Moving on

I am now officially old.

As of this morning, I am the possessor of a permanent handicap parking pass. After months of back pain, physical therapy, epidural and facet joint cortisone injections, and still finding it painful to stand or walk any distance, I asked my doctor for an authorization for handicap parking. I had in mind the 6 month temporary permit that I had following my back surgery four years ago. I plan to get better, see. But he said, "Sure, and I'll make it permanent."

Even at 77, and on the eve of my 60th high school class reunion this weekend, I haven't quite accepted the obvious "old man" image until now. I've come close lately, especially when I walk past a storefront and catch a sideways glimpse of myself in the reflective glass and see this creature with a cane and hunched shoulders and bent-forward posture. People have begun to open doors for me; order-takers at fast food restaurants ask if I need help with my tray.

Anyway, it's not so easy to get this prized blue tag that hangs from your rear view mirror. This particular doctor has an office in Johns Creek (about 20 miles). He filled out the form and said, "you'll have to get this notarized." OK, I get my signature notarized at my local bank branch all the time. Only after I left did I realize: it's his signature that has to be notarized, not mine. How do you do that at the bank?

Well, my administrative assistant at Emory is a notary, and as I left yesterday and told her I was going to ask my doctor for a handicap parking permit, she -- having had experience with such -- said, "I'll be happy to notarize it for you." So I drove from Johns Creek to Emory (another 25 miles), got the form notarized, then drove back past my home in Sandy Springs and half-way to Roswell to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Parked as close to the building as I could find a place (they also give drivers' licenses there, so it was crowded). Gazed enviously at the handicap parking spaces that I would soon be eligible for. Turns out they had moved the office to the other side of the building -- which I had just walked past, begrudging every step. So now I had to retrace those painful steps almost back to where my car was parked.

Finally, in the correct office, I was able to sit down while waiting -- and within a relatively short time, for a government service office, I walked out clutching my cane in one hand and my cherished blue hang-tag in the other.

Now, I am officially old.

Ralph

Bishop Eddie Long #3

"S. C. church plans protest against Long." Subtitle: "Pastor calls accused New Birth Missionary bishop a 'bad influence.'

Thus read a headline in today's AJC -- a hopeful sign, I thought, of some break in the apparent whitewash Bishop Long and his megachurch are constructing. I though, maybe, that the conversation among black churches was shifting from homosexuality to the whole concept of the "prosperity ministry." And the bling-bling bishop was going to get his come-uppance from the true followers of Jesus.

Wrong. Bishop Prophet H. Walker of True Light Pentacost Church in Spartanburg, S.C. has decided "to speak out" because his church is opposed to homosexuality. He says "A pastor should be above reproach."

Solidarity, yes, but it is the solid opposition of the black middle class churches against homosexuality. Otherwise liberal on social issues, and definitely opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, they are nevertheless rather reliably anti-gay. And Eddie Long is among the most virulently anti-gay.

So, Long's reputation is ruined for them, not because his religion seems based on greed and empowerment, rather than love and humility, but because he is (presumably) gay, or at least engaged in sex with young men.

It's been a bad week, what with the teen suicides of gay youth. Sometimes it's hard to remember that the changing attitudes in the country are steadily marching toward more and more acceptance.

Sometimes, it just feels so hard to wait.

Ralph

Respect for Hillary

I admit that, much as I like Bill Clinton and think he's the most talented politician in generations (even though flawed in his zipper control), I never really much warmed up to Hillary. She was an OK first lady, and she advanced the idea that a smart, tough woman could make it in the man's world of top level politics.

However, I liked her less and less during the campaign against Obama, and I liked even less her choices in those who ran her campaign and influenced her decisions. And I thought it's not a good sign when a candidate makes bad choices like that.

But, since she accepted Obama's invitiation (and his apparent strong encouragement) to be his Secretary of State, I have gained tremendous respect for her. That was only enhanced by two news blurbs today: one was her response to the rumors started by Bob Woodward that she and Biden will swap places for the 2012 election, with her as VP and him as SoS; the other was her answering a question about agreeing to join Obama's cabinet. From HuffingtonPost:

She also told the story how President Obama called her to Chicago to ask her to be his Secretary of State, calling it "one of the hardest professional decisions I've ever made."

"It worked out well," Clinton told her audience. "We have a wonderful working relationship" she said, acknowledging that there was a lot of chatter about whether the two would would be able to work together.

Clinton says it's proven to be a valuable lesson that she hopes to impart to other world leaders.

"I say look I spent a year and a half trying to win and to beat President Obama. I was not successful. It was a really hard-fought campaign, our supporters said a lot of nasty things about each of us... But at the end of the day when the president asked me to serve with him and for our country I agreed to do that because we both love our country. And it's fascinating how so many political leaders and media leaders in these various countries look so surprised. And I really force them to think about what it takes to overcome the back and forth..."

Personally, I would now be happy with her as VP -- and perhaps as President in 2016. But the current arrangement is also just fine -- probably the least of the things Obama needs to worry about right now. Bob Woodward is trying to whomp up some news to help sell his new book.

Ralph

Bishop Eddie Long #2

Mickey Nardo has been doing a great job of digging out the true character of the real Eddie Long, and it is not a pretty picture. Let me state up front: we do not know as a fact that he is guilty of the charges of inappropriate sexual activities with young men under his spiritual influence. But the more we learn about him, the more likely it seems that it is true. If you want to read more about him, go to 1boringoldman.com.

What I want to comment on today is his perversion of the Martin Luther King legacy. He has tried to co-opt the mantle of the great and humble civil rights leader, while being himself the very antithesis of that. His is a "prosperity ministry" and he is all about exhibitionism, financial wealth, entrepreneurism, show biz, and lots and lots of "bling" (cars, clothes, and jewelry). Not only is he the antithesis of King's image, he has co-opted King's daughter, the Rev. Bernice King, and together they persuaded the rest of the family to hold Coretta Scott King's funeral at their megachurch, with four presidents in attendance along with many civil rights leaders and celebrities.

I've just read a Huffington Post blog by writer David Love, in which he states that

"Civil rights giants Harry Belafonte and then-NAACP-chair Julian Bond were so mortified by this fact that they boycotted the funeral." They knew what Long represented, and they wanted no part in associating themselves with this "misappropriation of the King legacy."

David Love continues:

But Bishop Long's sexual orientation ultimately is not the subject of this commentary, although it provides some valuable context. Now, if these accusations are true, then Bishop Long is at least guilty of hypocrisy and self-hatred. And if the charges are not true, he is still an anti-gay minister who has damaged many people. Either way, he is a prosperity preacher who preys on the black community and shames the legacy of the civil rights movement. And that's most of what we need to know. . . .

When the Southern Poverty Law Center decides to write an intelligence report about you, you know you've done something wrong. SPLC calls Bishop Long "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement." In one sermon, he says to gays and lesbians, "God says you deserve death!" The message of "hate the sin and the sinner" are strong words in a religion that is supposed to teach love, healing and redemption. . . .

Surely, Bishop Long and his supporters would maintain that his reputation is being dragged through the mud. But his reputation was already muddied via his homophobia and corrupt bling theology. Rather, Long should worry far more about what Dr. King would say about him.

Although King fought against and even disobeyed unjust laws, Long supports them. Dr. King decried the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism, and called for a radical revolution of values, from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. Figures such as King and Malcolm X walked the talk by fighting for the people -- and for causes greater than their personal bank account -- through great personal sacrifice and a modest existence. Remember that Dr. King donated all of his $54,000 Nobel Peace Prize money to the civil rights movement. I dare say it would be hard to find many leaders today -- black or otherwise -- who would follow in the footsteps of this great man. How many of them would lift a finger to help the downtrodden?

Eddie Long apparently is another huckster who found a route to fame and wealth for himself. To try to associate himself with Martin Luther King may be an even greater hypocrisy than his anti-gay crusade.

Ralph

But will it matter . . . ?

When Sarah Palin was plucked from (blessed) obscurity up there in Alaska, her bio was confusing as to her educational background. She had a bachelor's degree in journalism, but it took her five different colleges to do it, some of which she attended only briefly. Anyway, it was less than a stellar educational record. But did it hurt or help her image? Probably for the groups she appeals to, it helped. You betcha! No pointy headed, academic, liberals in her orbit.

Now comes Christine O'Donnell, who seems even more challenged in providing her college background -- as well as more challenged with telling the simple truth. As of today, four colleges have disputed her claims to have studied in their programs.

First she claimed she graduated from Fairleigh Dickenson University in 1993. Seems she went through the graduation ceremony but did not get a diploma -- she says because of a dispute over tuition payments. The university later sued her for unpaid bills. She was subsequently allowed to take one additional required course and was awarded her bachelor's degree in the summer of 2010, well after her claims. OK -- maybe that's a gray area.

Then she claimed to have studied at Oxford University. Turns out that she took a summer course sponsored by the Phoenix Institute that merely rented space at Oxford, which had no educational connection with the course.

Then she claimed to have taken graduate courses at Princeton. Seems she once audited one undergraduate course there. And now the latest: Clairemont Graduate School? Not so. They have no record of her ever being a student. It was actually the conservative think tank Clairemont Institute, which has no connection with Clairemont University.

The big question: The group that Palin and O'Donnell most excite couldn't care less about formal education (or, if at all, it's a negative factor). So why go to these lengths to appear more educated than she obviously is?

Beyond that, there is the basic question of lying. Don't bet the farm on her defeat, though.

Ralph

Jimmy Carter

Friends, my day job has been taking more of my time lately, and I haven't had much left to think or write on this blog. However, I do want to share this op-ed written by Jimmy Carter in USAToday of Sept. 29. He addresses some of the concerns I have had and expressed here about the difficulties facing Obama, or any Democratic president today.

A number of readers of my new book have noted parallels between today's frustrated and even angry mood and a similar mood in the mid-1970s. Indeed, in some ways my successful campaign for the presidency in 1976 resembled the Tea Party movement of today. We capitalized on deep dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of government officials, especially those who served in Washington.

Thirty-five years ago, the American people were eager for fundamental changes after the embarrassment and lies of Watergate and the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Kennedy brothers, and revelations that the CIA and top leaders had been involved in criminal acts, including murder. As a Georgia farmer, I was considered by many to have no association with these stains on our national character, while most of my opponents were stigmatized, although unjustly, because they were incumbent politicians.

My basic campaign themes were simple: to tell the truth and to guarantee that our government would be as good, honest and competent as the American people.

Big donors carry clout

Other factors are very different now. Much of the financial support for the "grassroots" Tea Party movement has come from extremely wealthy owners of petroleum and energy companies whose profits depend on preventing strict environmental standards and regulations that promote safety and competition. Another is that a powerful news organization has provided the requisite publicity and promotion for the Tea Party movement.

As president, I had the advantage of strong bipartisan support in the Congress, which made substantial legislative success possible. Now, unfortunately, political polarization throughout the nation and especially in Washington has reached an extraordinary level, making it almost impossible for President Obama to secure even a few token votes from Republican members of the House or Senate — even when his proposals match those previously espoused by those same legislators.

What has caused this quagmire? For one thing, the political center has disappeared: Almost all of the relatively large number of moderate Democrats and Republicans have been defeated at the polls or resigned in despair.

For another, huge amounts of money now flood into election campaigns, and the need for these contributions makes candidates amenable to supporting the policies of the special interests who fill their coffers. In fact, these "legal bribes" will now play an even greater role because of the Supreme Court ruling in January that permits unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and labor unions. Much of this campaign funding, unfortunately, is spent on negative advertising, which is designed to destroy the reputation of political opponents. Although almost everyone deplores this practice, it works — and as a result, even final victors are seen by many constituents as unfit for office.

This partisan alienation carries over to governing, where unofficial and friendly contacts between Democrats and Republicans are infrequent. Legislative decisions — once made after substantive public debate — are now made in closed party caucuses. A bare majority becomes a party's uniform position, and those who dare deviate from a bloc vote can lose both choice committee assignments and support for attractive projects in their state or district.

Frozen government

The Senate has become particularly dysfunctional. The previously rare use of filibusters has become routine, and now 60 votes are required even to bring a controversial proposal to the floor for debate. With just 41 members out of 100, a cohesive minority party can block almost any legislation; meanwhile, the majority party needs virtual unanimity to pass a bill. This gives enormous power to those who cast or control swing votes, and powerful lobbyists are quick to exploit this opportunity for influence.

Another polarizing factor is the increasing tendency by state legislatures to gerrymander congressional districts to create safe seats for members who parrot and support the most extreme partisan positions.

The genius of our democratic system is that it is self-correcting, which is why extreme and ill-advised political trends have never prevailed. We face enormous budgetary and social challenges, and I believe it is all but inevitable that constructive governance will ultimately emerge. Surely our government will, once again, be as good, honest and competent as the American people.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter (1977-81) is the author of the new book White House Diary.

You gotta wonder . . .

There are so many times when supposed "men of God," i.e. Christian ministers, fall from grace through sexual scandals, and there seems to be a pretty high proportion of them with young men or teen age boys. Bishop Eddie Long is the most recent example. And it is all the more ironic when such a man has been an active anti-gay activist, supposedly in the name of God and the Bible. Yes, we don't know if he has done what he is charged with doing by four different young men. But what has come out so far does not convince me that this is totally made up. And his response today only increased my tendency to believe the young men are telling the truth.

Bishop Eddie Long has led marches in protest of gay civil rights. He even had Martin Luther King's daughter, the Rev. Bernice King under his sway in some sort of affiliated minister position in his megachurch -- and that's where they held the funeral for her mother, Coretta Scott King, with presidents and other dignitaries in attendance.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not anti-gay, nor was Coretta. In fact, after MLK's death, Coretta and the movement took up gay rights along with their continuing fight for racial justice and the plight of the poor. So I thought at the time of her funeral that it was inappropriate to have it in that church -- but it is her daughter's church, and the facility could handle the crowds.

So -- I have to wonder: is God trying to send them a message? Trying to open the eyes of these preachers to stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin? Exposing them in their hypocrisy, because -- if God is all-knowing, as they seem to think -- don't they know he is watching them? So is he exposing them in order to expose their hypocrisy? I gotta wonder. Of course, that's not what I think -- but the point is: I wonder what they think? After all, they know whether they did it, whether they are struggling with the guilt, what their god thinks about what they've done.

Here are some excerpts from what Bishop Long said to his congregation this morning.

"There have been allegations and attacks made on me. I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man. But I am not the man that's being portrayed on the television. That's not me. That is not me."

"I've been accused; I'm under attack. I want you to know, as I said earlier, I am not a perfect man. But this thing I'm going to fight."

Note: he does not say, "I am innocent; I didn't do what I am accused of." Only "I am not the man that's being portrayed on television . . . ." I am not a perfect man . . ." But "I'm going to fight."

Read closely: he doesn't say he didn't do what the young men said he did. As I read it, he says he is not the man that is being portrayed "in the media."

But it is the perfect defense for him to make to his congregation, who are disposed to believe him. He says, in effect: I'm humble, I'm a sinner, but there is a conspiracy to bring me down; I'm not perfect, but I am not who they (?) say I am.

Sounds highly likely to me that he did something inappropriate involving young men and sex. This is bad on two counts, not simply because it involves same-sex sex, but: (1) Even if the young men were of legal age of consent, it was an unequal relationship, one of power and trust and undue influence, so it's difficult to say it was by mutual consent of two mature adults; and (2) It is once again the huge hypocrisy where you have a man of god or a man of science or a political leader preaching one thing and doing another.

The walls of hypocrisy and prejudice are falling. This may just be one more. And maybe ??? God is making it happen??? Think about that, Bishop Long.

Ralph