The Alligator

Back in January when I decided to endorse Barack Obama on this site and, more importantly, vote for him in the California primary- I was thrilled about Obama’s message but I also had some pride and some of my natural cynicism was lessened by the thought that this country had matured enough that it might have been able to bridge the racial divide and actually elect an African American for President. Beyond the policy issues and Obama’s positions with which I agree and the innate desire that Obama has to bring people together which I find compelling; there was the possibility that the United States had made great progress towards healing our great national birth defect- racism. Now I wonder if that is possible.

Between “Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate”, Obama’s campaign is reeling. In my pieces: Pandering v. Nuance aka Clinton v. Obama and  Obama Elitist? Not! McCain and Clinton are the essence of the Power Elite  I have made it clear that my belief about the genesis of both of these campaign issues.

Obama clearly does not come from an elite background and while his words might have been better chosen I think it is true that the Republicans get lower middle class folks with no college education to vote against their economic interest by focusing on wedge issues such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage and immigration. I’ll state it starkly- the Republican party favors the über-wealthy and multinational corporations taking jobs out of the US and doesn’t give a damn about the average American. In order to get elected the Republicans trot out the golden oldies- God, guns and fear. Obama wasn’t being an elitist- he was being honest about a truth most folks don’t want to admit because they would have to admit that they had been duped. Why else would there still be a high percentage of Americans believing that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?  Simple- Americans get duped but don’t like to admit it. 

It also seems obvious to me that many folks are judging the relationship between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama. I wouldn’t dare to judge the complications between a man and his pastor- the man who brought him to Jesus Christ. Like family- these relationships are complex. In today’s New York Times there was an article that outlined the difficulty that Obama had in severing his ties with Reverend Wright. I won’t reiterate what I wrote in my piece yesterday on this subject. Suffice it to say here that I fervently believe that when Reverend Wright is pointed to as an example of bad judgment that would portend how Obama would make decisions in the White House it is the wrong analogy and it doesn’t consider the complicated and personal nature of faith, pastor, congregant and church.

But why are these two stories sticking to Mr. Obama like glue? I think my cynical nature about the American people has returned- the reason these stories are sticking is race.

Obama’s background is not elite- but he has had the temerity to be an uppity Negro and hasn’t waited his turn.

And the racism inherent in the criticism about Obama and Wright is so obvious it would be humorous if it weren’t so profoundly sad.

First- there are Falwell and Robertson:

In an interview that took place on September 13, 2001 Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God’s protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People for the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement.

Here is the exact transcript of that interview:

Falwell said, “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”

Robertson replied,”Well, Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven’t begun to see what they can do to the major population.”

Falwell said, “The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”

Robertson said, “I totally concur, and the problem is we’ve adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system.”

So I guess that it is okay to say that the United States brought 9/11 on because of perceived immorality (as defined by Falwell and Robertson) but it is not okay to blame it on our foreign policies? Falwell and Robertson have been given a pass recently on the 9/11 remarks.

Second- there is Billy Graham

Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released in 2002 by the National Archives.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life. “You believe that?” Nixon says after the “stranglehold” comment. “Yes, sir,” Graham says.

“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

“No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

Where is the outrage about the “Pastor to the Presidents” blatant anti-Semitism?

And finally- there is Pastor John Hagee

Reverend Hagee -a man whose support John McCain sought and received- has called the Roman Catholic Church the “Great Whore” and who said New Orleans brought Katrina upon itself because it was going to have a gay pride event.

All of these men of the cloth have made horrendous and offensive remarks, but the only one getting play is Reverend Wright. Where is the outrage about the remarks of Falwell, Robertson, Graham and Hagee?

I’ve scratched my head and the only answer I can come up with is race. Those men are white. Reverend Wright preaches a brand of religion that is a black liberation theology. This is a tradition that has long existed. True- Wright’s comments were out of line and bombastic, but so were Hagee’s Robertson’s and Falwell’s. Graham’s anti-Semitic sentiments were are all the more odious because they were not public comments or meant ever to be heard by the public.  Wright was speaking in a style that was already alien and therefore easier to ellicit outrage.

So Elitist-gate can be translated into the stark terms of a black man getting to big for his britches. And Wright-gate can capitalize on the most segregated hour in the country 11 AM on Sunday.

Race is a constant in our society. I certainly am not naïve enough to believe that an Obama presidency would magically erase the profound impact of race in American life, but I have believed that an Obama presidency would go a long way towards healing the rift.

I have consciously questioned how race affects my thinking and emotions. Do I get a little more cautious if I see a young black man walking in my direction on a sidewalk at night? - sadly I admit I do. When I meet someone what is the first thing I see- it is the color of their skin. My automatic response as an American is to view the world and society through the lens of race. I have to consciously hold back that automatic response because I know that this view is inherently unfair and wrong- but ingrained into the American psyche.

I have a dear group of friends- mostly women who are conservative Reaganites and I love these women dearly- but I fear that many of them have been swayed by wedge issues- such as immigration and most of them have been convinced to vote these issues as opposed to their economic interest.

Among this group of friends the anti-immigrant sentiment is palpable and I hate to admit it; but the prejudice inherent in the sentiment is obvious. Often times the email strings among my dear friends, which start off about some information (often misinformation) about immigration, devolve into ugly comments about phone trees that offer Spanish, about “English only” and only believing anti-immigrant propoganda even when faced with evidence to the contrary.  I’m sure that if you put a Latino who is a citizen and a white person who is here on an expired visa next to one another and ask my friends to identify the person in the US “illegally”, these well meaning friends would identify the Latino as the “illegal” every time.

What is most concerning about my friends’ views is that they are prejudiced without the consciousness of being prejudiced. It’s about illegal immigration, not about race or ethnicity and there is no admission that the underlying sentiment is prejudiced. Actually my friends would be offended if I told them that their comments are, in my estimation, prejudiced. Americans see life through a racial lens- the key towards racial and ethinic equality is for all Americans to admit this world view is part of our history and we need to acknowledge it before we are able to change it.

“Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate” have given the American people exactly what they need- a reason not to vote for the black candidate without the guilt of acknowledging that race entered into their choice. Both of the scenarios that have evolved around Obama’s candidacy have racism at their core and they allow folks to feel comfortable in their racism.  It’s all neat and tidy.

Years ago the term “The Bradley Effect” was coined by researchers who study polling data after a black candidate, the former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, lost his bid to be California’s governor but the polling showed him ahead. In essence the Bradley effect is the skewing of polling data because people do not want to admit their vote against an African American. While racism prevails throughout our society, the worst name you can call someone is a racist (I guess there are a few that still proudly display their racism unapologetically).

The recent news coverage of the Wright episode and Senator Obama’s “elitist” remarks has given Americans cover and we can blithely go on our racist way without admitting our racist tendencies without having to look carefully at the issues or ourselves.  I still have hope that we have become a more enlightened electorate, but I am increasingly wondering if I that hope is naïve.

I am a supporter of Senator Barack Obama. I have made that clear through my pieces supporting him, and some of the pieces I have written criticizing Senator Clinton and defending Senator Obama.

Some Democratic bloggers have suggested a boycott or moratorium of blog articles that fuel the fire between the two Democratic Presidential nominees. Senator Obama has attempted to run a campaign based on a new type of politics- not politics as usual- no sniping, no mud slinging and no attacks. Those of us that support Senator Obama need to honor Senator Obama’s new politics. I pledge to honor Senator Obama’s lead.

I also think that bloggers, those supporting Senator Obama and those supporting Senator Clinton, must stop the sniping and keep our focus on defeating the presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain.

In two days we will mark a dark anniversary- 5 years of a misguided war based on lies with, as of today, 3,990 Americans dead. We are in the midst of a horrible economy that the Republicans have once again created through their misguided economic principles and their dismantling of regulations that would have helped the country not to be in the mortgage crisis where we find ourselves today. We have an administration that is willing to bail out a big bank / brokerage house but is not willing to help the problems that every day Americans have. We have a President that has more interest in saving Wall Street and none in saving Main Street. Gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon. The price of gas isn’t just a hardship for filling up the tank, but it has raised prices on virtually everything like basic necessities such as food.

Senator McCain is running as a 3rd term of Bush’s misguided and destructive policies. President Bush has done amazing damage to this country in a little more than 7 years. Can you imagine the damage a 3rd term of the same policies would do?

Democrats, no matter who we support, should allow the campaigns in the remaining states to play out and try and have faith in the process. The media are feeding our consternation and our intra-party anger and division. We must not allow ourselves to be caught up in the media’s need to fill up 24 hour news channels and focus on the most inflammatory aspects of the primary campaign.

This is an historic election. We have an opportunity to make a change and to make history. The Democrats will certainly make history because our candidate will either be an African American or a woman. We should be proud of that. We should not be encouraging divisions in our party based on identity politics and pandering to our worst inclinations.

If party machinations play out in a way that would not honor a Democratic process, we should certainly speak out about that issue. But we aren’t there. We must not allow Senator McCain to sit back and watch months of the Democratic Party in discord.

When it was clear that this election might be very easy for the Democrats, I was concerned that our party has the knack of being able to lose an election that is handed to us on a silver platter. We must prove that premise wrong.

No matter who we support in the Democratic Primary process we should recognize that it is more important to have our party in the White House and in the majority in Congress. That is the only way real change can happen.

One year from today at Noon Eastern Standard Time the 44th President of the United States will be sworn in. Is the nation hungering for more than just “easy change” but for transformation?

Senator Barack Obama got himself into a heap of problems with the Democratic Party machine when he talked about Ronald Reagan being one of the transformational presidents in our history.

His exact words were, “I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times…I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

There is no doubt that I loathe Ronald Reagan. But I have to agree that his Presidency has had a profound effect on this country since 1980.

You can see articles on my blog- Who ended the Cold War? The Clash of Myth and Reality   about how I find the credit given to him for ending the Cold War absolutely ridiculous. The stage had been being set by US Presidents for a long time- just look at some of the comments made by President Gerald R. Ford about this issue that were released after President Ford’s death when he contended that his negotiations of the Helsinki Accords on Human Rights had much to do with the movement towards the demise of the Soviet Union. Of course- there is also the fact that without President Gorbachev, Lech Walesa, and Pope John Paul II had a hand in “tearing down that wall”.

You can also read how much I feel that his inattention to the AIDS epidemic in the United States was beyond reprehensible and that he has the blood of thousands of people on his hands by not addressing the issue for years which led to not funding prevention, care and research appropriately in my piece A Half Century on the Planet: A Reflection on my 50th birthday

So I am no fan of Ronald Reagan but there is no doubt that he was a transformational figure in our political landscape. He is still affecting our nation today nearly 20 years after he first left office. His legacy is one that while I believe was ultimately not for the better but for the worse- and led us towards a nation willing to elect George W. Bush not once but twice- he had a profound effect on the nation. To ignore that is simply putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and going “LA LA LA LA LA”.

Face it, President Clinton never would have dismantled Welfare if it had not been for his desire to pander to the politics of Reagan. President Clinton was not forced into Welfare Reform, he promoted it. Have the Clintons forgotten that little piece of information when warmly remembering the wonderful days of the 1990’s. I liked President Clinton as a President, but he did not change the direction of this nation. He was not a transformational leader like Presidents Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt or President Lincoln. One does not have to agree with the transformation that the transformational leader inspired to acknowledge that that leader did in fact created change.

Walter Dean Burnham had a theory of transformational presidents and non-transformational president. Franklin Roosevelt was a transformational president, somebody who didn’t just occupy the office but fundamentally changed the country according to Burnham. In my opinion he created transformation that I applaud as opposed to the transformation that Reagan created which I deplore.

Senator Obama was correct though. Through the 1970’s we liberals did not tend to the New Deal and Great Society programs that were brilliantly developed to lift up our poor and our lower classes. We were smug and lazy and these programs became bloated bureaucracies that did not move smartly in order to be as effective as possible. They became ripe for discontent for many of the “Reagan Democrats”. Add to that the jingoist American arrogance that came from our declaration that we ended the cold war that allowed us to develop more arrogant foreign policies and swagger in our step on the world stage and you can see the writing on the wall towards our march to the first prëmptive war in our nation’s history- the war where we are currently mired in Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with saying that we need another transformational leader to move us in a new direction. If neither Senators Clinton nor Edwards are willing to acknowledge the realities of our history that is somewhat troubling to me. My sense is that they do indeed understand history but knowing how much many of us liberals loathe Reagan and his legacy it was awfully good political fodder.

“If I understand what he was saying I can’t entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change,” President Reagan’s youngest son Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post. “As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he’s right. We are overdue for a cultural shift right now.”

I have often thought that Ron Reagan Jr., was not a fan of his father’s politics but a zealous protector of his father’s legacy. I think his comment that we are overdue for a cultural shift is dead on.

In an interview with “American Prospect” magazine, Pulitzer Prize winning Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said:

“History suggests that unless a progressive president is able to mobilize widespread support for significant change in the country at large, it’s not enough to have a congressional majority. For example, Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority when he failed to get health reform.

When you look at the periods of social change, in each instance the president used leadership not only to get the public involved in understanding what the problems were but to create a fervent desire to address those problems in a meaningful way.”

Mr. Clinton is a political animal and politics trumped everything. He could have chosen to battle for letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military as he promised during his campaign – he could have made good on that promise- but political expedience won out.

It is eerie that Doris Kearns Godwin’s analysis of President Clinton is not unlike that of Mr. Obama’s.

In discussing Teddy Roosevelt, Goodwin said “Roosevelt faced a conservative Congress. But the muckrakers created, in the middle class especially, an understanding of what had to be done in conservation, in food and drug legislation, in the regulation of the railroads. They revealed in long, factual, investigative pieces the way in which Standard Oil and the trusts were constricting opportunity for smaller, independent businesses. Then, with an aroused public, TR was able to pressure the Congress to do something. Similarly, in the early days of the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt used the power of the bully pulpit in his famous fireside chats to drive home to the country at large the need for significant federal legislation in a wide range of areas to ease the problems of the Great Depression.”

And when  Robert Kuttner in this December 2007 interview with Goodwin for “American Prospect”, “The public has been trained for 30 years to think that there’s really nothing great the government can do, except perhaps to prevent attacks. Where do you start? How do you change public opinion so that you can then change legislative direction? Goodwin answered.

“The next president has to be able to express a sense of what America can be, what America has been in the past, and what it is not now. It has to be overarching; it cannot be just “we need this program and this program and this program.” He or she has to remind us what made people come to this country in the first place — the belief that here, as Lincoln famously said, we had formed a government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men — to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” The first and the most difficult task for the new president will be to remind people what made America so special in the first place, to create an emotional desire on their part to bring our performance closer to that ideal, to make clear the wide array of artificial weights that still prevent far too many people from having a fair chance in the race of life, and then and only then to propose the legislative programs or executive actions that will address these shortcomings.”

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss when asked in an interview with Bill Steigerwald of “The Pittsburgh Tribune Review” what makes a great president he answered, “A number of things, but I think the most important ones are the vision to understand where to take the country and the skills to move the American people to that vision. All of this as blessed by historians and the American people of a later generation.”

So transformational presidencies are fundamentally the most important and have been milestones in our nation’s history. Senator Obama seems to understand this truth at a gut level.

In my essay about why I voted for Barack Obama I pointed to an article written by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times where he said “We as a society have shown no tolerance for unpleasant changes, and politicians have shown no enthusiasm for trying to persuade us that they might be necessary. If all you want is happy changes, you really don’t want change at all.”

It is clear that Senator Obama understands more clearly than most that we are at one of those junctures in our history where our nation is craving a transformational president. Every presidential historian point to the fact that a leader cannot create sea change without being able to move the American people. Mr. Kinsley astutely acknowledges that people don’t want unpleasant change and most change that is needed is indeed somewhat unpleasant. It is imperative that someone who sees beyond tinkering with one government program or another and actually inspirses the American people to move and create that change at a societal level. Society isn’t informed by policy as much as policy is informed by society. Finding how to move society forward to a vision that is positive makes creating the necessaary policy for the framework of that vision an easier task. Leadership and policy wonkiness while not necessarily mutually exclusive, are different skills.

There are none among the Republican presidential hopefuls that have a hope of developing a transformational presidency. There is nothing inspiring about this group of men. There is nothing in their words that makes one ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. These men are really not interested in change at all. They hearken back to Reagan’s revolution but have no idea how to create their own and it seems unlikely that they would even want a revolution.

Senators Clinton and Edwards are not as aware of the importance of the transformational leader as is Mr. Obama. They may indeed be able to transform things, but will they inspire? Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton might be able to create some change especially if they were elected in with a Democratic sweep of Congress. But they are focusing on programs to fix things not on inspiring the people to change and have government build programs based on the framework of that societal shift.

I go back to Ron Reagan Jr.’s comment “We are overdue for a cultural shift right now.” I couldn’t agree more. I ardently hope that the American people are honest in their desire to do the hard work for change- but that will require a leader who can lead us in that transformation.

One year from now, I do hope we are swearing in a transformational leader. Our nation needs it, we hunger for it and we are like a nomadic tribe in the desert searching for that oasis- the leader who can move us to change.

I believe that Barak Obama essentially understands this role and is ready to take it. But we’ll see how serious the people are about wanting that real change. I want to challenge us to be better than what Mr. Kinsley thinks about us- that we really only want easy change- because we will not have any change unless the people can be inspired to create change.

We are at a time that demands more than competent bureaucratic leadership and politics as usual it requires inspiration and transformational leadership. The Republicans have no policies of change nor do any of them have the qualities to inspire us- they actually have no interest in any change- it is not to their benefit. Transformational leadership? No I don’t think so- not among this crew.

Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton might create change if given a friendly Congress but will this be enough will it indeed provide that transformational leadership we need and that we crave at this time? Maybe, but I am not willing to that risk to paraphrase former President Clinton. That’s why I have put my hopes into Senator Obama. Simply transformational leadership will transform us, not just our government.

When those 21 guns salute and “Hail to the Chief” is played after the 44th President takes the oath of office one year from today I hope and pray that it will be a moment of transformation for the nation with a leader who is able to lead and inspire that transformation.

On the day before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said eloquently in his “I’ve been to the Mountaintop” speech words that ring so true today.

“Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”

Benazir Bhutto, like any leader of a nation that has a tradition rife with corruption, military coups, and assassination of leaders had her flaws. But she was undeniably a courageous leader. Her return to Pakistan two months ago raised hopes that her country might find its way toward democracy and stability. Her assassination on Thursday is yet one more horrifying reminder of how far Pakistan is from both — and how close it is to the brink. No blogger with his or her salt could take off the usual holiday hiatus without addressing this appalling act.

Ms. Bhutto’s death leaves the Bush administration with no visible strategy for extricating Pakistan from its crisis or rooting out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which have made the country their most important rear base.

One thing is clear- Bush and Company believe that the elections should go on as planned in Pahkistan in order to show the world that they are serious about having a free and open election and a democratically elected country. PLEASE! With one party banned from participating due to the sham that Musharaf made of the Pakistani Supreme Court and Bhutto’s own party, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), in turmoil with the assassination of its titular leader.

Senator Chris Dodd was correct today. As much as we want to see free and open elections, they will not happen under the current circumstances. There would be one party in the election- Musharaf – a President who originally came to power in a military coup d’etat. In order to have a fair, open and free election, the Pakistan Peoples Party should be given ample time to regroup and find new leadership that can take up Ms. Bhutto’s mantle.

Benazir Bhutto was a bridge. She was able to successfully bridge the east and the west, she bridged various factions in Pakistan and most importantly she bridged the role of women in a culture that is known to demean women by being an elected female Prime Minister in a Muslim nation.

Bhutto was an amazingly accomplished woman. Benazir Bhutto was born to Begum Nusrat Ispahani, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of a prominent Shia Muslim family of Larkana , in Karachi in 1953. After completing her early education in Pakistan, she pursued her higher education in the United States. From 1969 to 1973 she attended Radcliffe College at Harvard University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree with cum laude honors in comparative government. She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
The next phase of her education took place in the United Kingdom. Between 1973 and 1977 Bhutto studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. She completed a course in International Law and Diplomacy while at Oxford. In December 1976 she was elected president of the Oxford Union, becoming the first Asian woman to head the prestigious debating society.

Pakistan was born out of violence and that violence has remained- to one extent or another ever since. In 712, the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab. The Pakistan government’s official chronology states that “its foundation was laid” as a result of this invasion. This would set the stage for several successive Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent, including the Ghaznavid Empire, the Ghorid Kingdom, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. During this period, Sufi missionaries played a pivotal role in converting a majority of the regional Buddhist and Hindu population to Islam. The gradual decline of the Mughal Empire in the early eighteenth century provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis and Sikhs to exercise control over large areas until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia.

The rebellion, also known as the Indian Mutiny, in 1857 was the region’s last major armed struggle against the British Raj, and it laid the foundations for the generally unarmed freedom struggle led by the mostly Hindu Congress Party. However, the Muslim League rose to popularity in the late 1930s amid fears of under-representation and neglect of Muslims in politics. On 29 December 1930, Allama Iqbal’s presidential address called for an autonomous “state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims, within the body politic of India” Muhammad Ali Jinnah espoused the Two Nation Theory and led the Muslim League to adopt the Lahore Resolution of 1940 (popularly known as the Pakistan Resolution), which ultimately led to the formation of an independent Pakistan.

Pakistan was formed on 14 August 1947 with two Muslim-majority wings in the eastern and northwestern regions of the British Indian Empire, separated from the rest of the country with a Hindu majority, and comprising the provinces of Balochistan, East Bengal, the North-West Frontier Province, West Punjab and Sindh.

The partition of the British Indian Empire resulted in communal riots across India and Pakistan—millions of Muslims moved to Pakistan and millions of Hindus and Sikhs moved to India. Disputes arose over several princely states including Jammu and Kashmir whose ruler had acceded to India following an invasion by Pashtun warriors, leading to the First Kashmir War (194 ending with India occupying roughly two-third of the state. From 1947 to 1956, Pakistan was a Dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations. The republic declared in 1956 was stalled by a coup d’etat by Ayub Khan (1958–69), who was president during a period of internal instability and a second war with India in 1965. His successor, Yahya Khan (1969–71) had to deal with the cyclone which caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan.

Economic and political dissent in East Pakistan led to violent political repression and tensions escalating into civil war (Bangladesh War of Independence) and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and ultimately the secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh.. Estimates of the number of people killed during this episode vary greatly, from ~30,000 to over 2 million depending on the source.

The Pakistani military has played an influential role in mainstream politics throughout Pakistan’s history, with military presidents ruling from 1958–71, 1977–88 and from 1999 onwards. The leftist Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, emerged as a major political player during the 1970s and led by his daughter Benazir Bhuttp was the only real threat to Pakistani military rule.

So putting it simply- Pakistan has never been a paragon of stability. But President Bush has put all his eggs in the Musharaf basket for our nation’s hopes for security in a part of the world where we have exerted a huge hand in destroying.

Ms. Bhutto’s death leaves the Bush administration with no visible strategy for extricating Pakistan from its crisis or rooting out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which have made the country their most important rear base.

Betting America’s security (and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal) on an unaccountable dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, did not work. Betting it on a back-room alliance between that dictator and Ms. Bhutto, who had hoped to win a third try as prime minister next month, is no longer possible.

That leaves Mr. Bush with the principled, if unfamiliar, option of using American prestige and resources to fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions. There is no time to waste.

With next month’s parliamentary elections already scrambled, Washington must now call for new rules to assure a truly democratic vote.

That means a relatively brief delay to allow Ms. Bhutto’s party, probably the country’s largest, to choose a new candidate for prime minister and mount an abbreviated campaign. Washington must also demand that Pakistan’s other main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, be allowed to run. And it must insist that Mr. Musharraf reinstate the impartial Supreme Court judges he fired last month in order to block them from overturning his rigged election.

Mr. Musharraf is stubborn. Washington will need to send the same message to Pakistan’s military leaders, perhaps the ex-general’s only remaining backers.

Ms. Bhutto and her father and political mentor, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, were democratic, but imperfect political leaders — imperious, indifferent to human rights and, in her case, tainted by serious charges of corruption. The father was deposed by a military coup and then hanged. The daughter was twice elected and twice deposed. But both had one undeniable asset: electoral legitimacy — legitimacy that the generals and the Islamic extremists could only seek to destroy or, in Mr. Musharraf’s case, hope to borrow.

The Bush administration has to rethink more than just its unhealthy and destructive enabling of Mr. Musharraf. It also must take a hard look at the billions it is funneling to Pakistan’s military. That money is supposed to finance the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As a report in The Times on Monday showed, Washington hasn’t kept a close watch, and much of it has gone to projects that interested Mr. Musharraf and the Pakistani Army more, like building weapons systems aimed at America’s ally, India. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and the Taliban continued, and continue, to make alarming gains.

While the Presidential candidates should have the tact not to utilize this tragedy for political fodder (yes Mr. 9/11 Giuliani and Mr. “Let’s Double Guantanomo Romney- I mean you!) the issue should be addressed tactfully as the loss of a leader, the loss of an ally, the loss of a woman, the loss of a wife and the loss of a mother. There are tactful and appropriate ways to address this catastrophic world event while being sensitive to the personal saga that is being played out in Ms. Bhutto’s family.

The United States cannot afford to have Pakistan unravel any further. The lesson of the last six years is that authoritarian leaders — even ones backed with billions in American aid — don’t make reliable allies, and they can’t guarantee security.

The New York Times in its usually eloquent style wrote in an editorial that “American policy must now be directed at building a strong democracy in Pakistan that has the respect and the support of its own citizens and the will and the means to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people. The days of Washington mortgaging its interests there to one or two individuals must finally come to an end.”

It is absurd that in this country based on freedom of religion and freedom not to have a religion, a Presidential candidate would have to “explain” his religious affiliation.

Mitt Romney felt the need to “explain” Mormonism to the country. Romney and many media mavens have hailed his speech on faith as reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s speech of his Catholicism, faith and the Presidency. Quite frankly there couldn’t be less of a resemblance.

I don’t care if Romney’s faith teaches that Christ came to ancient America, that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or that the Angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith in New York- giving him magic glasses so he could read the hieroglyphics on the golden plates that had been buried by Moroni in Smith’s New York state back yard and are still in the Angel Moroni’s possession. I don’t care that some believe in virgin births, women being formed from the rib of a man, worshipping desiccated body parts and building cathedrals around them so these relics could provide a prayer path to God. I don’t care if some people believe that the Prophet Mohammad experienced the Isra and Miraj, a miraculous journey said to have been accomplished in one night along with the angel Gabriel. In the first part of the journey, the Isra, he is said to have travelled from Mecca to Jerusalem. In the second part, the Miraj, Muhammad is said to have toured heaven and hell. I don’t care if people believe that God parted the Red Sea and I don’t care if people believe that Jesus had a human mother and deity father. I don’t care if some people believe that one god Brahama created the universe, another- Vishnu preserves it, and a third- Shiva destroys it. I don’t care if Siddhārtha Gautama became enlighted under a fig tree.

However, the very people who Mr. Romney is pandering too- do care. They care very much about a person’s religion and judge him on how on a religious based report card. Remember all the hoopla about a Muslim congressman swearing his oath on the Qu-ran?  Where was the religious freedom in that episode?

When President Kennedy made his speech he specifically stated that religion had no place in this debate. He further said that the Pope, his church or any other religious organizations should have no influence in public poliy.

The Republican party has gone way beyond Mr. Kennedy’s vision and conviction. They brought religious organizations into the mix of public policy and politics when they welcomed Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Ralph Reed into their inner circle and gave power to conserrvative Christians.

Romney was right when he said that the founding fathers prayed to God and were not of one faith and he correctly pointed out that Jefferson and others were Theists. If in fact the founders envisioned a country where any one was free to worship as he/she chooses do we know how we got to have a nation that sees itself as a “Christian nation”?

We are no longer that nation that Kennedy described where there was a distinct separation between church and state. The Republican party, Mr. Romney’s party, has blurred that line.

Kennedy spoke about how in America preachers do not endorse candidates from the pulpit. Well 47 years later- Conservative Christian preachers commonly endorse candidates from their pulpits- and often times those pulpits are broadcast into people’s homes.

Mr. Romney doesn’t want to be judged on his being a Mormon, but he wants to promote his “conservative” Christian credentials to the Evangelical base. Does this seem a little hypocritical?

But I guess Mr. Romney can rationalize just about anything- he has certainly taken every position possible on every policy issue that matters unapologetically. I certainly admire men and women who are open to changing their opinions on important matters- it can mean an open and curious mind. It just seems convenient that Mr. Romney’s views change dependant upon the constituency he is interested in courting.

But back to religion. It is absurd to say in one breath that one’s religion should not be how one is judged as a candidate, but religion is a vital part of the public square.

If Mr. Romney wants a separation of Church and State- first off he should speak about that and secondly he should leave the Republican Party. The Republican party hasn’t believed in that separation for decades.  But as Mr. Romney courts the Evangelicals- he doesn’t really promote separation from  Church and State- he is promoting that he is just like them!

So which is it Mitt? Should we care that you’re a Mormon or should we remove religion from the Presidential elective process. Sadly it seems Mr. Romney doesn’t want his religion made an issue during the election- but he believes that religion should influence public policy.  

 Don’t forget Mr. Romney’s “faux pas” referring to Obama as Osama- no religious prejudice pandering there!

If Mr. Romney makes it through the right winged Republican nominating process to the general election what incarnation of Mr. Romney will we see and what values will Mr. Romney have as he deals with a more moderate electorate?

Mr. Romney’s religion should not be an issue. Sadly his party has made it an issue in politcs and policy. It’s a different world than the one where there was absolute conviction about the separation of church and state in Kennedy’s 1960.

How I long for those Camelot days!

When I saw a clip of John McCain in April of this year joking about the need to bomb Iran- I couldn’t believe that it was real. Alas it was; the Arizona senator joked about attacking the sovereign nation during a campaign stop in South Carolina in April, singing, to the tune of the Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann”: “That old, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway.”

I am simply dumb struck by not only that twisted use of sabre rattling as humor, but also by the Bush administration and the Republican Presidential nominees (with the excpetion of Ron Paul) reaction to a new assessment by American intelligence agencies that concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the country had been effective.

With the new information about Iran made public, what did President Bush say today at his news conference? “I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program,” Bush said. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”

Whoa that is some incredible spinning. If the American people or the media buy this spin- well we deserve whatever we get. 

In the his press conference President Bush also said that in August he had been told that there was new intelligence but he hadn’t been told until last week, what that intelligence was. 

Whoa again!  Is the President saying that he didn’t ask the question?  That is complete incompetence.  If he didn’t ask the question he is indeed the stupidest President in our nation’s history.  While I don’t think that the President is that bright, I don’t think he is that retarded.  So the alternative conclusion is that he knew- but kept fear mongering wih images of World War III anyway.  Does that remind anyone of the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud???

After all, Seymour Hersh wrote about this in the New Yorker quite a while ago and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has been stating that Iran’s weapons program was not active quite a while ago.  So how could it be possible that the President of the United States didn’t know?  Quite frankly it isn’t. 

What about the Republican presidential candidates? The Republican side, candidates have been jockeying for months to appear toughest on Iran — even tougher than Bush. During a forum sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition not long ago, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said it was “absolutely necessary” to keep military force on the table, former senator Fred Thompson said he would “not allow Iran to become a nuclear threat,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said a military strike was not “some far-flung idea” and in fact “we are poised and ready to act.” And of course there is McCain’s inane “Bomb Iran” song.

After the new National Intelligence Estimate have the Republicans seen that the saber rattling is akin to the blundering that brought us into Iraq? Oh wait- they all think (with the exception of Ron Paul) that going into Iraq was a good idea.

The Republican side was particularly silent on the new NIE. Romney, Thompson and McCain issued no statements on the matter yesterday and spokesmen did not respond to e-mails requesting comment. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the newly minted first-tier candidate in Iowa, likewise had nothing to say.

Only Giuliani responded to the development, although his statement made no mention of the salient fact that Iran’s nuclear weapons program evidently closed down four years ago, focusing instead on its continued enrichment program. “For years now, the Islamic Republic of Iran has defied and played games with every international effort aimed at persuading the country to halt enriching uranium,” Giuliani said. “Sanctions and other pressures must be continued and stepped up until Iran complies by halting enrichment activities in a verifiable way.”

I am sure that within the next few days the Republican campaigns will find a spin on this report. Unless they are in the same shape as the Scarecrow in the Wizard of the Oz- in search of a brain- they had better come up with better spin than the President’s inanity today. But what sort of a spin can one put on lying, deceit, war mongering and the heinous act of putting young Americans in harms way for political gain? I hope none; but with this crowd of ineptitude and demagoguery anything is possible.

Hey folks it is 26 years into the epidemic and HIV/AIDS is still a huge problem in the United States. In all due respect to those men, women and children suffering and dying in Africa and elsewhere in the world- it is still a problem in this nation and it is simply not being addressed adequately. Much attention will rightfully be focused on the global epidemic and the horrendous toll it has taken in Africa on today’s World AIDS Day events.  It is my intention here to shine a bright light on our epidemic at home- while acknowledging that our efforts globally are also inadequate. 

 Increasingly HIV/AIDS is a disease of poverty in this nation and can only be adequately combated by addressing poverty. Increasingly people living with HIV/AIDS have a smorgasbord of heath issues that is exacerbated by the “graying” of the epidemic, the fact of decades of ingesting toxic anti retroviral medications, the need to address HIV/ AIDS as one component of overall health for many population and can only be adequately combated by addressing overall health care reform. HIV/AIDS cannot be adequately addressed without treating poverty and the broken nature of our national health care system.

HIV/AIDS has been with the world since 1981. My entire adult life has been informed by this epidemic- from the day I read a New York Times article on July 3, 1981 by Larwence Altman- “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals” when I was 23 years old. Now, I am 50 years old and I have been HIV positive for somewhere around 20 years and full blown AIDS for nearly 9 years.

Some things have changed but sadly many things have not changed. In the early days it was perceived as a “gay” disease and now in the United States impacts all populations with disproportionate impact on African American women, men who have sex with men- specifically young men of color.

Let’s look at a quick snapshot of HIV/AIDS in my city of San Francisco as well as nationally and globally. The statistics at all levels are sobering and are a clarion call that we must remain vigilant.

San Francisco
Today, San Francisco continues to have the nation’s highest per capita prevalence of cumulative AIDS cases, and AIDS remains the second leading cause of premature death in the city. The number of persons living with AIDS in San Francisco has increased by 43% over the last decade alone - a percentage that does include more rapidly escalating non-AIDS HIV cases Through December 31, 2006, a cumulative total of 26,991 cases of AIDS had been diagnosed in San Francisco, accounting for nearly 3% of all AIDS cases ever identified in the US (n=925,452) and nearly 20% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in California (n=139,019), despite the fact that San Francisco County contains only 2% of the state’s population.

In San Francisco- one out of every four gay men is HIV infected. One in every 37 residents of the city of San Francisco is living with HIV/AIDS (2,713 cases of HIV per 100,000). As of December 31, 2006, the incidence of persons living with AIDS per 100,000 in San Francisco County (1,292.1 per 100,000) was over five times that of Los Angeles County (217.1 per 100,000) and nearly double that of New York City (757.0 per 100,000).

USA
Here are the statistics for the USA according to the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Number of new HIV infections each year: 40,000
Number of people living with HIV/AIDS: 1.2 million, including more than 400,000 with AIDS
Number of deaths among people with AIDS in 2005: 17,011
Percent of people with HIV/AIDS not in care: 42%–59%
Percent of people infected with HIV who don’t know it: 25%

Globally
UNAIDS and the WHO indicate that between 2001 and 2007:
The number of people living with HIV/AIDS globally rose from 29 million in 2001 to 33.2 million in 2007, due to continuing new infections, people living longer with HIV, and general population growth;
The global prevalence rate (the percent of the population with HIV) leveled over this period at 0.8%;
Annual deaths increased from 1.7 million in 2001 to 2.1 million in 2007, but have declined in the last couple of years due in part to antiretroviral treatment scale up;
New HIV infections are believed to have peaked in the late 1990s, and declined between 2001 and 2007 from 3.2 million to 2.5 million. The decline is attributable to natural trends in the epidemic itself and to prevention efforts. Still, in 2007, there were more than 6,800 new HIV infections each day;2
Women represent half of all people living with HIV/AIDS, as they have since the mid-1990s;
HIV is among the leading causes of death worldwide and the number one cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa;
Most people with HIV are unaware that they are infected.

The world’s focus has shifted from the epidemic in the industrial world to the epidemic in the third world- specifically sub-Saharan Africa. It is appropriate to pour resources into the epidemic in Africa. But it is vital to address the epidemic at home as well.

President Bush has pledged billions of dollars to combat AIDS in Africa- that is commendable. But he has at best flat funded programs for HIV/AIDS and other health care issues and often he has slashed them. Most recently Congress added more funding for HIV/AIDS to the Labor/ Health/ Education bill but Mr. Bush vetoed it. Mr. Bush has also vetoed other health issues- most notably a needed expansion in the SCHIP program.

My message to Mr. Bush and his Republican friends in Congress and the Presidential candidates is that HIV/AIDS is still a very real problem in this nation.

I am supporting John Edwards for President for a variety of reasons- but a critical reason for my support is his platform on addressing HIV/AIDS at home and his emphasis on poverty as a critical issue for this country. Poverty is co-morbid with HIV/AIDS.

John Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America that offers everyone the option of a public plan. Today, John Edwards builds on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS at home and around the world. He will include a comprehensive new national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, including:

Calling for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine across the world, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal;

Changing the policies that protect big drug companies, at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Guaranteeing Treatment for Everyone with True Universal Health Care by 2012. People with HIV/AIDS who don’t have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance are significantly more likely to die from the disease. That’s the tragedy of the two health care systems in this country today – one for people who can afford the very best care and one for everyone else. True universal health care must be the foundation for a national HIV/AIDS strategy. Edwards’ plan will ensure every person in America living with HIV/AIDS gets the care they need, when they need it. His plan will also transform chronic care with a new patient-centered “medical home” approach where a primary care physician will make sure patients are getting effective treatment from a coordinated team, including palliative care. [Bhattacharya, 2003] Edwards supports the Early Treatment for HIV Act which will expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals in every state before they reach later stages of disability and AIDS. Currently, in most states, individuals must receive an AIDS diagnosis to receive services under Medicaid even though research shows that the sooner individuals living with HIV receive treatment the better the outcomes. [Porco et al., 2004]

In 2001, the CDC set a national goal of reducing the annual number of new infections in half by 2005, but the actual number of infections has barely budged. A 1998 presidential initiative set a goal of eliminating racial disparities in HIV/AIDS by 2010, but disparities are as bad today as they were then. Our disappointments can be explained in part by the failure to create a national strategy, backed by necessary funding and with clear and bold goals, specific action steps, real accountability and broad participation and buy-in from stakeholders both inside and outside of government. As president, Edwards will develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy through an honest, comprehensive and fast-tracked process that involves stakeholders from the public and nonprofit sectors. The National Strategy will coordinate the various agencies within and outside of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that affect HIV/AIDS policy. He will hold his HHS Secretary accountable for issuing an annual report on HIV/AIDS that charts progress towards our national goals, and he will appoint a strong director of the White House office of AIDS Policy to keep these issues visible at the highest levels of government. [CDC, 1999, 2001, 2007; HHS, 1998]

About two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS cases are diagnosed in African Americans and Latinos. African Americans are infected at nearly 10 times the rate, and Latinos at more than three times the rate, of white Americans. A 2005 study of African-American men who have sex with men in selected cities found that almost half are infected with HIV, and 67 percent do not know they have the disease. Latina women are six times more likely than white women to have HIV/AIDS. Any serious effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic must begin in the African-American and Latino communities, including among the incarcerated population, and address their prevention and treatment needs. We must also continue to work intensively with important overlapping groups like gay men. [CDC, 2007; KFF, 2007]

Enacting true universal health care will ensure patients have access to care, but fully funding the Ryan White CARE Act will remain essential to ensure that culturally-competent care is available for the special needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. These programs include outpatient HIV early intervention services, support services like transportation, case management, substance abuse and mental health treatment, nutrition, family-centered care for children, access to clinical trials and delivery to hard-to-reach populations. Maintaining delivery of outreach and treatment services to the LGBT community, for example, is dependent on these programs. Edwards will also put an end to waiting lines for HIV drugs — for example, more than 300 people with HIV/AIDS are on a waiting list for medication in South Carolina – and increase funds for the Housing for People with AIDS (HOPWA) programs, only federal program that provides comprehensive, community-based housing for people with HIV/AIDS. [NASTAD, 2007]

Preventing HIV/AIDS with Scientifically-Proven Strategies, Not Political Ideology
The CDC has identified the three most reliable ways to prevent HIV/AIDS infections. Yet the Bush administration focuses on only one of them – abstinence. As president, Edwards will promotes all reliable prevention strategies, including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education to ensure young people learn all the facts about preventing HIV/AIDS and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes. He will lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange initiatives. In addition, Edwards will support community and public education that encourages testing. [CDC, Undated; Bush, 2005]

Mr. Edwards addresses another issue in his campaign that must be addressed- poverty. Trying to fight HIV/AIDS without addressing poverty is counterintuitive.

Without addressing HIV/AIDS as part of overall health reform- a critical issue for all Americans- not just those infected and at risk for HIV/AIDS, without addressing HIV/AIDS without addressing poverty, without addressing HIV/AIDS without addressing the larger issue of health disparities, and without addressing HIV/AIDS at home as well as globally- we will, I am afraid, be emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.

My favorite line in all of English literature is the last line from James Joyce’s story in “The Dubliners”, “The Dead”.

“His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end upon all the living and the dead.” It is this use of language that made me fall in love with Joyce. But it is the phrase, “His soul swooned slowly” that speaks to me in a very profound way.

19 years ago today, my soul swooned slowly- it is my 19th anniversary with my partner Lee. And believe it or not my soul still swoons when I look into his eyes.

I guess as a gay couple we shatter the stereotype that many of the Christian right hold about gay men. We are deeply in love and committed to one another in ways that rival any marriage between a man and a woman. Oddly enough many heterosexuals feel that marriage needs to be protected. That’s odd because I feel that my relationship with my partner needs absolutely no protections – it is strong, loving and quite frankly 19 years later I feel that sense that we are each part of a larger whole. Isn’t that what marriage is supposed to do? Someone needs to tell me why the religious right feels that their marriages need protection?

Since we are not afforded the legal rite of marriage it made finding a date for us to celebrate our anniversary an interesting exercise. Should it have been the day we met? No- that was a memorable day- but didn’t quite seem right. How about the first day we “did it”? No- that had a few things going against it- first is it just passionate exchanges or full fledged sex? We actually dated a while and were “making out” a lot when we would take long hikes together before we actually ended up in bed together. But choosing a date that had to do with sex—- seemed somewhat missing the mark. Sure it was an expression of passion and it was great, but quite frankly I had had sex with many men and it was important that this be different. We didn’t register as domestic partners until some years after we were already a committed couple. We waited until the state of California enacted laws to make Domestic Partnership really mean something and that wasn’t until about 4 years ago.

So we chose September 26, 1988 as the date to commemorate- a little over 2 months after we met. Oddly enough, we were a continent apart on that day. Lee had gone back east for vacation and I was here in San Francisco. I had only moved here in February of that year so vacations were not part of my new job yet. It was clear to me just how much I missed Lee while he was away and I guess it was mutual. On a phone call we had on that day September 26, 1988 we told each other that we were in love with the other.

What better way to celebrate our love each year than by celebrating it on the day where we said those simple yet profound words to one another – “I love you”.

We’ve had a number of challenges over the years- some we weathered better than others but it was our love that saw us through any challenge we faced. HIV is a constant companion for me- I’ve been living with it for over 20 years and I have been battling a more determined battle with it since I was diagnosed with AIDS in 1999. I’ve made HIV/AIDS my avocation, my work, and I have delved into HIV as an issue- partly so that is doesn’t intrude its ugly face into my personal life anymore than it has to.

Lee has always remained HIV negative and in my mind there was no option but to always remain safe. Did I yearn for that closeness without something between us?- yes. Did I feel that HIV loomed in our bedroom? Yes. Did I feel responsible for all of that?- yes. But even with HIV in our lives and in my body we found a rhythm – a way to give it less power than it had at first. I am thankful for that.

Over the years we have found remarkable ways to celebrate our anniversary- usually dinners at some of the best restaurants in the world. But it was 9 years ago on our 10th anniversary that stands out as the highlight.

Darwin our beagle came into our home that day. He was our 10th anniversary present to each other and little did we know that day that the love that we have for him would mesh with the love that we have for one another. Yes – its two men and a dog, but we are family. We are the definition of family values in the best possible way.

Each day I have on this planet with Lee is a gift. Darwin gives that gift, which is like a diamond,  added brilliance and beauty. We are blessed.

Not long after I met Lee I wrote a poem. I think it sums up how I feel today:

Light shatters the Black of night.
Breaking forth, it grabs a glint of skyline.
It moves from the Gray beginnings in the East
Continuing its westward trek towards
The Final Peace.
Dissolution, preceded by the light- momentarily
Tearing the spectrum into a blaze of colors.

The light warms the contoured terrain
Nob Hill, Bernal Heights, Twin Peaks
And
Corona Heights.
Crisscrossed – Light and Shadow.
Light and shadow perform a pas de deux.
The Movement- Graceful, gradual and
Constantly changing with intricate patterns.

Other players involve themselves in the ballet.
The Adagio develops.
The Light and the Wall have interplay.
The Creation of an ever-changing Shadow.

Longer… Shorter…
Vanished.
Shorter…. Longer….

The wall shields.
Everything in its shadow remains
Safely in the Wall’s cool, calm protection.

Obliterate the wall.
Disassemble it- brick by brick.
The light floods all in its wake.

We are part of the light.
From Morning’s grayness to Evening’s
Final Spectral Chorus.
The Brightness, The Warmth
The Love

Happy 19th Anniversary to the sweetest man in the universe! Happy 9th Anniversary to the best dog on the planet! I am truly blessed and my soul swoons as slowly and as profoundly as it did 19 years ago.

Less than a month after I was born on September 9th, 1957 there was an event that was heralded as world changing- the launch of Sputnik on October 4th, 1957. It was the beginning of the “Space Age”.  As an interesting juxtaposition- Jack Kerouac’s “On The Road” was published just 4 days before I was born- so not only was it the “Space Age” but it was the age of the Beat Generation too.

During the last fifty years there have been a number of events that have forever changed the world: the first man to go into space- Yuri Gagarin; the first man to orbit the earth- John Glenn; the assassination of President Kennedy; the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy; the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.; Kent State; the Summer of Love; the Viet Nam War; the first man on the Moon; the first heart transplant; Watergate; the resignations of Vice President Agnew and President Nixon; the Iranian hostage crisis; the AIDS pandemic; the eradication of small pox, the invention of the personal computer, the development of the internet; the rise of the radical Christian right in American politics, the mapping of the human genome, the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism; Glasnost and the resulting fall of the Soviet Union and Communism in Eastern Europe; the ongoing struggle for rights by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians; the recognition of the dangers to the planet by human induced global warming; the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the waging of the first American preemptive war in history- the Invasion of Iraq are just a few of the history changing events that have occurred in my lifetime.

It’s really been an amazing half century. Fifty years ago would anyone have imagined that there would be a woman Speaker of the House or that an African-American, a woman and a Hispanic were all serious candidates for the US Presidency? Would it have been thinkable for the country to be having a debate about gay marriage and have many of the candidates for President supporting gay unions? Could we have imagined that many of us would have computers at home on our desks that are thousands of times more powerful than computers that took up an entire floor of an office building fifty years ago? Would we have imagined a world where we could identify the genetic markers for certain diseases? Would we have imagined that we would have access to an amount of information at our fingertips with the click of a “mouse” that would rival all the information in all the libraries that ever existed in the world?

Conversely could we have imagined that a debate about Darwin and evolution would have erupted 80 years after the Scopes trial in Dayton Tennessee? Could we have imagined a country where our Constitutional freedoms are under attack, its system of checks and balances out of kilter, and the separation of church and state becoming blurred? Could we have imagined in the era of Camelot – that this country would no longer judge itself by how it cares for its most vulnerable but by how it protects it’s most privileged? Could we have imagined that we would be, for all intents and purposes, in a global holy war between Muslims, Christians and Jews not the likes which has been seen since the middle ages? It seems for every leap forward there has also been a leap backwards.

It has been an interesting fifty years indeed. Obviously I don’t have any memory of Sputnik since I was less than 1 month old, but my mother wrote about it in my baby book (which I now have in my possession). I have a vague recollection of John Glenn’s orbit around the Earth- but I can’t be sure if it is my memory or a memory that has been informed by video replay. Probably the first vivid memory I have of world events is the assassination of President Kennedy. I remember being told about the President’s death at school- I was in first grade and we were sent home early. But what I remember the most is the funeral. I was glued to the television and to my child’s mind it seemed that the funeral lasted for a week. When I have seen replays from the funeral it evokes memories of being at a neighbor’s house watching the funeral on TV.

In 1967 at the age of 10 my family went to California for a vacation and we visited the Haight Ashbury during the “Summer of Love” to see the hippies and in 1969, like the rest of the world, I was rivited as I watched grainy images of Neil Armstrong taking man’s first steps on the moon. I remember- I was in summer camp and they set up a television in the mess hall and allowed us to watch this historic event. It was indeed a special moment that I will forever remember.

There are many personal events that hav