« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
Apparently Obama has closed the gap in California to 3 points. This is before the Edwards announcement that he was dropping out and the play of tonight's debate. A new poll will likely be taken tomorrow and over the weekend and released on Sunday or Monday before the election. If he can win California, he will deal a heavy blow to the Clintonistas.
I wrote this posting on October 13, 2007. Read today's op-ed piece in the New York Times. Now that it's just between Hillary and Barack, people are seeing this dynastic possibility.
GCN had a posting last week from a long-time member who said "A thread asking "How long have you been together?" just got moved, and I am a bit saddened. Yes, I know I could register for the Couples Forum, and probably should, but I probably won't. It all boils down (for me) to the question, "What is the gay lifestyle?" If the "gay lifestyle" includes stable couples who have been together for years, through sickness and health, poverty and riches, I'd like to see that. In my own experience, I only know one long-term gay couple. They live 50 miles apart and it's more like weekend dating, though they have been doing it for years. I know a couple of "confirmed bachelors" who are never in a relationship and a couple of younger guys who fall into and out of love all the time." Is he kidding? There is a couples forum--I was the moderator for it. There are several long-term couples on GCN. I can't believe this person in this day and age has such a limited view of being gay. He's over 50 and lives in Ohio. He's college-educated. One wonders where he gets his information from.
Right now, John Edwards is dropping out of the race for the democratic nomination. What does this mean? Will he endorse? If not, where do his voters go? Hillary or Barack?
Other things to consider:
1. Last's night so-called win in Florida highlights something many pundits are ignoring. In Florida, as well in California and many other states, people can vote by absentee ballot well ahead of the actual election day. So, hundreds of thousands of votes are already cast in California where Clinton has lead and is still leading. In order for Obama to stay competitive he must get the vote out on Tuesday.
2. Where's the bump? No new polls have come out since South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsements.
3. It seems likely that John McCain is the republican nominee. How does this affect the democratic race? Now democrats can actively see which candidate can defeat McCain in November not some ethereal republican. Who's more likely to defeat McCain? Obama or Clinton. Certainly an Obama v. McCain contest is one of old v. new and prolonged war v. quick exit. Interesting. I think this helps Obama. He can say that he's the best candidate for the democrats to put up against John McCain.
In his book, Sellout, Prof. Randall Kennedy, at the end of the chapter on Clarence Thomas, uses gay sellouts to show that being a sellout is a true enough phenomena, even if there is no one of significant importance in the African-American community to whom that epithet can be given. His examples are Terry Dolan, Robert Bauman and Arthur J. Finkelstein. That doesn't even befit the term "tip of the iceberg." Of course, his book was in publication before Larry Craig hit the news. How interesting! You see, it's harder to name a racial sellout since their actions can have alternative meanings. Thomas's anti-affirmative action stand can be interpreted as conservative jurisprudence or his belief that quotas harm his community. You can't really call him a sellout for certain, at best, you can say he's misguided or his legal analysis is faulty. In the gay world, it is clear that someone can work for anti-gay laws or lawmakers and when they are found having sex with someone of their own gender, the cat is out of the bag.
My thoughts go further, however, now not only to the demonstrable gay sellouts, but to those still in the closet. At what time in history will we finally say that just being in the closet is a sellout? Are there not enough role models for gay people today? Are there not legal protections (well, no, but there are in some jurisdictions)? When do we hit critical mass on this issue? We've always known that until every gay man and woman stands up and comes out to their families, jobs, and churches, nothing will change. This is happening to a large extent, so are those who choose the closet sellouts?
The 35th anniversary of this decision just passed in January. If you haven't read Linda Greenhouse's excellent book on Harry Blackmun, Becoming Justice Blackmun, you really should. This decision based in part on Griswold v. Connecticut, has become the center of the political debate on whether one is liberal or conservative. It has always been noteworthy that Blackmun, who penned the opinion, was appointed by a republican president, at the recommendation of the Chief Justice, also a republican. Yet, the opinion is now considered one of the most liberal ever written. That is in a layperson's view--the punditry, the media, the life v. choice crowds. At the heart of the opinion lies a conservative ideal: medicals decisions should not be governmentally controlled but left to the citizen and doctor. This conservative notion then attaches itself to a secular humanist idea: a fetus is not a person until it is viable. That used to mean until born, although with medical science, a third trimester fetus can survive nowadays. This is the linchpin for the diverging opinions. Is the fetus a baby? a potential baby? a part of the mother's anatomy? I have no idea. However, I truly believe that the government has no right to tell a person, in consultation with their physician, how to treat their bodies. This is a conservative idea, plain and simple.
In a week, 22 states will vote in the presidential primary race. How this shakes out for the democrats will be interesting to watch. Unless something unforeseen happens, both candidates will be going forward with their campaigns. How will they spin the results? There are ultimately four ways:
1. I won more states than you;
2. I won more delegates than you;
3. I won more votes than you; and
4. I still have more delegates that you.
Since only pledged delegates are at stake, Clinton and Obama could split them 50/50 and Clinton would still be ahead counting the super delegates. Since delegates are apportioned out, it is possible that a candidate could win a majority of contests and not gain as many delegates as her/his rival. So the upshot is: Unless one of the candidates strikes a body blow to the other, the campaign will go on well past February 5th.
People come in and out of your life. You work with people and for that time, you see them daily, interact with them, have lunch with them, etc. Then one of you leaves that place of employment and your lives diverge. After a decade or more, you get an email that they've tragically died. What can you say? There's a part of you that is saddened by the circumstances. He left a wife and young child. He was my age (so NOT old). But, you are completely distanced from the event, too. You haven't thought about that person in over a decade. You had no idea he was married or had a child or even where he was living. His passing is no more than anyone's on the evening news you watch. Except that you know your lives intersected at some point. Perhaps the person on the news intersected your life too, but you don't know that (the person ahead of you at the grocery store; the person next to you on the subway).
My generation lost many peers early due to AIDS, so I'm used to this in a way. I feel sorry for my straight friends for whom death is a sudden and unwelcome visitor. I shake my head and murmur Puck's line about what fools these mortals be.
Dick Eastman has a recent column on whether genealogical websites have harmed genealogical and historical societies' memberships. I think the amount of people conducting genealogy has increased due to the Internet. I also believe that genealogical and historical societies that have unique collections ought to struggle to digitize those collections and post them online (for a fee). Membership in said societies might stay static or increase if access to the online version of their collections is tied to being a member. If these materials are given away, I would expect to see memberships decline in such societies. However, at some point the new materials being posted online will end. At that juncture, in order to obtain new materials, such societies will increase their memberships as people create the new materials. I see nothing wrong with charging some money for access to these materials. Membership dues to societies were used for the maintenance of such paper-based collections, so maintaining and creating digital forms of those records should be paid for as well by those end users.
Insofar as people not using the vast amount of materials available onsite v. online, this has always been a problem with genealogy. A certain percentage of people will always want that which is easiest. So, some people will always use a compiled genealogy or town history v. vital records v. an unindexed diary. This happened in the print world and carries over to the online world as well. Likewise, someone who gets hooked on genealogy online, may well broaden their research to include such paper-based materials and make the extra effort. Genealogists have always been divided into the hard-core researchers v. the chart-fillers.
I have many friends who live in Florida. Next Tuesday they get to have their voice in the presidential primary season. Sort of. For the republicans there is a real contest going on and the winner will likely be dubbed the "front runner" and may well be the nominee. On the other hand, my friends are mostly democrats. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) in its finite wisdom told states not to schedule their primaries before Super Tuesday, February 5th or their delegates would not be seated. All the candidates, without exception, agreed not to campaign in such rogue states. Michigan and Florida, two very important states, decided to test the DNC's mettle and scheduled their primaries in January anyway.
All the major candidates, save one, had their names removed from the Michigan primary. That one was, of course, Hillary Clinton. She is now touting that as a win. The candidates also promised not to campaign in Florida, but after her resounding loss in South Carolina, Hillary not only mentioned that the road to the nomination went through Florida, she will be there on Tuesday night. No other candidate has campaigned there or has a ground level team in the state.
The Clinton campaign, now behind in the pledged delegate count, is trying to make Michigan and Florida count. Read Josh Marshall. Or Ezra Klein. Or Andrew Sullivan. Or Hilzoy. I think the voters of Michigan and Florida should have a voice, but the powers that be took it away from them. I also feel there should be a level playing field. The Clintons are certainly trying to change the rules to favor themselves in the middle of the game. I hope the voters of Florida see through this and vote for a candidate other than Hillary.
If you're not sure how delegates are chosen in the democratic party, read Sam Boyd.
