Hey folks. I lifted the excellent article below from Common Dreams. Buzzanco, in addition to having an awesome name, has written a passionate, compelling, timely essay addressing the gaping, yawning, staggering divide that exists between the rich and the rest of us, in regards to income, wealth, and power, in these United States.
Spreading the Wealth Around? Why Not?
by Robert Buzzanco
According to the Republican candidate for U.S. president, John McCain, whose family wealth exceeds $120 million, and who owns eight houses and thirteen cars, Democrat Barack Obama poses a grave threat to our democracy and economy because he will, as he told a voter in Ohio, "spread the wealth around."
Though socialism has been essentially dead for decades, and there is no viable left in the United States, the McCain campaign is resurrecting claims of "class warfare" and calling Obama a radical. On one point, McCain is right: there is class warfare in the United States, and for the past three decades, it has been waged from the top down, by the wealthiest class, the likes of John and Cindy McCain, against the middle- and working-classes of America.
Since the 1970s, middle- and working-class Americans have seen a fairly steady decline in real income, with brief spurts of recovery in the 1990s. Overall, however, the trend has been downward. By the year 2000, average net worth for Americans, adjusted for inflation, was less than it had been in 1983.
Subsequently, propelled by tax cuts for America's wealthiest and deregulation of financial markets and corporations, between 2001 and 2006 the average income of the top tenth of Americans increased about 15 percent a year, to about $250,000, while the average income of the lower 90 percent decreased, the first time since such data was first collected in 1917 that those conditions of increased wealth at the top and decline for everyone else had occurred. More to the point, the average income of the top tenth of wage earners is about 8 times greater than the bottom 90 percent, a wealth gap greater than that under Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.
Since the mid-1970s the top 1 percent of households have doubled their share of national wealth and now have more wealth, 60 percent or more, than the bottom 95 percent. Meantime, in the late 1980s and 1990s, inflation-adjusted net worth for a median household fell, from about $55 to $50 thousand dollars, and about 20 percent of households had zero or negative net worth [more debt than assets]. Those numbers are growing rapidly, especially as home foreclosures reach record heights.
Again adjusting for inflation, weekly wages for workers were down over 12 percent from the early 1970s, when that notable liberal Richard Nixon, who instituted wage and price controls to combat the recession of 1973, was president. Indeed, the Nixon years may have marked the heyday for American workers, as family incomes today are about the same as they were in the early 1970s and far more families have two wage-earners than they did thirty-five years ago.
Today, about two-thirds of Americans make less than $50,000 per year. The bottom 40 percent of Americans controls just 0.2 percent of wealth; the next 40 percent has about 15 percent of national wealth; the next 10 percent owns about 13 percent of wealth; and the top tenth has the rest.
Once could continue with such statistics ad infinitum but the point is obvious. Unless one lives in the rarified air of the top ten percent, she or he has experienced an economic downturn over the past decades, and a particularly acute decline in wealth in the past 8 years. That, of course, does not even take account of the current economic disasters in housing, credit and in the stock market, as jobs are lost and pensions are disappearing. Most families now survive by going deeper into debt and household debt as a percentage of personal income has risen from about 60 percent in the early 1970s to about 90 percent, and is increasing, today.
Given such stark data, and the drastic decline in income and wealth for nine-tenths of Americans, the idea of having state policies and a tax system to "spread the wealth around" is simply a recognition that our current economy has collapsed, as if the housing bubble and stock market eruptions haven't shown us that yet anyway. Too few people hold the overwhelming share of our national wealth, and the vast majority of Americans have to survive by using a credit card, not simply for "luxuries," as the conservative canard goes, but to pay for food, rent, and medical care.
Rather than complain about "class warfare," John McCain should recognize his privilege and promote policies that would make his family, his class cronies, and American corporations, especially those who ship jobs overseas, pay their fair share -- not seek more tax cuts for those who have already gotten rich at the government trough. And if that involves "spreading the wealth around," then it's long overdue.
Robert Buzzanco is a professor and Chair of the Department of History at the University of Houston.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Music and Politics
So, I’ve gotten all sorts of feedback in response to my "Joe the Plumber" post, and some of it was actually positive and supportive (thanks, Carrie : ).
I’m not surprised by the anger and hostility; mostly, it just leaves me disheartened.
Though, I guess I was ridiculously provocative myself, calling Joe a “prick” and a “dumbfuck” and…
Huh.
Well, I have never pretended to be adept at using reason and logic to prove a point, especially since barbed-wire wrapped exasperation and sarcasm drip so easily from my tongue. In fact, I fear I am a little bit like McCain—huffing, puffing, impatient. Wow, I really cannot believe that I just drew a comparison between me and that ruddy little troll, but it sort of gets at something that has been nagging at me, especially since the first presidential debate—McCain’s supposed connection to the floundering American populace. Here is an excerpt from a writing project I was working on with my awesome friend Ryan, a smarty-pants who’s doing some really great thinking and writing regarding this year’s election. The passage here was written by me as part of an email conversation Ryan and I had following the first presidential debate:
My overall, shallow interpretation is that both candidates mostly seemed to merely repeat their already well-known policy positions as well as their criticisms of the other’s former decisions and future plans; I felt that anyone on the fence would not have been impressed enough with Obama to jump to his side; I have this idea that he lacks the sort of pugilistic, angry nature that Americans have come to expect and respect in their politicians. I worry that McCain, somehow, and so PERVERSELY, actually seems more populist than does Obama, because McCain seems angry for the citizenry in a way that Obama does not. It’s that damned cool, rational, intellectual nature of Obama’s—even if it’s a superior framework for leading nations and solving problems, it just seems detached, in some way, from the desperation of the truly fearful, even as it connects so solidly with most middle-and upper-class progressives …
While I feel infinitely more comfortable with Obama’s chances since last week’s debate, I am still wary and anxious, too, and sort of braced for a lashing. At my weakest moments, I wonder what makes me believe that this election will even take place (what will be our Reichstag, I wonder?) or that our votes will be tallied as they are cast. And I am still uneasy about the very same issues I mentioned above—if you spend any time reading news articles and subsequent reader comments, then you know there really does exist a significant portion of the American population who believe any number of unfortunate untruths: that Obama is a terrorist; that he is the anti-christ; that he is responsible for the housing crisis; that he wants to kill and eat tiny babies; and, of course, just as mind-boggling but more sinister, really, that McCain is better-qualified than Obama to lead this country…
You know, I started this post to talk about my use of the term “culture wars” in my “Joe the Plumber” post, but I have gone so far off-track that I’m just going to wrap this up by posting Ryan’s take on the first debate—“old news”, I know, but the message here is still current and vital. I referred to this earlier as a writing project of mine and Ryan’s, but I merely edited this a tiny bit; this is Ryan’s work, and the credit goes to him. Oh, and Ryan's objective was to strike that reasonable, logical tone that is so elusive to me--he lives in Texas and was writing this in order for it to be published in his local newspaper; his strategy was to avoid alienating Republicans while still providing ample reasons for supporting Obama over McCain.
And jesus, while you're reading, listen to Nina Simone’s “Funkier than a Mosquito’s Tweeter”. Absolute aural ecstacy. And then some Balkan Beat Box, and definitely do not miss "Damn", by Kinny and TM Juke.
It's all there, on my awesome jukebox, and I do it for you, for all of you, because, you know, I love you.
And stuff.
Be good.
And here, as promised, more reasons to vote for Obama:
Last night I nerded out with some colleagues over drinks while taking in the first debate between presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama. The polls are showing that Obama won this first bout, but I saw things differently. True, as the candidates spoke about the economic crisis, I felt bad for Johnny McSame—he looked out of his element and, frankly, like he was about to cry. If I had played the role he has played in deregulating the banking industry and stock market, I'd probably cry, too. But it was foreign policy discussion that took center stage this evening, and when all was said-and-done, I shocked my fellow Democrats by doffing my cap to the old hawk.
What I saw in McCain was the coolness of a guy who has been on the most important foreign policy committees since the war with the Barbary Pirates. The depth and breadth of his knowledge and experience are stunning, and for the most part, he presented that knowledge with remarkable clarity and force. A one-term senator, even one with Obama's foreign policy experience, just can't compete with that level of understanding and competence.
Still, McCain’s show of strength didn't make me waver in my vote one iota.
Why?
The easy answer is, of course, judgment, and McCain’s lack of even a shred of it. And though Obama drove that point home again and again last night, my support for him is rooted not just in McCain’s dearth of good sense, but also in the very fundamentals of the commander-in-chief role and Obama’s understanding of those fundamentals.
For example, McCain's depth and breadth of foreign policy knowledge, as impressive as it is, is easily matched by other senators and lifelong government folks, including, of course, Joe Biden. Recognizing Biden’s experience and skill, Obama chose him as his running mate, beefing up the Democratic ticket’s foreign policy muscle. Obama recognizes that you need that sort of deep knowledge among all of your advisors—the National Security Administration, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense—and his well-reasoned choice of Biden suggests that he will stock those posts with equally knowledgeable folks.
Still, knowledge, as we all know, isn't enough. Not many people knew more about the international arena than did Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. How well did that turn out? Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, entered office with not much more than the idea that Communism is Bad, and Democracy and Capitalism are Good. Still, even my fellow liberals have to admit that in the foreign policy arena, Reagan was pretty successful.
Now, it's dangerous to compare a relatively inexperienced politician with Ronald Reagan, but let's remember that upon taking office, Reagan actually had less foreign policy experience than Obama has now. What Reagan did have, and in spades, was the ability to inspire hope and confidence in scores of American people and in our allies during fairly difficult and scary times. Sound familiar? Because unless you flat out hate him, you just cannot look at Obama's travels through the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and not be impressed, nor can you deny the significance of his positive international image.
It is evident that foreign leaders, particularly in Europe—where our allies are alienated but much needed—love Obama and are willing to work with him. Like Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan before him, Obama has inspired hundreds of thousands of Europeans to wave American flags, and—and this is significant—pro-American populations elect pro-American governments. This is no small thing; recall that after Bush invaded Iraq and gave Europe the finger, those Europeans elected leaders who were unwilling to work with America on a whole host of issues, particularly in the foreign policy arena.
Further, people and leaders in Africa, of course, adore Obama. Why does that matter? Because those impoverished African nations are prime breeding grounds for both anti-Americanism and terrorist recruitment.
Regrettably, neither of our presidential candidates is really able to scare any Middle Eastern terrorist groups. People who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and slaughter innocent men, women, and children are not cowed by angry posturing in the United States. If anything, they seem to get a sick jolt from it.
"Bring it on," taunted Bush.
And so they did.
It seems evident, too, that the leaders of any Middle Eastern country willing to work rationally with us would respond more positively to diplomacy than to additional angry posturing. And frankly, though probably not very importantly, that middle name of Obama's just might be a bit of an advantage in bending their ears…
Beyond everything else, Obama does what Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan did best: he inspires. Now that Reagan is dead and gone, conservatives easily dismiss hope and inspiration as misplaced sentimentalism, as if they never anointed Reagan "the great communicator" or waxed poetic about his visions of a shining city on a hill. In sharp contrast, John McCain scares the bejeezus out of people, here at home and abroad. His hawkishness is resented in nearly every corner of the globe, and he is seen in foreign policy terms as the second coming of Bush, albeit a smarter version. Even if McCain's military strategy is superior to Obama’s—I certainly do not believe it is, and apparently more retired generals agree with Obama than with McCain, if that counts for anything—what is needed most desperately right now is successful diplomacy. If Iraq has taught us anything, I hope it's the bloody, costly, reputation-tarnishing lesson that we don't have the manpower or money to go it alone again.
Finally, there is the Palin factor. Not to be crass, but McCain is three years short of the average life expectancy, and his body has been brutalized by torture, 20 years of smoking, various surgeries, and every type of skin cancer known to science. The odds of Palin taking office are ominously high compared to other vice presidents across history, and after watching the three interviews that her campaign allowed her, it is clear why her advisors are so desperate to shield her from public scrutiny. The Couric interview alone was chilling, and that was Katie Couric—not exactly like staring down Putin, whose head, Palin seems to think, might any day soon come flying over Alaska…
In summary, while McCain most certainly does have foreign policy gravitas, he falls short in nearly every other measure of fitness for becoming commander-in-chief, and in Palin he has made a truly appalling and terrifying vice-presidential selection. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently shown himself to be a fully rounded candidate, ready to lead the United States into a safer, more prosperous future, with Biden a tested and talented counterpart.
I’m not surprised by the anger and hostility; mostly, it just leaves me disheartened.
Though, I guess I was ridiculously provocative myself, calling Joe a “prick” and a “dumbfuck” and…
Huh.
Well, I have never pretended to be adept at using reason and logic to prove a point, especially since barbed-wire wrapped exasperation and sarcasm drip so easily from my tongue. In fact, I fear I am a little bit like McCain—huffing, puffing, impatient. Wow, I really cannot believe that I just drew a comparison between me and that ruddy little troll, but it sort of gets at something that has been nagging at me, especially since the first presidential debate—McCain’s supposed connection to the floundering American populace. Here is an excerpt from a writing project I was working on with my awesome friend Ryan, a smarty-pants who’s doing some really great thinking and writing regarding this year’s election. The passage here was written by me as part of an email conversation Ryan and I had following the first presidential debate:
My overall, shallow interpretation is that both candidates mostly seemed to merely repeat their already well-known policy positions as well as their criticisms of the other’s former decisions and future plans; I felt that anyone on the fence would not have been impressed enough with Obama to jump to his side; I have this idea that he lacks the sort of pugilistic, angry nature that Americans have come to expect and respect in their politicians. I worry that McCain, somehow, and so PERVERSELY, actually seems more populist than does Obama, because McCain seems angry for the citizenry in a way that Obama does not. It’s that damned cool, rational, intellectual nature of Obama’s—even if it’s a superior framework for leading nations and solving problems, it just seems detached, in some way, from the desperation of the truly fearful, even as it connects so solidly with most middle-and upper-class progressives …
While I feel infinitely more comfortable with Obama’s chances since last week’s debate, I am still wary and anxious, too, and sort of braced for a lashing. At my weakest moments, I wonder what makes me believe that this election will even take place (what will be our Reichstag, I wonder?) or that our votes will be tallied as they are cast. And I am still uneasy about the very same issues I mentioned above—if you spend any time reading news articles and subsequent reader comments, then you know there really does exist a significant portion of the American population who believe any number of unfortunate untruths: that Obama is a terrorist; that he is the anti-christ; that he is responsible for the housing crisis; that he wants to kill and eat tiny babies; and, of course, just as mind-boggling but more sinister, really, that McCain is better-qualified than Obama to lead this country…
You know, I started this post to talk about my use of the term “culture wars” in my “Joe the Plumber” post, but I have gone so far off-track that I’m just going to wrap this up by posting Ryan’s take on the first debate—“old news”, I know, but the message here is still current and vital. I referred to this earlier as a writing project of mine and Ryan’s, but I merely edited this a tiny bit; this is Ryan’s work, and the credit goes to him. Oh, and Ryan's objective was to strike that reasonable, logical tone that is so elusive to me--he lives in Texas and was writing this in order for it to be published in his local newspaper; his strategy was to avoid alienating Republicans while still providing ample reasons for supporting Obama over McCain.
And jesus, while you're reading, listen to Nina Simone’s “Funkier than a Mosquito’s Tweeter”. Absolute aural ecstacy. And then some Balkan Beat Box, and definitely do not miss "Damn", by Kinny and TM Juke.
It's all there, on my awesome jukebox, and I do it for you, for all of you, because, you know, I love you.
And stuff.
Be good.
And here, as promised, more reasons to vote for Obama:
Last night I nerded out with some colleagues over drinks while taking in the first debate between presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama. The polls are showing that Obama won this first bout, but I saw things differently. True, as the candidates spoke about the economic crisis, I felt bad for Johnny McSame—he looked out of his element and, frankly, like he was about to cry. If I had played the role he has played in deregulating the banking industry and stock market, I'd probably cry, too. But it was foreign policy discussion that took center stage this evening, and when all was said-and-done, I shocked my fellow Democrats by doffing my cap to the old hawk.
What I saw in McCain was the coolness of a guy who has been on the most important foreign policy committees since the war with the Barbary Pirates. The depth and breadth of his knowledge and experience are stunning, and for the most part, he presented that knowledge with remarkable clarity and force. A one-term senator, even one with Obama's foreign policy experience, just can't compete with that level of understanding and competence.
Still, McCain’s show of strength didn't make me waver in my vote one iota.
Why?
The easy answer is, of course, judgment, and McCain’s lack of even a shred of it. And though Obama drove that point home again and again last night, my support for him is rooted not just in McCain’s dearth of good sense, but also in the very fundamentals of the commander-in-chief role and Obama’s understanding of those fundamentals.
For example, McCain's depth and breadth of foreign policy knowledge, as impressive as it is, is easily matched by other senators and lifelong government folks, including, of course, Joe Biden. Recognizing Biden’s experience and skill, Obama chose him as his running mate, beefing up the Democratic ticket’s foreign policy muscle. Obama recognizes that you need that sort of deep knowledge among all of your advisors—the National Security Administration, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense—and his well-reasoned choice of Biden suggests that he will stock those posts with equally knowledgeable folks.
Still, knowledge, as we all know, isn't enough. Not many people knew more about the international arena than did Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. How well did that turn out? Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, entered office with not much more than the idea that Communism is Bad, and Democracy and Capitalism are Good. Still, even my fellow liberals have to admit that in the foreign policy arena, Reagan was pretty successful.
Now, it's dangerous to compare a relatively inexperienced politician with Ronald Reagan, but let's remember that upon taking office, Reagan actually had less foreign policy experience than Obama has now. What Reagan did have, and in spades, was the ability to inspire hope and confidence in scores of American people and in our allies during fairly difficult and scary times. Sound familiar? Because unless you flat out hate him, you just cannot look at Obama's travels through the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and not be impressed, nor can you deny the significance of his positive international image.
It is evident that foreign leaders, particularly in Europe—where our allies are alienated but much needed—love Obama and are willing to work with him. Like Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan before him, Obama has inspired hundreds of thousands of Europeans to wave American flags, and—and this is significant—pro-American populations elect pro-American governments. This is no small thing; recall that after Bush invaded Iraq and gave Europe the finger, those Europeans elected leaders who were unwilling to work with America on a whole host of issues, particularly in the foreign policy arena.
Further, people and leaders in Africa, of course, adore Obama. Why does that matter? Because those impoverished African nations are prime breeding grounds for both anti-Americanism and terrorist recruitment.
Regrettably, neither of our presidential candidates is really able to scare any Middle Eastern terrorist groups. People who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and slaughter innocent men, women, and children are not cowed by angry posturing in the United States. If anything, they seem to get a sick jolt from it.
"Bring it on," taunted Bush.
And so they did.
It seems evident, too, that the leaders of any Middle Eastern country willing to work rationally with us would respond more positively to diplomacy than to additional angry posturing. And frankly, though probably not very importantly, that middle name of Obama's just might be a bit of an advantage in bending their ears…
Beyond everything else, Obama does what Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan did best: he inspires. Now that Reagan is dead and gone, conservatives easily dismiss hope and inspiration as misplaced sentimentalism, as if they never anointed Reagan "the great communicator" or waxed poetic about his visions of a shining city on a hill. In sharp contrast, John McCain scares the bejeezus out of people, here at home and abroad. His hawkishness is resented in nearly every corner of the globe, and he is seen in foreign policy terms as the second coming of Bush, albeit a smarter version. Even if McCain's military strategy is superior to Obama’s—I certainly do not believe it is, and apparently more retired generals agree with Obama than with McCain, if that counts for anything—what is needed most desperately right now is successful diplomacy. If Iraq has taught us anything, I hope it's the bloody, costly, reputation-tarnishing lesson that we don't have the manpower or money to go it alone again.
Finally, there is the Palin factor. Not to be crass, but McCain is three years short of the average life expectancy, and his body has been brutalized by torture, 20 years of smoking, various surgeries, and every type of skin cancer known to science. The odds of Palin taking office are ominously high compared to other vice presidents across history, and after watching the three interviews that her campaign allowed her, it is clear why her advisors are so desperate to shield her from public scrutiny. The Couric interview alone was chilling, and that was Katie Couric—not exactly like staring down Putin, whose head, Palin seems to think, might any day soon come flying over Alaska…
In summary, while McCain most certainly does have foreign policy gravitas, he falls short in nearly every other measure of fitness for becoming commander-in-chief, and in Palin he has made a truly appalling and terrifying vice-presidential selection. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently shown himself to be a fully rounded candidate, ready to lead the United States into a safer, more prosperous future, with Biden a tested and talented counterpart.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Joe the Plumber: Lost in the House of Dreams
You never can tell what sort of thing may inspire a “comeback” (but don’t call it a…).
Some of you know I have been unraveling for a while now—those who know me really well probably can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel like this was happening. So, in that sense, I guess, yadayadayada, huh? As the yadayadayada has been happening, my writing (blogging, emailing, journaling), for the most part, has come to a stand-still, though up until about three weeks ago, I was putting a lot of time and energy into a personal writing project focused on my experience growing up as a sentient queerchild ; ) But now, even my work on that project has ceased, though I am thinking of posting parts of that endeavor here.
Anyway.
I compose blogs in my head all the time, but I have lost the ability to translate my musings to the screen. I was just doing this—composing a blog in my head—after reading an article about that stupid prick, Joe the Plumber, when I decided to give making my thoughts public another try.
Though I am now so disturbed by my own characterization of what I am doing—“making my thoughts public”—that I feel stymied all over again.
OK. Whatever.
Joe the Plumber.
Watching the final presidential debate, I learned that Joe the Plumber, McCain’s “everyman”, was considering purchasing the quarter-of-a-million dollar plumbing company that employed him (that is not like any man or woman I know, let alone everyman), but Obama’s proposed tax plan, should he be elected, was somehow going to keep Joe from fulfilling that dream. In between grunts, grimaces, and eye-rolls, McCain worked in as many “Joe the Plumber” references as he could, until I wasn’t even sure that this plumber was a real guy—I thought maybe McCain had resorted to some sort of biblical parable-speak.
But, no, turns out Joe the Plumber is, indeed, a real guy. Funny thing, though—he’s not a licensed or registered plumber.
His real name is Joe Wurzelbacher, and he’s been the focus of some major media attention ever since Obama visited his Toledo, Ohio neighborhood in order to greet voters and seek support. As Obama made his way through the neighborhood, Wurzelbacher challenged him about his tax plan and said that he wanted to buy the plumbing company that he worked for, but that Obama’s tax plan would make it prohibitive. Obama responded by explaining that he wanted to be able to give tax breaks to 95% of working Americans and that he wanted to help all the folks who were hoping to get a start in a small business (read: businesses with annual earnings of less than $250,000), and he mentioned something about “spreading the wealth around” (oh no he di’n’t)(oh yes he did).
So this Wurzelbacher fellow, our Joe the Plumber, in addition to not being an actual plumber, also seems in a poor position to purchase the plumbing and heating company for which he works, as his divorce papers show that he earned about $40,000 in 2006. Then, in 2007, there was a lien placed against him for about $1200 in personal property taxes that he hadn’t paid. So, although Obama’s tax plan would actually benefit this dumbfuck far, FAR more than McCain’s proposal would, he insists that he would not want Obama’s promised tax cut, should Obama be elected. It seems his delicate, working-man sensibilities were injured by this talk of “spreading the wealth around,” because Joe the Dumber buttresses his blustery claims with vague comments about socialism and about how it’s wrong to “take someone’s money because they work a little harder.”
Beyond how utterly pathetic it is, all these poor slobs who vote as if protecting some future wealth that they have not yet accumulated—and never will under the policies of the leaders they support—it nearly makes my head explode, this feeble-minded buffoon’s grasp of socioeconomics, not to mention his empty-headed parroting of the ridiculous notion that folks who make a lot of money work harder than those who make a little money. If hard work increased earnings, my grandpa—who worked sunup to sundown from the time he was a boy, until multiple strokes and bouts with cancer whittled him down to a whisper; who finally succumbed to death while digging up a weeping cheery tree just as stubborn and rebellious as he was: its branches refused to “weep,” thus my grandpa’s fight to uproot it that quiet April day—should have died with more money than Warren Buffet.
Another hard-work vignette: The people across the street from me struggle to keep their lights on, to heat their home, to eat. They earn a portion of their living from junking and scrapping—they scavenge dumpsters and trash cans, abandoned houses and empty lots, hauling, carrying, and dragging hundreds and hundreds of pounds of metal to their yard almost daily, where they disassemble it with brute force—smashing big things with sledgehammers and little things with claw hammers. They then separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and haul the prized metals to the scrap-yards. I have seen them disassemble an entire car in a matter of hours. They do this work every day, sometimes until late into the evening. I often drift off to sleep and awaken to the same repetitive sound of hammer on metal, a ringing thunk thunk thunk in the air. This is hard work. It is heavy, dirty work. It tears skin and bruises knuckles and breaks backs.
These people are also pretty fucking scandalous, which I mention lest I have unintentionally painted too sensitive a portrayal or romanticized their scrappin’ ways. For example, soon after Elizabeth moved into the neighborhood, the oldest son in the scrappin’ house set her up to be robbed, as he had done for nearly every house on the block, including his own. So.
Back to Obama’s “spreading the wealth” comment … I am completely flabbergasted by the negative response this comment generated—all this wild-eyed talk of socialism and wealth redistribution, all this swooning and calling for the vapors. I got news for you motherfuckers: wealth is redistributed, it just moves from the bottom up, you know?
Same old fucking thing—as soon as there’s talk of moving wealth from the top down, it’s class warfare—just like William Sloane Coffin said:
When the rich take from the poor, it’s called an economic plan.
When the poor take from the rich, it’s called class warfare.
In a short email exchange with a friend recently, I lamented about all these folks who have been so negatively affected by the culture wars that they align themselves with the cruelest, coldest, most terrifying leaders. All this brainwashing, all this polarizing and factionalizing, all this effort to ensure that Americans somehow have less solidarity, as a people, than they have nationalism—you know what I mean? All this “proud to be an American” bullshit, all this “they hate us for our freedom” bullshit, all this “America is the best” bullshit, but then, somehow, Americans just hate the fuck out of each other, you know?
Worse, we don’t even hate the right people. The "American Dream" has been so deeply implanted in our psyches that poor and working-class folks most often recognize each other as competitors for an ever-diminishing slice of the money pie, when we should be recognizing each other as comrades (oh no she di’n’t) (oh yes she did). I mean, what level of delusion does it take for a loser like Joe the Plumber to think that *he* can join the ranks of the folks who slice the pie and, with it dripping from their soft, smooth hands, smear it all over their greedy faces?
Someone should tell Joe that around 20% of the American population owns 85% of America’s privately held wealth. And yes, this means that the rest of us—80% of the population—share the remaining 15% of American wealth. I mean, I don’t even know how to add commentary to those figures, because they make such a powerful statement all on their own.
Here’s another stunner: The richest 10% of the American population hold 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. So, as the site I lifted these numbers from points out, that means that about 10% of our population owns this country.
The last set of statistics I will throw at you concerns the gap in annual pay between a CEO and an average American factory worker: this ratio rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000. It was at 411:1 in 2005. You are, indeed, reading that correctly. So, for example, if a factory worker makes $25 an hour, the corresponding CEO rate would be $10,275 an hour. We live in a country where people can't afford health care, where people live on the streets, where people go to bed hungry, while other people are making $10,000 an hour.
Again, I have no words that could make those statistics any more meaningful or powerful than they are on their own.
And I am totaly bumming myself out, anyway.
My friend "the injector" invoked Bruce Springsteen in her last blog and talked about “The Rising.” I think that may be a nice way for me to wrap this up, as well—posting the text of this absolutely beautiful speech the Boss has been giving at voter registration events.
Peace.
I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
I've spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real: opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.
I've spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities, the distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.
I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project.
In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I've continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people's hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps.
Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama's understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again.
But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don't know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising.
Some of you know I have been unraveling for a while now—those who know me really well probably can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel like this was happening. So, in that sense, I guess, yadayadayada, huh? As the yadayadayada has been happening, my writing (blogging, emailing, journaling), for the most part, has come to a stand-still, though up until about three weeks ago, I was putting a lot of time and energy into a personal writing project focused on my experience growing up as a sentient queerchild ; ) But now, even my work on that project has ceased, though I am thinking of posting parts of that endeavor here.
Anyway.
I compose blogs in my head all the time, but I have lost the ability to translate my musings to the screen. I was just doing this—composing a blog in my head—after reading an article about that stupid prick, Joe the Plumber, when I decided to give making my thoughts public another try.
Though I am now so disturbed by my own characterization of what I am doing—“making my thoughts public”—that I feel stymied all over again.
OK. Whatever.
Joe the Plumber.
Watching the final presidential debate, I learned that Joe the Plumber, McCain’s “everyman”, was considering purchasing the quarter-of-a-million dollar plumbing company that employed him (that is not like any man or woman I know, let alone everyman), but Obama’s proposed tax plan, should he be elected, was somehow going to keep Joe from fulfilling that dream. In between grunts, grimaces, and eye-rolls, McCain worked in as many “Joe the Plumber” references as he could, until I wasn’t even sure that this plumber was a real guy—I thought maybe McCain had resorted to some sort of biblical parable-speak.
But, no, turns out Joe the Plumber is, indeed, a real guy. Funny thing, though—he’s not a licensed or registered plumber.
His real name is Joe Wurzelbacher, and he’s been the focus of some major media attention ever since Obama visited his Toledo, Ohio neighborhood in order to greet voters and seek support. As Obama made his way through the neighborhood, Wurzelbacher challenged him about his tax plan and said that he wanted to buy the plumbing company that he worked for, but that Obama’s tax plan would make it prohibitive. Obama responded by explaining that he wanted to be able to give tax breaks to 95% of working Americans and that he wanted to help all the folks who were hoping to get a start in a small business (read: businesses with annual earnings of less than $250,000), and he mentioned something about “spreading the wealth around” (oh no he di’n’t)(oh yes he did).
So this Wurzelbacher fellow, our Joe the Plumber, in addition to not being an actual plumber, also seems in a poor position to purchase the plumbing and heating company for which he works, as his divorce papers show that he earned about $40,000 in 2006. Then, in 2007, there was a lien placed against him for about $1200 in personal property taxes that he hadn’t paid. So, although Obama’s tax plan would actually benefit this dumbfuck far, FAR more than McCain’s proposal would, he insists that he would not want Obama’s promised tax cut, should Obama be elected. It seems his delicate, working-man sensibilities were injured by this talk of “spreading the wealth around,” because Joe the Dumber buttresses his blustery claims with vague comments about socialism and about how it’s wrong to “take someone’s money because they work a little harder.”
Beyond how utterly pathetic it is, all these poor slobs who vote as if protecting some future wealth that they have not yet accumulated—and never will under the policies of the leaders they support—it nearly makes my head explode, this feeble-minded buffoon’s grasp of socioeconomics, not to mention his empty-headed parroting of the ridiculous notion that folks who make a lot of money work harder than those who make a little money. If hard work increased earnings, my grandpa—who worked sunup to sundown from the time he was a boy, until multiple strokes and bouts with cancer whittled him down to a whisper; who finally succumbed to death while digging up a weeping cheery tree just as stubborn and rebellious as he was: its branches refused to “weep,” thus my grandpa’s fight to uproot it that quiet April day—should have died with more money than Warren Buffet.
Another hard-work vignette: The people across the street from me struggle to keep their lights on, to heat their home, to eat. They earn a portion of their living from junking and scrapping—they scavenge dumpsters and trash cans, abandoned houses and empty lots, hauling, carrying, and dragging hundreds and hundreds of pounds of metal to their yard almost daily, where they disassemble it with brute force—smashing big things with sledgehammers and little things with claw hammers. They then separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and haul the prized metals to the scrap-yards. I have seen them disassemble an entire car in a matter of hours. They do this work every day, sometimes until late into the evening. I often drift off to sleep and awaken to the same repetitive sound of hammer on metal, a ringing thunk thunk thunk in the air. This is hard work. It is heavy, dirty work. It tears skin and bruises knuckles and breaks backs.
These people are also pretty fucking scandalous, which I mention lest I have unintentionally painted too sensitive a portrayal or romanticized their scrappin’ ways. For example, soon after Elizabeth moved into the neighborhood, the oldest son in the scrappin’ house set her up to be robbed, as he had done for nearly every house on the block, including his own. So.
Back to Obama’s “spreading the wealth” comment … I am completely flabbergasted by the negative response this comment generated—all this wild-eyed talk of socialism and wealth redistribution, all this swooning and calling for the vapors. I got news for you motherfuckers: wealth is redistributed, it just moves from the bottom up, you know?
Same old fucking thing—as soon as there’s talk of moving wealth from the top down, it’s class warfare—just like William Sloane Coffin said:
When the rich take from the poor, it’s called an economic plan.
When the poor take from the rich, it’s called class warfare.
In a short email exchange with a friend recently, I lamented about all these folks who have been so negatively affected by the culture wars that they align themselves with the cruelest, coldest, most terrifying leaders. All this brainwashing, all this polarizing and factionalizing, all this effort to ensure that Americans somehow have less solidarity, as a people, than they have nationalism—you know what I mean? All this “proud to be an American” bullshit, all this “they hate us for our freedom” bullshit, all this “America is the best” bullshit, but then, somehow, Americans just hate the fuck out of each other, you know?
Worse, we don’t even hate the right people. The "American Dream" has been so deeply implanted in our psyches that poor and working-class folks most often recognize each other as competitors for an ever-diminishing slice of the money pie, when we should be recognizing each other as comrades (oh no she di’n’t) (oh yes she did). I mean, what level of delusion does it take for a loser like Joe the Plumber to think that *he* can join the ranks of the folks who slice the pie and, with it dripping from their soft, smooth hands, smear it all over their greedy faces?
Someone should tell Joe that around 20% of the American population owns 85% of America’s privately held wealth. And yes, this means that the rest of us—80% of the population—share the remaining 15% of American wealth. I mean, I don’t even know how to add commentary to those figures, because they make such a powerful statement all on their own.
Here’s another stunner: The richest 10% of the American population hold 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. So, as the site I lifted these numbers from points out, that means that about 10% of our population owns this country.
The last set of statistics I will throw at you concerns the gap in annual pay between a CEO and an average American factory worker: this ratio rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000. It was at 411:1 in 2005. You are, indeed, reading that correctly. So, for example, if a factory worker makes $25 an hour, the corresponding CEO rate would be $10,275 an hour. We live in a country where people can't afford health care, where people live on the streets, where people go to bed hungry, while other people are making $10,000 an hour.
Again, I have no words that could make those statistics any more meaningful or powerful than they are on their own.
And I am totaly bumming myself out, anyway.
My friend "the injector" invoked Bruce Springsteen in her last blog and talked about “The Rising.” I think that may be a nice way for me to wrap this up, as well—posting the text of this absolutely beautiful speech the Boss has been giving at voter registration events.
Peace.
I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
I've spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real: opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.
I've spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities, the distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.
I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project.
In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I've continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people's hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps.
Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama's understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again.
But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don't know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
sex, lies, and gendertape
So, I've been sent a few news articles regarding the murder of Angie Zapata, a transwoman whose age I haven't been able to determine (a quick Google search reveals a range of cited ages, from 18- to 21-years-old. Honestly, I guess there's just not a whole lot of difference between 18 and 21, if you're talking about the endpoint to someones life. Zapata was young). For anyone who hasn't heard about this murder, here is a shamefully brief summary: Zapata was born male but had been identifying as a girl/woman for the past six years or so; she had not yet had any reconstructive surgeries (I do not know if she planned on ever doing so); she met a 32-year-old man online, and they arranged a meeting; they met and shared some sort of intimate experience; she lied to him about her sex; he found out and beat her to death with a fire extinguisher.
While being questioned by the police, the murderer, Allen Ray Andrade, explained that he thought he had "killed it," referring to Zapata. It hit me in the chest like a sledgehammer, this cold, casual, statement, and transfolks and allies have jumped all over this dehumanizing language. Rightfully so.
The thing is, my brief survey of the commentary out there regarding this case reveals that very few people seem to be troubled by Zapata's behavior. A (possibly) 18-year-old dating a 32-year-old? A biological male passing himself off as female--and not just for a night out dancing, but while inviting and engaging in sexual encounters? Reckless and dangerous and unethical and absolutely unacceptable.
So, for the record, I am totally against the death penalty as it exists, but in my world, this Andrade fuck gets got. What he did is heinous, inexcusable, unforgivable. This world has no place or use for him. This is where my own temper and problems with anger get the best of me--I imagine a thousand excruciating tortures for Andrade, a slow, harrowing, agonizing death, when I know the simple snuffing of his life is the more honorable thought. I have a code for fuck's sake, ok? It's just the darker parts of my psyche that have a hard time honoring it...
I need to say here that I also think that what Zapata was doing was a crime. In my world, if Andrade had been able to hold his weak, pathetic shit together, he could have sued Zapata for false representation or something. Honestly. It is not acceptable to lie to people about your fucking sex. Period.
I guess I should also say here that my relationship with trans issues is really thorny. From the moment I heard about "sex-change operations," when I was about six-years-old, I dreamed of the day when I would have mine. Up until that time, I had gone to bed every night praying to wake up as a boy. After a few years of this, a TV show about Christine Jorgensen totally blew my little mind and made me decide to put my faith in science, not god, to help me become what I knew I was supposed to be--a real, live boy.
I was in my 20s before I fully accepted that a sex-change was not what I wanted. This realization was watershed, and it was tied to my slow recognition of all the glue and tape and thread that it takes to patch together the myths that form our cultural fabric. That's a whole 'nother story and a lifetime of blogs, but suffice it to say that I think there is something heartbreakingly misguided about carving up a body in order to meet society's expectations for sex and gender performance. Yes, I feel at odds with my body, yes, I present as masculine, yes, I have passed as a dude--accidentally and purposely. Still, my decision to forgo body modification is because, after much rumination and writing, I realized that I don't locate "the problem" within myself; I locate it within the collective ignorance, fear, and complacency that forms the bedrock of our culture.
What I'd love to see is a forced recasting of our cultural notions regarding this thing we call "gender" and the way it relates to our genitalia; we must divorce privilege, expectation, and opportunity from our sexual organs. In fact, I will be so bold as to argue that the form and function of one's junk should only be important to said junk's owner and to any potential sexual partners:
"So, your penis is fully functional, then?"
"Why yes it is, m'lady, fully functional. And may I inquire as to your own genitalia?" "Oh, but of course! Both my vulva and my vagina are in fine working order, I can assure you!"
Or:
"My, but your clitoris is lovely in the morning light."
"Why, thank you, sugar. I was just thinking of how very much I adore the shape of your ass"
And so on.
Anyway, here's the thing that I think about a lot lately: I suspect that if I had been born into a world that had allowed me to do all of the things that came naturally to me--play sports, climb trees, sit with my legs "like a boy," ride dirtbikes and skateboards, shun baby dolls for GI Joes, wear tennis shoes and jeans and neverever a dress, learn a trade like carpentry or masonry, and, you know, most importantly, love girls like I love breathing--without overloading me with all those cultural messages that made me know that my behavior was suspect, then maybe I wouldn't have spent this lifetime so dreadfully uncomfortable in my own skin, sure that I have been born the wrong sex.
Usually this sort of talk from me invites a little bit of thoughtful dialogue and a whole lot of angry responses from transfolk who want to get into pissing matches with me about which of us "feels" the most male, about which of us has the bigger imaginary cock.
Mine is huge, trust me, but not so much that it scares the ladies.
Anyway, I won't engage in that sort of "look-inside-my-soul-for-the-penis" discourse. It's OK with me if you've decided to modify your body; it just isn't my path.
Obviously my mind is everywhere--whenever I start thinking about trans issues and the world around me and my own identity, my thoughts turn quicksilver--but one place it keeps returning is to Angie Zapata's picture. Young, beautiful, brash in that way only teenagers can manage... I know I called Zapata to task posthumously for what I think was reckless and unethical behavior, but she and I are kindred, and I am outraged by her murder. I understand, so acutely, her desire to match what she felt under her skin with what she presented to the world. I understand, too, that what is sometimes perceived as disguise is actually just a fumbling attempt to build a bridge between our self-perception and the myopic eyes of the world.
Mostly, I understand that we lost another beautiful creature to a senseless, monstrous crime.
Stay safe, people. The world is scary and confusing, and it is so easy to get lost, fall into harm's way, and never make it back again.
Rest in Peace, Angie; may the stars welcome you home.
While being questioned by the police, the murderer, Allen Ray Andrade, explained that he thought he had "killed it," referring to Zapata. It hit me in the chest like a sledgehammer, this cold, casual, statement, and transfolks and allies have jumped all over this dehumanizing language. Rightfully so.
The thing is, my brief survey of the commentary out there regarding this case reveals that very few people seem to be troubled by Zapata's behavior. A (possibly) 18-year-old dating a 32-year-old? A biological male passing himself off as female--and not just for a night out dancing, but while inviting and engaging in sexual encounters? Reckless and dangerous and unethical and absolutely unacceptable.
So, for the record, I am totally against the death penalty as it exists, but in my world, this Andrade fuck gets got. What he did is heinous, inexcusable, unforgivable. This world has no place or use for him. This is where my own temper and problems with anger get the best of me--I imagine a thousand excruciating tortures for Andrade, a slow, harrowing, agonizing death, when I know the simple snuffing of his life is the more honorable thought. I have a code for fuck's sake, ok? It's just the darker parts of my psyche that have a hard time honoring it...
I need to say here that I also think that what Zapata was doing was a crime. In my world, if Andrade had been able to hold his weak, pathetic shit together, he could have sued Zapata for false representation or something. Honestly. It is not acceptable to lie to people about your fucking sex. Period.
I guess I should also say here that my relationship with trans issues is really thorny. From the moment I heard about "sex-change operations," when I was about six-years-old, I dreamed of the day when I would have mine. Up until that time, I had gone to bed every night praying to wake up as a boy. After a few years of this, a TV show about Christine Jorgensen totally blew my little mind and made me decide to put my faith in science, not god, to help me become what I knew I was supposed to be--a real, live boy.
I was in my 20s before I fully accepted that a sex-change was not what I wanted. This realization was watershed, and it was tied to my slow recognition of all the glue and tape and thread that it takes to patch together the myths that form our cultural fabric. That's a whole 'nother story and a lifetime of blogs, but suffice it to say that I think there is something heartbreakingly misguided about carving up a body in order to meet society's expectations for sex and gender performance. Yes, I feel at odds with my body, yes, I present as masculine, yes, I have passed as a dude--accidentally and purposely. Still, my decision to forgo body modification is because, after much rumination and writing, I realized that I don't locate "the problem" within myself; I locate it within the collective ignorance, fear, and complacency that forms the bedrock of our culture.
What I'd love to see is a forced recasting of our cultural notions regarding this thing we call "gender" and the way it relates to our genitalia; we must divorce privilege, expectation, and opportunity from our sexual organs. In fact, I will be so bold as to argue that the form and function of one's junk should only be important to said junk's owner and to any potential sexual partners:
"So, your penis is fully functional, then?"
"Why yes it is, m'lady, fully functional. And may I inquire as to your own genitalia?" "Oh, but of course! Both my vulva and my vagina are in fine working order, I can assure you!"
Or:
"My, but your clitoris is lovely in the morning light."
"Why, thank you, sugar. I was just thinking of how very much I adore the shape of your ass"
And so on.
Anyway, here's the thing that I think about a lot lately: I suspect that if I had been born into a world that had allowed me to do all of the things that came naturally to me--play sports, climb trees, sit with my legs "like a boy," ride dirtbikes and skateboards, shun baby dolls for GI Joes, wear tennis shoes and jeans and neverever a dress, learn a trade like carpentry or masonry, and, you know, most importantly, love girls like I love breathing--without overloading me with all those cultural messages that made me know that my behavior was suspect, then maybe I wouldn't have spent this lifetime so dreadfully uncomfortable in my own skin, sure that I have been born the wrong sex.
Usually this sort of talk from me invites a little bit of thoughtful dialogue and a whole lot of angry responses from transfolk who want to get into pissing matches with me about which of us "feels" the most male, about which of us has the bigger imaginary cock.
Mine is huge, trust me, but not so much that it scares the ladies.
Anyway, I won't engage in that sort of "look-inside-my-soul-for-the-penis" discourse. It's OK with me if you've decided to modify your body; it just isn't my path.
Obviously my mind is everywhere--whenever I start thinking about trans issues and the world around me and my own identity, my thoughts turn quicksilver--but one place it keeps returning is to Angie Zapata's picture. Young, beautiful, brash in that way only teenagers can manage... I know I called Zapata to task posthumously for what I think was reckless and unethical behavior, but she and I are kindred, and I am outraged by her murder. I understand, so acutely, her desire to match what she felt under her skin with what she presented to the world. I understand, too, that what is sometimes perceived as disguise is actually just a fumbling attempt to build a bridge between our self-perception and the myopic eyes of the world.
Mostly, I understand that we lost another beautiful creature to a senseless, monstrous crime.
Stay safe, people. The world is scary and confusing, and it is so easy to get lost, fall into harm's way, and never make it back again.
Rest in Peace, Angie; may the stars welcome you home.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
