That's Messed Up, Bro

"He soon felt that the fulfillment of his desires gave him only one grain of the mountain of happiness he had expected. This fulfillment showed him the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realization of their desires."
- Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

Far be it from me to guess what really happened between the CIA Director, the biographer, the general and the family friend, but I think it's pretty safe to say that what Tolstoy understood about man is what's known as a SNAFU in military slang.

Situation Normal: All Fucked Up. 

In other words, as bad as things may look for the ménage à quatre the morning after the Petraeus Affair, this state of affairs is more or less status quo where married life is concerned. 

As the press spins itself into butter over the latest installment of Married Folks Gone Wild, all I can think is "Who the hell are we to to determine who can, and cannot get married?" 

And by we, I mean straight people.

I was jumping for joy on Election Night when Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote. But I was also ashamed for the electorate because I believe this is a victory that was long overdue. The milestone also made me reconsider the privileges, assumptions of virtue and presumed innocence traditionally enjoyed by straight couples... whether or not we have earned the right to such high regard in our marriages. And when considering the track record of the institution-- not to mention the spotty reputations of those bestowing the prize-- the victory seems as pyrrhic as it is epic.

Isn't it ironic that no matter how many times straight married men and women lie, cheat, risk careers, ruin reputations, subject their loved ones to public humiliation, break hearts and render any quaint notions of marriage a punchline-- no one ever questions whether we are up to the task? No one ever threatens our constitutional right to marry the person we love? And none of us ever have to worry that the right could be revoked regardless of how many times we trample the privilege-- as we have for thousands of years, if fidelity is any measure of conjugal success?

Conversely, isn't the notion of gay couples being subjected to a disproportionate amount of judgement, speculation and scrutiny (by straight people, no less!) where love & marriage are concerned-- not owing to the gay person's character, but solely to their sexuality-- positively offensive? Isn't the logic of allowing straight people to determine if and when gay couples might choose whom "to have and to hold, till death do [them] part" as insulting a proposition as it is injurious? And given the fact that so much discord between heterosexual couples stems from the reality that one is from Venus and the other is from Mars; might this not suggest that same-sex couples are, in fact, at a distinct advantage if only because both hail from the same planet?



I am not so naive as to think that gay couples don't have to grapple with infidelity, or are somehow immune to utter devastation when finding out that they've been deceived by their husband or wife. But it stands to reason that getting to the heart of any conflict would be a lot more efficient if the need to know why one's partner did whatever they did (whether talking to her best friend 12 times a day, or sleeping with his White House intern) was taken off the table. And as men tend to think like men, and women tend to think like women-- it wouldn't be totally irrational to conclude that heterosexual couples might be handicapped where truly understanding our partner is concerned-- when compared to our same-sex counterparts.



Case in point, while 99% of my girlfriends would love to see General Petraeus decommissioned, demoted and de-balled today; 99% of my male friends are saying "Maybe he fell in love. Have you seen the wife?" (as has one of the more compassionate in the tribe, who shall remain nameless to protect his ass), or some variation on that theme.

Right or wrong, we men and women just very different animals. And the sooner (straight) people drop the pretense that we have the lock on what it takes to be happily married, give up any ridiculous notions that we are the rightful heirs and/or chosen stewards of the sacrament and 86 the assumption that we're the only ones deserving of marital bliss (or, let's face it, abject misery... because marriage can be a crap shoot) and finally evolve, the better society will be as a whole. Hell, we may even learn something in the process!

Who knows? Maybe the CIA Director will expound on some of these notions in his requisite tell-all memoir... as might the biographer, the general and the family friend (who apparently never got the SOP memo on loose lips) when they tell their sides of the story. 

Which brings me to what I regard as the only true crime in this true confession: the revelation that the General Petraeus's biography was not written by Paula Broadwell, but a ghost writer named Vernon Loeb. A man so focused on his work that he told The Washington Post, "when the news broke Friday that Petraeus was resigning in disgrace because of an adulterous affair, I was dumbfounded." Leading Loeb's wife to observe that he is "the most clueless person in America."

Damn!

Obviously, it's bad enough to set your sights another woman's man. But to take credit for another man's writing? Well, that's just messed up, Bro. Or what's known as FUBAR in military slang.

Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.

Drop the "I" Word

If the 2012 presidential election taught us anything, it's that anachronistic thinking can be a colossal political liability.

Republicans learned this lesson the hard way when their strategy to dilute the Democratic voting bloc backfired: resulting in Barack Obama's sweeping victory and a Senate majority for Democrats.

Given the trifecta of Todd Akin's theory on women's natural defenses against "legitimate rape" (which killed the senate candidate’s chances of upending Claire McCaskill's incumbency in Missouri), evolving attitudes on what it means to protect the civil rights of all Americans in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington (where voters have legalized same-sex marriage) and Mitt Romney's calls for "self-deportation" during the GOP primary (which provoked the wrath of immigration activists) I imagine it'll be a long time before wedge issues on abortion, gay rights and/or immigration are deployed in an effort to divide and conquer like-minded Americans of any political stripe.

In hindsight, it can be argued that the tens-of-millions of women, young voters and people of color who were standing in Romney’s blind spot during the entire campaign season are what ultimately cost him the election. And then there was the juggernaut of Latino voters who were also, apparently, beyond the former governor's scope of vision. Estimated at 11.8 million strong: the contingency has been credited with playing a pivotal role in the presidential election for the first time in history. Battleground states like Colorado, Ohio, Nevada and Virginia were one such example, where Latinos helped deliver the critical electoral votes Obama needed to defeat Romney.

Past being prologue, it stands to reason that as the face of America changes it is in everyone’s best interest to recognize the shifts and adapt to any new paradigms accordingly. Choosing to stay in the dark surrounding this reality not only makes for bad neighbors and bad business, but as Romney supporters could attest by November 7th, bad political outcomes. 

Election Night found me channel surfing between ABC, CNBC, FOX and CNN. But well before polling places closed and all the votes were tallied, news pundits were predicting that Republican Party losses could be attributed to their gross disregard of current trends. I could not have agreed more. Which is why I found it so ironic when John King and Wolf Blitzer blithely referenced a CNN poll on “illegal immigrants” midway through their broadcast-- leaving me to wonder how much longer it would take for news leaders to get the message that characterizing human beings as “illegal” is not only pejorative and offensive, but fast becoming an anachronism.

"You who are so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful, or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?"

-Elie Wiesel

When Eli Wiesel-- a Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor whose reputation as a champion for human rights is unimpeachable-- issues a call for us to rethink language which dehumanizes entire swaths of humaity, we might want to take heed. And when the Supreme Court makes a conscious effort to banish the terms “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens” from a ruling on immigration (as they did last July in the landmark Arizona case), journalists might want to follow suit. Or, we could all consider the logic of one reporter who has been at the vanguard of this movement for reasons that are both personal and professional.

Last year the New York Times Magazine published an essay titled “My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant” by Jose Antonio Vargas. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist: Vargas was born in the Philippines, raised in the United States from the age of 12 and had no idea he was in the country illegally until he applied for his driver’s license as a 16-year-old. 

Though his intent was to promote dialogue about the DREAM Act and what he regards as a broken immigration policy, Vargas’s appeal to news organizations to stop using the term “illegal” to describe immigrants will likely be his greatest legacy.

http://www.onthemedia.org/people/jose-vargas/ 

In his article, Vargas points out that because being in the country without proper documents is a civil offense as opposed to a criminal one, “it is legally inaccurate to describe an immigrant as illegal.” He also makes the case that “when journalists, who are supposed to seek neutrality and fairness use the terms, [illegal immigrants or illegal aliens] they are politicizing an already political issue.” A point buttressed by Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio-- whose re-election in Maricopa County demonstrates the power of such discourse to shape public opinion on immigration policy-- regardless of the speaker’s intent.

To be clear, I respect the need for strict border controls. I believe all visitors to the United States should be required to follow any laws pertaining to residency and a path to citizenship before gaining either. I believe that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. And I often question the wisdom of undocumented immigrants marching on Washington, DC, Chicago and Los Angeles to demand equal protection under the law while the threat of deportation hangs over their heads for an infraction far greater than that of civil disobedience.

By the same token, it is difficult to overlook the hypocrisy of non-Native Americans laying down the law on who should and should not be granted a residency, green card, visa and/or US passport. 



From Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of (an already occupied) America, to the Atlantic slave trade... from to the Trail of Tears, to the Annexation of Texas, it can be argued that all Americans lay very shaky claims to the citizenships we hold so dear. And given that very checkered past, I am more than a little reluctant to adopt a hard line approach regarding the next wave of immigrants yearning to breathe free and realize their own dreams of US citizenship.

As with most core beliefs, my viewpoints on immigration took shape at an early age. I can still vividly recall the day a letter addressed to Resident Alien was delivered to my childhood home in Mt. Vernon, NY. I was about six or seven-years-old at the time, and when my mother explained that the correspondence was neither a joke nor the result of a typo, all I could think was “There’s an alien living among us?”

Alas, the alien was my father. 

While I was aware that he was born and raised on the island of Jamaica-- as was my mother and every member of my extended family older than my siblings and me-- it had never occurred to me that a person’s place of birth might be held against them...

...until that day. 

Ultimately, my takeaway from two small words printed on a government form letter was that Daddy had been thrust upon the “them” pile of humanity... when even a kid could tel you it was far better to be an “us,” if you had any choice in the matter. Old enough to make the distinction, but far too young to process the mix of emotions the alien designation evoked in me-- including anger, hurt, shame and a dawning sense of having been marginalized-- the experience sensitized me and informed my sensibilities around the power of language to either hurt or heal others. 

Of course, it would be naive of me to expect politicians, television and print media outlets to alter their language for the sake of being kind and respectful to all human beings. (Although The Huffington Post, which stopped using the term “illegal immigrant” in 2008, gives me great hope!) 

Then again, given the ever-expanding purchasing power of Latinos, as well as their propensity to vote in relatively high numbers; it seems to me that self-interest might motivate anyone seeking Latino support going forward to pay attention to the writing on the wall. Lest they find themselves on a path to irrelevance... right behind a one-time, would-be president whose time has come and gone.

For all his protests to the contrary leading up to last night’s debate with Barack Obama-- Mitt Romney proved himself a worthy adversary. Each of Governor Romney’s remarks, points and counter-points sounded thoughtful, rational and, at times, conciliatory. His delivery was measured. His eye-contact: solid.

Even his body language exuded respect for President Obama.

In short, Romney turned in a masterful performance and wound up exiting the stage looking and sounding more presidential than the president of the United States.

That he managed such a coup in 90 minutes is astounding. But that he also did so in spite of knowing that thousands of hours of his own soundbites, actions and policy positions having been recorded and broadcast, worldwide, while campaigning over the last nine months is probably something to which I am unqualified to speak, because I am not a psychiatrist. But I’m pretty sure the layman’s term for a person who is adept at changing their spots on cue-- even if their audience just saw them looking and sounding like a zebra the day before they transformed into a leopard-- is sociopathy. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

According to Wikipedia: the term psychopathy derives from the Ancient Greek “psyche”, -soul, mind and “pathos” -suffering, disease, condition. The personality disorder is characterized by “shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality.” 

To be sure, most politicians would get high marks when measured on such a scale. Though it’s worth emphasizing that I have never regarded Mitt Romney as a parasite or a criminal-- at least, not based upon existing US tax codes, as he likes to remind us. But what most concerns me about him is his duplicity. 

As I watched Mittens unveil his shiny, happy new persona last night all I could think was “Where’s the man I’ve come to know and distrust?” 

 I found it impossible to reconcile the breezy, jocular candidate with the cold hearted teenager who once pinned the most defenseless and marginalized person in his peer group to the ground, before cutting off the terrified boy’s hair against the his will. 

Likewise, his numerous slights of hand in broad klieg lights had me wondering about the Republican nominee’s capacity for feeling guilt and/or shame.

When discussing the spending cuts he’d enact as president, for example, Romney bore zero resemblance to the political animal who came up with the individual mandate requirement for the uninsured. To the contrary, he actually threatened, “Obamacare is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President, I use that term with all respect.” 

As well he should, in light of the fact that “Obamacare” was Romney’s signature signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts.

No one trick pony: Mitt also flashed his superficially charming colleague-across-the-aisle side as he radiated pure warmth and goodwill toward his commander-in-chief for an hour-and-a-half straight, without once breaking character. My blood ran cold when Romney kept a straight face while stating: “I think something this big, this important has to be done in [sic] a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties,” in reference to health care reform. Not only because everyone knows that Romney was the author of the policy he now dismisses as inadequate-- not to mention that his is the party which once promised, “The single most important thing we want is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” But because Romney knows that we know the truth about his political past-- and yet is still willing to say whatever is most politically expedient whenever it suits his needs.

Which leads me to believe one of two things: either Romney’s definition of bipartisan is different from yours and mine, or the man speaks with a forked tongue.

To be fair, there were flashes of sincerity when Candidate Romney spoke about  his family. But how unfortunate for him (and his sons) that the one of the soundbites heard round the world last night was, “Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying things that aren’t true and hoping I’ll believe it.” Is this something a parent should be proud of? And where, for that matter, might all five of Ann & Mitt Romney’s offspring have learned that if you just speak a lie often enough it may pass muster as the truth one day?

Romney also scored points for being perfectly candid with the debate moderator when he vowed, “I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS... I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to... keep on spending money on things to borrow from China to pay for it.”

Now, call me a stickler for manners, but when the man to whom you are speaking is Jim Lehrer from PBS’s NewsHour you might want to refrain from threatening him with a pink slip while he’s in the process of hosting you. Then again, given Romney’s track record of “loving to fire people” part of me had to applaud his willingness to be consistent-- even if it made him seem like a jerk...



... and really pissed off all the little people.

As for the super-power rising in the east-- Romney's offhand remark was typically intemperate as he opened with a five-point plan for turning the US economy around: the second of which was to “crack down on China if and when they cheat.”

Not only was such a crack misplaced at a domestic policy debate, but it buttressed the President’s Democratic National Convention foretelling that his opponent “...might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if [he] can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.”

When the topic turned to cuts in education funding, the feisty Mitt-of-old came across loud and clear as he sniped: “Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the president, to own your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts-- all right?”

 Well, all righty then!

After digesting the before & after snapshots of Mitt’s makeover I am hard pressed to decide which is more disconcerting. Watching him come in like a lion of truth, justice and the American way while concealing entire swaths of his personality-- and previously stated political beliefs-- to the point where he seemed likable? Or, witnessing the cunning, duplicitous, self-serving, mean-spirited politician who is so adept at offending others put on a happy face and go out like a lamb?

And with so many faces to choose from, I still don't know which one to trust. 

I can live with a president whose policies are contrary to my own. But the thought of having a president with two faces (or more) representing me domestically and abroad, is a nightmare.

That said, I can see how Romney’s fiscal policies as outlined in Denver will appeal to millions of voters who are out of work and short on hope. 

My hope was that Barack Obama would fill that void in this first of his two debates with Romney. But the president appeared to be MIA for much of the debate: scribbling notes non-stop, making little-to-no eye contact with Romney-- in a gesture that struck me as uncharacteristically dismissive and ungracious, and could not have played well to undecided voters.

As one friend observed in a morning-after email to me, “Obama seemed cranky, ill-prepared and his responses (though he has often been a strong communicator) were mumbled, jumbled, not compelling or “quick”.” 

This, from a guy who loves Barack Obama.

But elections can be a funny thing, and as my friend points out, “It shouldn’t make a difference; a presidency is not a debate. But remembering the Bush “likability” that helped defeat Gore, one knows it might. And certainly last night Obama was the lesser debater.”

I couldn’t agree more.

I was in Washington DC for President Obama’s swearing in four years ago-- and shortly after the historic event  watched Marine One lift off the White House lawn and into the clear blue yonder with George W. and Laura Bush aboard.



One can only imagine what the view of our nation's capital must look like to a departing president. And after last night's performance I fear that Barack Obama may find out sooner rather than later. Because in spite of all the respect he has earned for being smart, trustworthy, credible, likable and empathetic; if he doesn’t shape up between now and November 6th, the electorate will see to it that he too is shipped out, with minimal fanfare, in three months.

Va Va Vroom

Maya Angelou says "When you know better, you do better," and I firmly believe in that wisdom. So why am I tempted to do the wrong thing this weekend?

Why, after seeing films like Jaws (which left me incapable of dwelling in any body of water larger than a bathtub without hearing a tuba playing alternating patterns of F and F sharp notes in my head-- foretelling my being mangled by some maniacal great white shark with an appetite for dark meat), Psycho (which also aroused an irrational fear of water in me, coupled with a chorus of screeching violas, violins and cellos every time I shower) and The Exorcist (which was just sick and wrong) am I even tempted to add a fourth film to the list of those which have scarred me for life? Why am I dying to see Flight when I know it can't possibly end well for someone who is not only highly impressionable, but a frequent flyer?

Well, as it happens, there are four excellent reasons:

1.  There's the man in a uniform.

2.  There's the man in uniform wearing aviator shades.

3.  There's the man in a uniform wearing aviators whose name, Whip Whitaker, sounds like an onomatopoeia for "Mess with me at your own peril, girl, but know that we will have a good time before we crash and burn."

4.  And then there is Denzel Washington-- the everyman whose acting in Robert Zemeckis's latest film is so nuanced and intelligent that the New York Times's Terrence Rafferty devoted an entire column to trying to answer the unanswerable question: "How does he do it?" 

Unanswerable, at least, in the face of genius-- which I believe is the case with Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/movies/denzel-washington-in-flight-directed-by-robert-zemeckis.html?pagewanted=all

That said, Flight is no joy ride. 

I'm not giving too much away by telling you that shortly after the movie opens there is a crash when a plane being piloted by Whip goes down in a bad storm. And while the catastrophe is a metaphor for the calamity that is Whip's life, from all I've read and heard about the suspense-packed, gut-churning, edge-of-your-seat realism of the crash scene, something tells me there will be a down tick in airline ticket sales this holiday season as scaredy cats like me opt to just drive or walk the thousand miles that separate us from any loved ones and a turkey dinner. 

Something also tells me that Flight  will smash box office records because it's is a perfect storm of chick flick drama and high-testosterone action. Women will love it for the damaged lady's man we all believe we can save, and men will love it for the lead who is a man's man... as well as all the special effects. Not to be overlooked, of course, are the special perks which tend to come after dropping your date off at home while they're in need of some serious release after enduring all that in-flight tension. Making it a win-win situation for all parties, right?

Perhaps for you, but not for folks like me who have been there and are determined not to do that again. 

As someone who actually enjoys air travel, I don't want to contemplate the horror of a future filled with fearful flying because of some stupid movie. Even if it means saying no to Denzel, his little captain's hat and those fly Ray Bans. No man is worth it!

Then again... I can't help wondering what Dr. Angelou might say if I were to see the movie and just cover my eyes and ears for the really treacherous parts.

But who am I kidding?

 Even I don't need a therapist to figure out the answer to this question. 

And if you are anything like me, I'd strongly suggest postponing this Flight for a later one on Delta... knowing that by then Hollywood will have edited the content for immature audiences like you and me!