In my family, we haven't done traditional Christmas gifts for years, not even drawing names. Mom and Dad were always very generous with financial help, and one year they paid for all of us to go on a trip to Washington, D.C. for the dedication of the WWII Memorial (a memorable trip that Dad talked about often with great fondness...I'm so glad we got to go, because I know how much it meant to him). For a few years, we had a tradition of doing Christmas Bingo, in which we all picked up inexpensive and fun little gifts throughout the year and piled them on a table and played Bingo for them. Mom and Dad would put money in envelopes, and you might get a dollar or you might get lucky and nab a twenty. There were a few gag gifts that returned year after year, like the little plastic head of Michael Jordan that contained gumballs that looked like basketballs, or the infamous fishlight, which was a little flashlight shaped like a fish. Heehee! We had a lot of fun doing that over the years, but haven't done that for the past couple. We kind of decided that we all have so much already, and don't need to accumulate anymore.
This year we went a step further and decided that we would take any money that we might have spent on Bingo gifts and donate it to the charities of our choice. (Mom and I will be giving the great-nieces and great-nephews savings bonds for their future college educations...yes, we're a pragmatic bunch. By the way, when I first typed that, it came out 'savings bongs.' That's completely different, although also potentially useful for college.)
I split my contributions between two charities, different ones from those that get regular contributions throughout the year. First I went local with the Food Bank of Northern Indiana, which obviously helps those in my community who are struggling. In these tough times, the need for help has only increased, and local food pantries have been struggling to help all those who need it.
For my second one, I went international as well as "paying tribute" to my profession, with a contribution to Nothing But Nets, an organization that works to buy mosquito nets and provide education about protection from malaria. We don't think much about malaria here, but it is a devastating problem in other countries: 247,000,000 cases worldwide and 881,000 deaths in 2009. 85% of those deaths occurred in children under the age of five. A $10 mosquito net can literally save a person's life. The Gates Foundation and others are funding research for a malaria vaccination. Until that is available, a net is a simple and inexpensive partial solution to a global infection.
I've made no bones about loving a certain amount of "stuff." Books, music, I have a bit of a shoe problem that I have to work to control...I'm a consumer, and there are presents under the tree. However, it feels good this year to give a little extra to worthy causes (you know...those who are grateful and appreciative rather than wishing that you'd die...haha), and I found great enjoyment in deciding where to donate. (It also tells me that if I ever win the lottery, I'm going to have a blast researching where and how to distribute big chunks of it!)
I was struck this week by Bill Maher's commentary on what can only be called the Cult of Acquisition, embodied by Oprah's "favorite things" show. Best line? "I don't know about spirituality...but if you're losing your shit over a sweater, neither do you."
Hey, before I forget, you might recall that a while back, I wrote about people treating you shabbily and then asking for money. I neglected to mention in my latest entry that the people hating and hoping for a slow, painful death are also some of the people asking for money. That's right: Give me money and then fucking die! Die slowly, painfully, and alone!
Isn't that just dandy? I really can't help but laugh about it. Someone has much to learn about how the real world works, and someone has a hard lesson ahead of them. Someone is seriously lacking in negotiation skills. Someone should never be an ambassador. Hello, World War III! Do you hear that dry, crinkly sound? That's the sound of the money tree slowly and inevitably withering and dying. Reality bites, life's a bitch, and oh yeah, life goes on. Just ask Jack and Diane.
I briefly mentioned the repeal of the discriminatory DADT policy, but it's worth a little more time and space. Obviously, I'm quite happy about this. I feel it is a civil rights issue, and the policy was discriminatory and wrong. It's been amusing to see some of the arguments against it. The usual...disruptive to our troops, especially in life during wartime (I got some groceries...some peanut butter...should last a couple of days. Jeez, everything is reminding me of songs at the moment!), showering with gays, blahbitty blah blay blue. I hear all this stuff and I wonder why those opposed weren't more vocal when we started hearing about the culture of rape and sexual assault against women in the military, and the failure of the military to fully address that issue? I guess if it's women getting raped, it's not that big of a deal, but even the mere thought of gays getting all rapey and junk with *gasp* other men is enough to send them into apoplectic fits and result in a terminal case of the vapors. Give me a break.
Senator John McCrankypants was the biggest foe, getting all thrombo on the Senate floor and on the verge of blowing out a vein. I honestly don't think he realizes what a complete and utter joke he's become with his endless opposition to the repeal. It was initially "Sure, I'll go along with it if the military brass says it's time." The brass said it's time. Then it was "Well, it needs to be studied." Study conducted. Then it was "This study is flawed." Why didn't he just propose something more preposterous, like "I'll support this when the moon turns red."
D'oh!
I even saw someone comment that what really galled them was that the man repealing this was someone who had never served in the military and has no idea of the culture there. Two things: President Obama repeals nothing; Congress does. Also, the man who initially put this flawed and discriminatory law into place also never served in the military. Your argument is invalid, jerkwad.
I'm so tired of hearing the same old argument about how homosexuality is a choice, and that it is morally wrong because the Bible says so. Here is a newsflash: we don't legislate according to your religious text, no matter who you are. You do not get to dictate how the rest of the country behaves, and you do not get to decide what is morally wrong or right based on your religious dogma. Some people just don't seem to get that. This is a civil rights issue, every bit as much as blacks, Jews, and women serving in the military, which also met with opposition before things were set right. (I guarantee that scripture was quoted in the arguments concerning those groups serving.) That's not even an issue here, because the majority of both military and civilians say that it is the right thing to do. I guess McCain only wants to listen to his constituents when it fits with his own prejudices and biases. Man, that guy needs to retire.
The title of this entry and the picture I included comes from one of my favorite online comics, The Oatmeal. The Gayroller appeared in his strip about how to properly use the word 'literally', and it's one of my favorites. I'll wait here while you read it. tap tap tap See, wasn't that funny? I love it. I even ordered a Gayroller T-shirt when The Oatmeal was having a holiday sale. (I also ordered this one. LOL!)
So get used to it, all you haters. The Gayroller 2000 is coming to get you! But they don't want to squish you or even convert you. They just want you to accept them. Heck, I think they wouldn't even care if you don't accept them...just as long as you give them the rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution. It belongs to them, too, you know.
Usually when I write about something and it is subsequently confirmed, I'm pretty happy about that. I have even been known to do a little victory dance, which consists of some knee wiggling, finger wagging, and phrases like "Oh yeah! Oh yeah!" and "What did I say?!" But I generally break that out only in fun circumstances, like winning a big game, or some sort of political victory. (Repeal of DADT! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! What did I say?!)
Although my previous entry about passing along your own bitterness to others has been confirmed in a big way, I feel no sense of elation or victory. I simply feel saddened and disgusted.
It's bad enough to encounter someone who is so angry and bitter about past events that they are simply unable to function on a reasonable level; someone so twisted and unwell that they cannot maintain normal and healthy relationships, whether in a personal or business situation. A person so vile that they leave people, even years later, ruing the day that they met them, feeling that they have been touched by a genuinely disturbed individual. When I encounter someone like that, I feel as though I've been slimed. Sometimes it even makes me shudder to think of such past associations. (In some cases, I find that I've even blocked such things from my memory. I’ve recently remembered a few things about my first marriage that I had apparently repressed for years. I guess that hearing that your spouse thinks you're possessed by a demon is a tad bit traumatic. Who knew?)
But yeah, encountering a person like that is bad enough. You know what is worse? When that person passes along their charming little neuroses and/or psychoses to others. To the point where others use some of the exact phrases. To the point where they wish the death of those that are hated. A slow, painful death.
Wow. What a legacy to leave behind. Rather than fostering good will and bringing joy to others, your actions bring hatred and discord. In your own abject failure and misery, you find happiness in sharing the misery with others, even those who should never be subjected to hearing such hatred. Instead of healthy relationships, you pass along the recipe for further failure, because you are incapable of setting a good example. Every friendship, every relationship, sometimes even casual encounters, ends up on the trash heap of your life. As Mick sings in "Shattered," "Pile it up...pile it up...pile it high on the platter." And instead of stopping the hatred with you, you pass it on. You can't help yourself.
You live your life by manipulating others and by intimidation. You get what you want by bullying and threatening, and when people don't behave in the way you expect them to, you viciously turn on them. You try this with everyone, and you always eventually fail. People always wise up and realize when they're being manipulated, and they despise you for it. Time after time after time. And you never seem to figure out that the problem isn't everyone else...it's YOU. All of us experience failure in our lives, all of us have relationships and friendships that didn't stand the test of time. But most of us have some that have lasted, and most of us manage to maintain friendly relationships with coworkers, neighbors, and family members. We thrive on harmony rather than discord. When all of your relationships are predicated upon a common hatred, you've got a problem.
And when you pass that hatred along to others, you are contributing not only to further discord, but you are creating another neurotic individual full of fear and animosity. Just like you.
I may never have been a mom, but even I know that is fucked up.
Frankly, I'm more than a little burned out on politics. It's a temporary setback. I suppose if I'm going to go through this, now is the time to do it. I'm still following things, but I'm just worn out. I'm tired of debating, I'm tired of the partisan fighting and lately, the infighting. I need a break, and I am happy to take one before things start heating up in the spring. A handful of GOP debates have already been set, and I'll admit to having a little sunshiney thought that Sarah Palin might be taking part in those debates. That should be some major entertainment! I think I'm just going to sit back and watch things develop, and then enjoy the circus. [rubbing my hands together with glee] I've got all winter to formulate my master plan. Bahahahaha!
Instead, I'm thinking tonight about those who let their own anger and bitterness get in the way of the right thing to do. As I watch my friend dealing with her kids' school district because she feels that her kids are being taught some very disastrous and wrong thinking about sexuality and sexual mores, I wonder about the difference between defending your kids or loved ones based on protecting them from a genuine threat versus one that you have raised to threatening status in your own mind. I wonder what is wrong with anyone who would ignore the best interests of their own family because they are unable to let go of their own notions and perceived hurts.
I've seen it in my own family. The bitterness and anger is passed on to those who are innocent, the acerbic commentary is shared both in the written and spoken word, and it's made very clear that one party is the enemy and to be hated. I'll never fathom how anyone can so blatantly pass on their anger to those who it is their duty to protect and keep from harm—that includes both physically and mentally. Passing on the baton of your own bitterness due to perceived slights is so unhealthy, especially when you are clinging to incidents that happened years before. If you want to continue to hang onto what has hurt you in the past, I suppose you have that right (although it really isn't very healthy); spreading your misery and misconceptions to others is dangerous and simply not right.
When the recipients of your bitterness are subjected to a constant barrage of negativity and erratic behavior, they have no exposure to a healthy perspective or chance at discussion and resolution. When other family members support such behavior and enable the hater to keep on hating, what chance at a normal life do the recipients have? When much of your life and your personal interactions consist of nothing but chaos, disorder, and dysfunction, how can other family members thrive and be healthy in such an atmosphere? I find that really sad. I suppose that seeing your own negativity reflected in those around you is satisfying for some. I see it as mentally unhealthy and a very unsound state of mind. Especially when you put the future of your loved ones in jeopardy.
On this cold and snowy day here at Nutwood, I'll revisit my previous post. My friend has sent a letter to the school board about her discussion with the teacher. Names have been changed to protect the innocent (I've always wanted to say that!) and I have removed some things for the sake of both her privacy and brevity here. Printed here with her permission. Commentary to follow.
Dear Dr. So-and-So,
I’m writing to you today to address an area that I find personally offensive on many levels concerning the specific practices of a certain teacher. You are my first step in this matter, as I feel you are a man of integrity and very open. I am not sure where to proceed from here. I have considered consulting the ACLU and/or taking this up with the school board if I don’t have resolution. However, that seems extreme at this moment. I’d prefer to consult with you first and see if perhaps this can be dealt with on a personal level first.
Here is the situation:
My youngest daughter, J., attends 8th grade at W. School—a school I’ve greatly enjoyed and have had, until this moment, the utmost respect for the staff and administrators. Yesterday, 12/09/2010, J. came home from sex education, taught by Mr. Jones. She informed me that during this class, Mr. Jones told the children, (a mixed group of boys and girls) that, “Girls should be careful how they dress, as they can send ‘signals’ to boys that mean they want to have sex.” And also talked about girls being “provocatively dressed,” and how this could turn on boys and incur unwanted sexual advances. To quote him, “These things make girls look like they want sex.”
I contacted Mr. Jones about this to confirm his opinion. In a rather heated discussion, Mr. Jones not only confirmed these statements, but also informed me that he felt girls in miniskirts with cleavage, were indeed a “type” that did incite male attention. He further related that fishnet tights that girls or women wore were “inviting trouble.” (It could be pointed out that many career women wear these in the board room and that the well-respected Principal of W. School has worn short skirts in a very professional and becoming fashion).
During the 20 minute conversation, Mr. Jones shared that he felt women in such attire essentially were wide open to male advances. And when I asked him if he felt that these girls, who might be “provocative” by his standards, looked trashy, he said, “Not all of them.” His exact words were, “Cleavage and miniskirts make a woman or a girl look like they want sex.” And "If a girl dresses in a mini skirt with cleavage, I mean, doesn't that imply she wants to have sex or is thinking about sex?"
He also gave me the analogy of me seeing a muscular body-builder on the beach, flexing his muscles while scantily clad and asked if I thought that man was sending sexual messages. Mr. Jones seemed shocked when I told him, “No” to both questions.
Here are the problems I have with this:
1. To tell girls their attire is responsible for male advances is to lay blame on the female culture for sexual inappropriateness. We women have tried the gambit of dressing man-like in business (and I’m one of those females) to wearing no makeup to shabby attire and we still gain unwanted and unwelcome advances. How we dress is a personal statement and often independent of anyone else’s approval. Believe it or not, when I get up in the morning, whether I opt for a skirt, jeans, sweats or a business suit, has nothing to do with inviting male advances--and yet, we women will acquire these regardless of our choice of attire.
I resent this cultural throwback. I resent the work I do to make myself, my daughters and my sister females appear credible, intelligent and with something to offer which is lightly cast aside by archaic, detrimental statements such as those uttered by Mr. Jones. Neither I, nor my daughters, nor any woman should be “blamed” by virtue of how she dresses for males acting inappropriately.
I do not want “sex” if I wear a miniskirt. I do not want “sex” if I have cleavage showing. Likewise, my daughters do not want to have sex because they are wearing certain items. And I am deeply offended that Mr. Jones told a group of young women that these things were what men or boys would think of them—that girls look like they want sex because they wore a miniskirt.
While women do receive too frequent male attention, I don’t believe all males respond this way. Unlike Mr. Jones, I have a better opinion of the male race because I have also encountered men who did not regard me as a sexual object, regardless of what I wore, but instead treated me like an equal human being. So in this mindset, Mr. Jones also demeaned males by lowering them universally to his standards.
It’s appalling to me that my daughter was told this today. It lays the blame in her mind for times when boys do act inappropriately. “Did I do something wrong?” “Was it me?” I could see her ask, like many women before her. Whether male or female, the person responsible for inappropriate behavior is the offender--not the victim. I do not send my daughter to a public school to have this message taught to her, that in the future when she’s victimized and discriminated against in college or in the workforce someday, this is her fault for choosing to wear a tank top or a skirt.
2. As this was told in a classroom of mixed group of boys and girls, this same message has an even more detrimental effect on young males—males that will someday grow up into adult men. These men armed with this information will see a woman they regard as “sexually provocative” and will feel she must therefore “want sex.” I may point out that there have been numerous and well published rapes of women who were victims of this mentality. And the truth of the matter is that date rape, an all too common event that young women tragically experience, has often been blamed by the perpetrator on what a woman wore. Although vastly underreported, this crime been proven in courts across the United States to have NOTHING to do with female attire.
Boys do not suddenly wake up and decide to rape young women, victimize or sexually discriminate against them. However the classic male predator develops a feeling of “entitlement” to what is in front of them and some act on this in horrific ways. That sense of “entitlement” is what is being cultivated in Mr. Jones’s class, along with a sickening dose of blaming the female and removing the culpability from young men for inappropriate behavior.
Last I checked, accepting responsibility for one’s actions is a principle that IS being taught in W. School—except perhaps in Mr. Jones’s classroom. Even apart from rape, sexual pressure will increasenot decrease due to this teaching. I imagine now, boys will look around the room, based on knowing “girls who dress provocatively want sex” and begin selecting females they can easily pressure into sex, due to what the girls are wearing.
3. I would also ask, “Precisely what is inappropriate attire that incites the male testosterone to extreme and unacceptable proportions?” What is defined as “sexy” and “provocative” has a great cultural variance, even among young men in the same classroom. To some kids from very conservative homes, a girl in jeans is “provocative” based on the child’s world view of mothers or sisters who wear dresses all the time. I asked Mr. Jones this question and he replied, “Clothing that draws attention to their breasts.”
What Mr. Jones defines as attire “inviting male advances” is not what the next man may find sexually charged clothing. Hence, this entire topic is horrifically ridden with blame, inappropriate doling of culpability, vague definitions and incites the opposite of what is intended by an abstinence based sex ed class.
Mr. Jones asked me if I approved of the dress code. Of course I do, because the purpose of a dress code is to develop a bit of uniformity amongst kids and prevent gang involvement. The purpose of a dress code is NOT to protect innocent boys from evil, scantily-clad girls who may tempt them into sex. The topic of a dress code and my objections to discriminatory teaching are two entirely different matters. However this only demonstrated Mr. Jones’s inability to grasp of the seriousness of my statements.
The topic should have been simply and easily addressed with the following:
“No matter what a woman wears, or how sexy you think she is, does NOT mean she wants sex. Therefore you shouldn’t expect sex or pressure her or assume she’s easy.”
“A girl is a human being with feelings and does not always dress for inviting males or even want sex, no matter how “cute” she looks to you.” You are responsible for your own hormones and actions. It is therefore not the fault of the woman if you think she’s hot.”
That is how I’d expect a seasoned teacher, in a public school, to teach my child. I’d also expect teaching about date rape and how to avoid the pressure of, “But I thought you wanted it, you were dressed so sexy” that guys do tell girls. I’D EXPECT MY DAUGHTER TO BE TOLD THE REVERSE OF WHAT MR. JONES IS TELLING THE CLASS—THAT WOMEN DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS OBJECTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE WEARING.
And the above statements are precisely what I’m requesting. I am also requesting that you revisit having Mr. Jones teach this to students, especially females—since obviously his view of the female race is sexist, and repressive of their civil rights as equal human beings. I will not tolerate, not only for my daughter’s sake, but for the other and future students to have their rights infringed upon, nor have sexually discriminatory talk be posed in a classroom.
I look forward to your response.
Wow...do I have impressive friends, or what? As my friend investigated this further, it seems that this teacher attends a church in which the previous Sunday's sermon was about women's attire and the problems it can cause. He had scheduled a pastor to come in and discuss things with the kids. Well, cut off my legs and call me Shorty! Of course, such attitudes aren't exclusive to the religious right, but I've seen it in a higher proportion there.
I find it disturbing that such things are being taught in abstinence-only curricula. It is perpetuating an attitude of discrimination, prejudice, and an unrealistic and unhealthy view of sexuality. I hope my friend is successful in keeping this teacher from heading up sex ed classes, and I have told her that I will do whatever I can to help. The U.S. is already ignorant enough about sexuality, and I blame some of that on our repressive religious attitudes and some on the continued prudishness fostered by those who think that exposure to sexuality is much more of a problem than exposure to violence. My friend has worked hard to engender a healthy attitude about sex in her children, and has been very open to discussions and questions from them. All of her hard work is in jeopardy with the attitude of idiots like Mr. Jones. Not that her kids would buy into such ignorance, but what about the other kids in the class who aren't as lucky to have such open and responsive parents? What are they taking away from Mr. Jones's instructions?
Tonight, a Facebook friend posted that her middle school-aged daughter came home and told her about what her teacher said in her sex ed class: "How a girl dresses can send signals she wants to have sex."
But wait...there was more. Naturally, my friend was incensed by this remark and had a discussion with him...and yes, it was a male teacher. Here are some words of wisdom from this guy.
"If a girl dresses in a mini skirt with cleavage [sic], I mean, doesn't that imply she wants to have sex?"
In the course of conversation with my friend, she said that he mentioned fishnet stockings.
He tried this analogy on her: "You see a guy flexing his muscles on the beach scantily clad, doesn't that make you think he's trying to be sexy?"
I can't begin to tell you how outraged this made me. This is the typical "she was asking for it" attitude that far too many defense attorneys and self-righteous moralistic idiots have used for years. Rather than placing the blame solely on the attacker, it is somehow turned around to be all the woman's fault. After all, if she wasn't wearing those provocative clothes, that attack never would have happened, right? It's HER fault for dressing like a slut, not HIS fault for giving into his uncontrollable urges.
First of all, this is incredibly insulting to both men and women. Not only does it assume that women somehow "want it" if they dress provocatively, it assumes that men are such testosterone-laden idiots that they are incapable of controlling their urges and simply have to get all rapey and junk if they see a flash of leg or gaze down an epic cleavage. What century are we living in again?
Secondly, it shows the incredible ignorance concerning the crime of rape. It is not simply a sex crime; it is one of power, dominance, and anger. There are rape victims who are elderly women; there are those that are pre-kindergarten girls. These are not women who are dressing provocatively. Their only crime is that of being female.
For a public school teacher to espouse such horrifically sexist attitudes is just beyond comprehension, and leads me to think that he has his own issues with women and perhaps a fair amount of anger towards them. This is a mentality that I thought we'd put behind us, and I find it very disturbing that it is being spouted by teachers.
My friend's post generated a lot of comments. Most people were also appalled, and others didn't care for the guy's remarks but felt that some of us were being too hard on him. I don't think so, not by a long shot. Anyone who knows me, or if you've been reading me for a while, knows that I am not a man basher. I happen to like you guys and you'll never hear me saying "All men are [fill in the blank]." But this is simply unacceptable, a horrible lesson to young girls which tells them that they are the ones who provoke unwanted attention or even worse, actual attacks upon themselves, because of their dress or attitudes. It is also a horrible lesson to the young men in that class, telling them that it's not their fault if they have urges to go after a woman because she is wearing a short dress or a tight shirt, essentially forgiving them for any wrongdoing because "she asked for it." I am still stunned that a teacher said this!
Many of us have been subjected to harassment in the workplace or in our private lives. I've had two incidents in my career in which I had to deal with it. One was a coworker--not even in the same department, but on the same shift--who was apparently telling people exactly what he wanted to do to me, in very graphic terms. I can assure you that I never once encouraged this person, or led him to believe that we were anything but work acquaintances, but he felt that it was okay for him to talk about me to my other coworkers in very sexual terms. I told him to cut it out, and if he didn't, I'd go to my manager and discuss a sexual harassment complaint. That put a stop to it. The other incident was when I was drawing blood from a patient in Intensive Care. The patient was a hard stick, so the doctor who was in the room put his hands firmly around my waist, lingering, and moved me aside, telling the patient, "It probably doesn't hurt as much when they're as pretty as this one, does it?" I'm sure that my white lab coat was what really set him off. My fault for dressing so provocatively. I was so shaken up that I was...well, I was literally shaking when I came back down to the lab. I went to my manager and told her about the incident; she investigated and told me that there were nurses that had also complained about this doctor being inappropriate with them. It never happened again, so I didn't pursue it, but my complaint was on file.
Bottom line: any teacher telling impressionable young people that a woman's attire, no matter how provocative--and who is this guy to decide what is overly provocative, anyway?--is possibly an invitation to have sex with her is grossly negligent and verging on criminal. There is absolutely no excuse for such behavior or for perpetuating these myths that a woman is asking for harassment or rape because of her behavior or attire. I'm a big fan of fishnet stockings because they're fun and cute and they don't get runs in them. Those are my legs in that picture up there. Do the fishnets and/or the short skirt make my male readers feel rapey? Because I wear them, does that mean I'm putting forth an invitation to every guy to come onto me? That is crazy, stupid, and incredibly sexist.
I was reminded of the movie "The Accused," in which Jodie Foster's character gets drunk and stupid and ends up getting gang raped on a pinball table. This wasn't complete fiction. It was based on a real case. I found the rape scene one of the most horrifying and disturbing scenes I've ever watched in a movie. Any teacher who passes on such attitudes to their students has no place in the classroom. I don't know what my friend will end up doing, but I'm certain that she will pitch one helluva fit, and rightly so. I will be interested to see what comes of this; if it were me in that situation, and the teacher refused to see what was wrong with what he told his students, I'd be filing a formal complaint with the school board and doing my best to get him out of the classroom...at least the sex education classroom. His moralistic, judgmental pronouncements on "what women want" have no place among our students.
It's odd, though...I had no idea that Mel Gibson was working as a teacher in northern Indiana.
I hesitated to write about this, because it is seriously harshing my mellow.
The bubble chart you see on the left is a representation of the numbers in the tax deal currently being negotiated in Washington right now. The blue is what the Democrats got, and the lone red one is what the Republicans got. However, that lone red ball is tax cut extensions for the wealthiest 2%, and that is what has people in a tizzy.
Except 'tizzy' doesn't begin to cover it. I'd say it's pretty close to foaming at the mouth. Some of my fellow liberals say that they are leaving Organizing For America; some are predicting that this undoubtedly means that President Obama will not win re-election in 2012; all are saying that he "caved" and he should have shown up ready to kick ass and chew bubblegum (but of course, he'd be all out of bubblegum...anyone get that reference?); there are rumblings about putting someone up against him in the primaries.
May I politely say...everyone take a deep breath and just chill the fuck out, okay?
I don't like the tax cut extensions, either. I think that the wealthiest among us should pay more on a progressive scale, and the best case scenario would have been to have the middle class cuts extended and let the higher end tax cuts expire. Unfortunately, politics got in the way. I'm sure most of you who read this know that the extensions got all tangled up with unemployment benefits extensions, and Obama made the decision to cut a deal to extend all tax cuts in order to extend unemployment benefits in this extremely tough economic atmosphere.
Is it perfect? No. Is it the end of the world, the demise of the Democratic Party, the death knell of the Obama presidency? No, no, and no.
Let's have a reality check. First a little harsh clarity, then a healthy dose of optimism.
Obama cannot legislate. Congress passes the bills, he signs them into law. The Democrats didn't have the votes to pass the best case scenario I mentioned above. Might they have before the election? Yes. Go ahead and blame the Democrats for that one, but don't put it all on Obama's shoulders.
As the Stones said, you can't always get what you want...but if you try sometimes you get what you need. We wanted the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire; those whose unemployment benefits were close to running out got what they needed.
It's Washington, D.C., and deals are brokered all the time. It's politics; that is the nature of the beast. Would I love to see Jimmy Stewart go to Washington and change hearts with his integrity and honesty and steadfastness in the face of fierce opposition? Sure. But that's a movie. This is real life.
As for running a challenger against Obama in the primaries, please, PLEASE stop thinking this is a viable option. It's a rarity that anyone successfully runs against a sitting President in a primary, and it would do nothing but create discord, and would be political suicide for whoever decided to try. Does anyone think the Democratic Party would go against their sitting President? Also, who would you choose that could actually win? Hillary? She could win...but she is part of Obama's Cabinet, and has said repeatedly that she will not run in 2012, and probably not even in 2016. I don't believe for a moment that she would ever run in a primary against Obama. So who else would you pit against whoever the Republican candidate ends up being? Howard Dean? After his "scream" meltdown, do you seriously think that he could get enough Independents to get the win? Dean has also gone on record saying that he is not running and will support Obama in 2012. I have friends who love former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson and Minnesota Senator Al Franken. I love them, too. But again, please think pragmatically here: if you think they could beat someone like Romney, you are simply wrong. It wouldn't happen. Independents would never go for anyone that far to the left.
And here is a real nightmare scenario for you. Say you have someone like Grayson as your nominee...and the Republican nominee is Palin. Do you really want to take the chance that Palin might pull off a win? Someone sent an email to Jack Cafferty on CNN saying that he was a Democrat, and if it were Obama against Palin, he'd vote for Obama. If it were Obama against someone like Romney, he'd stay home. Really? You'd rather give up the Presidency to Mittens than get out and make sure the Republicans don't end up in control of the Presidency, the House, AND the Senate?
Please everyone...just get a grip and calm down. This really is not the end of the world.
In fact (here comes the optimism), some feel that Obama’s tax deal is effectively the extra stimulus that most economists feel was needed (that article is where I got the above chart). It was a back door stimulus, if you will, because if the Democrats had tried to introduce another such plan and called it Stimulus Part Deux, you can bet it would have died a swift death in the House. Some very prominent Democrat mayors support the deal. If you take a look at the whole package, you'll see that there are some very good things in it that will help a lot of people. The focus right now is very much on the "millionaire tax cut," but there is a lot more there. I hope that folks will take a breath and stop going bugshit about this.
I suspect this post won't be very popular with some of my friends and readers. Believe me, I share your anger that the richest 2% are getting a continued tax break. However, the middle class tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits are the real prize here. The former will make people feel better about spending for this Christmas and beyond, and the latter will keep some people in their homes and hanging on until they can hopefully find a job. Stop and think for a moment that perhaps this was a pretty good end run, where we gained more than we conceded. And please stop the breathless hysteria that is going to keep you at home next election day, confined to bed with a bad case of the vapors.
I mentioned on Facebook that this was not a black and white matter, that it in fact has infinite shades of grey. It made me think of the Monkees song (yes, I like the Monkees), and as I read the lyrics, I realized just how appropriate it was (video first, followed by lyrics). At heart, I am an idealist. In practice, I'm a pragmatist and a realist. It's good to have a combination of both.
When the world and I were young, just yesterday Life was such a simple game a child could play
It was easy then to tell right from wrong Easy then to tell weak from strong When a man should stand and fight Or just go along
