What Exactly is the Debate?

The American political landscape is a place I usually try to avoid in conversation with anyone outside my comfort zone. Meaning, I tend to discuss issues with like-minded citizens who share a liberal view of how society should function. This doesn't necessarily have to include fellow Democrats to the exclusion of others. There are Libertarians and Republicans whose views are similar to mine and have opinions on which we can agree. I know on which paths to tread with these individuals and can make my point while still being open-minded and empathetic to their views. I believe that this reflects my attitude toward most people and their ideas. I truly do fancy myself as someone who tries to see both sides to things, as long as their ideas are well thought out and come to a logical conclusion.

Having said this, the "well thought out" and "logical conclusion" pieces of this narrative keep me from being able to understand and empathize with those who were protesting the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero in NYC on Sunday. I do want to say that this characterization is going to be generalized and I'm sure it doesn't pertain to all protesters, but watch this video to see why this generalization is pretty accurate.

These citizens claims to believe that erecting an Islamic center so close to Ground Zero flies in the face of those who lost their lives in the Trade Center attacks. This argument could be understood. Those who attacked us on 9/11 were Islamic extremists, and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. I can understand how that could inflame those who are worried about the memories of loved ones who were killed. Again, I don't have to agree to be able to understand where they are coming from.

I'm sure that there are people who have well-founded concerns about this project; however, this is not the primary narrative of many of these protesters. They are upset that there are Muslims in the US. Period. They do not believe that they have the right to build their places of worship where they would like to, or, for that matter, be able to practice their religion at all. Now, this is where I really start to take issue with their reasons for protesting.

These citizens claim to hold tightly to the constitution, but walk all over it at the same time. At these protests you are likely to see signs about and hear comments made that "We need to protect our country's values." What exactly are the values that these protesters are trying to protect? Property rights? Freedom of religion? They justify their actions by claiming their freedom to assemble and freedom of speech, but conveniently forget the Rights that they are protesting against.

I'm not a constitutional scholar and am not trying to claim that I am, but in the same right, I can see when the dots are and are not connected. This faction has undue control over our political system. Those who are wild and scream the loudest, tend to get the most attention, even when their ideals do not match the majority of the country. The sentiments of those protesters account for only 10% or less of our nation. Which is discouraging given that they are deciding what is on the agenda for our politicians.

Gay marriage? It goes against the sanctity of Marriage itself. Or does it. The divorce rate in this country is between 40% and 60% depending on which statistic you look at. So that doesn't seem to be anything special. The only argument for Marriage as a special union is within the Christian church, but what about the separation of Church and State? We adhere to this separation in order to keep Muslim girls from wearing head scarves in schools, but we have to leave "Under God" in the pledge and keep Gay couples from having the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. Civil rights that come from the government, not religious rights that come to someone through a church. This is an important distinction since people use religion to keep others from basic rights that are due them from the government.

Immigration? Foreign policy? Gun rights? Health care? I won't elaborate on all issues, but I will say that when we claim to be to the land of the free and proudly display our Bill of Rights, we need to extend those freedoms and rights to all citizens. And it's because we are all citizens that we have a right to be protected by our constitution. Not just when it reinforces our ethno-centric views of "white, protestant, evangelic America". We need to take back the political narrative of the country to express the inclusive, tolerant views of the majority of our citizens. We owe it to ourselves.

Against the Social Norm

While running errands yesterday I had a "driveway moment" in the Walgreens drive-thru. For those of you who are unsure of what a "driveway moment" is, it happens when you are listening to NPR (National Public Radio)and the story they are talking about is too engaging to turn off, so you stay in your car and listen to the rest, even though you have reached your destination. Yesterday, my "driveway moment" caused me to sit in a parking spot and listen for 10 minutes rather than picking up my prescription by going through the drive-thru right away. I wanted to be able to give all of my attention to the story and I'm glad I did.

The story was about the 1930 lynching of two African American boys who were accused of shooting of a white man and raping his girlfriend in Marion, Indiana. This particular presentation of the story was engaging because they interviewed a woman and a man who were present at the mob lynching. They describe how things escalated from a few dozen people to thousands outside the courthouse calling for the boys to be handed over, and what was done to the boys by the mob. They also interviewed James Cameron, the third boy who was spared by the mob after having the rope around his neck.

My reaction to this story, guilt, anger, sadness, distress, sense of social justice, reminded me of how I felt when I read The Help by Katheryn Stockett. This book is written from multiple perspectives of black domestic servants and the white women who employed them in the early 1960s. This book looks at the relationships among these women and one white girl who wants to tell their stories. She wants the black women to be treated as equals to white women, which goes against societal norms.

In both of these stories, one non-fiction and the other fiction, I wonder which 'character' I would be. In the lynching story, the woman recalls seeing the mob and how they acted, from the perspective of an outside observer. She uses pronouns like 'they' and 'them' to describe something that she was witness to. She describes the actions like they were destined to happen and something she regretted seeing, but not something that could have been stopped. Similarly, there are white female characters in The Help who seem a bit uneasy about how the domestic servants are treated, but take that as the norm. They admit thinking that people won't change, so why try?

I can understand how people would feel like there is nothing to be done to change what society thinks and does. How would one woman change the actions of thousands who had already decided they were going to put justice in their own hands? Why would young white women go against their family and friends to treat black women as equals? One person can't change an entire society, right?

Probably not, but in each of these stories one person does make a difference for a few. In the 1930s lynching when the mob had the third boy, James Cameron, a man shouted above the crowd that he was innocent and he didn't have anything to do with the killing. The mob let Cameron go, and the actions of the one man saved his life. As far as the domestic servants in The Help, the white girl published the black women's stories and shined a light on abuses and injustices that were perpetuated by white employers.

So I keep finding myself asking, which person would I be? Would I be an "innocent bystander" who didn't participate in lynching, but didn't stop it either? Would I be the man who shouted above the crowd to try to save a person's life? Would I expose social injustices by writing about them and caring about those who society is oppressing?

I think we would all like to see ourselves as the one who sticks their neck out to help someone else, which is certainly the character I would cast myself as, but do we? Inequalities and social injustices are all around us, but what do we do about them? Poverty, persecution of immigrants (legal and illegal), gay rights...the list goes on. These are issues that society is facing now and actions can be taken by individuals. Looking back, we are appalled at how black people were treated and can't imagine ourselves taking part in it. But, in 40 years, will society look back and feel the same way about the exclusion of homosexuals from basic human rights? Will we talk in generalities using pronouns like "they" and "them" to describe these injustices? Or will we be able to say that we took action, however small, to make a difference?

Would you do things differently next time?

Lately I have asked myself, If I was 20 again, would I choose a different life partner than my husband? Are there things that aren't included in my life currently that would make me feel more fulfilled? If we are honest with ourselves, this is something most (if not all) committed people think about.

My husband, Schuyler, and I have always worked from the understanding that there is more than one person in the world who could make each of us happy. If one of us were to pass away or things didn't work out between us, each of us would expect that we could find someone else to make to a happy life with.

Since I've been married, I have seen friends in the 'dating scene' and have been grateful for the fact that I've already found someone to share my life with. I don't have to worry about what I look like at the gym, or look super cute everywhere I go in anticipation of meeting someone. But the past couple weeks I have wondered what kind of fun I am missing in the dating scene.

Being hit on when you are married can be very awkward. I feel like I have to throw it out there right away that I'm married, so that I don't give off the wrong impression. But what if I didn't say that I was married first off, and carried on the conversation like I was available and interested in meeting someone? Since I haven't met someone new in a long time, it's kind of thrilling to think about.

I wonder about what my type would be (dark skinned with an accent? ;). What kinds of things would I like to do on a date? What kind of woman am I? Would I kiss on the first date? Would I ask him back to my place to spend the night? When I was dating Schuyler, I really didn't think about these things. I didn't have a dating identity figured out. I just did what felt right, which is probably what I would do today if I were single.

Thinking about dating again seems silly, given the fact that I am very happy in my marriage. Of course, there are always kinks to work out, but the big stuff, we agree on. And the little stuff, we are willing to compromise on. I think that's the most important. Finding someone who is on the same page that I am would be pretty difficult I think, one element that I wouldn't look forward to.

As far as the thrill of meeting someone new, I think it will come and go. Keeping a marriage fresh and engaging is probably the hardest part. Staying interested in one person is a challenge, but one that I am willing to take on and have been successful at for 5 years.

I get excited when I know Schuyler is about to come home from work. Seeing him coaching and having others look to him as an authority figure is sexy. Lying next to him I feel safe and secure, with all of my insecurities. For this, I think I love my husband the most.

So, I'm certainly not saying that I'm scouting out the gym to see who I can drop my towel next to, because honestly, if I had to do over again, I would say that my type is a fit guy, just a little taller than me. Curly dark hair, balding a little is ok ;) He has to be interested in travelling overseas and drinking wine. Good conversation and valuing my ideas are a must. Not too much PDA, but willing to put his arm around me and give me a kiss on the cheek is wanted. Overall, has to be ambitious and allow me to be the same. Most importantly, he has to be a cat person :)

Love you, Sky <3