Family Values

I heard today that Texas law enforcement agencies decided to cite "the law " as the reason for returning all those polygamist kids to their mommies. I am not surprised. It seemed absurd to me at the time that without a search warrant or evidence of a crime, the authorities were even allowed on the compound—let alone given permission to remove hundreds of children from their homes.

Not that I'm a fan of polygamy. On the contrary, I've read Under the Banner of Heaven, John Krakauer's chilling account of two fundamentalist LDS brothers whose "vision" from God led them to murder their younger brother's wife and daughter. I was as horrified as the next person at both the murders and the multiple stories of sexual abuse perpetrated by fundamentalist "elders" documented therein. But here's what I'm having a bit of trouble with: no one is citing the extreme emotional and psychological abuse the women and children of these fundamental LDS churches are being subjected to.

Why focus solely on sexual abuse, which is difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute without the testimony of the victims? Why is no one concerned about the emotional/psychological abuse inherent in any organized cult that allows parents to literally imprison their offspring, prevent them from having contact with the outside world and require them to lie to authorities to protect their abusers? Any time a child is born into captivity and kept there, he/she is a victim of abuse. Why aren't we prosecuting them for that?

This behavior is well-documented and could easily provide the evidence needed to both arrest fundamentalist perpetrators and rescue these children from their current family prisons. The number of "lost boys" who've undergone such extreme abuse, as well as the handful of women who've managed to escape the confines of the compound, are all the proof we need to show that Warren Jeffs' "religious" beliefs have resulted in abuse. Yet the authorities choose to cite only sexual abuse, for which they have no direct evidence. Hence, the debacle that recently ensued when all the children they were trying to protect were simply uprooted, moved around and then returned to their unholy church.

The only rationale I can find for failing to protect the children of the fundamentalist LDS Church from its elders, and it scares me to say it, is that our society still holds to the archaic and dangerous belief that children are the property of their parents. It is ironic to me that the same people who fight for the rights of an unborn child, seem oblivious to the rights of living children who are imprisoned by their own parents.

We have plenty of proof that over 400 children live in isolation and fear within the confines of fundamentalist camps. Yet Texas law enforcement officials saw no reason to rescue these children until they got a prank call reporting underage sex. Perhaps we should all stop looking for proof of sexual abuse and start working with what we can prove: polygamist fundamentalist sects that bring children into the world and force them to live in a confined environment, without any opportunity for self-development, self-expression or choice of living conditions, are abusive by nature. They should be outlawed. What's more, programs for debriefing their members should be created to assist the victims in learning to live in the real world, where each of us is free to decide how and where we live.

Over Engineering the Democratic Nomination

Hey, can we stop trying to manipulate this process and let people vote for crying out loud? So what if we don't know who the candidate is until the convention. Big deal. We will find out then. This will not be the first time that's happened and I hope it won't be the last.

As for Florida, since when does a Republican majority in the state government get to dictate to the Dems when to have their Primary? As my ex-husband used to say "Who's f*$ing this monkey?"

I have only twice, since this whole stink began, heard anybody on the news mention why Florida's votes are being discounted. Oh they always say it's because Florida broke the rules and held their primary too early, but NOBODY ever says who was responsible for it.

WAKE UP people! The early date for the Florida Democratic Primary was not a decision made by Democrats, it was the result an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Florida state legislature that forced the Democratic Primary to take place prior to February. And that is what caused Florida to be disqualified. Yes, Democrats also voted for the bill that moved the Primary up, but that's because it was part of a bill that included a much needed requirement to FINALLY require a voting paper trail in future elections. Any Democrat who refused to vote for that would have been tarred and feathered, metaphorically speaking. Bottom line: inappropriately bundled legislation and Republican bullying are at the root of the current problem in Florida.

Knowing this, why doesn't the DNC revoke the ruling that disqualified Florida and allow their votes to count? Because as always, it's not about letting people vote, it's about politicos manipulating others in order to influence the end result.

For the first time in history, we have the technical capability to live by the rule of Democracy. We can create a system in which there is a single vote per person and have it be accurate, not a representative (by delegates or the electoral college) vote, or a hypothetical, based on sampling. But do we attempt that lofty goal? NO. We piss away our time and energy trying to outsmart, outspend and outmaneuver each other. I thought this was a Democracy of the people, for the people, by the people. Obviously, I was wrong.

Fear and loathing in Washington

I watched Barrack Obama in horror the other night as he denounced the Reverend Wright, yet again. How many times is he going to do this? And why does this continue to come up? Are the American people so incapable of handling a difference of opinion that we are now resorting to McCarthy era standards of guilt by association?

I watched the controversial Reverand Wright's speeches several times and heard nothing that either surprised or upset me. Of course black people are angry. They were brought to this country by force and under horrific conditions; sold into slavery; abused and neglected and then "freed" into a society that discriminated against them and used them as a scapegoat for all the societal troubles that ail us. I'd be angry too. In fact, not to be angry under such conditions would indicate a lack of humanity.

If we refuse to allow people to articulate feelings of anger and frustration we perpetuate the kind of societal dysfunction that only leads to more anger and frustration. What's more, if we punish those who associate with people whose ideas are not completely in line with our own, we are practicing intolerance to a frightening degree. Is this what American is all about? What happened to freedom of speech? Where is our tolerance? What about honesty?

And why is our time being spent focused on name calling instead of problem solving? Frankly, I think it's laziness. It's the easy story. It does not require spending time and energy to find out what's really going on. Nobody has to research the actual state of our economy, our disastrous health care system or our failing educational institutions to come up with a story. All the media has to do is continually revisit the tape of the Reverand Wright saying "God damn America" and they've got their topic for the day. I don't think anybody but Obama's enemies and the media care one iota about the Reverand Wright. It's his opponent, Hillary Clinton, his potential opponent, John McCain and the lazy media that continue to make this the focus of the Obama campaign.

But perhaps the worst of it all is that Obama played right into it. Instead of saying "shame on you" for making this the issue of the day, he continues to take the bait. Now he's on the road again, once more denouncing the Reverand Wright. His latest ruse is to say that the man he knew is not the man Wright now appears to be. Well, that's a sell out if I ever heard one. How about taking the high road and saying that despite their differences of opinion, he respect the Reverend's right to speak his mind, just as he expects to be respected for doing the same? How about telling us that he will not be a President who lets the media run his affairs? How about reminding us how important it is to tell the truth, even when it's painful? How about acting, dare I say it, Presidential?

I am afraid Obama is going the way of Clinton. Instead of raising the rest of us up, which was my original hope for him, he now appears to be wallowing in the muck with everybody else. His fear of reprisal is controlling his behavior. And when fear controls, fear wins.

I remember the saying "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself." Apparently, it's true. I thought Obama knew that. I guess I was wrong.

CRIMINAL SEX

I've had enough of people who insist that men who pay for sex are bad. On the contrary, if a man wants meaningless sex he should pay for it. I would much rather find a couple of bills on the bed the next day than settle for the promise of a phone call that never comes. At least if I'm left with cash I can buy a new pair of shoes. If all I get is the brush off after giving it up, frankly, I feel cheated.

Men love sex. Some women do too, but here's the difference: Women learn to love it. Men are born loving it.

So if a guy feels he needs something different, whether it’s because he’s a pervert or because his partner isn’t giving him what he thinks he needs that's between him and his partner—not him and the rest of the world. John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and the like didn't fail the American public; they broke a promise to their loved ones to be faithful to their wives. It's nobody else's business.

You might say that as representatives of our country and enforcers of laws, our elected officials should know that breaking laws is wrong regardless of the law in question and regardless of the reason. But why are there laws criminalizing sex between two consenting adults anyway? How can we be so backward that we believe sex is healthy and beautiful if we're making a baby—even one we don't want--but bad and nasty if we're just enjoying it for its own sake? God made the clitoris, didn't he? He must have wanted us to enjoy it.

The twisted logic that causes people to say prostitution should be criminal but it's okay to have sex to make babies, may still be part of most organized religions, but isn't the state supposed to be separate from all that?

If it's not a crime to have sex, why is it a crime to pay for it? If your girlfriend blows you weekly and you present her with a diamond necklace, is that criminal? Maybe Spitzer really liked his $1k/hour call girl—maybe they developed a relationship of sorts. Maybe his wife knew about it and didn't care. We just don't know—nor is it any of our business.

But what is our business is the business of Congress. What we should be trying to do is convince Congress to pass legislation that decriminalizes sex between two consenting adults—regardless of whether or not money changes hands.

In addition to saving us all from being subjected to yet another sex scandal instead of real news, it would improve conditions for clients and service providers alike if prostitution were legal. We could do like the Dutch, in Amsterdam, for example. We could regulate the medical check-ups of sex workers to make sure they are healthy. We could pay reliable business people to manage them to ensure they have fair working conditions and are paid a living wage. It's working quite nicely over in Holland. Why not emulate their system?

Never mind, I already know the answer. If prostitution were legal, Eliot Spitzer's enemies would have to find something substantial to pin on him—and they don't have anything else. The one thing all powerful men have in common is that they want and expect great sex. What's the point of all that power otherwise? Men are not any different now than they were hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Sex sells for a reason—it's what men want.

As long as prostitution is a crime, the rich and powerful will always have a way to bring down whomever they choose to target. As the Spitzer scenario proves yet again, even the best and the brightest are, at the most fundamental level, just looking to get laid. Let's admit it and move on instead of continuing to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens for simply being what they were born to be: horn dogs.

Joining Forces

Apparently, somebody in the Clinton campaign decided to suggest a Clinton/Obama ticket--a suggestion I advocated recently--and one which backfired on a massive scale.

I have, until this moment, believed the right combination would be Clinton/Obama. Now I'm beginning to wonder.


The Clinton machine may have screwed the pooch, as it were, by being the ones to suggest it. It gave Obama a perfect opportunity to discount the idea while simultaneously make Clinton appear ignorant of the facts, and arrogant to boot--the two qualities her supporters have been attempting to pin on Obama. Suddenly, the most experienced candidate seems quite clumsy and the one who appeared to be all fluff and no substance is sounding a lot more substantial.



Maybe we should be looking at an Obama/Clinton ticket? Maybe Hillary should be the one to say it's time to make the ultimate sacrifice, it's time to bring all of my education and experience to supporting an Obama White House? Perhaps her experience and his charisma could combine to form a more perfect union? It's an interesting thought.

Ready or Not: Clinton or Obama

Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House. Obama supporters keep trying to tell me that her experience isn’t relevant. Here’s my response: Even if she were nothing more than a fly on the wall, Hillary Clinton’s eight years in the White House have given her an education in politics, diplomacy and the business of running a country, that is so far superior to whatever formal education Senator Obama possesses, it makes me wonder what kind of kool-aid Obamamaniacs are drinking.

One simply can’t compare the combination of experience and education Clinton has with that of Obama. They shouldn't even be in the same race. Obama is a rookie. Albeit, he’s a handsome, charming, intelligent, noble rookie--but he’s still a rookie. And what makes me burn is that his supporters are so influenced by the superficial and the new and the bright and the shiny, that they can’t see past it.

They believe that just because he has all the personal qualities we hope for in a President, that he should be the next President. Except: He’s not ready. It’s not that he won’t be a good, or even a great President. I hope some day he will. And I hope that day is in eight years.

Right now we need to stop diminishing Hillary and start supporting her. If the only way Barrack can win is to get his people to downplay his opponent's education and experience, then he’s proving his lack of substance by the very argument he’s raising.

Every time Obama’s supporters chime in to say that Clinton’s experience isn’t valid for whatever reason, I want to ask: When was the last time you started a new job? Are you telling me it wouldn’t have been invaluable to have an insider’s view of all the inner workings of the place before you started? Do you expect me to believe that kind of inside knowledge is not going give you an edge over somebody who’s never been there before? Do you really think Obama's character and decision-making ability are so much stronger than Clinton's that despite her extraordinary advantage as a result of her education and experience, Obama is actually better qualified?

The President of this country is going to have to run it, not just represent it. Clinton can do both. I see no evidence to suggest that Obama can. Yet over and over Obama's supporters will say that he's the man for the job.

Obama’s people are a little crazy, is what I’m saying. I sympathize. It's kind of thrilling to contemplate the prospect of turning our whole political system on its head. I understand how visualizing a black man taking the White House could make them so giddy they can’t see straight. I am sure it feels good. But they need to regain consciousness and focus. We cannot afford another Republican administration. The current one is killing us.

Let's not allow our sentimentalism to obscure the cold hard facts: Barrack Obama is VP material—he’s not ready for the Presidency.

Let him be a fly on the wall of Hillary’s White House for the next eight years. Then he’ll be ready, and then I’ll support him. Until then, let’s put our energy toward someone who knows how to do the job, not just how to win votes.

Dysfunction in Action

I recently traded my self-proclaimed status as a writer, activist and dilettante for the mundane title of Operations and Financial Controller.

My first day on the job, while sorting through loose papers to find critical information, it occurred to me that the situation I had just walked into is a microcosm of the current state of our country. Most of the people still employed at my new company are stellar. They work hard and they jump through hoops to make things happen. However, certain key people (who were previously given the opportunity to control important functions, like operations and finance) apparently had a long history of denying, ignoring and/or withholding pertinent information from their co-workers.

The disastrous results of their behavior are such that one might be tempted to accuse said people of outright sabotage. Had the fiasco involved a team effort, rather than a series of individual failures, one might even suspect a conspiracy.

The truth, however, is much less dramatic. The real source of the clusterfuck I'm currently trying to manage is due to nothing more sinister than my predecessors' (there were several) inability to perform the work required, and their failure to take ownership of their respective positions within the organization.

I think this Foley business is an example of the same kind of failure. The group of insiders who chose not to address the "overly-friendly" emails Foley sent to underage pages were not intentionally trying to sacrifice kids so Foley could get his jollies. Their goal was not to destroy the program nor conspire to cover up Foley's indescretions. They are simply ignorant people. They are uneducated regarding the nature of sexual addition, sexual abuse and, well, sex. And as sex is a fundamental aspect of being human, I believe ignorance in this area makes for a fundamentally ignorant person.

It is my personal opinion that the Republican party is largely comprised of people who are sexually repressed and undereducated. They are committed to maintaining a superficially wholesome image, but the need to appear wholesome is so great that it gets in the way of their ability to solve problems. They can't acknowledge (let alone deal with) something as complicated and emotionally charged as pedophilia. They are so busy following up their knee-jerk reactions to inconsequential sexual titillations (Clinton's blow jobs and Janet Jackson's right tit) that they have no time left to address more substantial issues.

I was amused at Cokie Roberts' comment last Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, when she said the Democrats would have handled the Foley scandal the same way the Republicans did. I disagree. While this is a gross over-generalization, I believe that Democrats are champions of information and education; whereas, Republicans seem to handle crises by resorting to repression and denial.

Democrats are more focused on Democratic principles than they are on following their leader. They tend to place their loyalty where those principles can best be served. If that means changing leaders, so be it. Howard Dean's amazing disappearing act after the so-called "Dean Scream" is evidence of that.

Republicans, on the other hand, place their loyalty on people vs. principle and will discard their principles immediately if they are forced to choose between backing their own and standing up to injustice. They do not solve problems as much as they use their power, as a group, to coerce their members to behave in ways that maintain their power in unity, and promote their group's special interests.

This explains (to me anyway) why it is such an important part of the Republican mindset that people be loyal to each other. Their only power rests in their ability to keep their numbers up. If they lose numbers, they lose power, and then they lose everything. They are woefully short on original ideas, information, education, creative thinking and problem solving skills. What they do have is a lot of people willing to do what is asked of them. (I am not a Democrat, by the way, I am an Independent.)

It has recently come out that the White House asked Foley to stay in Congress until 2008, despite the fact that Foley, himself, wished to retire and take up a career as a lobbyist. Specifically, I read that Foley was told that his lobbying career would be greatly enhanced if he agreed to do as asked. (Which is the gracious way of saying that it won't be, if he doesn't.) So Foley stayed. And look what happened.

If we really want a Democracy in America, we're going to have to elect officials who will refrain from using coercion and will instead rely on critical thinking skills to effectively manage this country. We are also going to have to insist that, Democrat or Republican, when elected officials take on the responsibility of representing the citizenry, they are made accountable for their actions and the actions of the people they put in place. This means that before anybody gets a job, they need to be vetted, thoroughly--not to test their loyalty--but to test their competence.

As long as we allow political strategists to influence our vote, rather than using our own critical thinking skills to elect competent, experienced people with a loyalty to the principles this country was founded on (as opposed to those motivated by a rabid a desire to align themselves with power at any cost) we will continue to get exactly what we have now: an administration that punishes truth-tellers and awards unquestioned obedience, while the real issues of concern to the citizens of this country are largely ignored.