Flint, MI is my hometown. I moved there when I was 6 years old and stayed through high school. My mom and step-dad still live there, my brother and his family just outside the city. It is a community that taught me about the issue of class (an almost taboo word in this country); our schools were integrated, and race was far less of a concern among my classmates than our disdain for the rich kids in the suburbs and at the private schools (well, some of them anyway…*ha*). My experience there has had a huge influence on my politics and my values, on how I see the world; I am proud of the person I have become and my experiences growing up in Flint have a ton to do with that. But it is, as those of us who left the city say, a great place to be “from”, not so much a great place to be anymore. It is a town built on a troubled, dying buisiness (domestic automobile manufacturing) and it is a difficult thing to watch the city in such a tragic state of decline and disrepair. Today, the NY Times published an article about Dan Kildee’s plan to demolish blocks and neighborhoods in Flint.
Instead of waiting for houses to become abandoned and then pulling them down, local leaders are talking about demolishing entire blocks and even whole neighborhoods. The population would be condensed into a few viable areas. So would stores and services. A city built to manufacture cars would be returned in large measure to the forest primeval. “Decline in Flint is like gravity, a fact of life,” said Dan Kildee, the Genesee County treasurer and chief spokesman for the movement to shrink Flint. “We need to control it instead of letting it control us.”
Dan has been advocating this plan for years; I have known Dan personally for a long time (his sister is a good friend of mine) and I don’t disagree with this plan for a lot of reasons. But it feels counterintuitive in so many ways. I remember when they were pulling down one of the GM factories in town a few years back, and there was a huge sign on the fence surround the site that said “Demolition Means Progress.” They have actually adopted that motto for the retraction campaign, which troubled me, because it was a great irony to see GM pretending that demolishing a factory was somehow helping the community. But with these homes and neighborhoods, who am I to judge? In the case of so many abandoned homes, hitting the re-set button may prove the right move. The city is even considering tearing down my High School, which is a very sad moment for me. One of my old teachers wrote an Op-Ed in the local paper, which speaks directly to my own experience at the school;
“Before the Flint Board of Education abandons the site (which will still mean significant on-going financial responsibility), or before it sells it to any other group, the people of Flint need to look carefully at what they will be losing. I challenge anyone reading this to find another high school with a public library, art center, planetarium, theater, music center and museums directly across its driveway. Add to that a vibrant community college and a rapidly developing and expanding university within four city blocks of the high school and you have an educational setting most communities can only dream about.”
My Alma Mater Is On The Ropes
Dayne Walling, one of my old schoolmates, is running for Mayor and he is a really positive, smart person who I think could do a lot to change the city. He was a Rhodes Scholar (and so modest, he didn’t even include it in his bio!) and has always been a passionate advocate for Flint. The election is May 5, and I truly hope he wins and brings some serious innovation to city government. I’m not sure why I am writing about this here, but I am feeling down tonight. It was weird to see my hometown on the front page of the NYTimes website, especially in a story advocating a massive retraction and demolition. I’m worried about the place that shaped me. Here’s hoping Flint pulls through.
If you have registered, please go out today and vote. Your democracy needs you.
Food for thought on another Election Day…
“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.”—George Jean Nathan
“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”—Sydney J. Harris
“A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”—Bill Vaughan
“Lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy…It under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me.”—Nancy Neuman
” To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”—Louis L’Amour
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am very much looking forward to casting my vote in this Tuesday’s Election. I will be voting for Barack Obama.
This post is for my mom, who has been supporting Barack Obama for President since 2004 (hey… that was one hell of a convention speech). She is a retired public school teacher (working multiple jobs these past few years to supplement her retirement income) living in my home state of Michigan and she will be voting on Tuesday as well. I am so proud of her activism and passion for seeing our nation become a better place, not only for herself, but for our family, her friends and neighbors. And to think, she at one time thought I should attend a military academy (it’s true) and was sad when Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter (also true). She’s come a LONG way and has been a huge inspiration these long eight years. I really hope she wins this one. Hang in there, mom! We only have one more day to go and then… who knows? I owe you some money, perhaps?
And now, with apologies to Victor Hugo, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Alain Boublil and musical theater lovers everywhere….
(of course, in Les Misérables the revolutionaries fail, *cough*, but y’know… it’s the sentiment…*ahem*)
Gay rights are the civil rights issue of this generation. It takes no courage or special enlightenment for someone like me to make this statement. We live in a society rampant with prejudice, violence, bigotry and outright hatred toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people, but without the outspoken support of people like you and me, the dominance of this bias will continue. We live in a nation that has refused the LGBT community equal protection under the law, a nation that uses manufactured religious literalism to deny secular equality to LGBT citizens. It should, of course, come as no suprise that these same arguments were the ones used to justify supposed caucasian superiority during slavery and segregation, and yet, many in our society accept this basic injustice without standing up for the principles upon which our nation was founded. Too often, because of political or social pressure, we dismiss the rights of the minority in order to justify our own comforts and privileges.
There is a line being drawn in the sand this week in California. As Californians head to the voting booth next Tuesday, they are being asked to vote into law a proposition, Proposition 8, that would deny thousands of LGBT people the right to same-sex marriage. Much like the failed attempts at a national Defense of Marriage Act, this would be one of the few times that the government would allow voters to decide whether or not to deny civil rights to citizens in their community. Sadly, this issue is being left to the states; I am exhausted by the strategy of making these decisions “local” instead of applying the Federal protection of the U.S. Constitution to guarantee the rights of all Americans under the law. Had we left the issue of civil rights for people of color to the states, without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I’m sure segregation would not be as distant a memory as it is today. Under the current Administration, there is obviously no will to enact Federal equality for LGBT citizens and the future doesn’t look much better; Both Obama and McCain stand in opposition to equality for gay marriage under the law. And so, it comes down to the voters to once again duke it out at the state level, a sad testament to the limitations of our nation’s laws; why is equal protection under the law being left to a vote? Separate but equal didn’t work for our other public institutions in the 20th Century, why should we create a separate institution for our queer citizens to have a private relationship in the 21st Century? Certainly these rights are protected under the 14th Ammendment?
”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I write this tonight urging all voters registered in the State of California to vote NO on Proposition 8, to extend the same right to marriage to your LGBT neighbors that you would ask for yourself. Empathy is the only hope we have as a nation, the ability to wish for others the right to live a life unfettered by discrimination. There is hope; I point you in the direction of this pronouncement by Jerry Sanders, the Republican Mayor of San Diego, whose refusal to follow his campaign promise to veto a city council resolution in support of gay marriage is one of the most moving and enlightened pieces of political action I’ve ever seen. This is the Holywood ending I’m hoping for in California; Will other Californians rise to Mayor Sanders’ level of personal integrity? Here’s hoping.
September 19, 2007
Please, regardless of your political leanings, remember this Tuesday that our nation was founded not to protect limited access to our social institutions, but to extend them democratically to all citizens. Californians, please Vote NO on 8.
Well, I guess it’s Culture Wars Redux then… Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani lowered the bar tonight with a smirking, nasty personal attack on Barack Obama. John McCain is taking the hard right turn and turning to gutter politcs by embracing Karl Rove and George Bush’s vision for divisive, indendiary national politics and, apparantly, will do anything to win the White House, reversing his moderate, considered approach and allowing right-wing vitriol to redefine his candidacy. You know what I want? A president and VP who attack and degrade my beliefs, then claim to be bringing unity. I’m not joking or feigning the same sort of right wing victimization that sees the left constantly pandering by embracing, say, religion (just not embracing the “correct” kind of religion in the “proper” way); The Republican party actually seems to loathe what I think are good, strong values. Kudos, Republicans; you are who we thought you were. I shouldn’t be surprised.
Just ahead of the 2006 election, former CNN Crossfire host and Slate founder Michael Kinsey wrote what I consider to be a prescient, powerful article in the NY Times Book Review that I can’t get out of my mind these past few days. Titled Election Day, Kinsey takes on the the issue of political lying; how political flacks use whatever spin and ideas are necessary to tear down their opponent and promote their own candidate, even if that means, in the end, each of their previous statements contradicts the last. With John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President and the media storm that has followed, the bullshit machine has been turned up to eleven; I have never in my life seen so much partisan nonsense hidden behind a so-called “philosophy”. Kinsey, writing about a slate of books written by the flacks, managers, pundits and messengers of both parties, said it perfectly in his article and review;
”...What is cheating? In my view, the worst form of cheating in American democracy today is intellectual dishonesty. The conversation in our democracy is dominated by disingenuousness. Candidates and partisan commentators strike poses of outrage that they don’t really feel, take positions that they would not take if the shoe was on the other foot (e.g., criticizing Bush when you gave Clinton a pass, or vice versa), feel no obligation toward logical consistency. Our democracy occasionally punishes outright lies but not brazen insincerity. When we vote after a modern political campaign run by expensive professionals, we have almost no idea what the victor really believes or what he or she might do in office. It seems to me there is more than enough of this to explain all distressing election results without condemning either yourself or democracy…
...A few days before the 2000 election, the Bush team started assembling people to deal with a possible problem: what if Bush won the popular vote but Gore carried the Electoral College. They decided on, and were prepared to begin, a big campaign to convince the citizenry that it would be wrong for Gore to take office under those circumstances. And they intended to create a tidal wave of pressure on Gore’s electors to vote for Bush, which arguably the electors as free agents have the authority to do. In the event, of course, the result was precisely the opposite, and immediately the Bushies launched into precisely the opposite argument: the Electoral College is a vital part of our Constitution, electors are not free agents, threatening the Electoral College result would be thumbing your nose at the founding fathers, and so on. Gore, by the way, never did challenge the Electoral College, although some advisers urged him to do so.
Of all the things Bush did and said during the 2000 election crisis, this having-it-both-ways is the most corrupt. It was reported before the election and is uncontested, but no one seems to care, because so much of our politics is like that. And no electoral reform can fix this problem. Intellectual dishonesty can’t be banned or regulated or “capped” like money. The only way it can be brought under control is if people start voting against it. If they did, the problem would go away. That’s democracy.”
Well, the old adage is true; The more things change, the more they stay the same. This bankrupt, tautological way of presenting ideas and “framing” the national discussion is, to my mind, the greatest challenge facing American democracy in the run up to the 2008 Presidential election. The right wants it both ways, and it is absolutely nauseating. Tonight, watching Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin offering their typically viscious personal attack on Barack Obama’s record and qualifications, a crowd of drooling, aged white men in bulging neck ties screeching the word “zero” like a greedy mob, I really can’t take much more. That’s right; I got to watch Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusettes and the wealthy, privileged son of former Michigan Governor George Romney, try to paint the Hawaiian son of a single mother as an east coast elitist. This is the legacy of Karl Rove and George Bush, the great smear machine that smirks and belittles and tries to have it both ways. Let’s look at the master at work, talking about the ever-important issue of “experience”;
Karl Rove On Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D)
Karl Rove on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R)
Mr. Rove, you make my point for me.
What else? Too numerous to count: An anti-sex education, anti-choice mother of five has a teenage daughter who is forced to marry her seventeen year old boyfriend when he impregnates her out of wedlock and she is praised by the right as a brave woman who lives by her word, while a married father and mother of two beautiful children are mocked and treated with derision. The Palins are cast as the great American family, while the Obamas, whose monogamous, dedicated marriage and strong family values seemingly embody the conservative ideal that has been espoused for over a generation, receive scorn. Hmmm.
Or how about this? Barack Obama, raised by his grandmother and a single mother, works his ass off, graduates from a Hawaiian high school and, after a stint at Occidental College, earns a B.A. from Columbia before earning his law degree at Harvard and becoming the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. Then, carrying student loans (which he apparantly used to pay for his arugula and white wine addiction), decides to forgo a high paying job at a legal firm in order to help organize poor communities of color and improve living conditions on the south side of Chicago. Instead of being praised as a small town boy living the American dream by working hard, earning a great education and using that education to serve a community in need, the right attacks him as “elitist” (because he went to an Ivy League college and law school) and mocks the idea of community organizing, belittling the hard work of public servants all over the nation. Community organizers, the new face of liberalism run amok. Ha ha ha, tee hee hee.
This one pisses me off the most; No wonder our education system is a piece of shit—our leaders and citizens apparently loathe education! Do these people honestly think most Americans, if their children work hard in school and are accepted by a prestigious private university, would snort in disgust? No, they would jump at the chance to have their child receive a world class university education and improve their prospects in life, to explore their interest in the law, or medicine, or public policy, or whatever they want to study. But Obama? Uppity and, hilariously, elitist. George Bush is a common sense good ol’ boy who sucked in college (and went to Yale and was the son of a man who was the head of the CIA, Vice President and then President of the United States), yeehaw, but Obama, working class guy who actually did well in school? Elitist asshole who had the nerve to get an education. I guess if you inherit a shitload of money and hate learning, you’re keeping it real, and the rest of us better know our place and not think too much.
Maybe that’s why the Republican dialogue tonight had all of the subtlety of a high-school lunch room; If it wasn’t Rudy Guiliani lisping his way through a littany of personal smears and once again using September 11, 2001 as if it were his own personal bludgeon (and cheapening our collective experience, especially us New Yorkers, with each venomous invocation), it was Sarah Palin, the “hot VP from the coolest state” (their words, not mine), who gets to come out swinging, levelling nasty, ice cold personal attacks against the character of Obama and Biden, *snap!*, but say a word against her and you’re the “sexist”. Don’t say a word about her kids, either, but allow her to trot them out there and use them as a political tool, the embodiment of down-to-earth, girl-next-door “family values”. The right make the kids the culmination of political issues (“by having a baby who she knew had Downs Syndrome, she’s living her beliefs! she refuses sex education to her kids and when one of them gets pregnant at seventeen, she supported her and they kept the baby.. who can control those crazy teenagers?”) and then attack the media for asking questions about how those values, those kids, translate into the world. You think if Chelsea Clinton got pregnant while she was in High School during Bill Clinton’s first term, she’d have received the same glowing endorsement, the Clintons held up as the models of familial virtue?
If the American people fall for this shit, I’ll be devastated; I think people want government to be there for them with well-managed programs and services, to protect them from harm, and to tell them the truth. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to play to the base, or rather, the base and desperate instincts of the good ol’ Republican playbook. Keep ‘em scared, poor and dumb. It’s going to be long two months.
Syndicate this site