The Today show has broadcasted loads of segments on “Recession-proofing Your [insert concern here].” I always watched, toothbrush in mouth, thinking to myself, I have no debt, I rent my apartment, I have a stable job, I’m not retiring any time soon, and for reasons x, y, and z, I basically AM recession-proof.
Not true.
A little more than a week ago, I started this blog and distilled my life into phrases like “balancing life in Harlem, love in Los Angeles…,” and “renovation project and long-distance relationship.” These were the things in my life that most dominated my time (except for work. Work shmerk.) and, therefore, sort of defined my life.
Even I have trouble imagining, therefore, what my life is to become now. I had plans to move to Los Angeles (on my own terms and in my own time), update my relationship status to be rid of that ugly “long-distance” crap, buy a Mini Cooper, oversee an extensive remodel to a sweet house we purchased, and spend my days hopping around art galleries, walking Labradors, and visiting green markets, my grandmother, and the vineyards and golf courses of Santa Barbara County.
Sounds nice, right? Brunch in Malibu, anyone?
So I told all my friends that I was moving—again, eventually—and started making new friends of Los Angelinos, while earning Platinum status on American Airlines. Upgrade! Cha-ching!
And after, quite seriously, more than two years’ estrangement, hundreds of thousands of frequent-flyer miles, a year pouring over PDF’s with a batty architect on the line, a GAGILLION dollars invested in all of the above, and the development of some pretty big-time dreams, I discover that I am not so recession-proof.
I boarded with business class onto a 767 the week I watched Lehman Brothers go down in flames with utter fascination and a lot of sympathy (bordering on pity, I imagine). How tragic, I thought.
My parents bought the vineyard next to theirs around the same time a friend’s parents lost their home. “I am sooooo sorry, honey,” I had poo-poo’ed to her, as I showed her the latest round of architectural plans for my Santa Monica mini-manse. “Do you like the columns?”
Well, now I get it. It’s the economy, stupid. My life is on hold, and on this fabulous fall Friday in the Big Apple, I have two things to show for the past two years for which I am endlessly grateful right now:
1) A new understanding of my friendships in New York. Preparing to say good-bye to the people who have loved me and whom I have loved for the last 5 years has been a real hardship. However, I truly have reckoned with those friendships and value them all the more for it; and
2) A renewed understanding of the bond in my relationship, making it all the more unshakable, even after two years of separation.
So, as I finish this post, I am thankful for the opportunity I have had to dream, and even though the Economy giveth and the Economy taketh away, at least I know how big I can dream. And thanks to my recession-proneness, I get to dream again now and to decide which dream I really want to chase.
Showing posts with label Head over heels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Head over heels. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Progress
Last night was unbelievable.
And somehow the above statement seems just wrong. A man was elected regardless of (or despite) his skin color. Unbelievable? Well, the whole world believes it now. The whole world believes in America again because of President-elect Obama’s skin color. Doesn’t that just seem silly? Today is like all of our aunts and uncles applauding silly little America in its high chair because it finally acquiesced to eating broccoli. We finally decided that it wasn’t so bad to have an African-American president. (Please note that I did not say that we decided to “do the right thing” because the “right thing” is not unequivocally electing an African-American president.)
I am elated by Obama’s election. I am so happy that I get emotional thinking about the milestone for civil rights that it represents. However, when I think about why it makes me so happy, it is because I find beauty—and incredulity—in witnessing people act generously and responsibly. Am I such a cynic?
I am.
To me, people are inherently good, but inherently selfish. Generally, they would not wish harm on other people, unless they got too scared or it cost them too much. In terms of the long road leading to a black man’s election to the presidency, 100 years ago it would have cost the people in power too much, and 20 years ago, they were just too scared.
California voted to amend its constitution to limit the rights of same-sex couples yesterday by a slim margin, voting at the same time to send the first African-American man to the Oval Office. That means that people voted for Barack Obama—let’s face it, consciously voted for a black president and probably patted themselves on the back for it—and then a little farther down the ballot, voted to remove rights from gay people.
What breaks my heart is that California decided to do the unequivocally wrong thing, to strip people of their rights, to write discrimination into their constitution, and to deny the validity of millions of people’s ways of life across the country. California had the chance truly to be a leader, and to do so in acting as quintessential Americans: to stand up against discrimination, to act against injustice, to respect the rights of their neighbors as vehemently as they hold their own, regardless of personal differences. That is the right thing.
America is so special because people don’t often do the right thing; here, we are expected to do it. That is why I get emotional when I think about it. That is why Obama’s election is not at all silly. That is why Californians should be ashamed of themselves today. Sure, they voted for the black guy (which, again, is not the unequivocally right thing to do), but they spurned their countrymen by claiming a gender-based superiority when they really wanted just to say, “I think being gay is wrong.”
Why did they do this? Two reasons: 1) the fear referenced above (and in an earlier post). I guess the silver lining to that is that eventually people get over their fears, and at least we are not talking about it costing the people in power anything; and 2) people are trying to legislate their religious views. That is simply unacceptable. They are allowed to have their religious views because their countrymen uphold that right for them. Working to take away someone else’s rights on that basis is the greatest and most consistent American hypocrisy.
“Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.” –Thomas Jefferson
“In giving rights to others which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country.” -John F. Kennedy
“I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.” -Robert Frost
Harlem is basking in the glow of last night. It is a wonderful moment for so many reasons, but just as last night does not mean we have put to bed “the race issue” in America, we always must be active in protecting equality among all of our citizens. The moment we stop doing that is the moment that we lose equality ourselves.
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” –Abraham Lincoln
And somehow the above statement seems just wrong. A man was elected regardless of (or despite) his skin color. Unbelievable? Well, the whole world believes it now. The whole world believes in America again because of President-elect Obama’s skin color. Doesn’t that just seem silly? Today is like all of our aunts and uncles applauding silly little America in its high chair because it finally acquiesced to eating broccoli. We finally decided that it wasn’t so bad to have an African-American president. (Please note that I did not say that we decided to “do the right thing” because the “right thing” is not unequivocally electing an African-American president.)
I am elated by Obama’s election. I am so happy that I get emotional thinking about the milestone for civil rights that it represents. However, when I think about why it makes me so happy, it is because I find beauty—and incredulity—in witnessing people act generously and responsibly. Am I such a cynic?
I am.
To me, people are inherently good, but inherently selfish. Generally, they would not wish harm on other people, unless they got too scared or it cost them too much. In terms of the long road leading to a black man’s election to the presidency, 100 years ago it would have cost the people in power too much, and 20 years ago, they were just too scared.
California voted to amend its constitution to limit the rights of same-sex couples yesterday by a slim margin, voting at the same time to send the first African-American man to the Oval Office. That means that people voted for Barack Obama—let’s face it, consciously voted for a black president and probably patted themselves on the back for it—and then a little farther down the ballot, voted to remove rights from gay people.
What breaks my heart is that California decided to do the unequivocally wrong thing, to strip people of their rights, to write discrimination into their constitution, and to deny the validity of millions of people’s ways of life across the country. California had the chance truly to be a leader, and to do so in acting as quintessential Americans: to stand up against discrimination, to act against injustice, to respect the rights of their neighbors as vehemently as they hold their own, regardless of personal differences. That is the right thing.
America is so special because people don’t often do the right thing; here, we are expected to do it. That is why I get emotional when I think about it. That is why Obama’s election is not at all silly. That is why Californians should be ashamed of themselves today. Sure, they voted for the black guy (which, again, is not the unequivocally right thing to do), but they spurned their countrymen by claiming a gender-based superiority when they really wanted just to say, “I think being gay is wrong.”
Why did they do this? Two reasons: 1) the fear referenced above (and in an earlier post). I guess the silver lining to that is that eventually people get over their fears, and at least we are not talking about it costing the people in power anything; and 2) people are trying to legislate their religious views. That is simply unacceptable. They are allowed to have their religious views because their countrymen uphold that right for them. Working to take away someone else’s rights on that basis is the greatest and most consistent American hypocrisy.
“Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.” –Thomas Jefferson
“In giving rights to others which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country.” -John F. Kennedy
“I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.” -Robert Frost
Harlem is basking in the glow of last night. It is a wonderful moment for so many reasons, but just as last night does not mean we have put to bed “the race issue” in America, we always must be active in protecting equality among all of our citizens. The moment we stop doing that is the moment that we lose equality ourselves.
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” –Abraham Lincoln
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Dearly Beloved
For all that the press sensationalizes politics, from disproportionate coverage of candidate gaffs to sweeping characterizations of "the average American," I do agree with the sentiment that November 4 will be a landmark day. As is any person engaged in his society, I am on edge to see what choices my countrymen will make and to measure up the extent to which my beliefs and "self-definitions" are reflected and respected as we all cast our ballots.
Putting aside the presidential contest for a more focused, future post, the vote that has captivated my attention, incited my ire, and made me into a political fundraiser is Proposition 8 in California. Unfortunately, it is not incredible that a measure that "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" has the support of a dangerously potent half of the Californian electorate. However, two facets of this measure have me livid: 1) that it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment were adopted to remove rights from a targeted group of people; and 2) that people are using the measure as a chance to write their religious views into law.
Amending California's constitution as Prop 8 suggests is dangerous on many levels, perhaps the most serious of which is setting a precedent for legal discrimination. Proponents justify their stance on numerous bases, the most rational (and I use “rational” loosely here) of which are that they wish to protect the institution of marriage and do not want their children to learn about same-sex couples in school. Both of these positions are based in a fear of the unknown: Will we have to pay more taxes if same-sex couples are allowed to marry? Will my children be gay if they know about same-sex marriage? Is my marriage impacted because the State defines it differently than my church? Why do they want to be "married" anyway; they can't have kids, right? I hate gays.
The truth is that none of the above fears matter when it comes to the laws of the land. The idea is equal protection under the law for those to whom it is entitled. Same-sex couples pay taxes, shop, vote, work, shop, create art, love, are committed to each other, shop, form families, pay mortgages, raise children, and shop. They are as much part of American society as any other paired-up folks and, therefore, entitled to the benefits that other people have. To deny them those benefits—let alone to strip them thereof—is to disenfranchise and to discriminate.
In this discussion, it is nearly impossible not to address the dichotomy of the word “marriage.” It is at once religious and it is associated with legal rights that extend far beyond California. There is an institutionalized gray area surrounding marriage between hard definitions in both spheres. For some reason, we still value oaths taken in the presence of something ordained as holy over vows simply stated in earnest. For instance, this summer I had the privilege of officiating the wedding of two dear friends. From my computer in New York, I became an ordained minister of a non-denominational establishment in Washington State and read my friends their vows in Texas three weeks later. Had I not been ordained, no matter how casually I came by my credentials, their marriage would not be legal. This is but one example of the ways in which theism still plays a part in our legislation (another glaring one is sworn testimony in the legal system). The social movements that are taking place right now and the dialogue surrounding religion are calling into question the place for religious beliefs in our legal system at all, but that, too, is far too dense a topic to address appropriately here.
I am a supporter and practitioner of religious freedom, and to remove that right is unacceptable. So too, by extension, is the imposition of religious views on American laws, which are designed to structure society in its multiplicity. That is why I am disgusted by the fact that an enormous amount of the funding to support Proposition 8 has been donated by and thanks to a mandate given by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By some accounts, Mormons have given more than three-quarters of the funds raised in the measure’s support. I will stop short of wishing the entire tribe back to Utah and simply state that until I am allowed to add my own chapter to the Book of Mormon, I will thank them for not trying to write their theology into the constitution of my home state.
One of the key questions that Prop 8 proponents ask in justifying their positions goes something like this: If we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Mormons (ironically) taking multiple wives? People marrying animals or machines? Turning a cheek to the outrageous comparison of homosexuals to animals and machines, my response is that our system of government has lasted so long thanks to its ability to be amended to evolve with our society. In terms of civil rights, Prop 8 is the equivalent of three steps backward.
If we want to eliminate the argument over the word "marriage," we could just remove "marriage" from all laws and future law-making. That would make it the intensely personal and spiritual institution everyone wants it to be and keep it from being dragged through the mud at all. In the meantime, it is unacceptable to deny a group legal rights, whether or not people are able to distinguish between that which is faith and that which should be law.
Putting aside the presidential contest for a more focused, future post, the vote that has captivated my attention, incited my ire, and made me into a political fundraiser is Proposition 8 in California. Unfortunately, it is not incredible that a measure that "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" has the support of a dangerously potent half of the Californian electorate. However, two facets of this measure have me livid: 1) that it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment were adopted to remove rights from a targeted group of people; and 2) that people are using the measure as a chance to write their religious views into law.
Amending California's constitution as Prop 8 suggests is dangerous on many levels, perhaps the most serious of which is setting a precedent for legal discrimination. Proponents justify their stance on numerous bases, the most rational (and I use “rational” loosely here) of which are that they wish to protect the institution of marriage and do not want their children to learn about same-sex couples in school. Both of these positions are based in a fear of the unknown: Will we have to pay more taxes if same-sex couples are allowed to marry? Will my children be gay if they know about same-sex marriage? Is my marriage impacted because the State defines it differently than my church? Why do they want to be "married" anyway; they can't have kids, right? I hate gays.
The truth is that none of the above fears matter when it comes to the laws of the land. The idea is equal protection under the law for those to whom it is entitled. Same-sex couples pay taxes, shop, vote, work, shop, create art, love, are committed to each other, shop, form families, pay mortgages, raise children, and shop. They are as much part of American society as any other paired-up folks and, therefore, entitled to the benefits that other people have. To deny them those benefits—let alone to strip them thereof—is to disenfranchise and to discriminate.
In this discussion, it is nearly impossible not to address the dichotomy of the word “marriage.” It is at once religious and it is associated with legal rights that extend far beyond California. There is an institutionalized gray area surrounding marriage between hard definitions in both spheres. For some reason, we still value oaths taken in the presence of something ordained as holy over vows simply stated in earnest. For instance, this summer I had the privilege of officiating the wedding of two dear friends. From my computer in New York, I became an ordained minister of a non-denominational establishment in Washington State and read my friends their vows in Texas three weeks later. Had I not been ordained, no matter how casually I came by my credentials, their marriage would not be legal. This is but one example of the ways in which theism still plays a part in our legislation (another glaring one is sworn testimony in the legal system). The social movements that are taking place right now and the dialogue surrounding religion are calling into question the place for religious beliefs in our legal system at all, but that, too, is far too dense a topic to address appropriately here.
I am a supporter and practitioner of religious freedom, and to remove that right is unacceptable. So too, by extension, is the imposition of religious views on American laws, which are designed to structure society in its multiplicity. That is why I am disgusted by the fact that an enormous amount of the funding to support Proposition 8 has been donated by and thanks to a mandate given by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By some accounts, Mormons have given more than three-quarters of the funds raised in the measure’s support. I will stop short of wishing the entire tribe back to Utah and simply state that until I am allowed to add my own chapter to the Book of Mormon, I will thank them for not trying to write their theology into the constitution of my home state.
One of the key questions that Prop 8 proponents ask in justifying their positions goes something like this: If we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Mormons (ironically) taking multiple wives? People marrying animals or machines? Turning a cheek to the outrageous comparison of homosexuals to animals and machines, my response is that our system of government has lasted so long thanks to its ability to be amended to evolve with our society. In terms of civil rights, Prop 8 is the equivalent of three steps backward.
If we want to eliminate the argument over the word "marriage," we could just remove "marriage" from all laws and future law-making. That would make it the intensely personal and spiritual institution everyone wants it to be and keep it from being dragged through the mud at all. In the meantime, it is unacceptable to deny a group legal rights, whether or not people are able to distinguish between that which is faith and that which should be law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
