the Constitution to determine that the separation of the races in public and educational facilities was wrong. And that decision was made amid popular opinion that was violently opposed to integration. It didn’t matter what the public prejudice dictated – those Supreme Court justices could find nothing in the Constitution to justify segregation, and so they had to act accordingly.

Women’s suffrage was opposed by many on the grounds that the Bible said, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord,” (Collosians 3:18). In addition, it was said suffrage went against the “natural and proper timidity and delicacy”of women[1] ; that such political activities were simply unnatural for the weaker sex; and that it would “weaken and break up and destroy the Christian family”[2]. After a 70-year battle, a Congressional vote to give women the right to vote failed in 1918, even after a direct appeal for its passage from President Wilson. It barely passed a year later, and the 19^th Amendment was ratified by the skin of its teeth, coming down to one vote in the last state, Tennessee, in 1920. By that time, there may have been enough support for it to have passed in a popular vote, but as a woman, I can’t say I’d have taken the odds. I’m glad those legislators – all men, I might add – were informed and educated enough to recognize that denying women the right t vote was a gross miscarriage of justice, regardless of what popular opinion said at the time.

Sixty years earlier, slavery was ended not because of the will of the people, but because one president stood up and said it was wrong and was going to end. Union soldiers in the Civil War were fighting Southern secession, not slavery, and while most abolitionists may have been from the North, most people from the North were not necessarily abolitionists. Once again, if left to the will of the people, slavery might have continued for several more decades. To suggest otherwise is to be tragically ignorant of the opinions and views of 19^th-century people.

And so that brings us to 2008 and my point that bigotry has governed popular opinion far longer than it’s governed the courts. Additionally, decisions much more important than our neighbors’ domestic status have been decided without consulting “the will of the people.” I know it’s a fine line I walk on this issue, especially because judges and legislators have the power to nationally reverse what little progress has been made toward same-sex marriage. Also, the legislature and courts have not always taken the path that hindsight suggests would have been the right course. Does invading Iraq ring a bell? Or how about the $700 billion bailout last month that has thus far produced no results? Or how about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2000 election that the contested Florida ballots need not be recounted? Or even Plessy V. Furguson in 1896, without which Brown V. Topeka BOE would not have been necessary in 1954. Furthermore, I don’t recall the general public being asked to vote on any of those issues.

History, both long and short, is littered with examples of poor governing. However, in cases of Civil Rights, the government is the only entity that ensured equal rights were extended to American citizens when the general public would have upheld laws and practices based on prejudice and discrimination. Popular opposition of something does not always make it the right decision, and 52 percent of people can be wrong. It is for that reason every effort must be made to convince legislators that their support of Proposition 8 and their general opposition to same-sex marriage is in direct defiance of their sworn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of its citizens. If previous legislators had acted similarly, I shudder to think of all the rights we take for granted that may have never come to pass.

---

[1] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “The Problem; Discrimination.” Race Class and Gender in the United States. Ed. Rothenberg, Paula S. Sixth Edition. New York: Worth, 2003.

[2] Brownson, Orestes A. “The Woman Question.” Rothenberg.

Yes we did!!!

After two of the closest, most contested presidential victories in U.S. history, it's such an amazing relief to know that Barack Obama won this election resoundingly, convincingly, and indisputably. Polls have offered close and cautious predictions for weeks, but I'm not sure anyone expected so many states that we had long thought to be permanently dyed red to suddenly turn blue: Virginia, Nevada, Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina. It speaks to the change Americans have been so desperate for, as well as our need to see a decisive -- and not divisive -- victory.

I know there are many people out there who are as upset as I am elated. There are people who are sickened and angry at this victory, whether for reasons of partisanship or race or simple cynicism. There are those who heard in Obama's statements of promise and change, the threat of mutiny on what they consider core American values. His invocation and inclusion of the diverse populations of this country -- the "young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled" -- is interpreted by many as blasphemy against the country's European origins. There are those who interpret his promise to help the majority as proof of the end of capitalism. And yes, there are those who believe the Americans most in need of Obama's help are the least deserving of it.

Obama's victory has brought such hope -- hope that our finances won't be annihilated by greedy investors and corporate billionaires; hope that social injustices will be further eliminated; hope that stability and prosperity are not the sole province of those with six-figure incomes; and hope that we all have both voice and choice in our lives, lifestyles, and individual pursuits of happiness, even among those who consider those choices wrong.

Watching John McCain's concession speech, I was struck by two things: 1.) If only his whole campaign had echoed the same grace, diplomacy, and optimism as its final moments, the result may have been different for him. And 2.) For a political party that prides itself on representing the most dignified, educated, wealthy, influential, and honorable people in American, the behavior of those gathered in Arizona was disheartening. On several occasions, McCain -- the hot-headed maverick himself -- had to quiet the boos of the crowd. I know they were disappointed that their candidate was not elected, but to blatantly ignore his lead of grace and admirable acknowledgment, I fear is proof of how deep the divide still runs in this country.

But if Barack Obama was able to unite voters in New York and Virginia, California and Iowa, and Oregon and Ohio, I'm convinced he'll go a long way toward reversing the chasm created by the tone and policy of the last eight years. Hope is a powerful motivator, and right now, the American public, for the first time in nearly a decade, has it in spades.

Halloween Disappointment

Taking a break from political issues, I would like to comment on our Halloween experience this year, which was the first that we took our 2 1/2-year-old-son trick-or-treating. We live in the inner city and have long known that there are a lot of people in our neighborhood who don't pass out candy. But until I had to traverse block after disappointing block of dark houses, lucky to see two or three porch lights on, I never realized exactly how many of my neighbors don't participate.

People have been complaining about trick-or-treating for decades, but in recent years, the number of participating houses, particularly in Youngstown, has plummeted. One of the most persistent complaints is that too many parents drive their kids from block to block in order to accumulate as much candy as possible in the two allotted hours. Many are upset that what was once a fun neighborhood activity in which people see the area kids dressed up and parents exchange familiar greetings has been reduced to a mad, greedy free-for-all for Snickers bars and Twizzlers. The other, and more insidious, complaint is that there are too many kids from "bad neighborhoods" getting dropped off by parents in "good neighborhoods." In Youngstown, the translation is that black children are "infiltrating" white neighborhoods in search of more and better candy, which in a city that is almost singularly defined by the effects of white flight, is the surest way to stop people from passing out candy.

Since ours was one of the few houses with porch lights on, we had round after round of eager, happy, costumed kids holding out bags and chirping "trick-or-treat." Yes, many were dropped off, and to those kids, we gave even more candy because we know they will be returning to neighborhoods with abandoned and fire-damaged houses, empty lots with overgrown weeds, and perhaps homes without heat beds, or even parents or responsible guardians. But still they were out there enjoying one of the hallmark activities of childhood, and I was not about to deny them that.

Fear has always governed Halloween activities. When I was young, everyone checked for razor blades and straight pins in candy bars. Apples, candy corn, and other loose items were immediately discarded because of potential poisoning. Even though no razor was ever found in any candy bar anywhere in the United States, the rumors and fears just seemed to grow worse over the years. Today, many neighborhoods schedule trick-or-treating from noon to 2 p.m. so that kids aren't roaming the streets after dark. Whether this is to protect the kids from kidnapping or homeowners from costumed burglars, I don't know. Even more places schedule indoor candy hunting so as to completely eliminate threats to and from the pubic at large.

The reality is that Halloween is still an overwhelmingly safe and benign event. We allow 10-year-olds to light fireworks in their own yards on the Fourth of July, but won't let them trick-or-treat because it's not safe. How does that make sense? We open our doors to men in uniforms bearing the names of utility and cable companies, but are afraid to hand out candy to kids dressed as Sponge Bob and Dora the Explorer. There is no logic to it.

I know that in my neighborhood, motives are almost purely racist, though few would ever admit it. And I could (at will at a later date) discuss at length the misguided reasons and consequences of their behavior, but for now, my purpose is only to highlight the illogical and inconsistent fears that have come to define Halloween. Most of all, I feel bad for my neighbors who didn't get to witness the excitement and creativity of kids dresed up as divas, cowboys, Storm Troopers, doctors, princesses, witches, dinosaurs, girraffes, and dozens of other characters, traversing neighborhood streets with the sole, child-like purpose of acquiring as much sugar as possible. It's nothing more and nothing les than what generations of kids have done before them. I only hope kids in the not-so-distant future are not denied this pastime by adults who've taken one too many urban legends to heart.