Two Hours Before the Polls Close

This is how the world looks where I live--two hours before the polls close. I could attend a local party to watch news anchors tally the election, but I'm just not up to it. I watched much of the Republican and Democratic conventions in 2008; this year, I waited to see clips online the next day. I feel very strongly about this election, but I don't feel much like celebrating, even if my candidate wins (and I truly hope he does). This year's presidential election has been a long slog--maybe they always are, but this year the slog has seemed particularly wearing. I'm just ready to gather those radishes and spicy greens from my fall garden and to begin planning my spring garden....hoping climate change doesn't screw up the weather too much where I live. [philosophical smile]

Why I Won't Vote Republican

In May of this year, I began writing on this blog about why I won't vote Republican. I had intended to carry that explanation through several blog posts, but here I'm keeping my reasons to a list:

• I don't believe in governments' torturing prisoners of war, or any other type of prisoner. Mitt Romney's national advisers are some of the same assholes who advised the Bush administration to torture prisoners.  [See Charlie Savage's article in The New York Times: "Election May Decide When Interrogation Amounts to Torture," 27 September 2012.] While I am not at all happy with how President Obama has continued some of the Bush national security policies, I know that a Republican-led government would not improve on these issues. President Obama has, at least, banned "enhanced interrogation" (torture!) and closed the CIA black sites. A second Democratic presidency will give us the opportunity to argue for re-examining those other issues. In addition, Mitt Romney's foreign policy technique, as illustrated by his visit to Great Britain during the London Olympics, dispels confidence in his ability to represent our country.

•  I don't trust a party that refuses to compromise for the good of the country, that is so focused on gaining power for itself that it is willing to damage or to destroy the lives of its citizens. I have written more about that here: "Reasons not to Vote Republican: Part 1."

• I believe that we are ALL mutually interdependent upon government (which is WE, the people).  This idea so loudly trumpeted by Republicans that citizens are divided between the Makers and the Takers, between those who are dependent upon government and those who are independent Boot-strappers-by-God-built-that-myself-ers is a skewed perception of democracy. As my husband so eloquently puts it: "That whole world view is bullshit!"  (This world view is particularly laughable in that all those titans of finance who imagine themselves "Makers" took a lot--even individuals' life savings--from folks to whom they condescend and just about bankrupted the country. WHY DO PEOPLE NOT REMEMBER THIS?) Public education that provides people with knowledge to become workers and business owners; police forces that maintain law and order; state and interstate highways (subsidized with our taxes) that guarantee national commerce;  a coast guard to protect those waters full of off-shore drilling rigs, commercial fishing boats, and pleasure and sport craft; a huge military complex that provides protection to many U.S. businesses abroad as well as those of us at home--these are just a few things from which we all profit, even the 1%. So, no, I don't support someone who denies this interdependency by disparaging, condescending to, or demonizing those who are so poor they don't pay federal income taxes (though they pay other taxes--state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes). [See David Corn's article in Mother Jones, "Secret Video: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors what He Really Thinks of Obama Voters," 17 September 2012.] And Romney's last minute apology about his categorization of half of the U.S. is not convincing, especially since he double-downed on that statement several times immediately after it became public.

• Along with the condescending attitude toward the poor comes a willingness to deprive the poor of government support in healthcare. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian culture that promoted the idea that one was required to help those less fortunate, and so I don't get all bent out of shape about my taxes' going to welfare programs, such as Medicaid. Though I no longer participate in organized religion (a disaffection that came to a head during the Bush administration, as I witnessed church leaders and their congregations hurrahing torture and a war based on lies), I still believe in the ethic to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and I think government (which means US--corporations, whose wealth depends upon a stable government, and citizens) has a moral obligation to help those in need. One of my grandmothers spent her last years in a nursing home, her care supported by Medicaid. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would gut Medicaid. [See Kevin Drum's comments here: "The Romney-Ryan Plan to Obliterate Medicaid."] Medicaid is not just there for the very poor; it's available for the elderly who live middle-class lives and who find their life's savings destroyed by medical costs as they age. Mitt Romney's statement that the poor can always get medical care in the emergency room is bitterly out-of-touch. President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction in providing healthcare for most Americans and in reducing costs of healthcare. Mitt Romney has promised to repeal what could use some tweaking, not destroying.

•  I am dismayed by the increasing hostility toward science in the Republican Party. From climate change to contraception, Republicans have loudly and vociferously denied scientific research and the consensus of scientists. In the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney criticized over and over President Barack Obama's economic support of green energy, and his running mate, Paul Ryan,

  has consistently voted against government efforts to tackle climate change. Like many House Republicans, he has voted to block efforts by the EPA to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. He approved an amendment that would bar the Department of Agriculture from studying how best to adapt to a warmer planet. Ryan voted to defund various climate-advisory positions within the White House. He also voted for an amendment, proposed by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), to cut $50 million from funding for ARPA-E, which funds long-shot energy research and development. [Brad Plumer, on Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 14 August 2012]

  I mean, really.... voting to bar studies and research to determine how we can adapt to a warmer planet? How short-sighted is that!?

• Despite the financial crisis of 2007-2008, created in large part by the high-risk excesses of Wall Street and a corresponding lack of regulation, the Republican platform still calls for minimum regulation of Wall Street. I guess this explains why a CNNMoney Survey found that "[a]n overwhelming majority — 70 percent — of investment strategists and money managers in the survey say a Republican president would be better for the stock market"--even though, "as CNNMoney notes, stocks have historically performed better during Democratic administrations" [Michael Kling, "CNNMoney Survey: Wall Street Wants a Republican in the White House," 6 April 2012.]  See also how Republicans have worked to prevent implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank's Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by slashing the budget of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Jack Kemp, "Wall Street and Republicans Team Up to Curb CFTC," Reuters, 7 June 2012.  Or you can read Public Citizen's report of May 2012: "Forgotten Lessons of Deregulation: Rolling Back Dodd-Frank's Derivatives Rules Would Repeat a Mistake that Led to the Financial Crisis."

•  Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not perfect men or perfect leaders, but I am not going to vote for president of this country a man who made millions of dollars saddling companies with debt. You can do a song and dance about that choice of careers all you want, claim that it's all-American in its worship of profit for investors (while workers lose their jobs), but I can't admire it. I'll choose the community organizer, conciliator, post-post partisan, introverted lawyer and current president. Also, as his chameleon performance in the first presidential debate illustrates, Mitt Romney's real beliefs are tough to pin down. Romney governed as a moderate Republican in Massachusetts but became increasingly more conservative on the campaign trail, eschewing even his own Massachusetts healthcare plan. Then, in the debate, he suddenly became moderate again, walking back on claims he had made over and over in the previous months. His running mate? Paul Ryan's world view seems to have been too much influenced by Ayn Rand. And, really, is Paul Ryan vice-presidential material, a heartbeat away from the White House?

•  I support environmental regulations; the Republican party would like to gut the Environmental Protection Agency. [See: David Roberts, "The Environment," in The Washington Monthly; Politico's "Mitt Romney Intensifies EPA Attacks"; and Think Progress' response to the Politico article, "Things Mainstream Reporters Can't Say: Mitt Romney is Lying about the Environmental Protection Agency".] Anyone who lived through the 1960s and 1970s (even I, who was only just old enough to vote in 1976) remembers the ecological damage that our country suffered--acid rain, polluted rivers, chemically-fogged skies, Love Canal, lead gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency gives government a necessary tool to regulate pollution and to prepare for climate change (if we and our leaders only had the political will to do the latter).

•  I am a strong supporter of public lands; today's Republican Party (no longer the party of Teddy Roosevelt) and Mitt Romney are not so much. [See Timothy Egan's "The Geography of Nope; "Giving Reins to States over Drilling," in The New York Times; "Conservation Update: Romney Energy Plan Would Give Drilling Control on Federal Lands to States," in Field and Stream.]

• I am appalled by the Republican tactics of voter suppression. See Ruth Rosen's piece at George Mason University's History News Network: "Voter Suppression: The Unraveling of American Democracy." Or listen to local voices, such as those of The Plain Dealer's editorial board in Cleveland, Ohio: "Republicans want to limit last-minute early voting, which in 2008 was most heavily used by less-affluent, minority voters." Or listen to the voices of state Republican leaders--links in Timothy Noah's piece: "'47 Percent'--Voter ID Link Proved." See The Atlantic's piece on True the Vote: "The Ballot Cops,"; Common Cause's "Bullies at the Ballot Box"; Justin Levitt's "The Truth About Voter Fraud," on the Brennan Center for Justice website.  Get updates on voter ID laws here: "Voter Identification Requirements," on the website of The National Conference of State Legislatures.

• I support marriage equality. Making it legal for adults of the same sex to marry neither threatens our democracy nor my own (34-year) heterosexual marriage, and it provides legal protection for gays and lesbians who want to raise families, to support one another financially, and to care for one another in sickness and health. Although there may be "a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways," the leaders now on marriage equality are Democrats [Frank Bruni, "The G. O. P.'s Gay Trajectory," The New York Times, 9 June 2012].

•  I believe that abortion should be legal and that the decision to have an abortion be a private matter between a woman, her medical provider, and her own conscience. The Republican Party's platform states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed" and that "the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."  That strongly-worded statement pretty much turns over a pregnant woman's decision making to the federal government. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or mother's medical condition. Imagine the consequences if such a view became law. 

• I am mightily suspicious of the support of these guys and these guys of the Republican Party. What they expect to gain can only hurt the rest of us democratic, freedom-of-religion types.

•  We had eight years of a disastrous Republican presidency under George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is proposing nothing substantially different from a Bush presidency.  His message contains the same warmongering, regulation cutting, tax cutting mantra that brought us two wars, a horrendous deficit, and a financial crisis that almost blew up the country. As my husband says, "Willard" is just W-2.

Not Entitled

I guess I'm one of the 47% not entitled to healthcare. My insurance provider just refused to help cover the costs of a medical procedure my doctor recommended. Next I'll find out I'm not entitled to food, either. It's a good thing I have a garden (though here in September, it's mainly bearing okra, eggplant, and basil; that stir fry could get a little old).

Eggplant, okra, bell peppers, peas from our summer garden

What Mitt Romney Really Thinks of Us

Yes, I'm offended that Mitt Romney has this to say about people who support Barack Obama:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. ["Secret Video: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters," David Corn, in Mother Jones, 17 September 2012.]

The guy who wants to be president of these United States believes that half of Americans think they are "victims" and don't "take responsibility and care for their lives." What arrogance.

And he's back to that stupid "no income tax" meme. Hey, Mitt, those same people pay sales taxes, state taxes, and payroll taxes. And guess what? A bunch of the 47% of folks who DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY to pay federal income taxes (the elderly, college students, the poor) are voting for you because they think you support their values and that you're in their corner. What a joke on them.

Note:
See "Why the Poor Pay No Federal Income Tax: A Wee Tutorial," Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 17 Sept. 2012.

See also, "The 47%: Who They Are, Where They Live, How They Vote, and Why They Matter," Derek Thompson, The Atlantic, 18 Sept. 2012.

Another Death in the "War on Terror"

I am going to vote for Barack Obama for president in November, and I have good reasons to do so. The Democratic ticket more closely represents my ideals, though it isn't perfect. I believe in gay rights; I believe in a woman's right to choose her own birth control and to have low-cost, easy access to methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place. I believe that the wealth gap is widening in our country, that corporations and the rich have too much power. I really think we should have universal healthcare and that the government should be able to negotiate lower drug prices. I believe in a public education that helps its citizens to become critical thinkers. I believe in the separation of church and state. The Republican Party, as it exists today, supports policies that are inimical to  these ideas, and it's largely responsible, through following the rhetorical instructions of people such as Newt Gingrich, in creating the toxic public rhetoric that drives our politics today. In addition, under the presidency of Barack Obama, Republicans have been pig-headedly obstructive in these times of economic crises, putting politics before the good of the country.

That being said, one of my really big disappointments in the Obama administration is its inability to shut down Guantanamo Bay and its continuing many of the war policies of the Bush administration. And I despise the fact that the DOJ hadn't the balls to go after those who approved administration-sanctioned torture in its "war on terror." (How's that working? Has terror disappeared from the face of the earth?) Unfortunately, voting Republican would not create a change here, either. Mitt Romney is being advised by some of the same neo-cons who got us in the war in Iraq with their lies and unbelievable naiveté about how long the war would last, how much the war would cost, and how little the war would impact the very people we were supposed to be liberating. 

My disappointment is magnified by stories such as that of Adnan Latif, who was finally successful this past week in his many attempts to commit suicide in that national disgrace of a prison, Guantanamo Bay. 

Congress, of course, is greatly at fault, too, in abdicating its responsibility to declare war and in allowing the executive branch to accrue more power. And so are we responsible, too, in our silence, in our eager readiness to follow that presidential advice years ago to "go shopping" rather than to deal with the harsh realities of our nation's actions.

Adnan Latif is finally returning home after ten years. . . . in a coffin. I doubt his death has aided the "war on terror." Do you?

Sick of the Willful Amnesia

Because of the riots in the Mideast, the attacks on U.S. embassies, Michele Bachmann (R-MN) calls President Barack Obama the "the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy." Where was this woman on 9/11? Did she call President Bush "the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy" then?

As early as May 2, 2001, "the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that 'a group presently in the United States' was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be 'imminent,' although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible." Yet Bush's neo-con advisors pooh-poohed the idea, and the government did not go on high alert. [Kurt Eichenwald,  "The Deafness Before the Storm," New York Times, 10 September 2012; a reason why Eichenwald's reminder matters here--"Why the New Pre-9/11 Disclosures Matter," Alec McGillis, The New Republic, 11 September 2012.]

(I almost laughed aloud in disbelief when a relative of mine told me recently that George W. Bush had "kept us safe." The attacks on the Twin Towers came almost eight months into Bush's first year in office--and then there were the anthrax attacks, in which five people died and at least 22 people were infected with the deadly virus!)

Did Michele Bachman call President George W. Bush "the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy" when:

• A car bomb killed 10 people and injured over 50 others outside the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2002?
• Explosions erupted near the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan in 2004?
• Gunman "stormed the American Consulate" in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, in 2004?
• Armed gunmen attacked the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria, in 2006?
• An antitank grenade was fired on the U.S. Embassy in Athens in 2007?
• Protesters set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, in 2008?
• Ten people were killed in an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in 2008? (h/t Media Matters-- When I started looking up information on embassy attacks, I discovered that others had done the work already.) 

How about the 2005 riots in Afghanistan over "a report that interrogators desecrated Iran's holy book at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay"? 

Or how about these Pew Research Findings in 2006, well into George W. Bush's second year in office:

Positive views of the United States have declined sharply in Spain (from 41% to 23%), India (71% to 56%), and Turkey (23% to 12%). Even in Indonesia, where U.S. tsunami aid helped lift America's image in 2005, favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen (from 38% to 30%). . . .[snip] Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, compared with 30% who say it has made the world safer.

Did Michele Bachmann think then, "uh, oh, President George W. Bush is falling down on the job in foreign policy"?

Have we forgotten Abu Ghraib?  Whose Mideast policy was responsible for that blot on our nation?

Discussing policy differences is fine and necessary. Willfully forgetting the past in order to propagandize the present is stupid. But even more stupid? Believing those who do this.

Short, Sweet, and on Message

 Andrew Tobias makes two points in his short message to the Democratic National Convention of 2012. Wash, rinse, repeat:





 h/t, James Bennet of The Atlantic

Laughter Better than Tears?

I try not to get all wobbly when people say crazy, mean, and stupid things, you know, the "man in the street" comments that make one wonder about the morality and intelligence of one's fellow travelers. But when elected officials (or leaders of groups of people) make crazy, mean or stupid comments, I wonder not only about the morality and intelligence of the official who is supposed to make important decisions, sometimes national decisions, for us, but I also wonder about the majority of voters who put him or her in power.  Are they complicit? hateful? stupid? clueless? uninformed? or gobsmacked that their representative, so clever and eloquent during the campaign, has turned out to be such a prick?

Political rhetoric has always had a mean streak, but it seems particularly vitriolic these days. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) screaming "you lie" during President Obama's 2009 address to Congress seemed to me to presage the vaguely (and sometimes overtly) racist comments aimed at our first black president. Some would deny that Wilson's outburst was racist, but many of us in the South heard the unexpressed "boy" hovering at the end of that accusation, a ghost of Old Dixie that has materialized more substantially in the past four years. Underneath such comments is the ancient fear of the black uprising and a resentment of the "uppity" black. To keep people in their place, you have to convince yourself that they are inferior; when they prove to be equal or superior--morally, socially, intellectually--well, that's a challenge to a lot of people. No one shouted "you lie" in that august chamber when President Bush pushed the more obvious lies of weapons of mass destruction and yellowcake uranium. No, his lies were met with silence, approbation, and submission. You decide what the difference in response means.

But in keeping with my resolve to laugh at the follies of our elected officials, in the hope that laughter will prove more efficacious than tears, I offer here for derisive laughter a comment by Haley Barbour, former Republican governor of Mississippi, who actually hoped to be president of this country.

Barbour offered a brief assessment of the Republican National Convention. 'While I would love for [Chris] Christie to put a hot poker to Obama’s butt,' said Barbour of the RNC keynote speaker, 'I thought he did what he was supposed to do.' [source: Sheelah Kolhatkar, "Exclusive: How Karl Rove's Super PAC Plays the Senate," Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 04 September 2012]

Whew! close call! Aren't you [cue relieved laughter] glad this person isn't making national decisions now? Can you imagine [guffaw] what the brutality of that image says about the illustrious former governor of Mississippi? Oh, [wiping eyes] but the sexual innuendo and the implied delight in the forced submissiveness of our president isn't racist at all....oh....no.... Of course, comments such as this play well to a certain demographic. Isn't that hilarious?
 

The Republican Nominee Depresses Me, Too

Matt Taibbi, in comparing Mitt Romney's address to the NAACP and later to a "friendlier audience" in Montana:

So now this is the message: I tried to reason with the blacks, I really did, but it turns out they just want a free lunch.

How’s that for bridging the racial divide? Time to wake up the Nobel committee in Oslo!

As far as free lunches go, we of course just witnessed the biggest government handout in history, one that Romney himself endorsed. Four and a half trillion dollars in bailout money already disbursed, trillions more still at risk in guarantees and loans, sixteen trillion dollars in emergency lending from the Federal Reserve, two trillion in quantitative easing, etc. etc. All of this money went to Romney’s pals in the Wall Street banks that for years helped Romney take over companies with mountains of borrowed cash. Now, after these banks crashed, executives at those same firms used those public funds to pay themselves massive salaries, which is exactly the opposite of “helping those who need help,” if you’re keeping score.

That set of facts alone made the “free stuff” speech shockingly offensive. But the problem isn’t just that Romney’s wrong, and a hypocrite, and cynically furthering dangerous and irresponsible stereotypes in order to advance some harebrained electoral ploy involving white conservative voters. What makes it gross is the way he did it.

Romney can’t even be mean with any honesty. Even when he’s pandering to viciousness, ignorance and racism, it comes across like a scaly calculation. A guy who feels like he has to take a dump on the N.A.A.C.P. in Houston in order to connect with frustrated white yahoos everywhere else is a guy who has absolutely no social instincts at all. Someone like Jesse Helms at least had a genuine emotional connection with his crazy-mean-stupid audiences. But Mitt Romney has to think his way to the lowest common denominator, which is somehow so much worse. [Matt Taibbi, "Romney's 'Free Stuff' Speech is a New Low," 13 July 2012]

Corporate Welfare

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., who received such love from Senators, especially Republican senators, in a recent Senate hearing, owes some of his fortune to taxpayers. According to Bloomberg and research by the International Money Fund, JPMorgan "receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year....[which] helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses...[and] distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy." Read the entire article at: "Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare?," to get a step-by-step discussion of how corporate welfare affects us all. (h/t Think Progress: Economy)

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, "the financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties." In the 2011-2012 cycle so far, Mitt Romney has received far more contributions than any other presidential candidate: $19, 222, 965 to Obama's $8, 414, 629. Of the top 20 recipients of the financial industry's largesse, 14 are Republicans and 6 are Democrats. Insurance heads the financial industry PACs in contributions, with 62% of its contributions going to Republicans this year, compared to 38% to Democrats.

The financial industry is hedging its bets, of course, but it looks as if the Republicans are the favored horse in this year's race. Wonder what the industry will expect in return. Not.

Keeping Track of the PACs

Here are some links that might help those interested in keeping track of who is contributing to super PACs, along with links to articles and discussions about the current situation in campaign finance.

First up, ProPublica is updating a chart on super PAC donations and spending here: "PAC Track: What and Where are the Super PACs Spending?," Al Shaw and Kim Barker.

ProPublica also has a chart that visually illustrates who is donating and how much, here: "Who are the Super PACs Biggest Donors?."

ProPublica is also keeping track of where the money is being spent. Where do those campaign dollars go? Here is a link to the interactive graphic that will walk you through the tangled web of campaign spending: "A Tangled Web: Who's Making Money from all This Campaign Spending?"

You can access all of this information at ProPublica's "Campaign 2012" page.
 
Some discussion:
Several views on the Supreme Court ruling in Citizen's United vs. Federal Election Committee on Bill Moyer's website: "Corporations, Political Spending, and the Supreme Court" and here, "Free Speech for Corporations." Links within the posts lead to videos and further information.

And if you're interested in the power of Wall Street:
Frontline's "Money, Power, and Wall Street: Part One," Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four.

The Haircut

One of the initiation rituals at the small rural high school I attended in Texas in the 1970s was for the senior boys to cut the hair of the freshman boys. As for as I was concerned, it was a stupid ritual, but I was far outnumbered by fellow classmates who thought the ritual was just dandy and a fun thing in which to participate, whether they were seniors or freshmen. The hazing rituals toward freshman girls were less violent--freshman girls were expected to do whatever a senior girl asked them to do, which usually was something servile such as carrying a senior girl's lunch tray. I refused to participate, mainly because I hated being coerced into anything, a trait that I never outgrew, and I really didn't admire the girls who took their power for granted.

 My father, who had also attended the same high school (but I don't think the haircut hazing was in effect there in the late 1940s and early 1950s), was wise in that he knew the activity could lead to unintended and perhaps even tragic consequences. So when my younger-by-six-years brother was an incoming freshman, my father laid down the law: if my brother wanted to have his hair cut by a bunch of marauding senior boys, fine, but the seniors would have to come to our house to do the deed. And so they did, chasing my brother across our property before holding him down for the haircut. The usual plan was to cut part of the hair and leave some of the hair, creating a mohawk or other lopsided design.

There is always an element of meanness to such activities even when done in a so-called spirit of camaraderie, and some of those hazed are going to be treated more roughly than others. Conversely, if you were so beneath contempt that you weren't included in the hazing, that marked you as a loser, too.

Hazing sends a message of power and powerlessness. That's what bullying does, too, and the effects can be lasting. I still remember the names of boys in my class and a grade or two above me who were bullies. I suspect that they are still blustery and bullying types though I hope they are nicer adults than they were teenagers. I also remember the names of the boys who were often the recipients of the bullying, and I hope that their experiences in the small-minded atmosphere of our school have not affected them unduly as adults. But I bet they still remember those bullies' names, too.

When I first read the story of Mitt Romney's leading a group of prep school boys in cutting the hair of a 'nonconformist' classmate, all those high-school memories returned. I certainly believe that our high-school selves reveal something about the person we are to become, but I also believe that people can change. If the hair-cutting incident was an isolated event, then I would just mark it up to the kind of stupid act anyone could do and later regret. We've all done things we regret. And, I, for one, have not forgotten those actions I've regretted.

Mitt Romney, however, whose classmates remember his teasing another "closeted gay student," yelling "Atta girl" when the kid spoke up in class, remembers nothing of these events that other classmates remember well.

Does it matter?

What matters to me is what the man has become, and there is enough to trouble me in the adult Romney than to be worried unduly by the prep school Romney.

What I do know is that if a couple of the guys whom I remember as bullies in high school were running for office, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for them--yeah, thirty-eight years later, the memories retain a residue of bitterness that would require quite a bit of persuasion to overcome.

Okay, so President Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Years ago, I stood in the hallway of a Southern Baptist church discussing homosexuality with my pastor. I had grown up in a very conservative, country church but as an adult attended a much more liberal church in a mid-sized town with a large university. However, for years I had been struggling with the disconnect between my evolving beliefs and the increasing fundamentalism of the Southern Baptist Church. The whole carapace of my childhood faith, I thought, was either going to shatter or be transformed. I was seriously considering leaving the Southern Baptist Church, and the deciding factor was the church's stand on homosexuality. Oh, there were many other reasons to leave, but this one issue was the most important to me at the time. One of my best friends was gay; he came out of the same religious tradition as I, and I had watched him struggle to reconcile his sexuality with his religion. I had witnessed his pain. I had seen his first love in the death grip of AIDS, and I had watched him find love again. The gay friends I had in college opened my heart to tolerance; this friend opened my heart to complete acceptance. 

Now I had children of my own. If I left my church, in what religious tradition would I raise my family? Yet how could I raise them in this church? I knew I couldn't. 

In the hallway, my pastor described to me the Sunday School class whose members were gay, the pianist who was gay, the silent minority that sat every morning among people who would prefer them to live as celibates, who would prefer them to live a life without love, or who believed they could be "converted" to heterosexuality.  He said he believed that science would prove that sexuality was a continuum, that homosexuality was biologically linked; he was concerned that, once again, the Southern Baptist Church would find itself on the wrong side of history. He told me that he had the same concerns as I but that the day he stepped into the pulpit and announced that gays should be accepted fully in the church would be the day he would be out of a job. 

I think of that pastor today as I read the reactions to President Obama's interview with Robin Roberts of ABC News, in which the president announced his support of gay marriage. David Plotz of Slate is "irked by [the president's] all-too-eloquent conversion story" and believes that rather than evolving, the president had "always" favored gay marriage, that the president's announcement is one of political convenience.  (Others, here and here, are more generous.)

Perhaps, like my former pastor, President Obama indeed figured he might be out of a job if he officially announced his support of gay marriage, that he would lose political support. But I think he deserves praise for finally making that public announcement, even if it reveals what he has secretly thought for some years. I don't know if my former pastor ever stood before his church and revealed his unqualified support for gay rights. I moved across the country shortly thereafter and left the Southern Baptist Church.

Barack Obama's support of gay marriage will certainly affect the presidential campaign. It remains to be seen how, exactly, but I bet you there is a flyer out already claiming that Barack Obama's support of gay marriage is really a War Against Marriage and the Family. Ironic, huh?

Another Quote for the Campaign Season

"If Gingrich is nominated, it won’t be because of his ideological clarity – he’s Flip to Mitt Romney’s Flop. It will be because he’s seen as the most likely to bully and humiliate Barack Obama. And that’s what GOP politics has come down to today." --Joan Walsh, "When Obama Underestimated Newt," posted in Salon, 11 December 2011.