Talking about the Divide

Talking about the Divide

Cheers to The Day’s Chuck Potter, who, in his column yesterday, confronted a reader that questioned why Potter, an African-American, frequently—not always—addresses race.

I’m always dumbfounded why white folks think IT’S not o.k. for African-Americans to talk about race. I’m equally dumbfounded why some whites think IT’S not o.k. for African-Americans to examine race in a way that might perhaps implicate others who aren’t as 1% more conscious as they could be in terms of how racism may affect their very lives. White folks that transparently cloak their own racism by generally characterizing an African-American who talks about racial conflict as a racist him- or herself are only fooling themselves. Isn’t the role of the “overseer”—even of dialogue—a ghost of America’s past?

Hopefully, many of us have learned from the liberation movements, which gained more traction in the ‘60s, that silence = death. We will never move forward as a civilization if we don’t confront—in one way or another—the “isms” and “phobias” that plague us as a people and that plague our democracy. Talking about these “things” is very important. Talking about these “things” is one of many ways to reach across the divide.

A Different World

Last night, six Democratic Presidential candidates participated in a televised forum (click the link to watch) that discussed an issue often avoided in most campaigns - homosexuality. (LOGO, the channel that broadcast the forum, offered the same screen time to Republican candidates, and they all declined. Shocking, I know.) Fielding questions from a panel including Melissa Etheridge, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese and Jonathan Capehart, a writer for the Washington Post, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls who participated (all except Chris Dodd and Joe Biden) expressed their positions on gay rights once and for all.

And what are those positions? All support civil unions, hope to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and support a ban on anti-gay discrimination in the work place. John Edwards apologized for previously aligning his position on homosexuality with his religion; Hillary Clinton spoke of her "honest effort" to work towards gay rights during her husband's time in office; Barack Obama likened the plight of the LGBT community to the struggle faced by African-Americans during the civil rights movement; Bill Richardson (upon removing his foot from his mouth after suggesting that homosexuality was a choice) rattled off his relatively short list of pro-gay accomplishments as governor of New Mexico. The only outright support of total equality came from the two candidates least likely to ever find themselves elected to the White House, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

There were no real surprises. No radical pledges of sweeping reform. In fact, most of the candidates were surrounded by what was unmistakably a giant, impenetrable forcefield of gray. Questions were danced around and only half answered, John Edwards tossed his hair around and I'm sure Hillary Clinton's campaign song was playing on a loop in her head the entire time - all in all, a regular stop on the campaign trail. But the purpose of the stop (to discuss gay rights) and it's participants (individuals who stand a real chance of becoming the next President), when put together, is entirely irregular. A high profile, nationally televised conversation about a political hush point is a huge step towards progress in this country, and however lackluster the performance of the candidates, the simple fact that it happened, even if it was only Democrats, is fantastic. Brian Graden, the president of LOGO, summed it up best: "Simply seeing the candidates step on a stage to speak to a national gay television audience may be as moving as anything they say." Indeed.

"Holt" the Hacking

“HOLT” THE HACKING

While some of us resisted the recent fake news of Lindsay and the Astronauts, Starzilla’s gastric bypass surgery, and the really, really big news of Nicole Skinny being four months pregnant, we’ve tried to focus our minds on the real news that remains buried beneath the bull.

Yesterday, the mainstream media gave little attention to how researches at the University of California were able to hack into three electronic voting systems just as easily as Attorney Goneliar lies about his lies. Diebold anyone? Clearly, Starzilla coming back from the tabloid dead was far more important; after all, she does look freakier than Fred Thompson.

As The New York Times reports today, Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has sponsored a bill to help eliminate the many, many problems associated with electronic voting, including the strong possibility of electronic tampering during the 2008 elections; as we all know, desperate chimpletons do desperate things. According to the Holt bill, all electronic votes cast in a federal election MUST have a paper record and RANDOM audits would be conducted for the sake of quality—non Chimpy—control. Let’s hope this bill hits the House floor for a vote to “holt” the hacking.