Mailbag

Mailbag
(or “We’re gonna keep on moving forward”)

To celebrate the end of the election season – the end of the “silly season,” as President-Elect Barack Obama referred to it – let’s dip into the mailbag. Here’s a general sampling of what fills my inbox, with my responses directly below.

In response to my article “The Rebirth of the Three-fifths Compromise” (November 7, 2008) I was bombarded by email. Some letters were incredibly positive, and touching. Other letters turned adversarial, even nasty. I’m including a couple from each category.

Lisa in Oakland wrote:
I am writing with great sadness that we still live in a country that believes that it is acceptable to change our constitution to take rights away from a minority group of people. I feel deflated and heart-broken, not just as someone in a committed same-sex relationship, but as someone who believes in human rights, safety, justice, and equality for all people…. I will grieve. And I will continue to work for the values that we all want to manifest in our world. We are in the midst of a social change movement and I feel more committed than ever.
     A song from the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing keeps on going through my head and my heart: “We’re gonna keep on moving forward.”

Dear Lisa,
I understand your deflation. I understand your heartbreak. For every step taken, two steps back. That's a hard way to live. I'm not sure what it will take for this country, and this world, to recognize true human rights. I will never understand how people can believe that taking away rights is remotely tolerable, let alone justifiable. It's also hard for me to believe, and this is something I've struggled with for years and years, that minority groups beat down on other minority groups. It's hard for me to believe that the African-American community would choose to support Prop 8. It's hard for me to believe that the Latino community would support Prop 8. On the other hand, the Mormons supporting Prop 8 makes sense. This is a religious community that has made it a point of baptizing the victims of the Holocaust. Jews weren’t allowed to live in the prison created by the Third Reich. Under the “love” of the Mormons, Jews aren’t allowed to be Jews in death.
     But I digress. In this election, from California to Arizona to Arkansas to Florida, there are harsh penalties for the very act of living outside convention. And for what reason? To be gay in this country is to put yourself in danger. One never knows where the threat might come from. That’s terrifying and that kind of threat level reaches into the body of the human corpus and tears out the heart.
     So I understand your heartbreak. I share your heartbreak. I share your grief. In the elation of the election of Barack Obama there is great sadness, and anger. The historian in me preaches patience. Change is slow. Change is generational. The writer in me preaches outrage. There's a reason why I'm a curmudgeon. People make outrageous, stupid decisions on huge, fundamental issues.

Ron Prentice chose the outrageous-stupid-decisions-on-huge-fundamental-issues side. Prentice, who identified himself at the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, wrote:
In Tuesday’s election, the people of California placed the traditional definition of marriage into the state Constitution. This victory would not have been possible without the support of our 70,000 contributors and over 100,000 dedicated volunteers. It was accomplished with the strong participation of about 80 percent of California voters, or nearly 14 million participating in this expression of the People’s Will. It is the same process that resulted in the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States – with about the same percentage of the national vote as received by Proposition 8 of California. Your article, “The Rebirth of the Three-fifths Compromise,” failed to address the People’s Will.
     ProtectMarriage.com also wants you to know that a strong legal defense of Proposition 8 is being prepared. We anticipated that Prop 8’s passage would result in advocates of same-sex marriage turning to the courts to attempt to overturn the People’s affirmation of traditional marriage as a societal good. We will be announcing our legal strategy this week, but rest assured that we will vigorously defend the People’s Will to enshrine traditional marriage in the state Constitution.

Along the same lines, I received a letter from Lou Engle, a minister in Missouri. In the days leading up to the vote, he traveled to San Diego and held a 12-hour prayer session to push for traditional marriage. “This is not about hate,” he wrote to me. “This is about love. Hundreds of supporters in our prayer session renewed their wedding vows. There were tears in their eyes, and in mine.”
     Minister Engle ended his letter on a political note: “California is a big dam, holding back the flood and if you take down the dam in California, it’s going to flood 49 other states.”

To Minister Engle and Ron Prentice of ProtectMarriage.com:
Your letters sent my mind racing over to a parallel history. In 1861 there was, as you both certainly know, a similar kind of election to the one just passed. Similar in the sense of dire consequences. The nation was split over the issue of slavery. After Abraham Lincoln won – and he received just 39 percent of the popular vote, and under 3 percent of the vote in the South – seven states chose disunion. The Confederate States of America was formed.
     But in the days leading up to the general election, Abraham Lincoln’s chief aide, John Nicolay, took an unofficial poll. He published his findings years later, in the biography of Abraham Lincoln he and John Hay, another Lincoln aide, co-wrote. Nicolay found that not one minister in Springfield, Illinois supported Lincoln for president. The churches of Lincoln’s town supported Douglas, who campaigned on the status quo.
     This is your history. This is your direct line. As the ministers of the antebellum 19th century chose slavery and inequality, you’ve chosen bigotry and inequality. Like the ministers of Springfield, Illinois, history will judge your vote and your politics harshly.
     There’s something else you should remember. There was once a time in the history of Europe when dissenting religious belief could get your head chopped off, or your body burned on the pyre. It’s interesting to me that the religious concerns in this country have forgotten their history, even as they preach knowing their book. The Mormon religion, just as an example, would have been eradicated in Elizabeth’s England and King Ferdinand’s Spain and Louis’s France. It reminds a mindful person of the climate facing the gay population today.

Let’s move on. Or to quote Lisa and her song from the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, “We’re gonna keep on moving forward.”

Molly in Virginia wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed your election series (the 3-part “Whom Are You Voting For?”). I was touched by the story of Chaim Kovaes. It’s deplorable that this country insisted that a Holocaust survivor go fight in another war. It’s unbelievable, really. So sad.
     On the other hand, your interview with the physician in Alabama was so funny. All the food references, and the names, and the names of Sarah Palin’s children. After talking about such delicacies as redneck caviar, chunks of croc and mudbugs on a railcar, you write that Track and Trig might be the local version of fish and chips. Very funny. And I loved one of your last lines, “Certainly Sarah and Todd Palin might name their sixth child Mudbug, judging from the other names chosen.”
     But, like the rest of your readership, I am curious as to how the undecided student in Arizona voted.

Dear Molly,
I heard from Amy, the student in Tucson, by mid-morning of Tuesday, November 4. The time surprised me. It was 10:15, East Coast Time. Amy, living in the western time zone, had already been to her polling place. She was emailing from Denny’s, while waiting for her Grand Slam breakfast. She said voting made her hungry.
     Amy voted for Barack Obama. She voted against her parent’s wishes. She voted against the general direction of her state, or to quote Ron Prentice of ProtectMarriage.com, against the People’s Will. The capitalizations are his.
     She voted for Obama because she felt in him a “reason to believe in America.” Judging from the reaction of this country in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s victory, she was not the only one.

Craig in Conyers, Colorado wrote:
I can’t believe you took last week off. I go to your column every Friday. It’s a ritual. My children even know not to bug dad before reading your column. What happened? Generally, what did you think of the election?
     On another note, I think you should do a series on the changing demographics of Colorado. This isn’t the same state you grew up in, is it? A Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, the electoral college going for Barack Obama. Colorado is the new California.

I like your line, Craig, “Colorado is the new California.” But it all goes in cycles. In the 1980s there were Democratic governors, Dick Lamm and Roy Romer. There were Democratic senators, Gary Hart and Tim Wirth. There was Pat Schroeder, who some thought would run for president.
     Colorado turned right with Reagan/Bush/Bush and now, after the right has pushed us off the edge, Colorado faces left. Toward the coast of California. But it’s a cycle. When the Democrats push us off the edge, Colorado will turn right again. As will the country.
     As for your first question, there were some amazing results in this election. Obama of course. It’s still possible to get to 60 senators. There were also some terrifying results. Prop 8 in California, as stated earlier. The vote in Arkansas. Congressman Garrett in New Jersey, a 21st century Joe McCarthy, beating exactly the kind of representative we need: the rabbi and therapist Dennis Shulman. Speaking of McCarthyites and terrifying results, Michelle Bachman in Minnesota squeaked by. Ted Stevens appeared to win too. We now know better. Enjoy your prison term, Ted. And in Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss, a man who cannot define the term recession, a man who in fact believes the economy is strong, has a runoff election for his seat. Saxby Chambliss adheres to the Bush doctrine. How anachronistic is that?
     I will, of course, say something here about Obama’s victory. There’s been a good deal said about Sarah Palin and, had she become vice president, her position as role model for girls. To feminists out there, myself included, that couldn’t have been any more terrifying. I’m talking heart attack terrifying. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his philandering is a better feminist than Sarah Palin. Bill Richardson and his philandering and alcoholism is a better feminist than Sarah Palin.
     But with the results of the presidential election, we received a gift: the best feminist possible. I’m not talking about Barack Obama. I think Barack Obama is too much of a politician to be a good feminist. I’m talking about Michelle Obama. America is going to get a big dose of this very smart, very clever, very thoughtful person. I’m ecstatic that Michelle will be moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Ecstatic.

A woman named Jeri in Castle Rock, Colorado wins the award for most charming email sent. She wrote: “Your writing this year has been remarkable, interesting, informative, just great!!! Have a wonderful birthday.”

Jeri, thank you for the birthday wishes. It’s incredibly sweet, and appreciated.

And a note to Craig, if you’re reading this week: that’s the reason why I didn’t write a column last week. It was my birthday.

And a note to Craig’s children: let Dad read the column before bugging him, or hugging him.

And finally, I heard from an old letter writing friend:
Dear Brian,
Let’s drop all the political talk and get down to the key issue of the day. On paper, the Denver Nuggets look like a dynamite basketball team. I know you’re a diehard fan. How do you like the trade?   What do you think of the team’s chances?
– Anthony and A.I. Chauncey all the way
P.S. Last year I wrote to you and you blew off my letter, after promising to respond. Please don’t blow off this email. I believe your insight is far superior to either Woody’s or Krieger’s.

Let me start with an explanation of this letter. Last October, according to my records, “Anthony and A.I. (for Allen Iverson) all the way” did write to me, asking my opinion of the Nuggets’ chances for the upcoming 2007-2008 season. I did indeed promise a column. I did not deliver.
     I apologize. Last November, according to my records, I focused on Playboy Magazine, Iran and an interview with Jennifer Aniston. Turns out, the interviewee wasn’t that Jennifer Aniston. How silly of me.
     More explanation of the above letter: two weeks ago the Denver Nuggets made a blockbuster trade with the Detroit Pistons. The Nuggets sent Allen Iverson to Detroit in exchange for Chauncey Billups and others. Essentially the trade is a straight up A.I. for Chauncey. Thus, the letter writer has a cross out.
     More explanation of the above letter: Woody is Woody Paige of the Denver Post and Krieger is Dave Krieger of the Rocky Mountain News. Both are columnists who periodically devote their attentions to the Nuggets. Woody Paige is a blowhard, a misogynist, a lousy writer. Dave Krieger, on the other hand, is an excellent sports columnist.
     As for our beloved Denver Nuggets, I admit, I kind of like the team’s chances. For the first time ever. NBA basketball comes down to the mix on the court. Do the players instinctively blend? The key word is instinctively. NBA players are great athletes, not great basketball players, not schooled in the game. The mentorship of past eras is gone. So instinct, not basketball I.Q., becomes the watchword. The last collection of Nuggets, led by Iverson, clearly did not mesh. This collection might, thanks to Chauncey. The key, as I see it, is Nene, the Nuggets’ talented but often injured center. He’s jumped out to a great start. If he continues his dominance and stays clear of injury (or further recurrence of cancer), the Nuggets can challenge for the championship. The Lakers are the cream of the crop. The Celtics will be tough. But the Nuggets belong in the next group, with the Jazz and arguably the Hornets, the Rockets, the Cavaliers, and Allen Iverson’s Pistons.
     With all of that said, I did write a NBA playoffs preview last March (“Will the Spurs repeat,” March 7, 2008) and I predicted a San Antonio Spurs – Detroit Pistons final. I was wrong on both teams.

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web

The Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher

Mailbag