Killing the spirit...

I finally saw 12 Years a Slave last weekend (it took a while to make it to Portland). THIS. MOVIE. IS. INTENSE. This movie shows a glimpse of the brutal reality and monotony that slavery was. Harder than watching some of the brutal scenes in the movie is knowing that reality was much more harsh and much more frequent. Even after watching this movie, and other movies about slaves that have come before, I can't understand the smallest inkling of what it would be link to be a slave; not only physically, but more so psychologically. To be treated as less than a person. To be treated as property. Slavery is one of the most dehumanizing institutions that has ever existed. The myth of the southern gentleman permeated the national conscious to the point that slave owners in the south were not strictly viewed (at the time) as cold-hearted, horrible people. Even the account of Solomon Northup speaking of his first "master", William Ford, speaks with relative fondness for the treatment he received from Ford, as opposed to Edwin Epps. Because slavery was so dehumanizing, one's perspective on the world becomes skewed, and the idea of horrible, bad, good, love, hate, all become ambiguous. Northup believed that William Ford cared for him, but Ford sold him as property to another man to repay a debt without a second thought.
12 Years A Slave was a very powerful movie, and I think one that a lot of people should see if for no other reason than to be reminded of the horrible past that our country has, and one that continues to have repercussions in contemporary society. However, as much as the story of a kidnapped free man in the north being sold into slavery shook me, I couldn't help but think of the lives of those that were born into and lived their whole lives within the slave system. You see, Solomon Northup knew freedom. He lived a normal life in Saratoga Springs, NY, and was well educated, well read, and very talented. His experience being sold into slavery is awful beyond comprehension. But what kept him going day in and day out during his time in slavery was hope. He kept hope alive that he would somehow get out of this hell that he'd been thrown into. That he would someday escape, or that someone would recognize that we was a free man, or that something miraculous would happen. And indeed it did. It was his hope that forced him to talk to Samuel Bass about his situation and ask him to deliver the fateful letter for him that ultimately lead to his freedom. Hope kept him going during his lowest moments in bondage. But hope is something reserved for those who believe they can have something different.
The slaves that were born on the plantation and lived their whole lives in the slave system knew no such hope. There may have been exceptions, but for those born into the system any semblance of hope had been literally beaten out of them over the course of their lives. People who knew nothing different could have little hope for something different. There is a poignant scene in the movie where Patsey asks Solomon to take her down to the river and drown her. He refuses to do so, because he as a former free man doesn't understand that she knows that there is no hope for her. There are no better days. There is no freedom. The only freedom for her is that provided by religion and the promise of life in heaven once her time on earth is through. To her that freedom is the only hope, so death is not the worst thing one can imagine, because life offers all of the horrors one needs, with no prospect for an end. As I said before, slavery is one of the most dehumanizing institutions that has ever existed; and this is not simply because slaves were not treated as humans by the slave owners, but more so because the slave owners destroyed their lives by removing the one thing that keeps people moving forward - hope.

Do you really...?

Support the troops.

That, for me, is both a statement and a question. The question is not whether to support the troops, but rather in what way should we support the troops. Also, in what way do the troops support us?
It has become rote in this country to qualify any critical statement about the military or military spending with a statement indicating that you support the troops - I do it myself. I guess it's because people don't want to be seen as patriotic or insensitive of young men and women sacrificing their lives for their country. But are they sacrificing needlessly? What exactly are our troops killing and being killed for? Is it really a security issue? Is the colossal expenditure of our national budget that goes to the DOD (not to mention other security-related issues) really worth it? Aren't the soldiers supposed to be supporting the ideals of our country like Democracy, freedom, equality, and rights? But if you think about it, our country doesn't uphold these things.
We have a Congress that is completely inept at working together and a general populace that does give one iota about supporting their fellow countrymen. We as a country are still plagued by racism, sexism, sexual orientationism, agism, regionalism, and probably many other -isms. We love nothing more than slicing our country up by as many demographic factors we can think of, and then doling out opportunity, power, and money to those that are deemed most worthy.
The irony of the military support is a lot of young members of the military come from places and circumstances that the people who support them once they're troops couldn't care less about. They're from poor, rural areas where the lack of opportunity forces them to find something to open up doors for them, and the military is often this option. Also, the people with those stickers on their cars tend to be the very people who support the troops only, but not where those troops came from or the the economic circumstances that drew them to the military in the first place. This is why we see so many young men and women who have completed their military service left in the lurch by these "troop supporters", because now that they're back to being civilians they have nothing to offer - whether it be security or a political statement. Veterans are ignored by these "support the troops" folks. This is very similar to the anti-choice protesters who care so much about the life of an unborn fetus, but once that baby comes into the world they care nothing about refusing assistance for food, medical care, or education. It's all hypocritical, political bull$hit.

It's not what you think it is...

This government shutdown is the least surprising thing to happen since Barack Obama took office. It's been inevitable for some time, and to be honest, I'm surprised that it didn't come sooner during one of fights over the debt ceiling. The unfortunate reality is that this is exactly what Republicans - or at least tea party Republicans - have wanted for a long time. Republicans believe that a) the government is too large and b) that the government spends too much money.
Therefore, "starving the beast", as it were, is the only way to create what they would consider substantive policy to limit the size, scope, and spending of the U.S. government. To use an Obama analogy, they want to use a chainsaw to cut the U.S. budget, when a scalpel is necessary.
Sure, the U.S. government spends too much money. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. all agree with that. But just what the government SHOULD be spending the money on and what it shouldn't is not at all agreed. Conservatives typically believe that we should be cutting any and all social programs; including education, health care, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, etc. Basically those things that support the majority of older and low-income Americans - and don't create profit. While Democrats typically want to cut things like military spending, tax subsidies to wealthy individuals and companies, and raise corporate taxes. These are two different perspectives on the role of government, and to be fair are worthy of a legitimate, healthy debate.
However, the arena for hashing out this debate is not a continuing resolution to pay the government's bills. Especially when Republicans are using it as an excuse to defund the signature legislation of the Obama administration, before it's even been implemented. Republicans don't even want to give it an opportunity to work, even though the American public essentially supported the ACA by re-electing the man whose name has become synonymous with the law.
So by shutting down the government, Republicans have essentially won this round. We can only hope that the American people see what they are trying to do and recognize that Republicans are not attempting to defund Obamacare (the ACA), but instead trying to starve government to the point of ineffectiveness, so that only those essential functions will be taken care of (which for them is military only). There's a good chance Republicans will take the PR hit for this government shutdown, but Americans are so apathetic, misinformed, and myopic, that unfortunately I don't think this government shutdown will have an major electoral impact.

Managing expectations...

The situation in Syria is awful. People are dying. People have died. A dictator is doing whatever he has to do to maintain power. It's a nightmare. But it's also a moral conundrum. Our country is fatigued by ten years of war in Iraq that was begun with an unclear objective (or possibly even a lie) and a continuing conflict in Afghanistan that is mired by continuing problem of what will happen when we leave.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that getting involved in Syria is a moral imperative to stop the killing of the opposition by Bashar al-Assad. But is the opposition "right"? Is there a "right"? Do we wan to support either side in this conflict? What are the long term benefits and consequences to getting involved? Also, why is the use of chemical weapons the "red line", but we've stood by while the government troops have killed around 100,000 opposition fighters. That's not a red line?
So besides the unignorable fact that we've stood by and let 100,000 people die during this conflict, there is also the larger problem of the goals and expectations of getting involved in Syria. If we were to go in with limited airstrikes - which would be mostly a symbolic gesture - what would the long-term impact be on the actions of the Assad regime? Little to nothing. Airstrikes may make it known to Assad that we're willing to "get involved", but would be more likely to show that we're interested in making gestures but actually NOT getting involved. Basically an  airstrike would indicate exactly the opposite of what we would hope to indicate. But on the other side of the coin is a full-scale, "boots-on-the-ground" military involvement. This is the furthest thing anyone in the United States wants, and that includes citizens and those within government. It's a sticky situation that not even foreign policy hawks want to become involved in.
So the question then becomes what to do? I guess my answer is I don't know. But I don't support military engagement. I would support an multilateral effort involving countries in the region and international players making a decision about what the best course of action would be. But a unilateral, or even bilateral (if France stays interested), incursion would be the furthest thing from beneficial that we as a country could do. So while the moral implications way heavily on my heart, I don't see how launching airstrikes (that have the unfortunately high potential of adding to the civilian death toll) or sending soldiers in can be anything but harmful to both U.S. interests and civilians in Syria. My prescription is that we either sit this one out and keep a watchful eye on situation, or try to bring together an international coalition (that includes countries in the Middle East) that comes together to figure out whether military intervention would be a net positive or negative.

I don't have a dream, I have a demand...

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. That historic march, organized by legendary activist Bayard Rustin, and at which Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, was a landmark occasion in the history of civil rights in the United States. And while I certainly don't want to understate the importance of the event, many people use the March on Washington, and the ensuing passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, as evidence that we've "made it" with regard to racial equality.
But they're wrong. We've stagnated in our race relations. In fact, with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down section 5 of the voting Rights Act, and the current and inevitable future efforts of many to restrict the right to vote for many poor and minority citizens, we're actually moving backward. Those with ill intentions continue to play on racial fears and ignorance to push forward their agendas of white supremacy and economic monopolization. We still see gross differences between the opportunities of those born into affluent families versus those born into poor families; statistics show that little has changed when it comes to economic opportunity. There are gross disparities in education and access to vocational skill-building. And while many of these issues are tied to economic disparities, in many places in American society economic inequality has been intrinsically tied to racial inequality.
It is impossible to deny that there is a problem, when black people are hugely disproportionately represented in the ranks of those in poverty, those incarcerated, those as victims of violence, and many other metrics. We need to be honest about where we are in terms of the civil rights movement. We were moving forward in the 60s. We began slowing down in the 70s. We basically stopped in the 80s. We started arguing about the gains in the 90s. We regressed and pretended that inequality didn't exist in the 00s. And now we're moving backward in the 10s.
To turn things around will take honesty, openness, and effort. It can't be only black people that push for continued progress in the civil rights movement. We need equality for all people in this country and this world; immigrants, women, LBGTQ people, the poor, the sick, those from small towns and big cities, and everyone in between. Everyone is naturally equal; it is only because of ignorance, hate, and opportunism that our society has been twisted into believing that there are differences. Those who care need to keep caring and keep moving. Things will only happen if we make them happen.

We made it...

There is a scene at the end of the movie "The Graduate" that has always stuck with me - almost haunted me. In the scene, Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) has just interrupted the wedding of his former girlfriend Elain (Katharine Ross) - whose mother he had an affair with - and they've escaped the angry mob in the church to hop on a bus toward "freedom". Both Ben and Elaine are gibby upon escaping the scene, but as they sit down and take even an initial stock of the situation they realize what a huge mistake they've made. Their faces move between forced smiles, awkard glances, and worried frowns.
This is what has always haunted me about that part. I've always been a "love will conquer all"-type romantic. I've always disregarded statistics and anecdotes about couples that have been in the same or similar situations as I have and failed. I just figured that "falling for" someone meant that you were perfect for each other and that things would inevitably work out in the end. But then along comes "The Graduate" and throws a wrench into that whole line of thinking. They had overcome a major obstacle in the fact that Ben had had an affair with Elaine's mother, but they were "in love" enough to believe in the moment that running off together would actually make them happy. And what happens immediately after the excitement of escape has subsided and the first tinge of reality breaks through, they immediately realize the error of their ways.
I certainly don't live my life by the lessons learned from a movie, but I will say that this particular scene has resonated with me. That's not to say I've changed my actions, even if I've changed my opinions. I still find myself falling to hard to fast for women that I should probably recognize right away will not be with me for the long term. I don't know if that's human nature, or just my nature. Maybe I'm a jump in head first type of person; so instead of weighing the pros and cons of being in the pool, I just want to know how the water feels.
There are certainly negatives associated with being too tentative in relationships as well, or being afraid of committing to someone, but I guess we've all got our baggage to haul. I guess all of this is to say that I think that scene, and specifically the look on Hoffman's face when they are sitting on that bus, is perfect metaphor for the reality of relationships throughout my life. Risk - excitement - reality. Risk - excitement - reality. Maybe one day reality will be a smile, not a frown.