whyroots

A Gchat conversation I just had with a fellow Whyrooter regarding Obama's choice of Rick Warren to bless his inauguration—

Nathan: i guess our prompt was pretty timely :)  what with the rick warren invocation announcement me: yeah no kidding seriously. :)  ughh why why why  why an anti choice anti gay preacher Nathan: i don't know10:44 AM rick warren encapsulates some of the deepest contradictions of evangelicals involved in some progressive movement  progressive causes*  because he's really on board with international development and economic justice  but he's also virulently anti-gay and anti-choice10:45 AM me: exactly  could he not find a single preacher whos progressive both socially and politically?? Nathan: oh i'm sure he could have  he's trying to send some sort of message by picking this guy me: what message is that10:46 AM Nathan: no clue  i don't know  that he can reach across the aisle and pick allies strategically  most likely me: he could strategically pick an ally who doesn't offend women and gays  how about that?10:47 AM Nathan: i don't know  he's really pushing things me: "pushing things"  what the hell does that mean?10:48 AM Nathan: he's pushing the comfort level of lefties me: he has strategically pushed me away! Nathan: exactly  haha  i think he's trying to confound expectations me: and this is good? to embrace backwards thinking people and push progressives away? Nathan: increase comfort levels on the right  when you're about to shove through the most liberal agenda in America's history?  probably10:49 AM me: hm.  that's an interesting theory. Nathan: i mean, if he's doing all this shit and doesn't:  get the troops out of Iraq quickly  institute a cap and trade program10:50 AM universal healthcare  and a huge economic stimulus  then he's just shitting on the left to no apparent purpose me: well that remains to be seen i suppose Nathan: he's actually raising the stakes for the left  as if they could get higher me: no kidding Nathan: i mean, these are already things everyone wants10:51 AM but now it's like, you better deliver or you're a traitor  i dunno  it will be interesting to compare his first term to jimmy carter's  who was seen as ideological at the expense of being effectual  or effective  anyway  i have to go board a plane10:52 AM ttyl me: listen to this though  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/12/18/spaulding/index.html10:53 AM bye bye fly safe.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I was raised an agnostic, have embraced atheism, and am pretty much entirely surrounded by other rejecters of religion. Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign I was awed—and not in a comfortable sense—by the way every candidate professed his or her adoration of Jesus Christ the Lord. Surely, I thought, they are merely being politically expedient. (This political expediency thesis makes it easier for me to understand how a man of Obama's intellect could say he believes in God despite being raised in a decidedly non-religious home and having remained non-religious until early adulthood.)

Despite the secular bubbles I travel in, I am not delusional about the existence of the god delusion in the United States. In this country—the most religious developed nation in the world —our dollar bills say it all: "In God We Trust."

I have no problem with others believing in Jesus, Allah, Xenu, Haley's Comet, what-have-you. I understand that religion is as old as mankind and even though I am certain we are trending toward secularization in the long-run, the United States is not there yet. If religion gets you through the night, the day, the life, so long as you don't impose it on me and the laws that govern my citizen life, then I absolutely respect your free-will choice to practice it just as I hope you respect my free-will choice to abstain from it.

All this meandering merely to say that if evangelicals and other believers want to work with progressives on issues ordinarily unassociated with the religious right, that's wonderful. Wonderful, indeed. But I don't believe that in order to attract their numbers, progressives have to pander to their religious beliefs. While it may be politically expedient in the short-term, it is neither politically nor morally expedient in the long-term to cater to fundamentalists' religious tenets, particularly not when those same beliefs have been often used to justify the stripping of others' rights.

If evangelicals are moving in our direction, it's because progressivism is inclusive where fundamentalism is exclusive. It would be wrong to exclude religious people from the progressive game but it also would be wrong to play by fundamentalism's failed rules and let religion referee.

-- Daniela Perdomo

Caroline Kennedy wants Hillary's Senate seat. Perfect. How is it that all powerful women in U.S. politics can't get ahead without resorting to riding their male relatives' political coattails?

To wit: Hillary = Bill. Pelosi = Daddy & brother. Caroline = An entire familial dynasty.

"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."

— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.

What struck me most as I read Franc's piece on the National Review's website, was how much of his prose could be turned around and used to make arguments that nullify his own.

For example, he writes: "All policy battles on Capitol Hill require an adult to temper the animal spirits and childishness that so often induce lawmakers to enact irrational and damaging laws." According to Franc, this "childishness" applies to people who believe in income taxes and providing temporary sustenance to those who can't find work. I can earnestly say the exact same thing about somebody who believes that single parenthood corrupts society and spreading wealth and opportunity destroys it. Further, I can't hesitate to call laws that tax the poorest people at the same rate as the richest or that make inheritances immune to taxation "irrational and damaging."

In a way, I could even write something like this, though in a less pompous tone: "We must demonstrate that, so long as our alternatives are grounded in a proper appreciation and understanding of human nature and demand the best from our citizens, Americans will rise to the challenges ahead." The difference, of course, would be that my understanding of human nature is completely different from his, because I don't frame my view of my fellow citizens in a binary, hard-coded moral spectrum.

Therein lies the problem with an argument like Franc's: It frames every policy discussion—including this economic debate over taxes and subsidies—in terms of moral inequalities, instead of in terms of structural inequalities. The fact of the matter is that issues like poverty, crime, and unemployment are the result of structural differences, not moral differences. One cannot vilify the poor, simultaneously lionize the rich, and expect the less fortunate to believe and fight for that old American Dream. Forgive me the Marxist tone, but this type of inequality in power and reward, quite obviously, leads to more of the same, more of the same.

The way I see it, Mr. Franc, the most "destructive behavior that ultimately will drag us down" is continuing to define our structural problems as moral problems. To continue to do so seems, frankly, immoral.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I took a late, long lunch today and started catching up on my reading, which I've neglected recently due to the holiday weekend and other time-consuming events in my life. Surprisingly, among all the articles I read today, the most interesting quote I came across was from a front-of-the-magazine profile of Mike Huckabee in the Dec. 1 edition of the New Yorker.

The article made me, er, understand Mike Huckabee a little more. (I add the very doubtful "er" because I don't think I can ever really understand someone who literally interprets the Bible.) Anyway, I have to give credit to the formerly-obese Baptist minister for two things: One, he called the unfurling economic crisis before nearly any presidential hopeful—on either side—did; two, he's put into words something I fear may very well be true—

"My guess is that Barack Obama will more disappoint his supporters on the far left than he will enrage his critics on the far right."

I don't want this to be true, but with the Cabinet forming along establishment lines, I fear Obama won't take the progressive mandate he was granted on Nov. 4 as far he viably could. That being said, I still harbor—yes—hope for two reasons:

(1) The Cabinet is not yet fully formed, and a few truly progressive names are still being floated around for open positions, such as Labor. (For example, Mary Beth Maxwell is the epitome of progressivism, what with her lesbian union activist credentials.)

(2) I think there's a real important and possibly unanswerable question here as to how progressive Obama really is and to what extent he can influence people who have in the past been cautiously centrist (See: all the Clintonian incrementalists he's hiring) to be bravely focused on moving our policies from the center firmly to the left side of the political spectrum.

My hope, then lies in the appointment of more high-level progressives in Obama's administration (i.e. not just lower-level appointments, such as Gaspard's), and the possibility that Obama may surprise us with the leadership needed to steer his band of establishment pols into progressive territory.

I am hopeful, then, but not really convinced that this will happen. Only time will tell.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I admit that when faced with this hypothetical scenario, I am at a real loss. It's actually much more entertaining to think about what the last eight years of neo-conservatism have insanely over-funded, rather than think about what needs the money. Here are a few of my favorites: the War on Terror, the War on Stoners, the War on Undocumented Immigrants, the War on Pre-Marital Sex, the War on People Who Carry Liquids Onto a Plane, and, of course: the Crusade for Bridges to Nowhere.

The under-funded issues camp gets rather unwieldy: Public schools, sex education, all manner of medical and scientific research, market regulation, green technology, and essentially everything else.

I have to pick one issue that is deserving of an additional $5 billion in funding? The task is, regrettably, impossible. And frankly, just weeks after we handed a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street, the task is dwarfed to the point of being unimportant, which is unfair because $5 billion is more money than I'll ever really comprehend.

I know, I know, I should just play nice with the game here. I should remind myself that $5 billion is just a hypothetical number in a hypothetical scenario. I should forget the fact that it's obvious that this lame-duck administration has raped every important issue in the country all the while as it served champagne to causes that haven't brought any tangible long-term benefit to society at large. The task at hand, after all, is to simply pinpoint an important issue that is deserving of more funding and attention.

Well, if I'm going to put aside the impracticality of the hypothetical situation, then let me add onto the impossibility of the scenario by suggesting that the $5 billion be spent on something that would never, unfortunately, happen in the United States of America. Let's throw that money at a tribunal that would actually try the Bush Administration for its crimes against humanity, its violations of the U.S. Constitution, and its general swindling of the electorate.

In my hypothetical scenario, the tribunal would try Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and all the rest of the W. minions—and George himself, of course—and they would be convicted of the crimes they committed in the name of all Americans. If this impossible tribunal actually wasn't impossible, these convictions would result in no sentences. But the crimes would be acknowledged in the public arena, and the convicted would acknowledge their crimes publicly.

You may wonder what the value of this amnesty-granting tribunal would be. In college I was particularly focused on and fascinated with the concept of nation-building in a divided society where human rights and the rule of law have been violated on a grand-scale. My argument then and now is that the first step in the nation-building process in such a place is to develop that absent appreciation for the rule of law so that the ensuing democratization process (whether it's a renewal or birth thereof) can take place. Particularized amnesty, which is what I described above, is the linchpin in establishing a strong human rights culture and respect for the rule of law. This kind of amnesty does not forsake justice because the justice to be gained from it is of a restorative kind; retributive justice does not work in a post-conflict, divided society setting—particularly given the language of hope that, with the election of Obama, has re-framed the White House. This scenario would forgive (and yes, that would be hard) but not forget, providing for the happiest medium between general amnesty and Nuremberg-style justice. And it's certainly better than what's definitely going to happen: Doing nothing, holding no one accountable, sweeping everything under the rug.

Too bad it will never happen, just as I'll never have $5 billion to spend on any one issue.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I was telling a friend recently that all historical artifices aside, Thanksgiving is a pretty great holiday. After all, there aren't many these days that instead of manifesting themselves through the consumption of inane Hallmark cards and shopping mall trifles, call, instead, for communal thanks—and the company of those near and dear. I didn't grow up with Thanksgiving, so I've always viewed it through the (bemused) lens of an anthropologist. I admit I've never fully celebrated either—this is the first year I plan to actively participate. Bring on the stuffing!

The 12 months that have passed since this time last year have been rather momentous for me personally, and while there were certainly trying times, overall, this has been a pretty fantastic year. I'm particularly thankful for the hard-earned lessons I've learned in this first year of adult independence.

In this rather public forum, though, it's probably a better use of my time to share that which I am thankful for that has affected us all. This past year of political campaigning has brought to the forefront of national discourse a kind of civic engagement among all echelons of American society that's unparalleled in our generation, and from what I can tell, most other recent generations. There's something to be said about the fact that no matter which side you were on (and it must be said that I don't believe there are just two sides, divided along partisan lines; there are many more nuanced sides to align ourselves with) change, progress, and hope were defining mantras. I am thankful that America got caught up in a web of idealism. While I don't believe that's the web we want to be stuck in now that the election is over, allowing ourselves to cast cynicism aside for a short while, after these eight terrible years of Bush-Cheney, showed that at its core, America still yearns and is willing to work for the progress it so dearly needs.

I am thankful, then, that we know what the United States is capable of, idealistically. I am thankful for this because as we sit at the brink—or, more likely, the deepening depths—of an economic recession that has already knocked over every pillar that was expected to be among the last to fall, we're going to need to remember what we want and need so that we can actually fight for it to happen, particularly as a new president and Congress take the reins of our new course.

I wonder where the hell we're going to be in Thanksgiving 2009. I'd like to say the worst will be over by then, but my economically-inclined friends have given me little reason to believe that will be the case. I think this country, and every other nation in this increasingly interconnected world, is set to face trying times for quite a while.

I want to believe, however, that even though for many Thanksgivings to come, more of us will be giving thanks for things most of us haven't had to consider in the past—stable employment, for one—good will come from this. Just as the last eight years of governmental incompetence paved the way for the idealism of the 2008 presidential campaign and the election of Barack Obama, the economic recession will, I hope, breed the ingenuity necessary to redirect our efforts to the most pressing issues. We might just emerge from this crisis with many of our other long-brewing crises solved.

-- Daniela Perdomo

(Cartoon from nataliedee.com)

Ladies and gentlemen, if media speculation is correct, there's a very good chance labor will finally have a place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a labor organizer hasn't ever served in the White House, unless you count, um, Reagan, who was president of the Screen Actors Guild—but I hardly count Ron as a labor operative.

So who am I speaking of? Patrick Gaspard. Media reports indicate that the political director (left) of Obama's presidential campaign, is set to be tapped for the same position in the White House.

Before joining the Obama campaign, Gaspard was the lead political operative for the 1199 branch of the SEIU, an influential branch of the union that represents health care workers in New York.

Even as other expected appointments don't exactly smell like "change we can believe in"—keeping Gates in Defense, for one—the Gaspard pick, if true, is great news.

But how's this for a (sadly) novel idea: What about a labor person for the Secretary of Labor job? Yeah, chew on that.

-- Daniela Perdomo

I readily admit it: I don't know how to do it. Perhaps it's because I live four blocks from The Gayest Place on Earth; or because I went to a top 20 gay-friendly college; or because homosexuality—like everything pertaining to sex—was explained to me early on in purely biological (and rational) terms by my parents. No matter the reason, the fact of the matter is that I don't understand how to reason with people who vote against granting equal marriage rights to all citizens on moral grounds.

I can rationalize the legal reasons for why these bans may have passed. (For example: Why should government involve itself in "marriage," an institution born of religion? Marry no one in City Hall—grant only civil partnerships!) So that's no problem. My issue is I don't know how, or even whether it's possible, to argue with someone who holds such extreme moral views about homosexuality. I can say the same thing, really, for someone who believes a zygote to be a human being; or someone who literally interprets the Beatitudes.

It's one thing to dismiss extreme moral views as the result of ignorance, it's another to try to grapple with an otherwise well-informed individual who holds these sorts of views. I read, recently, a blog post by a smart, college-educated girl who went to grade school with me. A week before Election Day, in a blog post titled "What I Stand For," she wrote—

"I believe that legal marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I do not believe it discriminates against homosexual people to defend that time-honored definition. I do not dislike homosexuals; I will not stop being any of their friends. I will not call them names; I will not belittle them. But I will do all that I can to stop them and those who are for it from changing the definition of marriage that is the very basis of society and everything I believe in. A person does not have the right to marry anyone he or she wishes to. We do not have the right to choose anything or anyone. Men cannot marry men. Women cannot marry women. People cannot marry animals. A 40 year-old cannot marry a 12 year-old. A man cannot marry more than one woman, and a woman cannot marry more than one man. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is a word with a definition that I do not want to have changed."

The equating of consensual, mature, homosexual love to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality! The irrational fear that another person's marriage defines your own! I'm at a loss.

Some have asked me why I trouble with trying to decipher such views, and the reason is that I have been trying to decide whether it's of any use to even try to argue with such people, so as to try to get them to vote differently. Perhaps we ought to explain to them that a gay marriage ban is not really a ban on gay marriage, it's a rejection of marriage equality and a dismissal of human rights.

Over the past few days, I've decided that I will not try to argue with these people. Fortunately for all those who embrace rational thinking and who not only laud but actually enshrine equality, the arc of history and progress is bending in the right direction. The younger generation—my generation!—is overwhelmingly, by 2 to 1, for marriage equality. Every day, more people who grew up ignorant of or prejudiced towards homosexuality are turning around and either discarding those views, or simply acknowledging that this is a human rights issue. While this year California, Arkansas, and Florida did not move forward with the tide of progress, they will. Soon.

Top left: My Election Day voting stickers, unintentionally placed next to a photobooth reel depicting a happy time with friends, one of whom is a queer activist; Directly above: My "No" on Prop 8 vote.

-- Daniela Perdomo

Surely I am not the only one who has been recently barraged with Chevron's "I will" PR campaign, right?

I come home from work, open the New Yorker (above), and it's there. My friend goes to an independent café near our place in San Francisco's Mission District, and her latté is delivered in a "Human energy" coffee sleeve. I see ads on decidedly lefty websites.

The "human energy" campaign isn't new—it's been around since September last year, but the "Will you join us?" ads are only about a month old. I hardly believe that the new influx of Chevron ads is a coincidence, especially here in San Francisco, where the completely under-publicized Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. case started a few weeks ago at the Supreme Court of California. (Full disclosure: My roommate is a lawyer in the case. Guess which side.)

It's a landmark human rights case. Earth Rights International—one of the non-profit organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case—describes their case succintly:

"Chevron was complicit in gross human rights abuses committed against [Nigerian] villagers who peacefully protested environmental abuses and other harm caused by Chevron's oil production activities. The protest took place at a Chevron drilling platform. Chevron paid and ferried members of the notorious Nigerian military and 'kill and go' mobile police to the platform in Chevron-leased helicopters and Chevron personnel supervised the operation. Two protesters were shot and killed in the brutal attack – including one who was shot in the back - and others were injured."

You might wonder why I'm bringing this up seeing as how this is not the first time a corporation has tried to cover up its spotted past with a friendly publicity push. (In fact, it's definitely not the first time for Chevron.) See, for example, BP's "Beyond Petroleum" roll-out, or ExxonMobil's new "Fuels Marketing" ad (which features The Postal Service's music). I'm sure there are other clever power/energy puns I've missed.

I'm writing this post because I'm perturbed by the fact that there hasn't been a single word in the media—mainstream or otherwise—about this new campaign coinciding with the start of this trial. It's not like the trial is a secret. Yet despite this, I personally know a New York magazine reporter who was sent to write about the "cool, new" Chevron campaign this month and didn't even know about the trial! Talk about wool over the eyes.

Earlier this week, fellow Whyrooter Nathan and I discussed the socially responsible trend in corporate America. I said that if there was any corporate trend I could stand behind, it was one where for profit ventures are forced to be of true benefit to greater society. (Nathan argued that they need only be regulated more stringently, and I replied that what we were saying need not be mutually exclusive.)

This new Chevron "I will" ad campaign is part of this corporate social responsibility trend, but its timing is clearly an attempt to pre-emptively deal with a potentially heinous PR situation when the trial ends later this month. They ought to be called out on it.

-- Daniela Perdomo