Racist Republicans Strike Again, Against Their Own

Poor Zoraida Fonalledas with Prince Riebus

I'M SO DISGUSTED RIGHT NOW!

I heard about Zori Fonalledas, the Chairwoman of the Committee on Permanent Organization & a Republican delegate from Puerto Rico was shouted down as she was introduced. Some called it blatant racism. Others, Republican honchos, claimed it was a carry over from some vote about not seating some Ron Paul delegates. I decided to watch what occurred just before she was introduced, & YES there was some flak about the vote. BUT, it had died down by the time Prince Riebus began to introduce her. Almost as soon as the word Puerto Rico got out of his mouth, the chants of USA & Get them Out! began ringing throughout the floor. So the excuse that this was about sour grapes on the part of Paul supporters doesn't cut it.

It's a shame that Puerto Ricans have been citizens since 1898, have contributed the 2nd most troops of any US state or territory, and have to be greeted like this. Even after Riebus bangs his gavel to demand the appropriate respect, you can hear the chanting, albeit quieter. ...& the Republicans wonder why they have such a hard time attracting Hispanics to their ranks.

Thanks to a handy C-SPAN feature that let's you make your own clip, I've provided what I looked at so you can judge for yourself. 

Tonight, Luis   Fortuño , Republican Governor of Puerto Rico gets his turn on the dais. I'm sure by then, all the thugs will finally be in lockstep, and yesterday's debacle will be all but forgotten. But don't be surprised if anti-Hispanic hatred spills over, yet again.

¿Who Aborted The Spirit of Compromise?

This posting was originally published on my MySpace blog on March, 2008 and was inspired by a blog entry posted by Jon Platner, managing editor of plannedparenthood.org. I decided to dig it up and repost it since it's an issue relevent to the Presidential Campaign.
First off, let me start by saying that I'm generally against the act of abortion. In my experience (as limited as it may be), it's usually a grisly form of birth control for young ladies that either don't know or don't care enough about effective, non-invasive, birth control; or for those who accidentally get pregnant when their birth control of choice fails. I think we can all agree, ProChoice or ProLife, that abortions offer a sad look at the state of contemporary society. I do, however, believe in the right of women to choose an abortion if they deem it necessary.

That said, I also recognize that banning abortions at this point in history would be an utter and unmitigated disaster. Returning to the a time when women have to travel to states where they were legal, where doctors have to break the law to help a girl in need, or where abortions are performed by potential quacks in underground operating rooms is unwarranted and cruel. Fortunately, even with today's more conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, the majority of justices currently seated would not strike down Roe v. Wade.

(Cute joke:
Q: What did Bush say when asked what his feelings were on Roe versus Wade?
A: Well ummm I don't care whether people row OR wade to get out of New Orleans, as long as they get out safely. )

The real question is, what can we do about abortion that can be effective in reducing the sheer numbers while not criminalizing an act that is so personal and, in many cases, traumatic for the woman having one? There are some simple answers.

First, the government has to promote an age appropriate Sex Education program that teaches the big picture, both birth control and abstinence. Our children need to understand that they do not have to give in to the pressures of having sex at an early age, but they need to know that if they do they should be armed with the knowledge of what birth control is available to them and its effectiveness.

Second, the government has to guarantee that ALL women have access to ALL forms of birth control. That means the morning after pill. That means RU486. And if that means passing laws stating that Walmart or whatever pharmacy CAN NOT turn away any female requesting birth control, so be it.

Ultimately however, reducing abortions in this country really comes down to a joining of minds from both sides of the issue. Lifers have to realize that abortion is a reality that may never be deemed immoral by all aspects of society. Choicers have to realize that the reduction in the number of abortions, still a risky procedure, is a more noble cause than the protection of such a sad right. Imagine the progress that could be made if we put our signs down and lift our voices, in unison, for a better way.

¿What's God Got to Do With It?

 I know I haven't been posting much about this year's contest for POTUS lately, but as most of you know I'm in the tank, as they say, for Obama. There's really not much I can say without the risk of sounding like a little schoolgirl who just made it onto the cheerleading team. That's not to say I'm not perturbed by some of the goings-on during our most recent attempt at picking the Face & Voice of Our nation. Take religion. Really, take religion. I'm not using it. Seriously though, I've seen some frightening things going on in our country where religion is involved. I'm talking about now, not the good old days where people died daily for their beliefs. Wait. That's still happening. I meant the good old days when untold numbers of our fellow human beings were brutalized for their faith. It still astounds me some of the foul things done in the name of a deity. I hesitate to even bring this up. Religion's one of those things you're not supposed to discuss as the discussion usually breaks down to a pissing contest about who is "closer" to God. However, certain things about this campaign have gotten caught in my craw so deep that I fear I risk a stroke if I don't get them out. Besides, it might be nice to hear from a recovering Christian who's evolved into agnosticism (my version of agnosticism: in short, I believe in something but don't give it a face or a name, nor do I make up a personality, nor do I believe It consciously controls Us.) Nevertheless, I apologize in advance if anything I say offends anyone. The muslim thing bothers me. Not that so many people actually believe Obama’s a muslim, but that if he were, that it would make a difference. How can a country that was founded on the guiding principle of Freedom—Freedom of religion above all else—allow itself to care whether any candidate is a muslim or not. I'm ashamed. I don't behoove anyone their right to worship as they like, as long as they respect my right of doing likewise. However, If anyone out their genuinely believes they couldn't vote for someone because they don't pray to the right god, then that individual vehemently opposes what America stands for. I was a devout, if meandering christian until I was 17 or so. At one time or another I've attended church with Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists. I was less than a year away from my mission when I escaped the Mormons. I've also worshiped at a couple of synagogues, have been to my fair share of Passover Seders and have even been present at some Wiccan rituals. My father-in-law is muslim. And I haven't even mentioned the Santeria rituals I've personally performed (and I won't mention more since that's a topic I'll be tackling in my second novel, Chango Crying). A result of my religious travails was my ultimate decision that choosing any specific religion was tantamount to damning a good deal of my Friends & Family to some kind of painful afterlife they didn't deserve. That was one of the reasons I had chosen mormonism in my teens. They always seemed to have the answer for every question, and as a precocious fourteen year-old, I had lots of questions. When I questioned the idea that only by faith in God through Jesus could one earn the much vaunted paradisical afterlife, the mormon missionary drew a star in his little book of potential converts and proceeded to let me in on the ritual known as Baptism for the Dead. Everybody would have the option of getting to heaven if they simply accepted this ritual initiation posthumously. It is a beautiful ritual that I’ve had the honor of participating in on a few occasions, but I'm a sucker for rituals. I even cried at the hours long Good Friday Procession that paraded through the streets of San Miguel de Allende in Mexico during last spring break. When personal problems with the mormon church led to little action besides continual pronouncements that while the members were not perfect, the religion itself was, I took it upon myself to see it as a challenge to prove or disprove the veracity of that statement. It didn't take long for me to discover that the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints did not allow blacks full membership until 1978. I heard plenty of excuses, from the idea that black folk just were not ready until then to bear the full responsibilities of mormonism to doctrine stating that blacks of African descent were descended from Cain therefore blacks were unworthy of "full" worship. I could never accept a religion that excluded folks based simply on the color of their skin as "perfect." It was enough to put me off organized religion for good. Now, I didn't exclude Romney, today's most famous mormon next to Donny & Marie, from those I felt might make a decent POTUS because he was a mormon. I do have a problem with a leader who's continued membership in his church implies that his church was justified in curtailing anyone's ability to worship for decades, but mostly it was his republican affiliation that I found repelling, not his faith. Mormon or not, if I felt Mitt was the best choice to lead Our country, I would have endorsed him regardless of his ontological choices. I can sense I'm starting to lose some of you, so let me get back to the gritty of the nitty, so to speak. I suppose what bothers me the most about where Our religious beliefs have led us as a Nation is the idea that Christianity holds some kind of trump over other faiths here. First off, it's bunk. Our wise founding fathers, many of which eschewed Christianity for more universal Deist beliefs, recognized the fact that pushing any faith as Our National Faith was a dangerous proposition. They used all the blood uselessly spilled in the European struggle of catholicism against protestantism and the tragedy of the Salem witch trials as proof positive that religion should be left up to the individual, not government. This ideal stuck for a while. At least until the Christian Revival movements that arose in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries. Now things have devolved to the point that many Christians believe that we were founded as a Christian Nation. The Communist scare of the 40s & 50s prompted the government to insert "God" into various aspects of Our lives like our Pledge of Allegiance, sadly, without ever realizing how it infringed on the rights of Our fellow citizen Atheists. Now we're at a point where there seems to be a religious test for the office of president, and you CANNOT pass said test unless Christ is in your equation. And now there’s talk about Sarah Palin being a Dominionist /Kingdom Now follower , one of the neo-charismatic sects whose goal it is to turn Our nation into a Christian theocracy. You may be familiar with the movement if you’ve ever seen the movie Jesus Camp. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a Islamic POTUS who respects diversity than one who believes Christianity should be Our official religion and approves of training our children for some upcoming spiritual war. Now anyone who has trolled my profile should know that Jesus of Nazareth is one of my personal heroes. I view him as one of history's most benevolent iconoclasts, opening the best of Judaism's principles for all to follow while railing against some of the faith's most antiquated and hypocritical tenets. He opened up the belief that we could all be chosen, if we make the right choices, and that no one is lesser than anyone else. Unfortunately, Jesus was assassinated before truly realizing his vision, and as typically happens after such a tragedy, his followers chose to venerate the Man over his Message. Like Buddha, Jesus was elevated by his followers to the point where living by his ideals of Love of ALL and that belief in God need not be bound by region or nationality meant nothing unless one also added Jesus to one’s pantheon. I believe this is antithetical to Jesus' teachings, and continues to corrupt Christianity to this day. So not only is it troubling that we question Obama's faith, but more troubling is the fact that being Christian has become a litmus test for Our highest office. It's not just imperative that a viable candidate be Christian, but We've now gotten to the point where it's important how "good" and "devout" of a christian one is. Not only is this antithetical to Jesus' teachings, but it runs counter to Our nation’s ideals. If you don't believe me, look at the recent study that shows an overwhelming percentage of Our fellow Americans no longer believe there is only one path to salvation. Sadly, I can do little but watch as a very vocal minority (those who adhere strictly to the idea that the U.S. is or should be a Christian nation) continues to push its agenda and denigrate those who oppose them or may stand in their path. Worse, they perpetually prod Our nation frighteningly closer to theocracy. Even with all that, I continue to hold on to the hope that, as usual, common sense will eventually prevail in our fine nation. Then I can look forward to the day when even a simple agnostic like myself, one who truly respects Everyone's right to worship as They see fit, can successfully run for Our highest office.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE (that means donate)

What I Hope For

When discussing issues the media usually refer to the more popular ones—the meat, as they say. And sure, I get why everyone’s always talking about the economy. Things are still rough out there. I was one of the new numbers on the recently released unemployment figures. Then there’s Iraq, and National Security which, of course, is very important—something We can get back to when our Boys (& Girls!) come back from Iraq. However, you shouldn’t forget that even seemingly smaller issues can mean a lot to many of us.

Take Our drug policy. I know, we don’t really have much of one. The number of impoverished crackheads and heroin addicts I see everyday on my way through Lexington Market in the heart of Baltimore hasn’t dwindled much since the beginning of The War on Drugs. (Funny how throwing the word war around has become the standard way to show Us how to solve Our problems.) But Our government has been fighting the same War for a generation now, and other than making a few small dents in the supply and warehousing a lot of people in jails that continue to overcrowd, not much has changed—at least not on the federal level.

At this point I should make it clear why this issue means so much to me—other than the fact that I live three blocks away from Lexington Market. Those of you who might have read My Letter to the Superdelegates, which I wrote when it looked as if things might come down to them, or my flash fiction Bus Stop, or many of the other things I’ve blogged already know that my family has been ravaged by drug addiction. For those of you who don’t know, I lost my mother to AIDS in 1991. Although a loving and courageous woman, a woman who helped new arrivals from Puerto Rico and other Latin American areas settle and adjust to life in Baltimore, she battled with heroin addiction most of her life.

A few years later, I lost my uncle. He was a character, in and out of jail for a lot of his life, hustling when he was out. But sometimes he was the closest thing I had around to a father. He was usually very good to me. Like my mother, he was a heroin addict and ultimately succumbed to AIDS.

My baby brother was barely 17 when my mother died. Although he became a hard worker and a loving father, he suffered greatly after the death of our mother. He also turned to drugs—crack and heroin. On the day after Christmas, 2006, Joe became the latest in my family succumb to AIDS.

The rest of my family has been more fortunate, but I see the ghosts of what my family has been through every day I step out for lunch. And it’s not just the poor. I’ve been privy to the same sad excesses within Our wealthiest families; and other than more and better recovery facilities and less law enforcement scrutiny, their stories are no less tragic than mine.

So when it comes to drug policy, perhaps it’s not as much of a priority as National Security, but certainly should be close behind when you stop to consider how drug abuse continues to destroy Our lives, Our families, Our children, Our schools and Our neighborhoods. What else has to be destroyed before drugs do become a matter of National Security? Bottom line: one of the myriad of reasons I will NEVER vote for them is because that would mean my lunch breaks will never change. The faces will, but the same problems will still haunt me, along with the memories of everything drug addiction has taken away from me.

Maybe a President Obama will not be able to fulfill my dream of a nation where addicts are getting whatever treatment they need, and where we initiate programs to eliminate illegal drug trafficking intelligently instead of with the brute force that has been so ineffective for so long. There’s a lot of work to do and to undo to get there. However, he is the only hope I see of getting Us on that path.

The Speech

I pulled this off HuffingtonPost. I don't know about you, but for me this excerpt sums-up exactly what I want (¡and don't want!) out of government—the type of government that helped me get to where I am today. Barack Obama delivered the speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois in June, 2005.

Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn't much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government--divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it--Social Darwinism--every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford--tough luck...It let's us say to the child who was born into poverty--pull yourself up by your bootstraps...

But there is a problem. It won't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It's been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

¿So what do you think? ¿Do you disagree? ¿If so, how do you think government should work? & if you do agree—well maybe you should spread the word...