President Obama Should Skip The Annual National Prayer Breakfast

This year’s National Prayer Breakfast will occur tomorrow, Thursday, February 4, 2010 in Washington, DC. Every year it draws invited members of Congress, the Administration, influential business and religious leaders. It is billed as an ecumenical gathering that reaches out to a wide variety of faith traditions. As AlterNet found out when it requested media access, the event is private, by invitation only and excludes Muslims, Jews and, presumably, anyone else whose views differ from those of the sponsors.

This pointedly narrow-minded Christian gathering is closed to most religious faiths and denominations in the United States. Accompanying the breakfast is a week-long lobbying festival on Capitol Hill, during which Family members pointedly push their agenda as the only acceptable American positions and policies. Thus, it appears to me that, whenever members of Congress or the Administration attend the breakfast they are sending a silent message that the Separation of Church and State doctrine is empty and meaningless.

President Eisenhower attended for the first time in 1953, and the sitting president has attended every year since. In keeping with that tradition, President Obama is planning on attending. There are compelling reasons why he should skip the breakfast, thereby breaking the 57 year long tradition. Then he would be wise to use his absence to more forcefully speak out against the pending Ugandan law criminalizing homosexuality and the advocacy of gay rights. This law provides for imposition of the death penalty for some “offenses.” Reportedly this law was written, and promoted in the Ugandan Parliament by legislators who are affiliated with, if not actual members of, The Family.

I also must question the ethical propriety of any Administration or Congressional member to openly attend this private event. The organizers, usually known as The Family is hugely secretive, particularly when it comes to revealing the names of members, or any details about its finances. Also, in a statement released earlier this week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) noted that the organization’s head, Doug Coe, has praised the organizing abilities of Hitler and Bin Ladin.

Given that The Family obviously does not believe in freedom of speech, of association, of the press, or of religion, is it ethical for those who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” before taking office to attend anyway? Is it appropriate for Administration and Congressional officials to attend an event overseen by one who praises an avowed enemy of the United States?

Maine Voters Fell for Outright Lies and I am Angry

Maine was one of a handful of states that held state-wide election voting. New Jersey and Virginia elected new Governors while Washington state and Maine voted on state-wide referendums affecting the GLBT community. Other states, including Idaho, held local elections for City Council seats.

Earlier this year the Maine Legislature passed, and Maine’s governor signed, a new law granting marriage equality in the state. This opened marriage up to any two consenting adults without regard to gender or sexual orientation. So the Religious Right launched a ballot initiative to overturn that law.

By using many of the same tactics that successfully passed Prop 8 in California last year, and by using much of the same inaccurate, deceptive, dishonest and alarmist rhetoric, these same forces cowed Maine’s voters into overturning marriage equality in that state. This is a bitter defeat that the GLBT community throughout the United States needs to be concerned about, and unhappy with. Every successful denial of any part of GLBT civil rights strengthens the opposition and encourages them to be even bolder in future campaigns.

I am also angry with President Obama for staying silent in the weeks before this election. Indeed, he could have helped strengthen the supporters of marriage equality in Maine (and elsewhere) by using the power of the Executive Order to suspend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act while mandating its repeal by Congress. He could have spoken out and stressed that the Maine overturn effort was both unacceptable and wrong. But he did not.

As a result, people like Harry Knox, the Human Rights Campaign’s religions and faith program director wondering (among other things) “Am I human?” “Am I an American?” No American citizen, regardless of who or what they are should ever be forced to feel that way.

To hear the vitriol-infused opponents of GLBT civil rights protections put it, they are taking a stand to preserve the sanctity of marriage and to preserve America as a Christian nation. I don’t get it. The version of Christianity I grew up knowing is grounded deeply in truth, honesty in all dealings with your fellow man, and a non judgmental approach to life. In addition, even as a child I was taught that the Devil (by whatever name you choose to call him) is the father of all lies.

They claim that because the US is a Christian nation, and has been a Christian nation from its inception, they must support continuing discrimination and oppression based on factors they disapprove of. By taking this stand they negate a direct statement about the nature of the US found in the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1797, and written by President George Washington’s administration. The preamble of this document asserts that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Ergo, the United States has always been a secular nation open to all faith traditions and varieties of religious beliefs.

An excellent and comprehensive look at the question “is America a Christian nation?” can be found at the Freedom From Religion Foundation website. The more the religious right uses the Bible as a weapon against the GLBT community, the more strongly I feel like becoming a member of that organization.

The religious right claims that they are fighting to keep America solidly Christian. Yet, given their open embracing of all forms of dishonest rhetoric and behavior, frequently stooping to using outright lies to get their way, I am beginning to wonder. Given the New Testament’s description of the Devil as the “father of lies”, is the US becoming more securely Christian, or is it becoming more Satanic?

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is finally law

Earlier this afternoon, in a well attended White House ceremony, President Barack Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill into law. Included as an attachment to this bill is The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. With President Obama’s historic signature on the larger bill, the first Federal law to explicitly extend protections to all transsexuals is now law.

I agree with National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling’s observation that this is a powerful day as the United States government, for the first time, stands up and declares that violence against transgender people is wrong and will not be tolerated in our country," Many people who are unfamiliar with the transgender community and its social milieu cannot fully grasp the palpable fear too many community members must live with on a daily basis. This fear starts with the fear of becoming a violent crime victim because of who they are. It them extends to the all-too-real risk of extended periods of unemployment and forced homelessness, again because of who they are. This law will make adequate prosecution of violent criminal acts committed because of “how they pray, who they love or who they are” as President Obama observed before signing the bill into law.

One point cannot be stressed enough: this hate crimes law extension addresses violent criminal acts exclusively. It does not render illegal acts of hate speech. So the claims from the deluded right that this law erodes (or repeals) both freedom of speech and freedom of religion by restricting what can be said from the pulpit are flat out wrong.

I continue to struggle with understanding how those who identify themselves as Christians can condone deliberate acts of violence against their fellow man. I grew up in a Christian family, have embraced the Faith in the past, and have read the Bible many times. The impression I have always had is that Christianity is a faith deeply rooted in love and tolerance. This is best seen in Christ’s commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In all of the years of meditatively reading the New Testament, I have never seen any list of allowable exemptions from this commandment. So where is all of this Christian Right hatred coming from?

As the NCTE e-mail announcing this law’s signing stresses, the new law adds sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability to existing law. With specific regard to the transsexuals, the new law:
will help educate law enforcement about the frequent hate violence against transgender people and the need to prevent and appropriately address it;
will help provide federal expertise and resources when they are needed to overcome a lack of resources or the willful inaction on the part of local and/or state law enforcement; and
will help educate the public that violence against anyone, including transgender people, is unacceptable and illegal.
All of these aspects of the law are positive steps forward for the transgender community, as well as the larger GLBT and disabled communities.

Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign also has issued an e-mail celebrating this historic milestone. He points out that this milestone has been reached only as a result of constant efforts over the last decade by literally countless concerned citizens. These efforts have been spearheaded by Matthew Shepard’s parents, who were able to attend the signing ceremony. In his opening remarks, President Obama recognized their efforts and stated that during an earlier meeting with them in the Oval Office he “promised them that this day would come.”

Now that Federal law finally protects the GLBT community instead of supporting various forms of discrimination, the real work needs to begin. Next up are the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bars employment-related discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Bills that would bring this protection into begin have been introduced in the House of Representatives. Only through concerted grass-roots lobbying by those of us who support it will it have any chance of becoming law.

But ENDA isn’t the only pressing issue on Congress’ plate. Equally important are repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) that may have made sense at one time, but increasingly has grown into an irritating relic of a less enlightened era. Likewise the Military’s ill-advised “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that effectively closes off military service to the entire GLBT community needs to be repealed sooner rather than later.

So, while tonight is a time for celebrating today’s historic accomplishment, in reality the work is just beginning.

Finally, Congress Got it right: The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is headed for the President’s Desk

Yesterday (October 22), the U S Senate passed The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Once it is signed by President Obama, it will become the first Federal law to explicitly include all GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) individuals inside the protective umbrella of federal law. This represents a sharp reversal from earlier Federal legislation that explicitly excluded the transgendered from its provisions.

Specifically, in the 1990's, when Congress codified the military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it legitimized the practice of barring all GLBT individuals from military service. When Congress enacted the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act, the legislation explicitly excluded transsexuals from its protective provisions. None of the federal laws addressing either employment or housing discrimination provide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA, for short) excludes same-sex couples from federal protections and benefits. Many states use this law to justify legally declining to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in another state.

This new law adds sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability to Federal hate (or bias motivated) crimes protection. In addition, local authorities who are unable or unwilling to deal with hate crimes will now be allowed to seek federal assistance. On this point, this new law represents a valuable step forward because there are many law enforcement departments that simply lack either the resources or the expertise to properly deal with crimes of this nature. More troubling are the Prosecuting Attorneys who decline to add hate crime charges to crimes that meet the definition. Perhaps that situation will now improve.

One point needs to be emphasized. Unlike claims still being made by right wing authors and commentators, this new law does not address hate speech. Thus, it does not muzzle deeply conservative churches who have divorced themselves from bedrock Christianity. Its provisions apply only when an individual is physically attacked because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability.

Thus, it will still be legal to write and talk about hate-driven topics, so right-wing radio and television talk shows are free to continue their spew of verbal diarrhea uninterrupted. However, it will now be legally not ok to physically act out on that warped rhetoric.

This is as it should be, and I applaud Congress for showing this rare use of statutory restraint. Some radical group likely will try to challenge this new law on First Amendment grounds. By explicitly excluding all forms of speech from its provisions, passing constitutional muster in the courts should be more easily achieved.

It will be interesting to observe the response to this law here in Idaho. Idaho law does recognize freedom from discrimination as a civil right. However, this recognition excludes discrimination based on age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. I suspect its impact in this state will be minimal for quite a while.

President Obama is scheduled to speak to the Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, DC; here is what I wish he would say

Saturday evening, October 10, the largest GLBT advocacy organization, the Human Rights Campaign, holds its annual black tie see and be seen dinner in Washington, DC. President Obama is scheduled to speak to those in attendance while a peaceful demonstration occurs outside. This time, however, the HRC is not the target of the protest. Rather, it is the Obama Administration’s lack of progress on improving gay, lesbian and transgender rights in the US.

As the Huffington Post excellently documents this week, this speech is being widely billed as “Obama’s big gay speech.” Many groups and individuals will be watching it closely to see just what he does say. Several Huffington Post bloggers have posted brief suggestions of what they would like the President to say. All of them contain very excellent suggestions. However, as near as I can tell, none of them are making suggestions from the perspective of one who is a member of the GLBT community.

In this blog, I join this chorus of “armchair speech writers” for the President. Here I write from the perspective of what I likely would write if I were fortunate enough to be one of the President’s speech writers. In light of Friday’s stunning announcement that President Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, these hypothetical remarks have been revised to reflect that status change (from President to President AND Nobel Laureate).

I wish to be a bit blunt tonight. There is no denying it: economically and socially the United States is in bad shape. The two cannot be separated. Sustainable economic recovery will occur only after significant improvement occurs in this country’s social conditions. As long as one group of American citizens cannot enjoy true freedom because of prejudice, then all Americans are victims of the same prejudicial attitudes and laws.

What improvement am I talking about? For openers, America’s churches and religious groups need to return to their New Testament roots. They need to return to focusing on their congregations spiritual needs to the exclusion of political activism. America’s employers, and corporations in particular, need to recognize the critical importance of the family to community life by abandoning the idea that an employee’s job is more important than her family or her God.

But the traditional definition of family needs to be brought into the 21st century. Two key changes are urgently needed. First, the traditional definition of a family needs to change to make it socially acceptable for couples to remain childless. Second, the definition of a family must expand to include two men or two women who choose to live together as a couple. Regardless of what extremist groups are saying, gay civil unions and marriages do not threaten the institution of marriage in any way.

In accord with these views, next week I will sign three Executive Orders. The first will suspend the unjust Defense of Marriage Act, pending its complete repeal by Congress before I give my 2010 State of The Union Address next year. The second will eliminate the military’s “Don’s Ask, Don’t Tell” policy thereby opening up military service as an option for all American citizens. The third will immediately extend full benefits to the domestic partners of Federal employees.

At the same time, beginning next week I will begin pushing Congress to finally pass two long overdue pieces of legislation. The first is the Matthew Shephard Act, also known as the Federal hate crimes law. The second is ENDA, or the Employment Nondiscrimination Act that outlaws employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

This fall health care reform is very much in the news. Clearly, given the number of competing bills introduced in both houses of Congress, compromises will be needed to produce the final bill to emerge from Congress. I will not sign any health care reform bill that lacks a viable public option the states cannot opt out of, nor will I sign any bill that delays full implementation of its provisions beyond June 30, 2010. At the same time, I call on Congress to include provisions barring insurance carriers from denying benefits to any policy holder based on pre-existing conditions, sexual orientation or gender identity.

With these bills I have mentioned, much work remains to be done to secure their passage. As President, I can only do so much. The rest is up to you. Success never occurs in a vacuum. There is a lot of truth in the acronym formed from the word TEAM. It is true: together everyone achieves more. With the combined and coordinated talents at grassroots organizing represented by the Human Rights Campaign and other advocacy groups, we will achieve significant, lasting change that benefits everyone.

In conclusion, prejudice is like a cancer that eats away at the social fabric of any nation. This is why Jimmy Valvano’s immortal plea in his final public appearance echoes through my thoughts tonight. Indeed, it is the plea I have for those who favor freedom and civil dialogue over extremist rants: “Don’t give up. Don’t ever give up.”

Inauguration Day Impressions

The Inauguration of President Barack Obama occurred under sunny yet cold skies. I cannot recall a time when I saw that many people filling Washington, DC. (One estimate put the total at 2.5 million, and that number is plausible.) Despite the cold, the enthusiasm level among the attendees was truly impressive, likely topping even that found at a Super Bowl. Certainly the enthusiasm far exceeded the enthusiasm that greeted then new President George Walker Bush in 2001. The spontaneous, boisterous chant of “O Ba Ma! O Ba Ma!” that greeted him as he stepped up to the podium felt very genuine and spontaneous.

I really enjoyed the chamber music composition “Air and Simple Things” by John Williams and played by a truly world class quartet. To me, this affirming composition suggests that the Obama Administration will be a much kinder, gentler, more humane Administration than the one that ended yesterday. At Greg Laden’s Blog (scienceblogs.com), several commentators suggested that Aaron Copeland’s “Fanfare For the Common Man” would have been more appropriate. While they do have a point, I disagree. While this is also a timeless American masterpiece that I never get tired of hearing, it sets the wrong tone for this new Administration. The “Fanfare” conveys a bit of a militaristic tone. Conversely, the Williams composition is affirming and healing.

The decision to include this composition in the Inauguration is a master stroke from another angle. Within the composition, the “Simple Things” part comes from an old Quaker hymn. Including this in the Inauguration, particularly immediately before Obama’s Oath of Office, can be seen as affirming Obama’s independence from any background Muslim influences. Whether it will quiet his critics or not remains to be seen.

The Oath itself nearly turned into an embarrasing event. Right at its start, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to fumble the Oath script he was reading from. There were several tense seconds while he got squared away and left Obama unsure of how to proceed. Once squared away, the Oath did proceed smoothly until the closing affirmation,

The Presidential Oath traditionally ends with the affirmation “so help me God.” The Chief Justice is expected to read this as the statement it is. Then when the President elect echoes it back, the swearing in is officially concluded and the Chief Justice confirms the successful conclusion by saying “Congratulations, Mr. President” as he shakes the new President’s hand.

Chief Justice Roberts, however, departed from this standard script. Instead of reading the expected text for Obama to repeat, Roberts quite pointedly restated it as “So help you God?” Obama looked a little surprised at this, so he repeated the expected text any way. My lingering impression is that, instead of going on and saying “Congratulations, Mr President” the Chief Justice again pointedly asked Obama the same question. Although gracious, frankly, President Obama looked irked the second time through.

I don’t know exactly how to interpret this unusual Oath administration. First, was the initial fumble due to unfamiliarity of the process by the Chief Justice? Possibly, although he had plenty of time to practice the text and process. Could this have been a subtle way of showing his intent to use the Supreme Court to thwart the Obama administration whenever possible? Only time will answer this question, but it does seem possible.

Second, what motivated his startling departure from the Oath’s wrap up? Suspicion about the new President’s loyalty to the US is one somewhat plausible answer. Suspicion about his loyalty to Christianity is another plausible answer. Either way, I feel his actions merit close investigation by the new Administration. The question that needs to be answered is whether his actions violated the clause prohibiting religious tests or affirmations as a condition of qualifying for elected office. Personally, I saw his latter action as sufficiently suspicious to warrant consideration for a possible impeachment action by the US House.

In 2009, What Should the US Government Focus On? One Citizen’s Opinion, Part 2

This post wraps up my personal “Top 10" suggestions for the incoming Obama Administration. Domestically, what should be the new administration’s domestic focus?

First, restore the broadcasting fairness doctrine This doctrine, abolished by President Reagan, mandated equal air time (on radio and television) for opposing viewpoints. In its absence, right wing conservative talk radio has run amok since the Clinton era. If the incoming Administration hopes to accomplish any meaningful goals over the next four years, this doctrine must be fully restored, accompanied by FCC enforcement clout to ensure compliance. Otherwise, Republican-backed talk radio hosts (and a few television hosts as well) will stymie the Administration by egging on the remaining conservatives in Congress to disrupt Democratic proposals.

Second, enact a transgender inclusive ENDA This was attempted last year, and failed due to Bush Administration opposition and less than honest efforts by the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign. This year, with a new Administration in Washington, this long-overdue legal patch needs to be passed early in the current Congressional session. The era of legalized discrimination against the GLBT community in the United States must end sooner rather than later. ENDA is an ideal place to start humanizing the US.

Third, sharply reduce the administrative overhead in the Medicare and Medicaid programs Both programs are administratively top heavy and need to be placed on Administrative diets. For starters, the number of required medical procedure prior approvals needs to be massively reduced. This should make a noticeable dent in both budgets while reducing the paper work burden placed on health care professionals while improving the overall quality of US health care.

Fourth, eliminate all unfunded mandates placed on the states Mandates are Federal requirements that states must comply with. Unfunded mandates mean just that: requirements placed on the states with the expectation that full compliance expenses will be covered by the states. This practice transforms the Federal government into a political bully. A very good example is the ill-designed Real ID requirement dreamed up by the Bush administration. This is a bad idea that needs to be scrapped because it will not provide the level of protection against terrorism that its proponents claim. I have read the Final Rule (twice) in its entirety, and, in my opinion, it contains too many holes that can (and will) be exploited by terrorist organizations. Providing the states with a palette of approved license designs to choose from will make it easier for counterfeiters to develop passable forgeries. Further, I came away from both readings with the distinct impression that the rule does not extend to state issued ID cards. To me, that represents a fatal flaw in the entire idea. But there are many other such mandates that need to be suspended or scrapped in order to help the states cope more effectively with the current economic downturn.

Fifth, repeal the recently enacted federal health care conscience rules These rules, enacted late in 2008 by President Bush, protect health care workers from repercussions when they refuse to provide medical care to any patient on the grounds of the care violating personal ethical, moral or religious beliefs. Further the rules effectively use the threat of federal funding termination to coerce health care organizations into enforcing the rule. While this rule supposedly is aimed only at women seeking birth control information or products, it has implications that are ominously broader. A recent case out of Great Britain gives a look at what could start happening in this country if these rules are not repealed. A 59 year old disabled man called paramedics because he was experiencing chest pains. When they arrived, they decided that, in light of his age, the fact that was disabled, and that his house was unkempt and filthy (in their eyes) he wasn’t worth their efforts, so they stood by and let him die. Clearly these rules must be repealed early in this Congressional session.

Sixth, allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire Now I know that economists will scream that allowing the tax cuts to expire will further damage the economy, but I disagree. Given that the dominant majority of these tax cuts only benefit the ultra rich elite, it is time for the spoiled brat rich to begin paying their fair share of taxes. Once the economy does show definite signs of stable, sustainable recovery, then it would make sense for the Administration to reinvent the income tax structure so that the middle and lower classes benefit the most from future tax cuts. One change that I do champion is a deep cut in the federal corporate tax rates coupled with significant new tax credits for meaningful investments in alternative energy research and design. The tax credits ought to encourage corporations to significantly ease the need for federal funding of this badly needed research.

Seventh, end federal funds availability to religious organizations that are exclusionary in nature Exclusionary rules exist to selectively exclude individual Americans from organizational activities or services based on one criterion or another. In this way, discrimination and covert bigotry continue to spread throughout the country. In my blunt opinion, any clinic, thrift store, soup kitchen, homeless shelter or church-run social services program that refuses to help those in need because of their history, their current life situation, or who they are plants a black eye on the face of Christianity. By providing federal tax dollars to such organizations the Federal government is promoting the kinds of discrimination that were outlawed in the 1960's. At the same time, by either fully or partially funding such organizations, it gives the impression that the First Amendment separation of church and state doctrine no longer exists in the US. If this is the case, then I don’t see how the American Muslim community can feel any sense of security, given that the government is openly supporting a variety of organizations who openly shun Muslims on religious grounds. A much fairer approach would be to provide a set baseline funding level for religious organizations, and then extend significant bonuses to those organizations that can document an open door policy that screen no one out, not even transsexuals.

Eighth, end the Federal stem cell research ban This policy did more to damage the biomedical sciences in the US than any other policy by encouraging a researcher brain drain to other countries where such research is legal. Further, it has set back chronic disease research for potentially many years, which, in turn, will set back the development of effective treatments even longer. For perhaps most Americans, this debate had no real meaning because the science behind it is rather complex. For others, myself included, this outrage is personal. One disease that research suggests stem cells as a viable curative treatment is Parkinson’s Disease. This presently incurable, degenerative disease saps the patient’s quality of life by making normal movements problematical, then impossible. I know first hand the devastating effect this disease can have on the patient and those trying to provide proper care: in the 199's my own dad died from the disease, and I seriously damaged my own health trying to take care of him at home. Diabetics are another group who quite possibly could be cured through stem sell research derived treatments. How can it be moral for a government to force these human beings to needlessly suffer, and die far younger than they otherwise would have, just so some twisted, failed form of Christianity can be adhered to?

Ninth, make non petroleum-derived transportation fuel development a national priority Simply put, the US needs to begin weaning itself off of foreign oil imports in the very near future. Petroleum is a non-renewable resource. When the world’s supply of crude oil and recoverable shale oil, it is gone. So it is imperative that the federal government begin now to encourage the development of petroleum-free yet viable fuels that can be produced within the US borders. What form these fuels might take in the future isn’t clearly known currently. Personally I champion hydrogen as a gasoline and diesel replacement because of its abundant presence in water and because its combustion, by itself, adds no new pollutants into the atmosphere.

Tenth, restore governmental transparency to pre-Reagan levels For some reason I have yet to figure out completely, Republicans give the appearance of almost worshiping secrecy. President Bush was especially notorious with this, frequently ordering documents already in storage at the National Archives pulled and declared to be secret on accounts of “national security”. The curious thing is that possibly a majority of these documents had no connection at all to national security issues, yet they still were declared to be off limits to the country. This practice has got to end in order to restore accountability to the Federal government, its departments and agencies. Indeed, complete honesty about just how far into debt the Federal government actually is will be both a very good, and a very necessary place to start.

There. This private citizen’s armchair observations on what I see as the necessary top priorities for the new Administration is now complete.

Finally, the Elections Are Over, And Hope Has a Chance

The American elections reached their Election Day conclusion today. Several hours earlier than I expected, the Presidential race ended when Republican John McCain called Democrat Barack Obama to congratulate him, then publically conceded the election. This means that the 44th US President will be its first African-American occupant of the Oval Office. In the final days of the campaign the current economic mess trumped all other campaign issues.

So now the transition, and the healing can begin. I feel that, with the Obama victory, hope has a chance. We saw that during the dust up between Russia and Georgia earlier this year. When McCain was asked how he would respond to the situation if he was President, his response was predictably militaristic, and involved sending US troops into Georgia, to side with the Georgians. Barack Obama’s response to the same question centered on seeking a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means.

While exit polls appear to indicate that economic concerns formed the top issue in voters minds, still I wonder about the subconscious impact candidate health had on the outcome. The fact that John McCain is 72, and has had four malignant melanoma skin cancer surgeries had to be a background concern, at least in the minds of some voters. The extent of its influence on the more medically aware voters will never be known.

Still, tonight, the United States faces a better future because enough responsible citizens saw through the last minute mud slinging from the Republican side and cast a decisive vote for the candidate of change. Now let the international healing begin.

Finally, tonight, there is even better news: in 77 days the Bush nightmare finally will end. More importantly he has only 15 days left in which his administration can make "economically significant" policy and Federal rule changes. After November 20, any such changes become draft proposals for the next President to act on.

Two Days To Go Before the Counting (And Recounts, Challenges, etc) Begins

Two days from today it will be Election Day in the United States. The general sentiment among state election officials is that this years turnout will be significantly heavier than in many recent elections. Whether this is an accurate assessment can only be known once all of the votes have been counted and the actual per cent age of registered voters who voted is determined.

At this point, two things are certain. First, in each contested race there will be one winner and at least one looser. In the race for President either Barack Obama will win, which means John McCain will lose, or vice versa. Second, I feel the Presidential outcome will not be known with any certainty until the states of Oregon, Washington and California declare their respective states’ winner. If this is the case, given that the polls on the west coast don’t close until 11 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on the east coast (where big media is concentrated), it could easily be two or three am before the outcome is known.

However, as we have seen with recent Presidential elections, even then the outcome might remain up in the air. Should John McCain appear to win, I look for Democratic challenges to the outcome in possibly several states, alleging tampering with electronic voting machines. Already, I am seeing multiple references to videos circulating on the Internet showing touch screen units changing votes cast for Obama to votes for McCain. So 2008 might end up being a replay of 2000, with the Courts deciding who will be the next US President.

My embracing of the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism has been on-going for some time. For me, it is far healthier and down to earth than Christianity, the faith of my youth. I am surviving this pivotal national election cycle with far less psychological distress than in recent years because the core Buddhist teaching "all is impermanent" helps me keep things in perspective. Whoever occupies the Oval Office next will do so only for a short period of time, then fade into history.
I’ve subscribed to Tricycle: the Buddhist Review for several years now. On their excellent website, they offer a free series of e-mails called the Tricycle Daily Dharma, which is a series of short passages presenting various aspects of overall Dharma. The November 1 Daily Dharma provides an interesting additional way of looking at this year’s election outcomes.

Joseph Goldstein, author of the book Insight Meditation, where this passage first appeared, illustrated the difference between perception and mindfulness. Briefly, when perception outweighs mindfulness, the mind recognizes various appearance-guided artificial concepts. To build on his main example, in the Northern Hemisphere nighttime sky, on a clear night it is relatively easy to identify a constellation called the Big Dipper. It takes its name form the shape a particular set of stars forms in the sky. While this artificial concept helps identify this set of stars, allowing one to become attached to this concept causes these stars to stand out and become separated from the rest of the stars. This, in turn, causes the observer to lose sight of the oneness and the wholeness of the universe.

These thoughts are helping me see the US elections in a different, and far less stressful, light. In the Presidential race between Obama and McCain, supporters of each carry perceptions that their candidate is right and the other candidate is wrong. The same can be said about the policies each side is promoting. These positions arise out of perceptions, not mindfulness. When the final winner is determined, supporters of the victor will see the outcome as a victory for all Americans, while the loser’s supporters will see only gloom and doom ahead.

So what future does exist for the United States? I am not a psychic, so I don’t know. What I do know comes from US history, particularly over the last 40 years or so. Every newly elected US President has entered office will a specific set of goals and plans to accomplish while in office. Under the US system, all such ideas must gain the approval of Congress before taking effect. More often than not, that is the black hole where Presidential ideas get lost in petty partisanship. Thus, it really doesn’t matter who wins, the new President will still have the US Congress to deal with. To the winner: good luck.