Homophobia:Heterosexism::Racism: ?

We need a word to use for those insensitivities to racial differences that are based on habit and lack of awareness rather than demeaning hostility.

In the world of changing attitudes toward gay men and women, we call the comparable insensitivites "heterosexism," rather than "homophobia," to indicate that it results from simply having grown up in a society that was designed for opposite-sex attractions. Even people who are quite gay-friendly may slip into commonplace phrases that are so habitual that they don't think of the implications.

I was struck by a comparable thing having to do with race, or more specifically, skin color.

In an article about the recent White House state dinner for the Indian prime minister, Michelle Obama's gown -- with all its silver sequins -- was referred to as "flesh-colored." And there beside the article was a picture of Michelle looking lovely in this special dress created for the occasion. But it was anything but a match for the color of Michelle's skin.

Does this bear a hint of demeaning hostility? I don't think so. "Flesh-colored" is a staple in writing about clothes. But, like heterosexism, it became a color at a time when skin, in the world of fashion, was uniformly pink-and-yellow-tinged white.

Even after hatred and fear of difference have been expunged, we still have our habits of speech to change. It helps to realize that these unintended slurs are hurtful, even when no hurt is intended.

Ralph

Thanksgiving

While the pumpkin pie finishes up in the oven, and I'm waiting to join the rest of our family at my daughter's home, I'm thinking about being thankful.

Today, for one day at least, I want to focus on the positive. Friend Mickey Nardo wrote his thanksgiving message about the success that's beginning to accrue in the AIDS epidemic in Africa. And I had to admit that this is one place George Bush deserves some credit for a positive contribution -- pushing for funds for treating AIDS in Africa.

Then I even had to admit that there is one thing I can find to thank Dick Cheney for: his support of his lesbian daughter's relationship, her pregnancies, and her right to marry.

On our side of the aisle on this Thanksgiving Day, I'd like to acknowledge the American People. True, there are the many groups and fringes whose positions and actions I deplore. But the American People, by a clear majority vote, rose up and elected Barack Obama president at a time when an inspirational, intelligent, balanced, thoughtful, and caring leader was most needed.

He wanted to change the way governing is done in Washington, and right now that's what he's having most trouble with. But give him credit for trying -- even though many of us are wishing that he could/would follow through on what we, and he, had hoped for.

And this seems a simple thing to recognize that I'm grateful for, but it has vast importance throughout the world: I am thankful to have a president who can open his mouth without making me cringe and whose beautiful mind, so well expressed, often makes me very proud.

May he keep safe and govern wisely within the constraints our dysfunctional system allows, and may we reap the benefits of the leadership he is capable of.

Ralph

A whopper ! ! !

Forget Sarah Palin's distortions and lies. She's small potatoes compared to Dana Perino's claim to Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Er, Dana. Nine-eleven? As in 9/11? As in September 11, 2001 when terrorists highjacked airplanes and flew them into the twin towers and the Pentagon?

Well, of course, what Dana meant, I'm sure, was that we didn't have a terrorist attack on our country after that day. She made the comment in the context of trying to smear Obama for refusing to call the Ft. Hood shooting a terrorist attack. And she went further in saying that it was politics that kept him from being honest about it. This after he has just appointed her to the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Thanks, Dana. That shows you're not letting politics influence your good sense.

But, at the least, that proves the attitude that pervaded the Bush team: that, even though 9/11 happened on their watch, it wasn't their fault. It was completely unpredictable. As Condi Rice famously said, "No one could have anticipated that would happen." No one except Richard Clarke, Bush's own counterterrorism expert, and the CIA's presidential memo in August, which Bush was too busy cutting brush in Texas to bother with, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, well . . .

Ralph

Divided Democrats

Richard makes persuasive points (in comments on yesterdays blog) about progressives failing to provide the push to make Obama live up to his campaign promises. But I still think the argument comes down to this not very good choice: do you stick to progressive causes that you lack the clout to get through not only a divided Congress but also a divided Democratic party -- and wind up with nothing? Or do you compromise and get the best legislation that can make it through such a dysfunctional system? Obama chose the latter. Richard would have us chose the former, with the hope for better things to come.

Or perhaps he would argue that we did have the clout if only Obama had exerted leadership to get his agenda fulfilled and had not chosen the people he did (at treasury, in the Pentagon, and maybe even his chief of staff).

Here's another factor to consider that I picked up while waiting for my car to be serviced this morning, catching up on my reading of The Nation and the New York Review of Books. (No, I took them with me; Toyota hasn't added those choices to Motor Trend, People, and House Beautiful in their waiting lounge).

One reason we're having trouble getting more progressive legislation passed is that Democrats have become more divided, while Republicans have become more united as their moderates have been forced out or silenced. So it's hard to get Democrats to wield the power that we gave them (albeit razor thin in the Senate), while all it takes for Republicans to obstruct is just to say no. And compromises have to be made even to get all Democrats to agree.

Why? In part because Rahm Emanuel, in his capacity as head of the House Democratic Congressional Committee, recruited conservative Democrats to run in Republican strongholds, in order to convert seats from R to D; but then we wound up with more conservative D's who don't support progressive legislation.

I'm all for progressive legislation. I would have liked an even more progressive agenda than Obama's campaign promises. If I were going to choose another country to live in, it would definitely be one with social welfare type government. But I keep wavering about whether, in the reality of the U.S. today, it's better to hold out for the something more or take the incremental approach.

Ralph

Shrinking the public option

More of why I am discouraged. This article from TPM online is by Robert Reich, Clinton's first Secretary of Labor. It's worth copying here in full.

First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada -- which, by the way, cost Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)

So the compromise was to give all Americans the option of buying into a "Medicare-like plan" that competed with private insurers. Who could be against freedom of choice? Fully 70 percent of Americans polled supported the idea. Open to all Americans, such a plan would have the scale and authority to negotiate low prices with drug companies and other providers, and force private insurers to provide better service at lower costs. But private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn't hear of it, and Republicans and "centrists" thought it would end up too much like what they have up in Canada.

So the compromise was to give the public option only to Americans who wouldn't be covered either by their employers or by Medicaid. And give them coverage pegged to Medicare rates. But private insurers and ... you know the rest.

So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So it will actually cost more than it saves.

But even the House's shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans, and "centrists" in the Senate. So Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than 4 million Americans.

It's a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word "public."

And yet Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson mumble darkly that they may not even vote to allow debate on the floor of the Senate about the bill if it contains this paltry public option. And Republicans predict a "holy war."

But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word "public?" Make it available to only twelve people?

Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.

Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.

I'm still not giving up. I want every Senator who's not in the pocket of the private insurers or Big Pharma to introduce and vote for a "Ted Kennedy Medicare for All" amendment to whatever bill Reid takes to the floor. And if this fails, a "Ted Kennedy Real Public Option for All" amendment. Let every Senate Democratic who doesn't have the guts to vote for either of them be known and counted.

There you have it. That portion I've highlighted in blue is addressed directly to me.

I'm rethinking my "better than nothing" stance, especially as we learn how long it will take for even these meager changes to be put in place. Would we be better to wait for a more liberal Congress after 2012 and start over? Most political analysts are saying that, without passing health care reform, Democrats are doomed to lose big time. So that doesn't seem an option.

Gloom.

Ralph

Discouraged again

I seem to go through cycles of optimistic belief in Obama's greater wisdom, which then turns to pessimism and utter dismay at the tangled political/governing system that is paralyzing his ambitious plans.

My relief that the senate had finally advanced a better-than-nothing health care reform bill soon faded as I realized that that only got it to floor debate; it was still hostage to the single vote that would deny cloture to move to a vote on the bill.

E. J. Dionne, respected columnist and tv commentator, wrote about this in today's AJC. And he went after both Democrats and Republicans. Here's his main point:

What has evolved into the modern filibuster system -- where they don't actually talk all night to prevent a vote, but go through the ritual of scraping together 60 votes to avoid making the other side actually do that -- is crippling our legislative process. And it was not what the Founding Fathers intended in designing our system. They wanted the Senate to be a more deliberative body and to calm the passions of the House; but they did not mean it to be obstructionist.

Dionne asks: why, with the mandate that Obama received and the majority in both houses of congress, should so little be accomplished of Obama's agenda and so much has to be watered down even to get all Democrats on board?

He points to Republican's effective use of this process to stall and defeat Obama. One example: a simple measure to extend unemployment benefits was stalled by them repeatedly until finally enough Republicans were embarrassed and voted with Democrats for cloture. Then the bill passed by 98-0. That's right. Every one of them voted for the bill they had sought to obstruct.

What madness !!! And he also goes after conservative Democrats who threaten to derail health care reform (and other bills) because they don't want this or that provision. In effect, we're moving toward minority rule.

So, I add to my list of major changes we need to make:

1. Get rid of the influence of money in our governing system.

2. Change the senate rules that de facto require 60 votes to pass any bill the opponents might want to obstruct.

Ralph

Ted Kennedy would be smiling

Some politicians love it: the rough and tumble of making legislation, the months or years of struggle, behind the scenes negotiations, arm-twisting, cajoling, lobbying. Ted Kennedy reportedly loved it, and none was better at it than he.

Like Moses, he was not to have the satisfaction of leading the final march into the promised land. The bill would have been better if he had, and many progressives are disappointed in the bill as it is. Nor is it a done deal yet. It still has to pass the senate, then the conference committee.

But Harry Reid got a bill to the floor for debate that is far better than nothing, in my opinion. With not a vote to spare, and with the uncertainty at any time whether the 92 year old Robert Byrd's fragile health will allow him to be present, Reid cobbled together the necessary 60 votes to stop the determined Republican efforts to derail, delay, or do anything to stop the process.

Now we have a week to chill out, eat turkey, and then return to what promises to be more negotiating. But this was the crucial make-or-break moment. There's no doubt now that we will have a health care reform bill.

It's unlikely to be as progressive as it would have been with Ted Kennedy at the helm. Still, Kennedy prided himself in being a legislator -- skilled at the art of achieving what is possible, making compromises, based on the reality of the moment, for the greater good. I have no doubt that he would have tried to make it better -- and maybe succeeded. I also have no doubt that he would be smiling that we got this much.

Ralph