I’m a middle aged white man working in a large corporation with a diversity program. Does that make me an endangered species? Should I be resentful? After all isn’t my future limited by that set of circumstances? Many of my white, middle aged, male coworkers think so.
But I am not resentful because whatever “limits” may be placed on my future because of some diversity initiative, I still figure I’ve got it pretty good. The easiest path to take in this life is the one of the American white male, and it’s only yours by birth (not counting Michael Jackson.) So it seems like sour grapes to complain about attempts to improve the paths that others are on.
The kind of preeminence enjoyed by white men for the first 200 years of this nation has certainly eroded. After all, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the self evident truth that “All men are created equal”, most people of the day understood that to mean white, able-bodied, Christian men of means, not their lessers; women, people of non-European descent, people of color, slaves and the indentured, the disabled, Native Americans, and the ordinary guy with no education or property. By some accounts this preeminence has not merely eroded but is in full retreat, leaving white men at an actual disadvantage. Bullshit Lets put this another way. About 37% of adults in the U.S. are white men. A typical diversity program may target 50% of new hires or leadership positions to be women or minorities. Looks like a pretty good deal to me. 37% of the population get 50% of the jobs. Oh for the good old days when we got 90% of the jobs.
Everyone who loses a job or promotion to someone else thinks they were the better choice. Except that now white men can join ethnic minorities, women, gays, and the disabled and blame discrimination (at least the ‘reverse’ kind) for their plight. Yes, discrimination still exists, and reverse discrimination is an occasional reality. But if any white man feels that the deck has been stacked against them they need to re-examine the deck. We’re still holding most of the cards. And just in case I ever feel really threatened by reverse discrimination, I can always try playing the gay card.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Saturday, August 27, 2005
My 30th High School Reunion
I went to my high school reunion. It was the first one I had been to and it was the 30th. I was just a face in the crowd at the large suburban high school I attended, Kecoughtan H.S. (pronounced “KICK-uh-tan”, really!) in Hampton, VA. We moved to Hampton the summer before 10th grade and moved away soon after I graduated in 1975. I had never been back. So, my connections were temporal and fell away as the years passed.
So why did I attend this reunion? Because of reality shows. High School reunions are the ultimate personal reality show (so much so an actual reality show was based on the premise). Where else can you throw 300 middle-aged people into a situation where the last effective dynamic was as 18 year olds, and be a participant?
At any such event the topics of discussion are biographical: College, careers, migrations, marriage, family, kids. And nostalgic: misdeeds, pranks, angst, and glories of our adolescence. But what everybody is thinking about is hair, weight, success, and how they look compared to others. Of course I was focused on another issue, not entertained by the vast majority: Who might be gay?. I had a mental list of those I thought might be or those that I hoped would be, but none seemed to be. (It’s a military town in Virginia, the very model of conservative). When the subject came up, I explained my life-long unmarried status honestly. In high school I knew I was gay, but certainly was not out. I think a few had suspected back then and none seem too surprised about it now. A few went so far as to ask if I had a partner. (the answer is no)
But I do have a few observations:
The “A” list is till the “A” list. While subject to the indignities of middle age like everyone else, there was still a measure of confidence and ease in those that were on top and had stayed there.
Geeks rule. The math and science geeks, not the jocks and prom queens run the world.
It’s impossible to picture exactly how someone might look at 48 when you last saw them at 18, but once you do see them, their 30-years-older look makes perfect sense.
A few men and women look stunningly better at 48 than at 18.
1975 was a really, really bad hair year for men, and one or two had yet to get over it by 2005.
Somewhere in the intervening 30 years, stoners, clowns, nerds, jocks, and cheerleaders, became spouses, parents, grandparents, lawyers, business people, engineers, writers, airline pilots, shopkeepers, and college professors. Boys into men, Girls into women. But I am still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. Maybe I’ll have that figured out by the 50th reunion in 2025.
Pictures from the Reunion
So why did I attend this reunion? Because of reality shows. High School reunions are the ultimate personal reality show (so much so an actual reality show was based on the premise). Where else can you throw 300 middle-aged people into a situation where the last effective dynamic was as 18 year olds, and be a participant?
At any such event the topics of discussion are biographical: College, careers, migrations, marriage, family, kids. And nostalgic: misdeeds, pranks, angst, and glories of our adolescence. But what everybody is thinking about is hair, weight, success, and how they look compared to others. Of course I was focused on another issue, not entertained by the vast majority: Who might be gay?. I had a mental list of those I thought might be or those that I hoped would be, but none seemed to be. (It’s a military town in Virginia, the very model of conservative). When the subject came up, I explained my life-long unmarried status honestly. In high school I knew I was gay, but certainly was not out. I think a few had suspected back then and none seem too surprised about it now. A few went so far as to ask if I had a partner. (the answer is no)
But I do have a few observations:
The “A” list is till the “A” list. While subject to the indignities of middle age like everyone else, there was still a measure of confidence and ease in those that were on top and had stayed there.
Geeks rule. The math and science geeks, not the jocks and prom queens run the world.
It’s impossible to picture exactly how someone might look at 48 when you last saw them at 18, but once you do see them, their 30-years-older look makes perfect sense.
A few men and women look stunningly better at 48 than at 18.
1975 was a really, really bad hair year for men, and one or two had yet to get over it by 2005.
Somewhere in the intervening 30 years, stoners, clowns, nerds, jocks, and cheerleaders, became spouses, parents, grandparents, lawyers, business people, engineers, writers, airline pilots, shopkeepers, and college professors. Boys into men, Girls into women. But I am still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. Maybe I’ll have that figured out by the 50th reunion in 2025.
Pictures from the Reunion
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Erring on the Side of Life
We have a moral obligation to let go of the ones hopelessly lost to this world. To keep their bodies alive through heroic or artificial measures does nothing for them in this life and most certainly delays their entry into the next life.
The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.
I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.
So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.
Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.
But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.
The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?
There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.
There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.
So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.
The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.
I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.
So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.
Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.
But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.
The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?
There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.
There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.
So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
My Horrible, Miraculous Year
It’s a New Year. All things are possible once again. I will lose weight, find a lover, clean the garage, make out my will, get the 300 sq ft of holes in my roof from Hurricane Charley fixed, travel, win the lottery, blah, blah, blah...
Heavy Sigh...
The stuff you plan happens or it doesn’t. It’s the stuff you don’t plan that is more interesting. This time last year I did not imagine being slammed by 3 out of 4 hurricanes and having 3 rooms of my house destroyed. I did not envision winning a signed Picasso print in a charity raffle or winning a cruise in a church raffle. I did not imagine that 10 years after leaving a job, I would find my self back in that company, in the same department, working for the same person. I did not expect to see my brother-in-law’s cousin on the cover of The Advocate, or to see a good friend profiled in another issue. I did not expect to have 4 letters to the editor published in the Orlando Sentinel. I did not expect to see good friends cope with cancer or good folks to pass away. I did not expect the president to be re-elected, or 150,000 to die in the boxing day tsunamis. And lastly, I did not expect the break-up of Jenn & Brad or me having anything to do with it. Yes, 2004 was my Annus Horribilis and my Annus Mirabilis. What will 2005 have in store?
Heavy Sigh...
The stuff you plan happens or it doesn’t. It’s the stuff you don’t plan that is more interesting. This time last year I did not imagine being slammed by 3 out of 4 hurricanes and having 3 rooms of my house destroyed. I did not envision winning a signed Picasso print in a charity raffle or winning a cruise in a church raffle. I did not imagine that 10 years after leaving a job, I would find my self back in that company, in the same department, working for the same person. I did not expect to see my brother-in-law’s cousin on the cover of The Advocate, or to see a good friend profiled in another issue. I did not expect to have 4 letters to the editor published in the Orlando Sentinel. I did not expect to see good friends cope with cancer or good folks to pass away. I did not expect the president to be re-elected, or 150,000 to die in the boxing day tsunamis. And lastly, I did not expect the break-up of Jenn & Brad or me having anything to do with it. Yes, 2004 was my Annus Horribilis and my Annus Mirabilis. What will 2005 have in store?
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Bathtub in the Road
No, I am not making this up. In traffic reports one recent morning there was word of a rush hour delay because a bathtub was in the road. I've been thinking about it all day. What does it mean to be blocked on your way by a bathtub in the road? It's a powerful metaphor for something. I just don't know what.
This slice of real life comes on the morning after a dream I had. I was digging up a broken sprinkler valve in the front yard. Because the water had been flowing freely it had carved an underground chamber. I was peering into the hole trying to decide how big it was when I saw a light. I looked deeper and saw that the hole expanded into a large cave with smooth concrete floor that ran from my yard to somewhere under the street. Then I saw a man, kind of Mexican looking. I yelled (or tied to yell in that dream-paralyzed state) at him to get out of there and he ran off deeper into the cave. I suddenly knew how they were getting access to my house! Then I woke up.
Perhaps the Mexican living under my street had something to do with the bathtub in the road.
This slice of real life comes on the morning after a dream I had. I was digging up a broken sprinkler valve in the front yard. Because the water had been flowing freely it had carved an underground chamber. I was peering into the hole trying to decide how big it was when I saw a light. I looked deeper and saw that the hole expanded into a large cave with smooth concrete floor that ran from my yard to somewhere under the street. Then I saw a man, kind of Mexican looking. I yelled (or tied to yell in that dream-paralyzed state) at him to get out of there and he ran off deeper into the cave. I suddenly knew how they were getting access to my house! Then I woke up.
Perhaps the Mexican living under my street had something to do with the bathtub in the road.
Friday, December 03, 2004
It’s the ideology, Stupid.
It’s the ideology, Stupid. The Republicans have one. The Democrats don’t.
I know what the Republican Ideology is: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Discipline, Lower Taxes, limited-entitlements, Lower Taxes, Personal Freedom, Lower Taxes, Military Might, Lower Taxes, Higher Security, Lower Taxes, Domination over Consensus in International affairs, Lower Taxes, Good Business Climate, Lower Taxes, Pro Gun, Lower Taxes, Pro Life, Lower Taxes, Anti-Gay, Lower Taxes, Moral Values, Conservative Good, Liberal bad, and Lower Taxes.
Now in practice, the Republicans have completely abandoned any semblance of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They have embraced costly entitlements, and would sacrifice more personal freedom in the name of security and ‘moral values’ than anything since Jim Crow and Grandfather clauses. So it’s not that they strictly follow the ideology, it’s that they have one.
I can take a stab at the Democrat’s apparent Ideology. Lets see – how about “We’re sort of the same as the Republicans just not as extreme or mean spirited and we most definitely are not Liberal.” Yeah, that’s how to build a base, and formulate a message.
Given that we were not running for anything, but against Bush, without articulating a clear new direction is it any wonder more than half of American voters decided to stay the course? If we had to lose, we should have lost on what we stand for, because we are never going to win by pointing out how far to the right the republicans are and then saying were not that far right.
We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of the Republican’s Ideology, and define ourselves by what we really stand for. We need to reclaim the term ‘liberal’ from the ash heap of political pejoratives and restore is as a proud tradition. A tradition that stands for:
Stewardship of our environment and resources.
Helping those in need of basic human services.
Defending basic human rights.
Preserving rights for the minority.
Expanding rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised.
Investing in sound science for the betterment of all.
Leading the world, not bullying it.
Making America a better place to live and prosper.
I know what the Republican Ideology is: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Fiscal Discipline, Lower Taxes, limited-entitlements, Lower Taxes, Personal Freedom, Lower Taxes, Military Might, Lower Taxes, Higher Security, Lower Taxes, Domination over Consensus in International affairs, Lower Taxes, Good Business Climate, Lower Taxes, Pro Gun, Lower Taxes, Pro Life, Lower Taxes, Anti-Gay, Lower Taxes, Moral Values, Conservative Good, Liberal bad, and Lower Taxes.
Now in practice, the Republicans have completely abandoned any semblance of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. They have embraced costly entitlements, and would sacrifice more personal freedom in the name of security and ‘moral values’ than anything since Jim Crow and Grandfather clauses. So it’s not that they strictly follow the ideology, it’s that they have one.
I can take a stab at the Democrat’s apparent Ideology. Lets see – how about “We’re sort of the same as the Republicans just not as extreme or mean spirited and we most definitely are not Liberal.” Yeah, that’s how to build a base, and formulate a message.
Given that we were not running for anything, but against Bush, without articulating a clear new direction is it any wonder more than half of American voters decided to stay the course? If we had to lose, we should have lost on what we stand for, because we are never going to win by pointing out how far to the right the republicans are and then saying were not that far right.
We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of the Republican’s Ideology, and define ourselves by what we really stand for. We need to reclaim the term ‘liberal’ from the ash heap of political pejoratives and restore is as a proud tradition. A tradition that stands for:
Stewardship of our environment and resources.
Helping those in need of basic human services.
Defending basic human rights.
Preserving rights for the minority.
Expanding rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised.
Investing in sound science for the betterment of all.
Leading the world, not bullying it.
Making America a better place to live and prosper.
Moral Values?
In the Election post mortem, many stated that their biggest reason for voting for George W. Bush was moral values. Moral values? That is just code for outlawing abortion and seeking legal ways to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens.
What we need is moral courage. Courage to recognize that safe, legal but rarely chosen abortion is the only acceptable balance between the tragic loss of the unborn and the horrific specter of state control over reproductive and health choices. Courage to understand that there are no second class citizens of this country and to stand against any law, policy, or group that says otherwise. Courage to hold dear the separation of Church & State so that we may worship without fear and suffer civil consequences only when we break man's law and not someone's
idea of God's law. Courage to disagree without hate. Courage to act
on principal with understanding rather than on fear with ignorance.
I wonder if anyone claiming to have voted on 'moral values' ever stood
up for anyone other than themselves and those just like them?
What we need is moral courage. Courage to recognize that safe, legal but rarely chosen abortion is the only acceptable balance between the tragic loss of the unborn and the horrific specter of state control over reproductive and health choices. Courage to understand that there are no second class citizens of this country and to stand against any law, policy, or group that says otherwise. Courage to hold dear the separation of Church & State so that we may worship without fear and suffer civil consequences only when we break man's law and not someone's
idea of God's law. Courage to disagree without hate. Courage to act
on principal with understanding rather than on fear with ignorance.
I wonder if anyone claiming to have voted on 'moral values' ever stood
up for anyone other than themselves and those just like them?
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Fear
“…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Those reassuring words from FDR were to calm a nation in the throes of an economic depression so deep and so severe that we have no modern day comparison. As much as anything, FDR wanted the optimism and resourcefulness of the people to lift the country out of the mess it was in.
How times have changed. Now our government sponsors fear as a tool to get what it wants over the better judgment of the people. To be sure, there is plenty to be afraid of. But is nursing that fear to support a war or as a pretext to limit our civil liberties really good leadership?
Our most immediate enemy before and after September 11 was terrorism. Secondary to that were the rouge states that could wreck havoc in their corner of the world, and cause all manner of misery, but not likely to cause us much misery directly. Dealing with rogue states requires diplomacy and international consensus. Dealing with terrorism requires resolve, cunning, imagination and an honest look at the root causes. But the current administration has chosen fear. Be so afraid of terrorists, that we disrupt our lives and liberties, be so afraid of rogue states that we start wars.
And while we’ve got the fear thing going, let’s use fear as an instrument of policy advocacy:
Be AFRAID – Allowing gays to marry will destroy your family.
Be AFRAID – Cleaner air and water will cost you your job.
Be AFRAID – Stem cell research will promote abortions.
Please catagorize your fear according to the helpful scale below:
Now the only thing we have to fear, is the use of fear.
How times have changed. Now our government sponsors fear as a tool to get what it wants over the better judgment of the people. To be sure, there is plenty to be afraid of. But is nursing that fear to support a war or as a pretext to limit our civil liberties really good leadership?
Our most immediate enemy before and after September 11 was terrorism. Secondary to that were the rouge states that could wreck havoc in their corner of the world, and cause all manner of misery, but not likely to cause us much misery directly. Dealing with rogue states requires diplomacy and international consensus. Dealing with terrorism requires resolve, cunning, imagination and an honest look at the root causes. But the current administration has chosen fear. Be so afraid of terrorists, that we disrupt our lives and liberties, be so afraid of rogue states that we start wars.
And while we’ve got the fear thing going, let’s use fear as an instrument of policy advocacy:
Be AFRAID – Allowing gays to marry will destroy your family.
Be AFRAID – Cleaner air and water will cost you your job.
Be AFRAID – Stem cell research will promote abortions.
Please catagorize your fear according to the helpful scale below:
Now the only thing we have to fear, is the use of fear.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Girlie men
Heavy sigh... Could there be a less offensive mock pejorative that someone actually took offense to then “Girlie Men”?.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
The Quantum Physics of Fat
Obesity is at an epidemic level and there seems to be no end to the blame. Is it the food industry pushing lucrative but unhealthy choices? Is it the entertainment industry that has provided too many sedentary choices? Is it our service based economy that requires physical labor from so few? Is it pie? And dare I ask: does the fault lie within us?
No, it’s none of those things. After slap-dash research I have stumbled upon the source of the obesity epidemic. It’s Physics. Did you know that we are accelerating? Our planet, sun, solar system and galaxy are moving away from everything else in the universe at an ever faster rate. Did you know that acceleration increases mass? The more an object accelerates the more massive the object becomes. So even though you have parked your massive butt in a chair and it seems to be doing no accelerating at all, it never-the-less gets more massive. Your mass is increasing because everything in the Universe (including your butt and the chair it’s parked in) is flying apart at an ever increasing rate of speed. So it’s not your fault. It’s a fundamental law of physics. Have some more pie.
No, it’s none of those things. After slap-dash research I have stumbled upon the source of the obesity epidemic. It’s Physics. Did you know that we are accelerating? Our planet, sun, solar system and galaxy are moving away from everything else in the universe at an ever faster rate. Did you know that acceleration increases mass? The more an object accelerates the more massive the object becomes. So even though you have parked your massive butt in a chair and it seems to be doing no accelerating at all, it never-the-less gets more massive. Your mass is increasing because everything in the Universe (including your butt and the chair it’s parked in) is flying apart at an ever increasing rate of speed. So it’s not your fault. It’s a fundamental law of physics. Have some more pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
