Politics, Racism, and Opportunism

Through a random chance occurrence,  as so often happens on what I call “rabbit hole” sites like YouTube and Wikipedia (one link leads to another, then another, then another, till you’re a league away from the original object you had clicked on), I recently found myself watching a gentleman by the name of Alfonzo Rachel on a YouTube Channel for PJTV. Alfonzo bills himself as a “Christian conservative social / political humorist.” His specific channel, Zonation, is a speaking pad for him to deliver rants on subjects that he finds important, politically and socially (he doesn’t make mention of why he insists on wearing his hat cocked sideways like a frat boy from the 90′s).

As a commentator who is not only black but also Conservative, he obviously believes that it’s his duty to speak a lot about racism in American politics (no, seriously, almost every other video from him is about race). Specifically, he’s here to point out that it’s the Democratic Party, and not the Republican Party, that is the real home of racism in America. Several of his videos either focus on this fact, or simply bring it up as a bullet point. This is not a unique theory, mind you, and it’s become one of the more popular rhetorical devices recently of Conservative pundits. Several other commentators, black and white, have also jumped on this to try to defuse the mounting loses that the Republican Party has seen amongst minority voters in recent elections. “You’re all sheep! Wake up! You’re playing into Democratic hands! They’re the real racist party”

All of them tend two have two main planks as their weapons of defense: 1) The famed “Southern Strategy” is a myth, and 2) Democratic social welfare programs are the new slavery.

Today, I’m going to focus on the first plank, and then I’ll tackle the second plank at a later date.

1) The famed “Southern Strategy” is a myth

The “Southern Strategy” refers to a story, as told by a former Nixon staffer, about how Nixon targeted Southern Democrats in the 1968 election with targeted policy language in order to bring them over to vote Republican. Specifically, language referring to “states rights” and “law and order” were meant to assure white Democrats in the South that he would oppose forced school busing and school integration, and that he would rein in the lawlessness that had sprung out of race riots in the late 60s.

Now, to track current Conservative opposition to this theory, the writers are at first forced to actually go further back. They point to the popularity of the theory that racist Democrats ran as “Dixiecrats” in the 1948 election, and that these Dixiecrats all then went Republican. They are correct to point out that, in fact, many of the Dixiecrats went back to the Democratic Party in the immediate aftermath. See? All the Dixiecrats stayed Democratic!

Well, the problem with that part of their defense is that if tends to fall apart if you keep tracing those politicians careers. We can start with the man at the top, Dixiecrat Presidential nominee Strom Thurmond. Yes, in 1948, he went back to the Democrats. However, he saw the writing on the wall, and by 1964, around the time that the Democratic administration was embracing Civil Rights legislation, Strom walked out the door and headed to the South Carolina Republican Party. Strom was not alone in this voyage: here is a list of prominent politicians who followed suit in the 60′s and 70′s. This, of course, is only a partial list, and doesn’t come close to tracking all the staffers, campaigners, pollsters, and others who also made the voyage. Some of the most famous Southern politicians of my lifetime started out as Democrats but switched Republican in the wake of Civil Rights legislation. Jesse Helms. Trent Lott. The list of Southern Democrats who made this move could be considered “prima facie” evidence.

So did these politicians go Republican BECAUSE the Republican Party was inherently racist? No, no they didn’t. Many of the commentators are correct to point out that, on a national level, the Republican Party  supported Civil Rights legislation as much, if not more, than the national Democratic Party. However, that’s because the predominant number of elected Republican congressman were not from the South. The Republican Party in the South was a weak, sickly animal. So these racist Democratic officials didn’t see racism in the Republican Party – they saw an opportunity. The local state Democratic Parties were being inundated with volunteers and organizers from the North, rallying support for the Administration’s Civil Rights agendas (as well as pro-Union causes, highly unpopular with pro-corporatist politicians like Strom, but that’s a whole ‘nother post). These local Democratic leaders saw their local Party’s ranks swelling with newly registered black Democrats. That was a problem, because they knew they would never have the support of those black voters. So what could they do? They could stay and fight it out with more Socially Progressive Democrats in primary elections – or they could go over to the Republican Party.

The southern state Republican Parties were queasy about this at first, no doubt. People like Strom Thurmond had made their political careers out of ripping on the Republican Party. However, they also knew that bringing in men like Strom was their best chance at finally coming back to power in states like South Carolina. Thus, Faustian deals like this were struck all across the South, and thus the Republican Party in the South slowly and surely grew in power.

You see, it wasn’t because the Republican Party is inherently, or by its nature, any more racist than the Democratic Party. But at a time when it could have chosen to stay pure, or chosen to be opportunistic, it chose opportunism.

So now we come back to the overall hypothesis by commentators like Mr. Rachel, who claim that’s it’s really the Democratic Party that’s the racist party. His favorite lines to point back to are things like, “It was the DEMOCRATS who supported slavery” and “It was the DEMOCRATS that instituted Jim Crow laws.” Historically, Mr. Rachel is correct.

However, as I’ve illustrated, a point came in history when the two national parties had some choices to make. In the 60′s, it was the Democratic Party on a national level that decided to overcome the opposition of it’s Southern wing and support national Civil Rights legislation, and embrace  things like the Civil Rights Act of 64, the Voting Rights Act, etc. When so many of those Southern members decided they couldn’t stomach it, it was the Republican Party that opened it’s arms to so many of those Southern Democrats and slowly allowed it’s party to be inundated with their views. The Republican Party chose opportunism over the high-road, and it must accept that fact of it’s current genetic make-up.

On a side note, Mr. Rachel also likes to try and claim that the Democratic Party and it’s talking heads refuse to see the racism that can potentially exist in it’s own ranks. Like a gift from the blog-writing gods, Jon Stewart just this last week had a piece on his show directly tackling that exact issues. The Democratic Party acknowledges that, just like any party trying to bring a coalition of people with different backgrounds together, it has people within its own ranks who hold can hold racist views. However, it’s quick to cut those voices off and deny them relevance.

So yes, Mr. Rachel, the Democratic Party has a sad history of racism. It has, however, done many things to try and overcome this legacy. What’s the Republican Party done for race relations in America lately?

UPDATE: As I was getting ready to post this, a story came across the wires that the GOP’s Hispanic outreach chief in Florida had defected to the Democratic Party. His reason?

“”It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others . . . .”

Thoughts at the Closing Bell:

• I’m going to write a post later this week of all the shows you should watch during the Summer rerun period. It will be a mix of shows still on and shows that have been off the air for a few years. I will be seeking converts to many of my long-time favorites (yes, expect a lot of love for Justified – a LOT of love).
• The Tigers had a rough series with Cleveland, letting them move into a tie for 1st in the AL Central. Thank god for a series with the Astros.
• On a related note, my Fantasy Baseball team is awful. No, seriously, I hate my team hard. I had traded away a lot of picks making a playoff-run last year, and the effects this year were just too much to overcome.
• Hol got a couple of fun things from GVH for her second Mother’s Day. I’m impressed with the purchasing power of a 14-month old.
• Mad Men and Game of Thrones have been bringing the heat, as expected. Both have had one or two weak eps, but overall, I have no complaints.

That’s all for now, kids. One love to you all.

The Sound and The Fury: Court-Martialing Christians and Facebook “News”

I remember the old Facebook. The Facebook before “News Feed”. It was a simpler time, consisting simply of wall-to-wall posts between actual friends. Then the News Feed came along. You could see other people’s activity! Then you could actually starting posting pictures and links from the internet directly to the News Feed. “Huzzah!”, I thought, as a lover of news myself. I’ll be the first to admit that I love posting news articles that I find interesting to Facebook and Twitter, as well as adding my own editorial opinion to them. I’m a news junkie.

However, like all exciting things on the internet, the downsides quickly started to appear. People started posting constant pictures of “uplifting” quotes, little axioms that they found amusing or soothing. Ok, that was annoying, but whatever. Then, however, we started to see the appearance of “news”. These “news” posts consist almost universally of bombastic and often misleading quotes, the kind that can incite immediate rage or sympathy, depending on your particular beliefs or political leanings.

Eventually, it seemed an entire cottage industry built itself up around creating headlines and articles of dubious nature that were, 100% veracity not-withstanding, guaranteed to go viral among the targeted audience. Throw in the birth of Twitter, and the dissemination of crazy articles became a fully born creature, so much more advanced that it’s previous incarnations (email chains, message boards, etc.).  A new cycle was birthed as well, where these type of posts were thrown up, followed by “shares”, “likes” and comments of “right on!” or “I can’t believe this either!”. Eventually, someone would try to shed truth into the matter, or potentially share a link to a Snopes.com article debunking the matter. By then, however, it’s too late. Because at this point, the echo chamber has reinforced the matter to the point that the volume of sound and fury about the matter is all that’s needed to it’s believers to find the validity they need to reinforce their worldview.

I’m writing about this, because today I began to see an article float around, posted to Breitbart.com, titled “Breaking: Pentagon Confirms May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith.” The article itself was more of a “here-here” to a commentary piece posted to FoxNews.com yesterday (see how the echo begins slowly). The gist of both posts is that the military has implemented rules against “proselytizing” by soldiers of faith, and plans on court-martialing any soldiers who talk about their faith. Soon, the Breitbart.com article was being spread around several other conservative “action network” blogs and news aggregators. It was a full blown call to arms! We have to fight against the oppression of Christians, and we have to spread the word because the liberal media won’t talk about this!

Except, of course, that’s where we can begin to peel pack the paint layers on this pig. Because, you see, the liberal media has, in fact, already talked about this. They talked about it as early as August 22, 2012. It’s May 1st, 2013; where you been you slacker right-wingers?!?! So what/s actually going on, you ask?

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 1-1

On August 7, 2012, the Air Force published Air Force Instruction 1-1, authored by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Norton Schwartz (no, not that guy) which outlined the new Air Force Policy Directive 1. In summary, it is a policy directive outlining the expected standard of conduct for all Air Force personnel. Like all policy directives, it comes pro forma with the following warning: “This instruction is directive in nature and failure to adhere to the standards set out in this instruction can form the basis for adverse action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). An example would be a dereliction of duty offense under Article 92.”

Ok, cool. So the Air Force starts setting out some standards about professional relationships, military ethics, drug abuse, tattoos, how to best narfle the garthok, blah blah blah. However, things picked for some readers around Chapter 2, section 11, titled “Government Neutrality Regarding Religion”. This section opens up:

Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.

Hear that?!?! You can’t be a Christian anymore! You can’t talk about it anymore! Wait, it doesn’t say that? No, it doesn’t, you’re right. However, in case they weren’t clear, the very next section, 2-12, clarifies even more:

Supporting the right of free exercise of religion relates directly to the Air Force core values and the ability to maintain an effective team.
2.12.1. All Airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion, or subscribe to no
religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting
others whose viewpoints differ from your own.

Now, you might be wondering, “Ok, Andy, that sounds safe enough, but if freedom of religion is already in the constitution, why did the Air Force feel the need to even talk about this?” Well, I’m glad you asked.

It appears that the Air Force, in fact, didn’t just decide to come up with this policy out of thin air. Over the last decade, the Air Force, along with other branches of the military, have endured thousands of complaints and numerous law suits alleging that soldiers were pressured to convert to Christianity by their superiors, that Christianity was used as a recruiting tool, and that Christianity was being actively used as part of a teaching tool in certain military classes.

Now taking that fact, and using my lawyer brain, the answer seems pretty clear to me – this policy is a lawsuit shield. When future allegations or suits are brought, the Air Force can now say, “Nope, not us, in fact, we specifically say don’t do that. Please take your lawsuit away.” From a cost of doing business standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

So Why All The Noise Now?

On April 23, Air Force officials agreed to a meeting with an activist group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, specifically regarding their concerns about Air Force Policy Directive 1. Despite the way it’s name might sound, the MRFF is actually a group staunchly opposed to any mingling of the military and religion, and in fact have been behind some of the law suits faced by the military. The MRFF wanted the meeting because, well, they were afraid that it was just a toothless piece of paper. Coming out of the meeting, MRFF’s director, Mikey Weinstein, made a press release about his meeting, and how he’d be pressing the Air Force to fully prosecute anyone who didn’t obey the Directive against ”proselytizing” (I keep using quotes, because individual definitions and perceptions of this word are fluid, and thus kind of crucial to this whole debate in the first place). He went so far as to say that he’d push for court martials in compliance with military judicial code. When the press reached out to the military to get feedback on the court martial demands, the military gave what I would perceive as (and what I’m sure their press office considers) a chalkboard standard response:

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases . . . .”

So when the Extreme Right sees all of this action, meeting with crazy athiests and such, and then asks “Are you going to start court-martialing Christians?!?!”, the only way they perceive this answer is, “He didn’t say no.”

Not because that’s the answer they want, but it’s the answer you need if your world view is based on being an oppressed group, bound and gagged by an atheist, God-hating government currently being led by a most-likely-Muslim-or-Atheist Socialist. Despite the fact that 78.4% of all American’s claim to be Christian, the Extreme Right needs to keep up the perception of an oppressed minority so that the martyrdom of it’s message is justified.

And so Breitbart writes it’s article, with it’s incendiary headlines and skewed use of quotations and ellipses. The Far Right bloggers begin passing it around and around, so much so that now the volume of information seems to be all the overwhelming proof needed. And then people begin individually spreading and sharing the news. Most of these individuals share out of beliefs and concerns that come from a good place, but their sharing only adds more to the already exaggerated sound and fury of the situation.

Get Some Air Before You Share

So where am I going with all of this? Well, I’m not the first one to state this, and surely won’t be the last: please, people, pause before you share. When you read that headline and first paragraph of an article that just make you SO MAD . . . just pause for a moment. Take a breath. Think about it. If it something that sounds OUTRAGEOUS, then just take a few moments to Google the issue and see if there are any other sources of information that confirm or deny what you’re reading. I always suggest consulting Snopes.com. If you don’t find anything there, then just take 5 minutes to Google. If, after 5 minutes, you still feel it’s worthy of sharing (and knowing you’re going to kick up SM dust), then by all means, share away. But let’s all make an effort to turn down the sound and the fury in the echo chamber if we can.

Thoughts at the Closing Bell:

• The Tiger’s are playing OK ball, but our bullpen is a hot mess.
• It was a long-time coming, but I finally got to take a week-long vacation last week with Hol and GVH. We went to Pismo Beach and just did nothing for a week, sleeping in every morning. It was a little slice of heaven. GVH loved the sand, but wasn’t too wild for the ocean.
• After years in the iPhone3GS wilderness {cue laughter here}, I’ve finally joined the cool kids table with my new iPhone5. It’s like going from a Pinto to a Ferrari.
• My favorite animated gif currently? Hands down, it’s this one, courtesy the Kansas Jayhawks.

That’s all for now, kids. One love to you all.

***UPDATE*** (5/2/13) – From Breitbart.com and the activist blogs, the story has now started reaching legitimate news sites. Here, The Tennessean posted the story to their site. Interesting quote: “News of the ban came after an activist met with Air Force officials to demand that soldiers who spend too much time talking about Jesus be booted from the military.” No, in fact, news of the ban came out in August. YOU just didn’t care until the took a meeting with someone contreversial. The echo chamber continues . . .

Goodbye to an Old Friend

We knew the time was coming. If we’re being honest, we’d known the time was coming for awhile beforehand. We’d even made jokes about how we were going to have to “pull the trigger” imminently. When that moment finally came, though, we were surprised at just how hesitant we were to do the right thing.

On March 30th, 2013, my wife and I put our dog Karley down. Karley had been a member of our family from even before the two of us were technically a family. Karley was my wife’s dog. She had started out her life as my sister-in-law’s puppy. Then she spent some time with my wife’s parents. Eventually, when my wife got her first apartment by herself in Indianapolis around 2003, she asked my in-laws if she could have one of their dogs to stay with her in her apartment. It was a security concern, combined with a desire to simply not be alone in the apartment. She had a choice between their two Golden Retrievers, Scooby and Harley. They were both around 4 or 5 years old at that point. Scooby was considered the “better” dog – he minded better, he was less temperamental  and frankly, he was a bigger, stronger dog. However, my wife was in a pretty small apartment, so it made more sense to take the smaller of the two. So one weekend she came and picked up Harley, switched out the H for a K, and thus Karley and Holly became roommates.

When I came into the picture, Karley and Holly already had an established relationship. However, it only took a few times of me being on “potty” duty, as well as a few trips onto the couch in defiance of Holly’s attempts at training, for Karley to accept me as part of the picture. By the time we got married in 2006, I’d like to think Karley had become as much of my dog as she was Holly’s.

It’s funny, most people talk about their dogs like they are their children. Karley, though, never felt like she was our daughter. Even as a “younger” dog, she always acted like an old dog. Instead of feeling like our child, in so many ways she felt like an older aunt or grandmother that was “putting up with us” while she stayed in our home. Some of the things that reinforced this:

• Karley was never shy about letting you know she wanted to go out. She came to the couch and started barking at you, letting you know it was time to go out, whether you were ready to take her or not. 
• Same thing when she was hungry or thirsty. She was going to let you know that you needed to get to work.
• Karley did NOT enjoy being outside. This became especially true as she got older. In Cincinnati, we had a great big back yard that most dogs would enjoy exploring. Even if were were outside with her, Karley wouldn’t be out for more than 10 minutes before she was at the backdoor wanting to go back inside.
• Karley had no qualms about sleeping the day away. We never tired of laughing at her when, after walking in the door, we’d hear the “thump” of her hitting the floor, knowing that she’s spent the whole day on the couch or, especially in Cincinnati, laying in our bed.
• Karley liked to play fetch; or, rather, she liked to play “you throw it, I’ll chase it, but once I get it, I’m just going to lay down and you can come and get it and throw it again.” She pretty much played by her own, lazy rules.

In the summer of 2008, we shook her world up a bit. After coming back from trips to Africa and China, we arrived home with a new puppy (Hol had just read “Marley and Me”, and I was given a puppy or baby ultimatum – I went with puppy). Bella became a part of our family, and instantly became Karley’s shadow. Whereas Bella loved Karley and would follow her everywhere, Karley treated Bella with a loving indeference you’d expect from an old aunt.  Bella would love to play with Karley, and was always jumping on her, biting at her scruff. Despite the lack of effort she’d put into it, you could tell Karley was enjoying playing back, “growling” at her and pushing Bella away with her paws.

For all of the things above, though, the one thing you always knew about Karley was how much she loved. She never met a stranger she didn’t want to saddle up to. If you were sitting in a chair or couch, she would shove herself in front of you, demanding for you to pet her. If you were laying on the couch, she was agitating to be allowed to jump up there with you, saddling up next to you sprawled out, her head as close to yours as she could make it.

Over the last few years, there were plenty of signs that her time with us was winding down. She had a few spells of bladder control that had us taking her to the vet to see if she was ok. She couldn’t jump up as well anymore. Over the last year, she developed a tumor on her back leg that grew to the size of a mini-football, and eventually, by either arthritis or cancer from the tumor, her back legs started giving out.

It was this last bit that eventually caused us to have the serious discussion. Around the last weeks of March, her back legs quit on her again. This caused her enough pain that she gave up eating food for the most part. She’d drink a little water, but she was entirely immobile. Eventually, she couldn’t even stand on her back legs to use the bathroom, and I was having to carry her to and from the “dog spot” at our apartment complex. Eventually, I had to tell Holly that we only had one humane option left.

I didn’t expect how hard that final day would be. I’d always known I’d have to be the one to make the call; Holly loved too much, and it hurt too bad. However, in those final moments at the Humane Society, as I was holding GVH and Holly was saying her tearful goodbyes, I broke. I broke hard. I balled harder than I’ve cried in a long time. We were grateful for the chance to say good-bye as a family.

When I walk in the apartment today, it still doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t feel the same, not seeing her jumping off the couch to come say hello (or rather, “get me my food, dummy!”). When we get up in the middle of the night, it’s strange to not have her on the ground, tripping us up.

Goodbye Karley, a.k.a. Harley, a.k.a. Karleybear, a.k.a. KB-in-the-place-to-be. You are missed every day.

Thoughts at the closing bell:

• The Tigers are off to a great start, and are living up to their pre-season hype as the favorites in the AL Central. 
• Mad Men and Game of Thrones are also living up to their hype. Some people have complained that Mad Men is off to a “slow start”, but I’ve enjoyed both episodes to start the season.
• At the end of work this Friday, I’ll officially be on vacation for a week! We’re heading down to Pismo Beach to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for a whole week. My plan? Beer, Bourbon, and the Beach. That is all. God bless America.
• Tonight, I’ll be heading to Cliff House in San Francisco for the University of Montevallo’s first ever alumni event in the Bay Area. I helped organize the event along with Tracy Payne-Rocko from the University’s Alumni office, and I am so proud to help Montevallo’s alumni association spread it’s reach across the country. I bleed purple and gold (mostly gold).

That’s all for now, kids. One love to you all.

the southern thing

Reblogged from magnolia:

your soundtrack. crank it loud for this very long post.

well, well, well. look at this foolishness. turns out, 24 hours before the anniversary of the battle of the appomattox court house, a couple of royal dumbasses decided to show out about race, north/south relations and unbelievably terrible music in the form of "accidental racist." old white people in the south occasionally refer to the civil war as…

Read more… 2,163 more words

I was going to write a blog post about this song and subject matter, but, well, my friend kinda nails it for me.

On Same-Sex Marriage and Growing Up In The South

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry. At the heart of Perry is the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, a voter-driven initiative which added to California’s state constitution language which made it impossible for the state to recognize same-sex marriage. A federal district court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. A federal appellate court upheld the district court’s ruling. SCOTUS, after hearing today’s arguments, will eventually rule on the appellate court’s decision. If they uphold the decision, or simply refuse to rule, this will allow same-sex marriage in California, the most populous state in the union by a mile, and a broader ruling could open the door to same-sex marriage across the country.

Combined with tomorrow’s oral arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), these two days could prove to be a watershed moment in the way American’s view same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general. As today’s arguments proceeded, several of my friends on Facebook choose to change their profile pics to the Marriage Equality symbol. Many of these are friends have similar backgrounds to me, and that made me reflect on my own evolution in my views on homosexuality and gay marriage.

I wish I was livin in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten . . . 

When I was 7, my family moved from rural, farm-country Illinois to one of the farthest points south possible, Mobile, AL. I lived in Alabama from 7 until graduation from college at the age of 22. Thus, having spent a majority of my life in the South (ok, so 15 years out of 30 is almost no longer a majority, don’t remind me), specifically my formative years, I consider myself a Southerner. The South is an amazing place to grow up. People are generally kind and loving to their neighbors, heck, even strangers. People help other people. The entire region has a sense of community, a sense of identity, and they proudly defend it.

The South is also referred to as the “Bible Belt”, and with good reason. I grew up in a Pentecostal home, attending church every Wednesday and twice on Sunday. I was in the majority amongst my friends – we nearly all attended church regularly. So having our religious beliefs inform our political beliefs was simply the accepted norm. So when it came to issues revolving around homosexuality, I said the same things everyone else around me said, “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” and such (today, there are large segments of the progressive church that have begun to be more accepting of homosexuality; in 1990′s Alabama, this movement was essentially non-existent). In short, it was communicated to me that homosexuality was simply a sinful lifestyle, akin to drinking and drug-use, and that homosexuals were simply choosing to live that sinful lifestyle. With no real counter-programming, I just accepted this as fact.

In high school, I was given the occasional push-back on this view. I had several friends who came from more politically liberal homes who defended homosexuality, but I wrote them off like I wrote off, well, all Democrats at that point (the irony now, that I’m an active and engaged Democrat, is not lost on me, friends). To this point, I had no knowledgeable interaction with anyone who was an open homosexual. Considering that I was active in the Theater Department, this is beyond naive of me when I think about it now. Of course, years later, many of those people I counted as friends would eventually come out of the closet, but at the time, I had no one defending homosexuality from an active lifestyle perspective.

By the time I started college, I was still holding to most of these viewpoints. Of course, college is when I first started interacting on a daily basis with people who were now openly gay. At first, I simply wrote them off as misguided ( I was, after all, still in the South). However, pretty quickly, I started to realize that maybe I had it wrong. As I came to learn more, to think and analyze the issue on my own, away from my cultural upbringings, I began to think that maybe it wasn’t a choice.

While I’d like to proclaim that I was instantly turned around and became a vocal defendant of the LGBT community, I don’t want to lie. Even as I started to question my beliefs of the nature of homosexuality, I still wasn’t ready to embrace it. This was no more evident than in my fraternity. There were seven fraternities on campus, but only one had any active, openly gay brothers. How did we all refer to them? As “the gay fraternity”. My chapter had one or two brothers that had come out post-college, but we had no openly gay active brothers. I remember, sadly, too many conversations with other brothers at the time of how much we hoped to keep it that way. We had no problem with homosexuality, per se; we had a problem with how we thought the perception, the stigma, might hurt our recruiting efforts. Too many times, I remember saying things like, “I know __________ is probably gay, and that’s fine, I just prefer he comes out after he graduates.” I wasn’t until my senior year that I finally started vocalizing to certain members that we should probably get beyond that, but by then I was almost out the door. My chance to actually be a vocal proponent for change had passed.

I’m ashamed today to think of how I treated my brothers then. Today, I’m so proud that my chapter has embraced several brothers who actively came out, early on in their membership. Sure, there are still dissenting voices, and I’m not so naive to think they still don’t face some opposition. I’ve apologized to some of my brothers who have come out after college for not doing more to make them feel open to embrace who they were more fully at the time. If I haven’t said it to them personally yet, then I am now. I am sorry. I was a leader in the fraternity, and when I could have made a real difference for them, I didn’t not rise up like a man to the challenge.

Now, I have come to fully embrace the ideas of marriage and lifestyle equality. I’ve embraced it because of the many, many wonderful people in my life who are LGBT. I’ve embraced it because I see, in the relationship between my brother-in-law and his partner of almost 10 years, a relationship that I’d be proud to show to my daughter as one of true love and caring. I’ve embraced it, ultimately, because I realize it’s simply the right thing to do. Equality of rights is what this country was founded upon. No one should have to feel less than anyone else because of the way they were born, because of who they are in life.

Rapper Fat Joe sums up my own view: “Millions of n****s is gay . . . I’m a fan of , “yo, I’m gay, what the f***?” . . . If you gay, you gay.”

Some have argued that they fear SCOTUS striking down Prop 8 will have a backlash effect against gay rights in a similar way to how Roe v. Wade caused an uproar over a women’s right to choose. However, I have hope that it would be similar to the reaction, and eventual acceptance, to interracial marriage that followed Loving v. Virginia. Much like same-sex marriage, interracial marriage was demonized, especially in the South, as against the will of God, against nature. Today, hardly anyone blinks an eye as more and more interracial couples embrace love and marriage. I hope the same for the LGBT community.

Thoughts at the Closing Bell:

• Baseball season is almost here! Less than one week till the Tigers begin their march towards the title! RESTORE THE ROAR!
• What else is almost back? Mad Men and Game of Thrones! TV is about to get even more amazeballs, people.
• For god’s sake, Italy, the Amanda Knox trial is over. LET IT GO.
• In Future SCOTUS case news: North Dakota just effectively gave SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade a big middle finger. Brings to mind Andrew Jackson’s famous (alleged) quote, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

That’s all for now, kids. One (equal) love to you all.

How To Push School Vouchers and Look Sleazy In The Process

It’s been almost nine years since I moved away from the land of cotton, the heart of Dixie, my home state of Alabama. Because a large chunk of my friends still live back there, though, I am kept in the loop about a lot of things going on back there (thanks to FB and Twitter news posts from friends). That’s how this story about the newest attempts at a school voucher program came to my attention.

Last week, the Alabama Legislature passed an education bill that would radically change public education and access to private education in the state. It would also ultimately change the way struggling public schools were funded throughout the state. This bill had the support of most of Alabama’s largest teachers and school board associations, except that it actually didn’t. 

You see, an original education bill had been worked on through the Alabama House and Senate for sometime. In its original form, the bill contained mostly inoffensive goals and actions, and it received support from most of the public school organizations (ex. the Alabama Education Association) in the state, as well as the state superintendent  However, last Thursday night, a conference committee went behind closed doors to discuss the bill. They emerged from their closed-door meeting with a bill that was now almost tripled in size. The most important change to this bill was that now, out of nowhere, it contained provisions allowing for the allowance of tax credits to be given to students attending under-performing public schools, credits to be used towards either attending a private school or switching to another, better public school. These credits, in effect, would work like school vouchers. Immediately, all of the bills outside supporters pulled their support, but at this twilight hour, it was simply too late. 

When it reached the Senate for final approval, the Senate erupted into chaos (see the video in this article). However, because the Republican party has the Super-majority  they were ultimately able to pass the bill, despite the chaos. It’s this final point that really makes me want to go crazy. It didn’t have to be this way.

It’s not about the vouchers, it’s about the process. (ok, it’s kind of about the vouchers too) 

School vouchers, which essentially direct tax payer money away from public schools and give students the ability to use those funds to attend private schools, are a highly contentious issue in this country. Proponents say that it gives children the opportunity to get a better education from a better performing private school; thus, it’s about free-market competition. Opponents say that it takes tax payer money and gives it to private entities, while forcing already struggling public schools to try to do more with even less, thus creating a downward-spiral effect. Thus, whenever a state enacts voucher/tax credit legislation, it’s is always a cause for much public debate.

It’s that public debate that the Alabama Republicans were looking to avoid, and that’s what makes this whole thing feel oh so sleazy. As I mentioned, the Republican’s have a super-majority in the Alabama Legislature. This means that whatever they want to pass, they can pass. However, if they had introduced the tax credit portions of the bill early-on, they would have had to engage in a public debate with Democrats, as well as public school and educator lobbying groups. They simply didn’t want to do that, so they hid their motives until the last-minute.

So now, instead of engaging opponents and creating a healthy debate and working environment, they have completely poisoned the well. State Democrats will be looking for any and every opportunity to stab back at the Republicans. The problem with politics in America, everyone!

For what it’s worth, I do not believe school vouchers or tax credits are a good idea on the whole. While there can be successful,  restrained programs, the Alabama version seems especially ill-conceived because it’s aimed specifically at the worst performing schools and their students. However, because the tax credit wouldn’t actually cover all of a student’s new tuition at a private school, many of these students (who come from low-income families) will not have the resources to take advantage of this credit. Because some students will, though, it simply means draining the Education Trust Fund, and causing these poorly performing schools to receive even less funding. Some will close down, forcing overcrowding at school that remain open, which will eventually drag those schools down. Thus, only a few hundred students may be able to actually take advantage of the credits, while thousands are punished in the process. It’s the worst of all worlds, it seems.

Thoughts at the closing bell:

• I want to welcome all of the blogs new readers who have subscribed to this blog after it was featured in the “Freshly Pressed” section of WordPress last week. The response to my post on the Oscars was simply overwhelming, and for the most part, an amazingly positive experience. Thanks to everyone who stopped by and read (a little inside baseball: my readership stats were up a mind-blowing 10,000% from the previous week). 
• With that in mind, I hope this post wasn’t too much of a radical departure from what you were expecting. It is, however, a pretty good indicator of how I tend to bounce around topics with my blog. One week it could be politics, the next week it could be entertainment news, and then the next week it could be about a trip I’ve recently taken. I’m all over the place, in other words.
• Speaking of entertainment, this week was a good one of tv series popping out great episodes. “Justified”, “Girls”, and “The Walking Dead” all gave some of their best efforts of these seasons. At this point, “Justified” is reaching “Mad Men” status for me.
• In an interesting addendum piece to my article last week, here’s an article from Salon which looks at Yahoo! CEO Melissa Mayer and her relationship with “feminism”.
• In “Crazy ol’ Ahmadinejad” News – After the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has assured us that Chavez will return, apparently returning with Jesus and the Hidden Imam of Muslim prophecy. So . . . there’s that.
• Oh good, I’m glad we’re talking about this, because my emotional scars were just healing from the Leno/Conan wars.
• The World Baseball Classic has been underway, but in my imperialistic hegemonic way, I’ve refused to care until Friday, when Team USA finally takes the field. USA! USA! USA! (though let’s be honest, we’re probably going to lose again to Japan or the DR.

That’s all for now, kids. One love to you all.

On MacFarlane and the Oscars – Should I have been offended?

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was in a bind. The ratings for the Academy Awards telecast have been going down for years. Most people chalked that up to a show that reveled in an old-Hollywood environment that younger viewers had no desire to engage. They had tried to rectify this in the past by bringing in the youthful team of Anne Hathaway and James Franco two years ago. Unfortunately  they forgot to stipulate in Mr. Franco’s contract that he had to actually care when he showed up, and that performance was a bomb. They over-corrected last year by bringing in Billy Crystal, whose face seems to have been worked over no less than 20 times by plastic surgeons, and whose act seems about as timely as a “Take my wife, please!” joke. The “youth block” yawned and changed the channel.

So the Academy decided to take a pretty dramatic turn for this years show by selecting Seth MacFarlane to host. Seth MacFarlane was pretty hot at that moment the decision was announced, having just finished making a half a billion dollars worldwide for ‘Ted’ (you read that right, over $500,000,000), as well as having just wrapped a very well-received hosting gig on ‘Saturday Night Live’. The real, key, though, is that because of his most famous product, ‘Family Guy’, MacFarlane would be a host that would directly tap the 18-34 demo that the Oscars just could not get their hands around.

That’s not to say that MacFarlane was a safe or easy choice by any means. His resume was ‘Family Guy’, ‘Ted’, and . . . well, that’s pretty much it. (I’m wrapping all of his Fox animated shows under the ‘Family Guy’ banner). His short resume is combined with the type of humor that is directly associated with ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Ted’, which is to say NOT Billy Crystal’s style of humor. ‘Family Guy’ is known for pushing the boundaries on all levels, and so there was quite a fear of just how far MacFarlane might go. This was combined with a large number of people who simply associated MacFarlane with the humor of his shows, and were going to bring in a lot of preconceived baggage about the host before the show even started.

Based on all of the reviews since then, I’d say that this is exactly what happened. USA Today said, “Awash in self-indulgence, neither he nor his 3-hour-and-35-minute show ever seemed to hit a comfortable, confident stride . . . .” On the other hand, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “Showing considerable poise, MacFarlane . . . opened with a series of jokes that were bona fide winners, landing on just the right tone: confident but not cocksure.” In the middle was The New York Times, much more critical of the overall pace and music selection of the show than Mr. MacFarlane, wrote, “Mr. MacFarlane didn’t ruin the show. But the show almost ruined the Oscars.”

So the responses turned out to be pretty much exactly what MacFarlane was already prepared for, and I as well. He was as polarizing in reviews as he was coming into the show to begin with, so no real shock. However, as I began reading real-time reviews last night, another theme started popping up, one that I was a little more taken aback by – this show was amazingly sexist?

The Sexisim/Racisim Blind Spot

The Atlantic was the first publication to really give a full-throated thrashing of the show, with an article published almost before the show was even over, titled, “The Banality of Seth MacFarlane’s Sexism and Racism at the Oscars.” This was followed fairly soon after by this Buzzfeed post: “9 Sexist Things That Happened at The Oscars.” I found both of these articles immediately confusing, because at no point during the show’s telecast was I struck by the thought that anything I had seen was sexist. I also didn’t find it particularly racist, though his use of race in “Django” and “Lincoln” related jokes, I could at least see where that allegation could come from. The sexism charge, though, had me truly confused.

For full disclosure, I am a white, 30-year-old male who was raised in a pretty Conservative (the big C mean’s I’m talking about politically) household. I grew up in a Conservative environment, and in all honesty, never really lived in any environment that could be considered mildly liberal until I moved to the Bay Area this past June. I say all of this to acknowledge that I would be the first to admit that there can be times when I have a “blind spot” to certain sexist/racist issues. It’s a “blind spot” much in the same way a car’s blind spot work. It’s not that I can never see it or even don’t want to, but sometimes I have to take a second look and really pay attention before I see where an offended party might be coming from with their allegation.

So it’s with that disclosure in mind that I decided to take a serious look at the allegations against the show and MacFarlane. I reviewed all nine of the item’s on Buzzfeeds list. After a serious, careful consideration, my conclusion? I still don’t see it. The “Boobs” song was purposefully sexist in a meta-way, and the actress reactions were all pre-taped, illustrating that they were more than game for the joke. The Quvenzhane Wallis/Clooney joke was a joke about Clooney liking to date young women. The Chris Brown joke doesn’t offend me because CHRIS BROWN IS AWFUL AND DOESN’T DESERVE TO BE LEFT ALONE ABOUT SAVAGELY BEATING RIHANNA. The Anniston/Tatum joke was only calling her a possible stripper in as much as it was reminding us all that Tatum was once a stripper. That joke would have worked as well if he’d had a male co-presenter instead of Anniston. The dieting joke was really no different than every other “ladies trying to fit in Oscar dresses” jokes that have been made for the last 84 years of the show. The Kardashians joke wasn’t about women, it was about the Kardashians. Is anyone really in a mood to come to their defense? The Nicholson joke allegation is simply about the fact that Nicholson is known to be a scoundrel. The Salma Hayek joke might have been sexist if the setup didn’t also include Javier Bardem, who I’m pretty sure is not a women.

So of the 9 jokes that Buzzfeed labeled as sexist, the only one I’d probably give a slight nod to is the Chastain/’Zero Dark Thirty’ joke, because, well, yeah, that was just a joke about women. With all of that said, though, again, I’m fully admitting that I can have a blind-spot on these issues. However, I’ve already begun asking some women who are colleagues and former classmates, and so far, I’m not finding many people defending the “sexist” allegations. I’d also note that two of the writers who wrote the more positive reviews that I linked to earlier were women. If you were offended by these jokes, though, please feel free to describe it below in the comments. I will not argue with you about it or try to talk you out of your perception of the show/jokes; I truly want to see and understand where other people who might have been offended are coming from regarding these jokes.

Final Review

So with ALL of that said, what was my opinion of the show? As you may imagine, I really enjoyed it. Aside from the fact that MacFarlane is my new-school doppleganger (Donny Osmond my old-school one), I thought he brought to the table just the right mix of edginess combined with respect for old-school Hollywood. This shouldn’t be surprising, as this is a guy with a love for 50′s and 60′s era Hollywood (he put out an album of old standards in 2011, ‘Music Is Better Than Words’, that was nominated for 2 Grammys). He regularly holds large galas at his Hollywood home and brings in Big Band orchestras.

The style of joke delivery that USA Today and other described as “awkward” and “nervous” was anything but that; being somewhat bashful/playful with the delivery of a heart-spearing joke is his style. Hell, it’s really the comedic style of my entire generation. We like to give over-the-line jokes because we want to push the edge, but we want to signal that it’s a joke through our body language because we’re really not a mean or hateful generation (if anything, we’re one of the most open, loving, and respectful generations), and MacFarlane’s comedic style is the essence of that. Every interview he’s ever given has shown him to be a genuinely kind and likable person. Most people looked to the ‘Saturday Night Live’ gig as a preview of what to expect, but I thought the better indicators were his performances as host of the Comedy Central Roasts of David Hasselhoff, Donald Trump, and Charlie Sheen. What’s funny about those performances was that they made my wife, who HATES ‘Family Guy’, somewhat develop a crush on Mr. MacFarlane and the charming way he twists the verbal knife.

They won’t have him back I bet, but I appreciate the Academy giving him the stage last night, and I enjoyed what he did with it.

Thoughts at the Closing Bell:

• So while I have obviously defended MacFarlane, I will NOT be defending The Onion after their move last night regarding Quvenzhane Wallis. I mean . . . yikes. I’m a habitual line-stepper, and that’s a bridge too far even for me. 
• All signs point to Sequestration happening, folks. Did you enjoy the recession in 2009? Because we might be saddling up for seconds.
• Spring Training has started! I listened to a Spring Training game on the radio yesterday, and my life already feels brighter and happier. BASEBALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. (Awww, but ain’t that America!)
• So let me just acknowledge that, yes, it’s been 100 years since I last wrote a post. Actually, it’s been almost 3 months, which is one of my longest streaks since law school killed my blogging for awhile. I can’t say for sure what’s kept me from writing. I will say that some of the blame, though, lies with Twitter and Facebook. When I first started blogging after I graduated from college and moved 1000 miles away from home, blogging was my way to keep family and friends updated and connected. Now, though, I often find myself starting to write a post, only to think, “Huh, I kinda already talked about that on Twitter and Facebook.” I will say that I started and stopped gun-control posts at least three times, each time stopping and going, “Ughhh, I just don’t want to go here.”

That’s all for now, kids. One love to you all.