I'm going to be upfront -- my candidate in the upcoming Democratic presidential caucus is Barack Obama. I figure -- why beat around the bush? I believe Obama represents the kind of potential vision and direction this country needs to move in if we are going to survive as a nation in the 21st Century.
If you haven't read it, check out Andrew Sullivan's convincing piece about Obama in the December Atlantic magazine. Sullivan details, in persuasive fashion, how Obama offers the possibility of moving beyond the divisive politics and arguments of the past 40+ years. One of his main points -- with which I agree -- is that Obama represents a break from the Baby Boomer dynamics that have been front and center. As a Gen X'er, I find this refreshing and hopeful. As someone who grew up in the wake of the Boomers -- who is old enough to understand some of the references, but young enough to feel left out of the conversation -- part of what has been so confusing and frustrating has been the sense that someone else's grievances, arguments, ambitions and desires define your own. Many of my friends wished we could have been born 20 years earlier because the folks from that era looked like they had the fun and dominated the cultural conversation. I was born the year Aretha Franklin's "Respect" was released, and yet I danced to the song and yearned for the cultural connection it represented even though I had no memory of it. It's like wandering around someone else's house, knowing their furniture and yearning for the comforting feeling of being safe in their living room.
The central problem is one of ownership -- the memory of the 60's, of Vietnam, of the civil rights struggle, of the ERA and rise of feminism aren't my own -- they are culturally received by me and others who were born in their wake. They don't exist in my memory -- they are memories owned by people 10, 15 or 20 years older than me. I didn't march in Selma, protest at Columbia or burn my draft card because I was either not on earth or in diapers.
It isn't that Obama has magical powers to heal all prior conflicts and make all things well -- it's that he isn't burdened by and beholden to the cultural context that has shaped this country since the 60's. If "the personal is political" was the lefty byword of the Boomer era, then maybe we need to not take things so personally. Or, rather, to recognize that this is not where the conversation ends, even if it starts there. I sense in Obama the possibility of opening up the governing process beyond the dualistic mode we have been locked into since there were draftees and draft dodgers. Maybe the choices we face aren't so clear. Maybe we shouldn't be so sure of the rightness of who we are and what we believe. Maybe a little amibiguity makes some sense because it makes us humble and willing to ask questions and learn more.
As a Gen X'er, you learn that you live betwixt and between -- lots of grownups ahead of you and lots of young kids right behind. Perhaps, even if he isn't an actual Gen X'er demographically, Obama represents a willingness of acknowledge this "between"-ness. And, to me, that counts for a lot more than the "35 years of experience" Clinton lays claim to in her campaign.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Back in the Saddle Again
Greetings, friends. I have been on hiatus from blogging, but with the arrival of the political season for 2008, I thought it was time for me to start opening my (figurative) big mouth and begin opining on the events of the day. My plan is to start blogging regularly again - about state/local and national politics, as well as other issues. Since my last post in March 2007, I've moved across the river, as they say here in the Twin Cities, to our state's Capital City, St. Paul. Life in the "other" city moves at a somewhat different pace, but, for all the vaunted differences locals allege, the two towns are really WAY more alike than different.
Check back in the next day or so -- I have A LOT to say about the state of the presidential campaign. And with a forecast high on Saturday of -2 degrees F, I will be inside the house for some significant amount of time this weekend.
Stay warm!
Check back in the next day or so -- I have A LOT to say about the state of the presidential campaign. And with a forecast high on Saturday of -2 degrees F, I will be inside the house for some significant amount of time this weekend.
Stay warm!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Newsflash: Snow in Minnesota
Well, it took a weather event to get me cranked up again. Over the past week, Minnesota has been subjected to what seems like a real winter. Not the wimpy 45 degrees in January winter we were having, but winter as it was lived here and in the rest of the North for most of my adult life. Rumors of global warming notwithstanding, to judge from the recent media coverage, you would think this was a major life event. The litany of catastrophic predictions has been endless. And the "B" word (for blizzard) has actually been dusted off and used publicly.
Now before the heavens open and the great firmament runneth over, I think we need to get a collective grip. A foot of snow is a foot of snow. A pain in the neck to travel through and dangerous if you somehow ignore the reality that you aren't going to be able to breeze through town. But, please, it's snow. Not frogs, locusts and other forms of pestilence. Not avian flu or Hong Kong hangnails. Snow. We live at the 45th parallel here in Minnesota and we have no right to expect otherwise at this time of year, even if it is the first of March. Yes, the month is coming in like a big old cranky lion, but that doesn't mean it's going to eat your young.
So, tomorrow morning, I will walk outside and do what others who have lived in the upper Midwest have done for decades -- move the snow out of my way so I can get where I need to go. It's not hard. The physics are actually pretty easy to understand. And it really isn't worthy of endless dire predictions of the end of the world as we know it. It's just snow.
Now before the heavens open and the great firmament runneth over, I think we need to get a collective grip. A foot of snow is a foot of snow. A pain in the neck to travel through and dangerous if you somehow ignore the reality that you aren't going to be able to breeze through town. But, please, it's snow. Not frogs, locusts and other forms of pestilence. Not avian flu or Hong Kong hangnails. Snow. We live at the 45th parallel here in Minnesota and we have no right to expect otherwise at this time of year, even if it is the first of March. Yes, the month is coming in like a big old cranky lion, but that doesn't mean it's going to eat your young.
So, tomorrow morning, I will walk outside and do what others who have lived in the upper Midwest have done for decades -- move the snow out of my way so I can get where I need to go. It's not hard. The physics are actually pretty easy to understand. And it really isn't worthy of endless dire predictions of the end of the world as we know it. It's just snow.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Blues for Ahmet
Last week, news broke that Atlantic Records CEO and founder, Ahmet Ertegun, had died. Ertegun may not be a household name to many people these days. However, few people have had as much influence over modern American pop music, particularly as a non-musician.
Ertegun was born in Turkey and raised the son of a Turkish diplomat. He spent his early years admiring jazz and blues musicians and attending clubs while a college student in Maryland. Afterwards, in 1947, he founded Atlantic Records, a label that for over the next 50 plus years was the home of some of the biggest acts in popular music -- artists such as Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Sonny & Cher, the Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin. However, what is most compelling to me about Ertegun is not just his keen ability to identify talent and help make artists successful. It was his ability and willingness to cross the color line in post World War II America at a time when doing so was not easily done.
It was Ertegun who signed artists like Ruth Brown and Ray Charles at a time when they could not get record deals with other mainstream labels. (Most black artists were relegated to the class of "race" music.) Ertegun teamed up with producers and artists of diverse backgrounds -- black, white, Christian, Jewish and Muslim -- to create a sound that was vital, energetic and true. In the mid-60's, Ertegun and his colleagues took Aretha Franklin, who had recorded a series of relatively mild mannered pop jazz albums for Columbia, and helped create a musical powerhouse who dominated the music charts for the next decade. Ertegun's label was the home of some of jazz's most well known and most respected artisits in the 50's, 60's and 70's -- Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman. Ertegun also knew how to change with the times and, in the late 60's and early 70's, signed on a number of successful rock bands, with Led Zepplin and the Rolling Stones perhaps being the best known. Even in the 80's, when Atlantic had been folded under the umbrella of Warner Brothers Records, artists such as Chaka Khan found a home on Ertegun's label.
Ertegun dared to bridge difference and, in so doing, helped create something powerful and long-lasting. Ultimately, it took someone not from this country with resources and interest to help bring out some of the most significant black musical artists of the last century. The next time you hear the opening chords of Aretha Franklin's "Respect" or Ray Charles "What'd I Say", think about the man from Turkey who was willing to make it possible for these songs to reach your ears.
Ertegun was born in Turkey and raised the son of a Turkish diplomat. He spent his early years admiring jazz and blues musicians and attending clubs while a college student in Maryland. Afterwards, in 1947, he founded Atlantic Records, a label that for over the next 50 plus years was the home of some of the biggest acts in popular music -- artists such as Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Sonny & Cher, the Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin. However, what is most compelling to me about Ertegun is not just his keen ability to identify talent and help make artists successful. It was his ability and willingness to cross the color line in post World War II America at a time when doing so was not easily done.
It was Ertegun who signed artists like Ruth Brown and Ray Charles at a time when they could not get record deals with other mainstream labels. (Most black artists were relegated to the class of "race" music.) Ertegun teamed up with producers and artists of diverse backgrounds -- black, white, Christian, Jewish and Muslim -- to create a sound that was vital, energetic and true. In the mid-60's, Ertegun and his colleagues took Aretha Franklin, who had recorded a series of relatively mild mannered pop jazz albums for Columbia, and helped create a musical powerhouse who dominated the music charts for the next decade. Ertegun's label was the home of some of jazz's most well known and most respected artisits in the 50's, 60's and 70's -- Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman. Ertegun also knew how to change with the times and, in the late 60's and early 70's, signed on a number of successful rock bands, with Led Zepplin and the Rolling Stones perhaps being the best known. Even in the 80's, when Atlantic had been folded under the umbrella of Warner Brothers Records, artists such as Chaka Khan found a home on Ertegun's label.
Ertegun dared to bridge difference and, in so doing, helped create something powerful and long-lasting. Ultimately, it took someone not from this country with resources and interest to help bring out some of the most significant black musical artists of the last century. The next time you hear the opening chords of Aretha Franklin's "Respect" or Ray Charles "What'd I Say", think about the man from Turkey who was willing to make it possible for these songs to reach your ears.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Living in the Emerald City
Recent articles in the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly have addressed the phenomenon of how educated professionals have migrated to select metropolitan areas in the U.S. over the past 25-30 years. In particular, Richard Florida's analysis in the Atlantic Monthly graphically demonstrates how the proportion of college educated adults has become concentrated in about 20 metropolitan areas in the nation. (One look at the color-coded maps in the article will convince you that there indeed has been a sea change going on across rural and older industrial counties throughout the nation.) Florida calls this the "means migration" and I agree with him that it has profound implications for the economic and social well-being of this country.
Educated people with professional skills and access to financial resources will always vote with their feet. For the majority of my adult life, I have witnessed countless college and law school colleagues move to places that increase their access to talent, employment opportunities and resources that enable them to live their preferred lifestyle. Like seeking like means that more educated affluent people now live in places with people like them where they fit the prevailing standards. It also means that educated professionals have more opportunities to connect and generate opportunities with other similarly talented people.
The end result of this concentration is a stark geographic disparity between select regions of highly educated residents and wide sections of the country where the proportion of educated affluent people is much lower. I have lived in both types of places -- New York, Ann Arbor and Minneapolis as examples of the former, Oklahoma City and Syracuse as examples of the latter. I know where I felt more comfortable, more connected to the kinds of people who shared my life experiences and values, more able to create opportunities to build the kind of life I was educated to lead. I also observe this phenomenon with the law students with whom I work. Many of the most talented are interested in practicing in one of the major coastal legal markets or staying in places like Chicago or Minneapolis in the Midwest. Employers outside of these areas actively seek the talented graduates of this law school, but face many obstacles to convincing those not originally from those areas to start there careers there. I have also observed how a place like the Twin Cities has drained large numbers of educated people across all types of professions from the rural communities of greater Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin.
I don't regret the choices that I and my cohorts have made over the past two decades. Part of the payoff to years of hard work, education and student debt is being able to have the flexibility to create the life one wants. However, something has also been lost in the process. Gone are the small rural communities where professionals like doctors and lawyers lived with school teachers, auto mechanics and postal workers. That kind of class and educational diversity is now absent from wide swaths of the country. It also has meant that less affluent communities are even more hard pressed to improve their lot because they can't compete for access to the very types of educated people who could help turn these communities around.
In the end, this may just be the reality of a world in which commerce and idea creation no longer are limited by political and geographic boundaries. In order to compete in the global economy, regions, not just states or countries, need to have the kind of intellectual infrastructure to offer the kind of distinctive "thought capital" that commands a premium in the marketplace. At the same time, we can't throw up our hands and roll up the streets of Detroit, Utica, and Devils Lake, ND. How we harness both the concentration of educated metropolitan areas and try to reinvent the places left behind probably is one of the more important, yet hidden challenges facing this country.
Educated people with professional skills and access to financial resources will always vote with their feet. For the majority of my adult life, I have witnessed countless college and law school colleagues move to places that increase their access to talent, employment opportunities and resources that enable them to live their preferred lifestyle. Like seeking like means that more educated affluent people now live in places with people like them where they fit the prevailing standards. It also means that educated professionals have more opportunities to connect and generate opportunities with other similarly talented people.
The end result of this concentration is a stark geographic disparity between select regions of highly educated residents and wide sections of the country where the proportion of educated affluent people is much lower. I have lived in both types of places -- New York, Ann Arbor and Minneapolis as examples of the former, Oklahoma City and Syracuse as examples of the latter. I know where I felt more comfortable, more connected to the kinds of people who shared my life experiences and values, more able to create opportunities to build the kind of life I was educated to lead. I also observe this phenomenon with the law students with whom I work. Many of the most talented are interested in practicing in one of the major coastal legal markets or staying in places like Chicago or Minneapolis in the Midwest. Employers outside of these areas actively seek the talented graduates of this law school, but face many obstacles to convincing those not originally from those areas to start there careers there. I have also observed how a place like the Twin Cities has drained large numbers of educated people across all types of professions from the rural communities of greater Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin.
I don't regret the choices that I and my cohorts have made over the past two decades. Part of the payoff to years of hard work, education and student debt is being able to have the flexibility to create the life one wants. However, something has also been lost in the process. Gone are the small rural communities where professionals like doctors and lawyers lived with school teachers, auto mechanics and postal workers. That kind of class and educational diversity is now absent from wide swaths of the country. It also has meant that less affluent communities are even more hard pressed to improve their lot because they can't compete for access to the very types of educated people who could help turn these communities around.
In the end, this may just be the reality of a world in which commerce and idea creation no longer are limited by political and geographic boundaries. In order to compete in the global economy, regions, not just states or countries, need to have the kind of intellectual infrastructure to offer the kind of distinctive "thought capital" that commands a premium in the marketplace. At the same time, we can't throw up our hands and roll up the streets of Detroit, Utica, and Devils Lake, ND. How we harness both the concentration of educated metropolitan areas and try to reinvent the places left behind probably is one of the more important, yet hidden challenges facing this country.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The One and Only
Ever since he won the DFL endorsement for 5th District congressional representative earlier this year, Keith Ellison has been besieged by scrutiny -- interviews, articles in the national and international media, reviews of his past personal and professional conduct. In case you didn't know (and you had to have spent the last four months on a deserted island), Ellison will be the first African American to represent the state of Minnesota and the first ever Muslim representative in Congress. This puts incredible pressure on Ellison as he operates under the microscope of such intense attention.
As one of Ellison's soon-to-be constituents, I feel it's necessary to remind the rest of the world that, for all his uniqueness, Ellison was elected to represent the people of Minnesota's Fifth District. Yes, his presence in Congress as the only Muslim at this particular time of national hysteria about the Islamic world makes him a particularly potent public figure. (Case in point, witness the recent outrageous events in which six imams were prevented from boarding a US Airways airplane at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because someone was suspicious of their prayers while they waited for the flight.) But, please, stop making such a big deal of Ellison's religious beliefs. He doesn't have three heads. He doesn't eat babies for breakfast. And he's not harboring Al Qaeda operatives in his garage.
With all of the heightened media attention now being given to the Islamic world, it's amazing how little real information is being transmitted about it. Daily footage of violence in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as coverage of other incidences of violence in the Middle East, may convince the average Jane or Joe that things are out of control in the Islamic world. But it doesn't offer any insight into the whats and whys of the situation. Moreover, it isn't up to Keith Ellison, as the nation's most visible Muslim politician, to explain, refute or comment on it all. No one can hold the psychological projections of so many Americans and be expected to do his job adequately.
And that is really frustrating. Ellison's track record of involvement and advocacy in the district, combined with his experience in mobilizing across different ethnic and racial groups, has given him a solid base of experience from which to a raise a whole host of progressive initiatives at the national level. He's not the perfect representative. From the start of the congressional race, I was concerned about Ellison's history of mishandling his own personal obligations. Public officials shouldn't have unpaid traffic tickets, suspended licenses and missing campaign finance forms and expect folks not to wonder what this might mean for future performance. But, giving Ellison the benefit of the doubt, my central issue was always his track record as an elected official. On that score, Ellison was uniformly considered a strong and effective state representative. Moreover, the opportunity for the people of this community to send a person of color to represent them in Congress represented a unique and positive statement about who and what we are today.
So, to the national media I say, "Stop badgering my representative and let him do the job we sent him to do." It's enough for a new representative to have to find the bathrooms in the House office buildings. Ellison doesn't need to endlessly navigate the treacherous waters of national scrutiny on the way to his desk in Washington. We, his constituents, will have enough chances to render the verdict on his performance when he runs for re-election in two years. In the meantime, let Keith be Keith.
As one of Ellison's soon-to-be constituents, I feel it's necessary to remind the rest of the world that, for all his uniqueness, Ellison was elected to represent the people of Minnesota's Fifth District. Yes, his presence in Congress as the only Muslim at this particular time of national hysteria about the Islamic world makes him a particularly potent public figure. (Case in point, witness the recent outrageous events in which six imams were prevented from boarding a US Airways airplane at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because someone was suspicious of their prayers while they waited for the flight.) But, please, stop making such a big deal of Ellison's religious beliefs. He doesn't have three heads. He doesn't eat babies for breakfast. And he's not harboring Al Qaeda operatives in his garage.
With all of the heightened media attention now being given to the Islamic world, it's amazing how little real information is being transmitted about it. Daily footage of violence in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as coverage of other incidences of violence in the Middle East, may convince the average Jane or Joe that things are out of control in the Islamic world. But it doesn't offer any insight into the whats and whys of the situation. Moreover, it isn't up to Keith Ellison, as the nation's most visible Muslim politician, to explain, refute or comment on it all. No one can hold the psychological projections of so many Americans and be expected to do his job adequately.
And that is really frustrating. Ellison's track record of involvement and advocacy in the district, combined with his experience in mobilizing across different ethnic and racial groups, has given him a solid base of experience from which to a raise a whole host of progressive initiatives at the national level. He's not the perfect representative. From the start of the congressional race, I was concerned about Ellison's history of mishandling his own personal obligations. Public officials shouldn't have unpaid traffic tickets, suspended licenses and missing campaign finance forms and expect folks not to wonder what this might mean for future performance. But, giving Ellison the benefit of the doubt, my central issue was always his track record as an elected official. On that score, Ellison was uniformly considered a strong and effective state representative. Moreover, the opportunity for the people of this community to send a person of color to represent them in Congress represented a unique and positive statement about who and what we are today.
So, to the national media I say, "Stop badgering my representative and let him do the job we sent him to do." It's enough for a new representative to have to find the bathrooms in the House office buildings. Ellison doesn't need to endlessly navigate the treacherous waters of national scrutiny on the way to his desk in Washington. We, his constituents, will have enough chances to render the verdict on his performance when he runs for re-election in two years. In the meantime, let Keith be Keith.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
The Hatchet Job
Leave it to Democrats to find the dark lining in the silver cloud. It wasn't enough that the Democratic Party swept control of both houses of the US Congress, both houses of the Minnesota Legislature and all but one of the constitutional state offices. Now we have the public hand wringing over Tim Pawlenty's victory over Mike Hatch in the governor's race. Fingers are being pointed all over the place, but mostly at Peter Hutchinson, the Independence Party's candidate for governor. Hutchinson allegedly "stole" (I use this loosely) enough votes from Hatch's liberal/progressive urban supporters to give Pawlenty the margin of victory.
It's time for some rational talk about the failure of yet another DFL gubernatorial candidate to win the state capitol. Here are some of my observations:
1) Hatch's agressive personality didn't sit well with some folks. While Hatch has been an effective attorney general, as long as a snarling bulldog is your model for an effective attorney general, governors need to play well with others. However, that has never been Hatch's strong point. Not that Pawlenty has been peaches and cream, but compared to Hatch, he's Mr. Nice Guy. People want a governor who has a certain presence that suggests that he or she could rise above the fray. Hatch seems like he would be the first guy into the mosh pit. And don't get some former employees of the AG's office started on some of Hatch's antics. There were quite a number of folks who were eager to see Hatch take a fall.
2) Many urban progressives have long been suspicious of Hatch and either either sat on their hands, held their noses or voted for Hutchinson. For all of his populist rhetoric, Hatch could never be considered a progressive thinker on most issues. Just look at his position on abortion. Listen to his waffling on tax policy, particularly the gas tax. Could you really trust the guy to do the right thing in a clutch if you cared about these issues? Hutchinson articulated positions that made sense to many urban progressives and they left the room. Also, let us not forget Hatch's past history of thumbing his nose at the DFL endorsement process and Becky Lourie's spirited candidacy that energized a significant number of urban progressives. These factors did not endear Hatch to a significant constituency whose support he needed.
3) Hatch lost it in the last week and confirmed some folks' worst fears about him. Sure, Judi Dutcher made a big mistake with her E-85 comment the weekend before the election. But Hatch made things much worse by completely losing his cool in front of the media. Hatch started to act like the kind of paranoid hothead his opponents had tried to make him out to be. Whether or not that was a fair characterization, the damage was done too close to the election to repair and probably convinced some fence-sitters to look elsewhere.
4) Love him or hate him, Pawlenty is a pretty darned talented politician and kept his himself afloat while the rest of his party colleagues went down with the ship. The stiff anti-Republican headwind of this year's election made it much easier for Hatch to gain traction against Pawlenty. But Pawlenty never really lost his personal popularity, even as his party was tarred with all of the ills of the day. And the main issue that motivated voters to vote Democratic -- opposition to the Irag war -- was not all that relevant to the governor's actual job. Besides, when you get down to it, between Hatch and Pawlenty, who would you rather have a beer with? And compare Pawlenty's numbers to Mark Kennedy's numbers in the Senate race -- the governor was doing something right.
5) Many people actually don't have a problem with divided government. Pawlenty outperformed many of his Republican legislative colleagues on Election Day. In addition, there were a significant number of Klobuchar/Pawlenty ticket splitters, far more than than the reverse. Perhaps folks sensed that having a DFL legislature with healthy majorities would be enough of a counterbalance to a Republican governor. We'll see if that's right starting this winter. Already, Pawlenty has started to get religion on universal heath coverage for children in the state, after he gutted programs during his first term.
Personally, I'm not pleased that Tim Pawlenty is coming back for Act 2. I disagree with him on most issues and find his "aw-shucks" demeaanor to be a paltry mask to his mean-spirited policies. But Mike Hatch's inability to knock him off this month is more of a reflection of his own failings than the presence of Peter Hutchinson on the ballot or Judi Dutcher's ethanol blooper. In a year when Democrats were flying high across the country, Hatch should have been able to ride the prevailing winds to victory. He fell short because enough folks had doubts about him to vote otherwise.
It's time for some rational talk about the failure of yet another DFL gubernatorial candidate to win the state capitol. Here are some of my observations:
1) Hatch's agressive personality didn't sit well with some folks. While Hatch has been an effective attorney general, as long as a snarling bulldog is your model for an effective attorney general, governors need to play well with others. However, that has never been Hatch's strong point. Not that Pawlenty has been peaches and cream, but compared to Hatch, he's Mr. Nice Guy. People want a governor who has a certain presence that suggests that he or she could rise above the fray. Hatch seems like he would be the first guy into the mosh pit. And don't get some former employees of the AG's office started on some of Hatch's antics. There were quite a number of folks who were eager to see Hatch take a fall.
2) Many urban progressives have long been suspicious of Hatch and either either sat on their hands, held their noses or voted for Hutchinson. For all of his populist rhetoric, Hatch could never be considered a progressive thinker on most issues. Just look at his position on abortion. Listen to his waffling on tax policy, particularly the gas tax. Could you really trust the guy to do the right thing in a clutch if you cared about these issues? Hutchinson articulated positions that made sense to many urban progressives and they left the room. Also, let us not forget Hatch's past history of thumbing his nose at the DFL endorsement process and Becky Lourie's spirited candidacy that energized a significant number of urban progressives. These factors did not endear Hatch to a significant constituency whose support he needed.
3) Hatch lost it in the last week and confirmed some folks' worst fears about him. Sure, Judi Dutcher made a big mistake with her E-85 comment the weekend before the election. But Hatch made things much worse by completely losing his cool in front of the media. Hatch started to act like the kind of paranoid hothead his opponents had tried to make him out to be. Whether or not that was a fair characterization, the damage was done too close to the election to repair and probably convinced some fence-sitters to look elsewhere.
4) Love him or hate him, Pawlenty is a pretty darned talented politician and kept his himself afloat while the rest of his party colleagues went down with the ship. The stiff anti-Republican headwind of this year's election made it much easier for Hatch to gain traction against Pawlenty. But Pawlenty never really lost his personal popularity, even as his party was tarred with all of the ills of the day. And the main issue that motivated voters to vote Democratic -- opposition to the Irag war -- was not all that relevant to the governor's actual job. Besides, when you get down to it, between Hatch and Pawlenty, who would you rather have a beer with? And compare Pawlenty's numbers to Mark Kennedy's numbers in the Senate race -- the governor was doing something right.
5) Many people actually don't have a problem with divided government. Pawlenty outperformed many of his Republican legislative colleagues on Election Day. In addition, there were a significant number of Klobuchar/Pawlenty ticket splitters, far more than than the reverse. Perhaps folks sensed that having a DFL legislature with healthy majorities would be enough of a counterbalance to a Republican governor. We'll see if that's right starting this winter. Already, Pawlenty has started to get religion on universal heath coverage for children in the state, after he gutted programs during his first term.
Personally, I'm not pleased that Tim Pawlenty is coming back for Act 2. I disagree with him on most issues and find his "aw-shucks" demeaanor to be a paltry mask to his mean-spirited policies. But Mike Hatch's inability to knock him off this month is more of a reflection of his own failings than the presence of Peter Hutchinson on the ballot or Judi Dutcher's ethanol blooper. In a year when Democrats were flying high across the country, Hatch should have been able to ride the prevailing winds to victory. He fell short because enough folks had doubts about him to vote otherwise.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Chickens Come Home to Roost
Okay, I admit it. I'm thrilled that the Republican Party took a "thumping", to quote Bush II, in the midterm elections. Given all of the incompetence and corruption of the Congressional leadership, especially in the House of Representative, as well as the insane, reality-defying policies of the President on Iraq, I couldn't for the life of me understand how the result could be otherwise. Think about it: if you saw these kinds of accomplishments on a resume, would you hire these folks?
Besides taking the November 7 mini-revolution as evidence that there is still a Divine Presence in the world (I hesitate to say "God" for fear of evangelical backlash), I believe it is worthwhile reflecting on what this election may mean for both governance and politics in the future. The Democratic Party has now been tasked with a substantial charge -- how to actually participate in the governance process they have been almost completely excluded from for nearly 6 years. If this is to be a real sea change in American politics, it's up to the Democrats elected this past week to do the job they have been hired to do.
One commentator has offered that this election represents the end of the conservative era that started back in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. As someone who came of political age in the Reagan era, it's hard to imagine a world outside of this construct. But, I think there is something to this. Two years ago, the pundits made sense of Bush's re-election by concluding it was all about "values" -- how the values of the president matched with the values of the electorate and how the Democrats neglected to demonstrate clearly what they stood for. This year, we have the demise of "values" and the rise of pragmatism.
What I think this election demonstrates is that you can appeal to the social and moral issues only so long before people wonder when you are actually going to get the job done. For the vast majority of Americans -- people who don't see themselves tied very much to ideology -- the expectation is that government will somehow address the problems facing the country. When American soldiers are dying in Iraq, job security seems non-existent, health care remains an elusive goal for many uninsured, and our environmental resources are being consumed at an expensive and alarming rate, bickering over Terri Schiavo's right to die and how to stop gay men and women from legally marrying seem like unnecessary and unsupportable distractions.
Americans expressed hopefulness in their votes on November 7th, even as they remain worried about the state of the war and the country. Rather than let themselves be cynically manipulated on cultural and social issues, they voted with the expectation that their representatives may actually have something constructive to do.
Ideology isn't completely dead. But, in light of the serious issues facing the nation, it may just be a luxury we can't afford at the moment.
Besides taking the November 7 mini-revolution as evidence that there is still a Divine Presence in the world (I hesitate to say "God" for fear of evangelical backlash), I believe it is worthwhile reflecting on what this election may mean for both governance and politics in the future. The Democratic Party has now been tasked with a substantial charge -- how to actually participate in the governance process they have been almost completely excluded from for nearly 6 years. If this is to be a real sea change in American politics, it's up to the Democrats elected this past week to do the job they have been hired to do.
One commentator has offered that this election represents the end of the conservative era that started back in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. As someone who came of political age in the Reagan era, it's hard to imagine a world outside of this construct. But, I think there is something to this. Two years ago, the pundits made sense of Bush's re-election by concluding it was all about "values" -- how the values of the president matched with the values of the electorate and how the Democrats neglected to demonstrate clearly what they stood for. This year, we have the demise of "values" and the rise of pragmatism.
What I think this election demonstrates is that you can appeal to the social and moral issues only so long before people wonder when you are actually going to get the job done. For the vast majority of Americans -- people who don't see themselves tied very much to ideology -- the expectation is that government will somehow address the problems facing the country. When American soldiers are dying in Iraq, job security seems non-existent, health care remains an elusive goal for many uninsured, and our environmental resources are being consumed at an expensive and alarming rate, bickering over Terri Schiavo's right to die and how to stop gay men and women from legally marrying seem like unnecessary and unsupportable distractions.
Americans expressed hopefulness in their votes on November 7th, even as they remain worried about the state of the war and the country. Rather than let themselves be cynically manipulated on cultural and social issues, they voted with the expectation that their representatives may actually have something constructive to do.
Ideology isn't completely dead. But, in light of the serious issues facing the nation, it may just be a luxury we can't afford at the moment.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Deliver Us from Allen
If there ever was a politician who deserves to be sent to the dust heap of history this season, it's Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia. I can't vote in this one, given that I live about 1,000 miles away from the Old Dominion, but I would be thrilled if Virginians elected Jim Webb, the Democratic challenger.
Watching Allen self-destruct over the past three months has been like watching a car accident in slow motion. You can't believe it's happening, but you can't possibly turn away from the entire messy scene. First, Allen got caught in the "macaca" at a videotaped campaign appearance in which he lobbed a racial epithet at an Indian-American campaign worker for Webb. Allen's explanations for using the word ranged from silly to just plain weird. But the damage had been done.
Then we learned the news that Allen's grandfather was actually Jewish. His entire approach to this information was bizarre. First, he issued statements in which he railed against those who would "cast aspersions" on him by alleging that he had Jewish blood. Excuse me? Who would consider that an aspersion to be cast unless he believed that actually being a Jew was worthy of aspersion-ness? There are words for that and none of them are flattering. I don't doubt that Allen's mother had her reasons for not telling her family about her Jewish father. But, please, don't act like it was the equivalent of finding out that your grandfather robbed banks for a living. When Allen finally fessed up, he acknowledged that this all was true, but he really still liked pork chops. How do you respond to something like that?
Then the house of cards really began to fall. We learned about Allen's adventures in racist behavior while at the University of Virginia. We witnessed Allen attempt to change the subject about financial dealings he neglected to disclose to Congress. Then we watched Allen shamelessly court the votes of women by running ads featuring women in the military who claimed that Webb said or acted in a sexist manner toward them. Only they misquoted things Webb never actually said.
Finally, with his campaign in a free fall (and his presidential ambitions thankfully in the toilet), we find out what George Allen really has been doing with his time: reading Webb's novels and finding, horror of horrors, passages involving sex. That includes sex that might make some of the women characters out to not be pristine porcelain dolls, nevermind that these are novels about surviving as a soldier in wartime. This of course is evidence that Webb really harbors some hidden sexist beliefs that he has conveniently tucked deep inside his writing. (The fact that Webb has written more words in his novels than Allen probably has read in his entire life, notwithstanding.) Please stop! I'm having trouble catching my breath from laughing at this foolishness.
Just when you think George Allen couldn't possibly drive the discourse any lower, there he is, a few circles closer to perdition. Please, voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia, save us from having to witness any more of these embarrassments -- send Jim Webb to the U.S. Senate and return Allen to some horse farm in the Shenandoah Valley where he can do no harm.
Watching Allen self-destruct over the past three months has been like watching a car accident in slow motion. You can't believe it's happening, but you can't possibly turn away from the entire messy scene. First, Allen got caught in the "macaca" at a videotaped campaign appearance in which he lobbed a racial epithet at an Indian-American campaign worker for Webb. Allen's explanations for using the word ranged from silly to just plain weird. But the damage had been done.
Then we learned the news that Allen's grandfather was actually Jewish. His entire approach to this information was bizarre. First, he issued statements in which he railed against those who would "cast aspersions" on him by alleging that he had Jewish blood. Excuse me? Who would consider that an aspersion to be cast unless he believed that actually being a Jew was worthy of aspersion-ness? There are words for that and none of them are flattering. I don't doubt that Allen's mother had her reasons for not telling her family about her Jewish father. But, please, don't act like it was the equivalent of finding out that your grandfather robbed banks for a living. When Allen finally fessed up, he acknowledged that this all was true, but he really still liked pork chops. How do you respond to something like that?
Then the house of cards really began to fall. We learned about Allen's adventures in racist behavior while at the University of Virginia. We witnessed Allen attempt to change the subject about financial dealings he neglected to disclose to Congress. Then we watched Allen shamelessly court the votes of women by running ads featuring women in the military who claimed that Webb said or acted in a sexist manner toward them. Only they misquoted things Webb never actually said.
Finally, with his campaign in a free fall (and his presidential ambitions thankfully in the toilet), we find out what George Allen really has been doing with his time: reading Webb's novels and finding, horror of horrors, passages involving sex. That includes sex that might make some of the women characters out to not be pristine porcelain dolls, nevermind that these are novels about surviving as a soldier in wartime. This of course is evidence that Webb really harbors some hidden sexist beliefs that he has conveniently tucked deep inside his writing. (The fact that Webb has written more words in his novels than Allen probably has read in his entire life, notwithstanding.) Please stop! I'm having trouble catching my breath from laughing at this foolishness.
Just when you think George Allen couldn't possibly drive the discourse any lower, there he is, a few circles closer to perdition. Please, voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia, save us from having to witness any more of these embarrassments -- send Jim Webb to the U.S. Senate and return Allen to some horse farm in the Shenandoah Valley where he can do no harm.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A Marriage By Any Other Name
Just when we thought that the gay marriage debate was going take a back seat in this election cycle, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Lewis v. Harris. The court held that, under the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution, same sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits afforded to opposite sex couples under the state's marriage statutes. The court left the state legislature to decide the particular statutory scheme to provide these rights. Three of the justices would have gone further than the majority and found that same sex couples are entitled to be married under the state's current statutes.
Sure as night follows day, President Bush and a number of Republican candidates have decided to use this as an opportunity to whip up their right-wing cultural conservative supporters. Decrying "activist judges", they have taken to dredging up support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. It's also no coincidence that 8 states have similar proposals on their ballots to amend their state constitutions to do the same, a fact helpful for Republican turnout.
The claptrap about "activist judges" is at once disingenuous and destructive to the tripartate system designed by the constitutional framers. It's always been the province of the judiciary to hold the other two branches accountable to the mandates of the constitution. In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court did just that. When majoritirian impulses trample on the rights of a minority, it's the judiciary that needs to safeguard those rights. Of course, what's a constitution to this president. If he can convince Congress to ban habeas corpus for alleged war criminals, what can he do to a bunch of gays and lesbians who don't know their place.
However, I think the New Jersey court got it right for a number of reasons and those reasons also call into question the entire quest for recognition of same sex relationships under marriage statutes. It's important to remember that, until not that long ago (say 2001), it would have seemed inconievable that there would be a possibility for same sex couples to obtain legal recognition as marriage. With the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2004 mandating recognition under that state's marriage statutes, the movement accelerated to obtain similar recognition under other states' statutes. However, in the past year, and until Harris, the legal decisions have been a litany of bad news. Even the New York Court of Appeals declined to find a right to marry for same sex couples under that state's laws. So, should we celebrate Harris or mark it as a step backward?
I believe same sex couples deserve to have their relationships recognized by the state, allowing gays and lesbians to receive the same legal protections my wife and I can obtain under the law. When we got married over ten years ago, we discussed whether to do so legally, given the history of discrimination against same sex couples. We ultimately decided that disadvantaging ourselves would not necessarily advance the cause of obtaining recognition for same sex relationships. But we also believed that the time had come for such recognition to be a reality and had many friends in committed same sex relationships that should be regarded the same as ours.
However, by driving towards marriage, legal advocates have raised a red flag for a large portion of the American population uncomfortable with what this would represent. It also had the perhaps unintended consequence of conflating what marriage, the historical and religious institution, is versus how marriage is treated under civil law. If you ask most (sane) people whether gays and lesbians should be treated equally, a majority would probably say yes. But once this treatment is framed under the rubric of marriage, the opinions shift.
Marriage as a civil institution has had a checkered past and its historical origins had much more to do with chattel and property than rights and privileges for those involved. Why link the cause of legal recognition for same sex relationships to such vehicle? Isn't the whole purpose of the enterprise to ensure that the same legal rights and responsibilities be made available to same sex couples?
Also, by linking this cause to the baggage of civil marriage, advocates have allowed opponents to raise marriage as a religious/cultural institution under assault. Instead of arguing against the rights of same sex couples, these reactionary forces can use this as yet another example of the homosexual agenda driving our society to perdition. It also makes potential supporters into opponents by focusing on how marriage has been tied to religious interpretations in the Bible and elsewhere.
Let's get off the marriage hot button and focus on what is needed to make it possible for same sex couples to get legal, as opposed to religious, recognition of their committments. That is what the current legal quest should be about and where I think society is ultimately headed. And let's stop giving right-wingers a potential platform to demagogue (hello, Michelle Bachman) and pander to people's worst instincts.
Sure as night follows day, President Bush and a number of Republican candidates have decided to use this as an opportunity to whip up their right-wing cultural conservative supporters. Decrying "activist judges", they have taken to dredging up support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. It's also no coincidence that 8 states have similar proposals on their ballots to amend their state constitutions to do the same, a fact helpful for Republican turnout.
The claptrap about "activist judges" is at once disingenuous and destructive to the tripartate system designed by the constitutional framers. It's always been the province of the judiciary to hold the other two branches accountable to the mandates of the constitution. In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court did just that. When majoritirian impulses trample on the rights of a minority, it's the judiciary that needs to safeguard those rights. Of course, what's a constitution to this president. If he can convince Congress to ban habeas corpus for alleged war criminals, what can he do to a bunch of gays and lesbians who don't know their place.
However, I think the New Jersey court got it right for a number of reasons and those reasons also call into question the entire quest for recognition of same sex relationships under marriage statutes. It's important to remember that, until not that long ago (say 2001), it would have seemed inconievable that there would be a possibility for same sex couples to obtain legal recognition as marriage. With the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2004 mandating recognition under that state's marriage statutes, the movement accelerated to obtain similar recognition under other states' statutes. However, in the past year, and until Harris, the legal decisions have been a litany of bad news. Even the New York Court of Appeals declined to find a right to marry for same sex couples under that state's laws. So, should we celebrate Harris or mark it as a step backward?
I believe same sex couples deserve to have their relationships recognized by the state, allowing gays and lesbians to receive the same legal protections my wife and I can obtain under the law. When we got married over ten years ago, we discussed whether to do so legally, given the history of discrimination against same sex couples. We ultimately decided that disadvantaging ourselves would not necessarily advance the cause of obtaining recognition for same sex relationships. But we also believed that the time had come for such recognition to be a reality and had many friends in committed same sex relationships that should be regarded the same as ours.
However, by driving towards marriage, legal advocates have raised a red flag for a large portion of the American population uncomfortable with what this would represent. It also had the perhaps unintended consequence of conflating what marriage, the historical and religious institution, is versus how marriage is treated under civil law. If you ask most (sane) people whether gays and lesbians should be treated equally, a majority would probably say yes. But once this treatment is framed under the rubric of marriage, the opinions shift.
Marriage as a civil institution has had a checkered past and its historical origins had much more to do with chattel and property than rights and privileges for those involved. Why link the cause of legal recognition for same sex relationships to such vehicle? Isn't the whole purpose of the enterprise to ensure that the same legal rights and responsibilities be made available to same sex couples?
Also, by linking this cause to the baggage of civil marriage, advocates have allowed opponents to raise marriage as a religious/cultural institution under assault. Instead of arguing against the rights of same sex couples, these reactionary forces can use this as yet another example of the homosexual agenda driving our society to perdition. It also makes potential supporters into opponents by focusing on how marriage has been tied to religious interpretations in the Bible and elsewhere.
Let's get off the marriage hot button and focus on what is needed to make it possible for same sex couples to get legal, as opposed to religious, recognition of their committments. That is what the current legal quest should be about and where I think society is ultimately headed. And let's stop giving right-wingers a potential platform to demagogue (hello, Michelle Bachman) and pander to people's worst instincts.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Adventures in Aqualand
For my son Andrew's 7th birthday this fall, my wife Jodi and I agreed to buy him a new aquarium. You see, for the last five plus years, we have lived four blocks from the mother of all aquarium stores, the aptly named "Aqualand". Ever since my son laid eyes on the store, it's been one of our ongoing stops around the neighborhood. Forget the Underwater Adventure at the Mall of America. This place is for serious folks.
If there is a single fish or aquatic-related supply that does not exist in Aqualand's inventory, I doubt it's legal. Want tetras? They've got a dozen different varieties. Looking for that special piranha for your annoying neighbor? Come on down. Are your angel fish picky eaters? More food choices than an Old Country Buffet.
Now, I must explain that I have zero experience dealing with aquariums. Growing up, my family had the occasional goldfish in a bowl. Most were usually temporary residents in our house. Once in awhile, my dad would clean the bowl. Occasionally, I would even remember to feed it. Then, on some Saturday morning, one of us would come downstairs to the dining room and find the poor thing belly up. Last rites were said and then the deceased was sent to its final resting place in the New York City sewer system.
A few days before Andrew's birthday, Jodi and I journeyed to Aqualand to scope out the prospects. Faced with the reality that I needed to learn about aquariums quickly, I did what any dad would do. I threw myself on the mercy of the salesman at the store. He smiled and showed me a complete starter set -- one 15 gallon tank and everything else to get the aquarium going. "Do you need to clean this thing?," I asked. "Once a month," he said, "but you won't need to worry about that for awhile." "How about fish?," I responded. "Just get the tank going for a couple of days first."
Andrew's birthday arrived. We presented him with the aquarium tank and equipment sans fish. He was thrilled. I dutifully promised to put it together right away. Luckily, my father-in-law Ron, an experienced aquarium owner, was there to help. "What are these plastic tubes for," I wondered. "Filter -- you need to filter the water and it's an air tube," he said. "Oh," I muttered. Ron helped me start putting things together, but we stopped half way when it was time for cake.
One week went by. The aquarium sat in our basement, dry as a bone. Two weeks went by. Andrew asked, "Dad, are you going to put my tank together." "Yes, Andrew, this weekend." During week three, a friend visited with her kids. While they played in the basement, Andrew showed her the half complete aquarium. "Where's the fish?," she asked. "Haven't gotten around to it yet," I replied. "Yeah. I know how that goes." She took an old fish sculpture we had lying around the basement and stuck it in the tank. "See, now you can pretend."
The truth was I didn't know what the heck I needed to do to finish the project. Somehow, Aqualand didn't sell instructions when you bought the starter set. I looked at the collection of tubing and boxes without a clue. Finally, after nearly a month, I got up the nerve to finish. But first I called Ron. "Could you walk me through this again? There are these plastic tubes" "They connect to the air pump," Ron said. "Is that the black square looking thing?" "Probably. Does it have a power cord sticking out of it?" "Yes," I responded "That's the pump," "Oh." I replied,"I thought I was supposed to stick it at the bottom of the tank." "Not a good idea," said Ron. Later that evening, Jodi returned home from a meeting. "I'm almost done with the tank," I proudly called up to her from the basement. "It's about time," she called back.
The next morning, before Andrew went to school, I showed him the functioning tank. "Great, Dad. Where are the fish?" "We'll get them in a few days at Aqualand" And, a few days later, we actually did. Satisfied with my accomplishment, I thought, the fun father and son bonding would now begin. This would be "our" project. This morning, we fed the fish. "Isn't it cool?," I mused looking at the tetras darting for food. "Yeah, Dad. Cool." We sat for a few minutes in the basement, father and son, gazing together at the tank. Then Andrew interjected, "Dad, it gets boring watching fish. I'm hungry for breakfast," and ran upstairs, leaving the tetras and I staring at each other.
If there is a single fish or aquatic-related supply that does not exist in Aqualand's inventory, I doubt it's legal. Want tetras? They've got a dozen different varieties. Looking for that special piranha for your annoying neighbor? Come on down. Are your angel fish picky eaters? More food choices than an Old Country Buffet.
Now, I must explain that I have zero experience dealing with aquariums. Growing up, my family had the occasional goldfish in a bowl. Most were usually temporary residents in our house. Once in awhile, my dad would clean the bowl. Occasionally, I would even remember to feed it. Then, on some Saturday morning, one of us would come downstairs to the dining room and find the poor thing belly up. Last rites were said and then the deceased was sent to its final resting place in the New York City sewer system.
A few days before Andrew's birthday, Jodi and I journeyed to Aqualand to scope out the prospects. Faced with the reality that I needed to learn about aquariums quickly, I did what any dad would do. I threw myself on the mercy of the salesman at the store. He smiled and showed me a complete starter set -- one 15 gallon tank and everything else to get the aquarium going. "Do you need to clean this thing?," I asked. "Once a month," he said, "but you won't need to worry about that for awhile." "How about fish?," I responded. "Just get the tank going for a couple of days first."
Andrew's birthday arrived. We presented him with the aquarium tank and equipment sans fish. He was thrilled. I dutifully promised to put it together right away. Luckily, my father-in-law Ron, an experienced aquarium owner, was there to help. "What are these plastic tubes for," I wondered. "Filter -- you need to filter the water and it's an air tube," he said. "Oh," I muttered. Ron helped me start putting things together, but we stopped half way when it was time for cake.
One week went by. The aquarium sat in our basement, dry as a bone. Two weeks went by. Andrew asked, "Dad, are you going to put my tank together." "Yes, Andrew, this weekend." During week three, a friend visited with her kids. While they played in the basement, Andrew showed her the half complete aquarium. "Where's the fish?," she asked. "Haven't gotten around to it yet," I replied. "Yeah. I know how that goes." She took an old fish sculpture we had lying around the basement and stuck it in the tank. "See, now you can pretend."
The truth was I didn't know what the heck I needed to do to finish the project. Somehow, Aqualand didn't sell instructions when you bought the starter set. I looked at the collection of tubing and boxes without a clue. Finally, after nearly a month, I got up the nerve to finish. But first I called Ron. "Could you walk me through this again? There are these plastic tubes" "They connect to the air pump," Ron said. "Is that the black square looking thing?" "Probably. Does it have a power cord sticking out of it?" "Yes," I responded "That's the pump," "Oh." I replied,"I thought I was supposed to stick it at the bottom of the tank." "Not a good idea," said Ron. Later that evening, Jodi returned home from a meeting. "I'm almost done with the tank," I proudly called up to her from the basement. "It's about time," she called back.
The next morning, before Andrew went to school, I showed him the functioning tank. "Great, Dad. Where are the fish?" "We'll get them in a few days at Aqualand" And, a few days later, we actually did. Satisfied with my accomplishment, I thought, the fun father and son bonding would now begin. This would be "our" project. This morning, we fed the fish. "Isn't it cool?," I mused looking at the tetras darting for food. "Yeah, Dad. Cool." We sat for a few minutes in the basement, father and son, gazing together at the tank. Then Andrew interjected, "Dad, it gets boring watching fish. I'm hungry for breakfast," and ran upstairs, leaving the tetras and I staring at each other.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Oh, Grow Up
Back in 1986, Janet Jackson released her breakout album, "Control". I remember it well -- I was a sophomore in college at a party one night and "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" popped out of the stereo. "Control" was one of the biggest sellers of the period and, to my mind, one of the best pop/dance/r&b albums of its time. Tight production by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. Tough beats. Impeccable pacing. What more could you ask for in the 80's.
Flash forward to 2006 and Jackson has just released her new album, "20 Y.O" (or "20 Years Old"). Yes, it has been 20 years since "Control" dominated the charts. (Hard to believe.) And here we have Jackson at 40 ready to take on the pop charts again. It's been a rough couple of years for her -- what with the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" and the fizzle of her previous album, "Damita Jo". (Oh, you didn't realize she released an album last year. Well, neither did most folks and, frankly, it was a dud both critically and in sales.)
Now, I confess that I generally have liked Jackson's albums over the years. No, they don't stretch the mind, but they usually have some of the most consistently enjoyable dance tracks in pop ("Damita Jo" notwithstanding). So, last week, I eagerly listened to "20 Y.O", hoping to be transported back to pop dance heaven. She opens the album with the promising announcement that "she just wants to have some fun." In the first lines of the first track, "So Excited", she offers to open her "spot" for me and let me "act bad." Hmmm. This theme continues all the way through to the last track, "Love 2 Love", in which she ends with the opportunity to let me "have her way with her" and make her "my slave." Hmmm again. (Okay, maybe these tracks weren't specifically directed at me, but, hey, a guy can dream.)
However, somewhere in the middle of all this, maybe about the time she declares that it's 7 AM and about the time to do it again ("Enjoy"), something started to creep me out. Here's Jackson, basically repeating the same dirty talk over and over again. (I don't object to the come on, but it does get a bit monotonous after awhile.) Here she is on the CD jacket, looking today exactly like she did in 1986 with a montage of photos of her from the past 20 years. And then, I think, wait a minute, isn't this woman 40 years old and isn't it 2006?
And then I realized what this was all about. Here is Janet Jackson, queen of pop/dance from the late 80's and early 90's, and now she's going to do it like the young girls do. That's fine as far as it goes -- and I know women enter their sexual peak in their mid-thirties, so she has lots of time left to enjoy herself -- but this all seems kind of limited.
Part of getting older is reconciling who you were in the formative years of young adulthood with who you are now. It's not always pretty, but hopefully, upon reflection, you realize how much you have grown and changed over the years. Think of it, besides the fact that your body didn't jiggle as much, would YOU really want to be 20 all over again? I mean, all of the self-knowledge, relationships, and twists and turns over the intervening time must have have taught you something, right?
Now, I don't begrudge Jackson's enjoyment of the pursuit of sex and I hope she's having a good time, but, really, has she learned nothing in 20 years? Here we have Jackson as female Peter Pan. And, frankly, after awhile, that gets kind of boring. I mean, what do you talk about after the next orgasm?
I don't expect Jackson to suddenly get all meaningful and middle-aged on us. I just wonder why she feels the need to play in this ballfield. Why continue the same old stereotype that you have to look and act 20 years old to have all of the fun? Even Madonna, that other big diva of 80's pop stardom, switched gears when she reached her forties. You may not love the earth mama, kabbalah purveying philospher that she has become, but at least you can see the evolution.
So, maybe, in the end, I'm not in Jackson's demographic any more. (I knew she'd dump me for a younger man.) But, after a few listens of "20 Y.O", the only thing I had to say is "Janet, grow up."
Flash forward to 2006 and Jackson has just released her new album, "20 Y.O" (or "20 Years Old"). Yes, it has been 20 years since "Control" dominated the charts. (Hard to believe.) And here we have Jackson at 40 ready to take on the pop charts again. It's been a rough couple of years for her -- what with the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" and the fizzle of her previous album, "Damita Jo". (Oh, you didn't realize she released an album last year. Well, neither did most folks and, frankly, it was a dud both critically and in sales.)
Now, I confess that I generally have liked Jackson's albums over the years. No, they don't stretch the mind, but they usually have some of the most consistently enjoyable dance tracks in pop ("Damita Jo" notwithstanding). So, last week, I eagerly listened to "20 Y.O", hoping to be transported back to pop dance heaven. She opens the album with the promising announcement that "she just wants to have some fun." In the first lines of the first track, "So Excited", she offers to open her "spot" for me and let me "act bad." Hmmm. This theme continues all the way through to the last track, "Love 2 Love", in which she ends with the opportunity to let me "have her way with her" and make her "my slave." Hmmm again. (Okay, maybe these tracks weren't specifically directed at me, but, hey, a guy can dream.)
However, somewhere in the middle of all this, maybe about the time she declares that it's 7 AM and about the time to do it again ("Enjoy"), something started to creep me out. Here's Jackson, basically repeating the same dirty talk over and over again. (I don't object to the come on, but it does get a bit monotonous after awhile.) Here she is on the CD jacket, looking today exactly like she did in 1986 with a montage of photos of her from the past 20 years. And then, I think, wait a minute, isn't this woman 40 years old and isn't it 2006?
And then I realized what this was all about. Here is Janet Jackson, queen of pop/dance from the late 80's and early 90's, and now she's going to do it like the young girls do. That's fine as far as it goes -- and I know women enter their sexual peak in their mid-thirties, so she has lots of time left to enjoy herself -- but this all seems kind of limited.
Part of getting older is reconciling who you were in the formative years of young adulthood with who you are now. It's not always pretty, but hopefully, upon reflection, you realize how much you have grown and changed over the years. Think of it, besides the fact that your body didn't jiggle as much, would YOU really want to be 20 all over again? I mean, all of the self-knowledge, relationships, and twists and turns over the intervening time must have have taught you something, right?
Now, I don't begrudge Jackson's enjoyment of the pursuit of sex and I hope she's having a good time, but, really, has she learned nothing in 20 years? Here we have Jackson as female Peter Pan. And, frankly, after awhile, that gets kind of boring. I mean, what do you talk about after the next orgasm?
I don't expect Jackson to suddenly get all meaningful and middle-aged on us. I just wonder why she feels the need to play in this ballfield. Why continue the same old stereotype that you have to look and act 20 years old to have all of the fun? Even Madonna, that other big diva of 80's pop stardom, switched gears when she reached her forties. You may not love the earth mama, kabbalah purveying philospher that she has become, but at least you can see the evolution.
So, maybe, in the end, I'm not in Jackson's demographic any more. (I knew she'd dump me for a younger man.) But, after a few listens of "20 Y.O", the only thing I had to say is "Janet, grow up."
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
It's Morning in America - Part 1
Scene: 7 AM, weekday, my house
Mom: (upstairs) Go downstairs and start breakfast, Andrew.
Andrew: (upstairs) No, Mama, it's dark down there.
Dad: (upstairs) Andrew, put the lights on.
Andrew: (top of the stairs) That means I need to walk in the dark to the light switch.
Mom: (walking by) Ethan, go downstairs with your brother and keep him company.
Ethan: (looking sheepishly down the staircase) I'm not going. It's dark down there.
Andrew: Don't worry, Ethan. I'll protect you.
(Andrew scurries back to his room. Ethan waits tentatively at the top of the stairs.)
Dad: (walking downstairs into the dark) Oh, for crying out load, someone just turn the lights on!
(Andrew returns to the top of the stairs, brandishing both a crucifix and a magic wand.)
Andrew: Okay, Ethan, if anything happens, I'll turn them into a frog.
Life is interesting sometimes.
Mom: (upstairs) Go downstairs and start breakfast, Andrew.
Andrew: (upstairs) No, Mama, it's dark down there.
Dad: (upstairs) Andrew, put the lights on.
Andrew: (top of the stairs) That means I need to walk in the dark to the light switch.
Mom: (walking by) Ethan, go downstairs with your brother and keep him company.
Ethan: (looking sheepishly down the staircase) I'm not going. It's dark down there.
Andrew: Don't worry, Ethan. I'll protect you.
(Andrew scurries back to his room. Ethan waits tentatively at the top of the stairs.)
Dad: (walking downstairs into the dark) Oh, for crying out load, someone just turn the lights on!
(Andrew returns to the top of the stairs, brandishing both a crucifix and a magic wand.)
Andrew: Okay, Ethan, if anything happens, I'll turn them into a frog.
Life is interesting sometimes.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
And Now for Something Completely Different
The experience of parenting is fraught with many challenges. If anything will ever teach you to practice flexibility and patience, it's raising kiddies. To wit, the unscheduled day home with a sick child.
Last night, my younger son, Ethan, limped around like a lost puppy and fell asleep before dinner. When we roused him, it was clear he was hot, tired and pretty out of it. A quick bite to eat, a hurried undressing and redressing in pajamas, a dose of ibuprofen. and off to bed he went at 6:45 PM. At approximately 4 AM (I say approximately since I was too bleary eyed to get a fix on the clock), Ethan emerged, climbing onto our bed. He was hot as heck. Half awake and somewhat goofy, I scrounged up some more ibuprofen and a cup of water. I gave him the meds and whisked the little guy back to his room. It was at that moment, standing in a darkened hallway in my t-shirt outside Ethan's bedroom, that I realized my plans for the day had changed. Thankfully, this is a fairly slow time in my world, so I could cancel stuff without too much disruption. (Job flexibility is key here.) Of course, Ethan woke up, happy as a clam and ready to conquer the world. Except he still had a fever. So, more medicine and here's to a "Daddy/Ethan home day."
Now, these unscheduled days are a bit of a conundrum. The chance to spend time with my son, by himself and without his older brother, is an unexpected gift. And, thanks to the miracles of modern technology, I can check e-mail and voice mail remotely and no one would be worse for wear. But it's these surprise downshifts (unforeseen and without much warning) that make parenting a challenge. The lesson: whether or not you are ready to conquer the world today, all expectations, in the end, must yield to a preschooler in flannel pajamas.
Last night, my younger son, Ethan, limped around like a lost puppy and fell asleep before dinner. When we roused him, it was clear he was hot, tired and pretty out of it. A quick bite to eat, a hurried undressing and redressing in pajamas, a dose of ibuprofen. and off to bed he went at 6:45 PM. At approximately 4 AM (I say approximately since I was too bleary eyed to get a fix on the clock), Ethan emerged, climbing onto our bed. He was hot as heck. Half awake and somewhat goofy, I scrounged up some more ibuprofen and a cup of water. I gave him the meds and whisked the little guy back to his room. It was at that moment, standing in a darkened hallway in my t-shirt outside Ethan's bedroom, that I realized my plans for the day had changed. Thankfully, this is a fairly slow time in my world, so I could cancel stuff without too much disruption. (Job flexibility is key here.) Of course, Ethan woke up, happy as a clam and ready to conquer the world. Except he still had a fever. So, more medicine and here's to a "Daddy/Ethan home day."
Now, these unscheduled days are a bit of a conundrum. The chance to spend time with my son, by himself and without his older brother, is an unexpected gift. And, thanks to the miracles of modern technology, I can check e-mail and voice mail remotely and no one would be worse for wear. But it's these surprise downshifts (unforeseen and without much warning) that make parenting a challenge. The lesson: whether or not you are ready to conquer the world today, all expectations, in the end, must yield to a preschooler in flannel pajamas.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Waiting for the Tsunami
Ever since the Mark Foley scandal broke over a week ago, pundits and commentators have been predicting that the 2006 election will represent some vicious backlash against the Republican Party for their years of mismanagement and corruption as the majority party in Congress. I certainly hope that the Republicans get their due this fall -- they've been playing the values game for so long (and co-opting Democrats in the process) that it has been a delicious turnabout to watch them run and hide while revelation after revelation appears about Foley's "naughty" e-mails. (Since when asking someone to measure the size of their penis was just "naughty", and not pornographic, is beyond me.) But I think some risks remain for Democrats regardless of the goal line fumbles committed by the party in power.
Here are some thoughts in the form of questions to a hypothetical Democratic candidate:
1) What do you stand for? - Let's talk in the language of values and how your actions have been consistent with those values. I know we all can say we value a strong educational system or want to protect the environment, but, to quote Janet Jackson, "what have you done for them lately." And more specifically, how is past performance indicative of future results?
2) What will you do when you get there? - Or as my wife says, "What's the plan, Stan?" It's not enough to say you aren't like the other guy. The other guy may be a thief, a liar, a hypocrite or just misguided. What I want to know is how you plan to deal with the pressing problems of our (fill in the blank - state, country, etc.)
3) What do you see as the biggest challenges to success? - Identifying what the central challenges are will give me an idea of where you intend to focus when you get in office. Give me some sense you have thought about how your plan could fail and what you intend to do to make sure that doesn't happen.
Here in Minnesota, it looks like Amy Klobuchar will walk off with Mark Dayton's Senate seat, barring any last minute catastrophe, surprise or "naughty" e-mail. As a woman and Democrat in a state that, for all it's now vaunted swing-ness, still has some semblance of progressiveness left in the body public, this would seem to be her year. As for the governor's race, Tim Pawlenty is locked in a virtual tie with Mike Hatch. Neither of these guys is my favorite politicians, but given the damage caused by Pawlenty to education and his complete abdication of responsibility on transportation, I'm ready to fill in the oval for Hatch hoping that he is less of a psychokiller than he's been at times as attorney general.
For all of these folks, and the competitive House and state legislative seats, I think it's critical that Democrats offer a positive vision for what they intend to do if/when they win. Otherwise, the tides of change will wisk them out to sea not long after their comrades across the aisle this fall.
Here are some thoughts in the form of questions to a hypothetical Democratic candidate:
1) What do you stand for? - Let's talk in the language of values and how your actions have been consistent with those values. I know we all can say we value a strong educational system or want to protect the environment, but, to quote Janet Jackson, "what have you done for them lately." And more specifically, how is past performance indicative of future results?
2) What will you do when you get there? - Or as my wife says, "What's the plan, Stan?" It's not enough to say you aren't like the other guy. The other guy may be a thief, a liar, a hypocrite or just misguided. What I want to know is how you plan to deal with the pressing problems of our (fill in the blank - state, country, etc.)
3) What do you see as the biggest challenges to success? - Identifying what the central challenges are will give me an idea of where you intend to focus when you get in office. Give me some sense you have thought about how your plan could fail and what you intend to do to make sure that doesn't happen.
Here in Minnesota, it looks like Amy Klobuchar will walk off with Mark Dayton's Senate seat, barring any last minute catastrophe, surprise or "naughty" e-mail. As a woman and Democrat in a state that, for all it's now vaunted swing-ness, still has some semblance of progressiveness left in the body public, this would seem to be her year. As for the governor's race, Tim Pawlenty is locked in a virtual tie with Mike Hatch. Neither of these guys is my favorite politicians, but given the damage caused by Pawlenty to education and his complete abdication of responsibility on transportation, I'm ready to fill in the oval for Hatch hoping that he is less of a psychokiller than he's been at times as attorney general.
For all of these folks, and the competitive House and state legislative seats, I think it's critical that Democrats offer a positive vision for what they intend to do if/when they win. Otherwise, the tides of change will wisk them out to sea not long after their comrades across the aisle this fall.
Greetings from the North Star State
As a newbie to regular blogging, I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself. There are many things that can describe me -- lawyer, father, spouse, Quaker, counselor, Italian-American, community member, lover of good music, bicycle rider, amateur guitar player, progressive (in the political and social sense), poet, native New Yorker now living in Minnesota. I wanted to write this blog as a forum for my various ruminations on life, culture, politics and the state of our world. As a member of Gen X (and as someone who is staring down his 40th birthday in the headlights next year), I think I can offer the perspective of someone who has lived on earth long enough to have seen some things before, but not so long that I've become jaded by them.
Thanks for stopping by and I hope my entries reward your time and provide some food for thought.
Thanks for stopping by and I hope my entries reward your time and provide some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)