Celebrate what we have – for what we don’t have, we can’t know

Ones life is a strange thing; it is experienced through shared culture and  by this,  many people, whether they know it or not, become intrinsic to ones life.

When someone who is near to us (personally, emotionally, culturally) dies, there is physical sensation in response to that news. The emotion of what this person meant to us, or our lives, manifests itself in physical form, often crying, and we miss them for who they were, if we knew them well, or miss what they may have given, beyond what we already had.

Such as it is with the passing of Michael Jackson, such as it is with someone who is emblematic of their time or their craft.

Is it greed to wish for more?

and in wishing for more, is it ingratitude for what we have?

Michael Jackson was to perform FIFTY concerts in London – all fifty concerts sold out in hours… and we are left to wonder what those concerts would have been like… what magic was he to present in London? we will never know, but we can have ideas of what it may have been like, for there are many performances recorded, his music, his impact on dance and choreography. THESE are the things we have, and these are the things that will live. These are his legacy.

Just as Michael Jackson, and other gone artists have left their legacy of images and sounds upon our lives, the same too is true of those who are closer to us personally. Memories of a parent preparing a meal, a photograph, video, audio recording, or just the sounds and images imprinted in the mind as memory – these are their legacy to us.

The memories we have of gone loved ones are the gifts they gave freely. They will have whatever meaning they have, but one day they can no longer be added to…

Is it greed to wish for more?

and in wishing for more, is it ingratitude for what we have?

I long for those who are gone, and what may have been.

I weep for the empty space in my heart their leaving has made… but

I look upon the walls of this ‘empty space’ and I see the images they left.

This ‘empty space’ is not a silent place, for their voice, their music is always there.

This ‘empty space’ is not a hole in my heart… it is their gallery, their studio, where what they left and what it means to me lives, ageless, untouchable, incorruptible.

No matter if it is the greatest artist of the time, or a near relative or friend; while we may miss their absence, long for more of what they gave – we must celebrate what we have – that which has been given.

The California Supreme Court guanantees a Prop 8 sequel

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Words from the United States’ declaration of independence, wonderful sentiments, a great creed for a nation to aspire to, a bar by which the US set itself, at its inception, to be measured, and the creed by which I measure the US.

This creed is a dream. It is a dream that Martin Luther King Junior alluded to in his famous 1963 ‘I have a dream’ speech. It is a bar that the US has never reached, but from time to time it does something to show the world that it is aware that that bar is still there. The most recent example of this is the election of Barack Obama. At all other times, the US appears to me, to be at war with what it stands for.

The United States’ ongoing war with its own creed, while frustrating in its outcomes, is highly entertaining to watch.

The California Supreme Court today has guaranteed another series of episodes of this war, specifically the battles surrounding the right to marry, by validating both Proposition 8 (which banned same sex marriage), and those same sex marriages that were legal at the time they were performed. It has guaranteed such a sequel by delivering a decision that gives each side of the issue, both heart, and a direct cause to fight again for their point of view. Conservatives would have been heartened by the court’s validation of prop 8 but not the validation of the 18, 000 marriages. Progressives would have been heartened by the court’s validation of the marriages, but not the validation of prop 8.

Let me set the scene for this inevitable sequel. Same sex marriage is illegal in California as per the legally validated Proposition 8… BUT, the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before Prop 8 was voted on have been declared valid. 18, 000 couples are in essence legal precedents. In a state where only straight people can be legally married, these couples are in effect  ‘honorary straights‘ in relation to marriage law.

As I understnand it, and in my opinion, the situation that the California Supreme Court has presented, is not only contradictory, it is untenable and will be resolved in one of two ways.

Firstly ballot initiatives. Opponents of prop 8 will raise signatures to place a question removing prop 8 law from the California Constitution onto the 2010 Ballot; and proponents of prop 8  will also raise signatures to place a question to invalidate the 18,000 marriages onto the same ballot. I cannot wait to read about and follow those battles.

Secondly, the issue will be taken to the US Supreme Court. This is where the whole issue of same sex marriage in the US may eventually have to be resolved anyway, as was the issue of mixed-race marriage resolved there in 1967.

So, coming soon to a news servise or blogsphere near you, a gripping saga with a 2010 release date, PROPOSITION 8 – THE SEQUEL, when the US is once again at war with what it stands for.

If a right is denyable to some, is it revokable to others?

If the denial to gay and lesbian people of the right to marry is based upon a PERCEIVED threat to children – it must then stand to reason that those people who are ACTUALLY a threat to children, or who have who have been found GUILTY of ACTUAL child abuse, ought have their right to marry revoked.

In my opinion, if you take the Christian right’s arguments against marriage equality to their logical conclusion, then the right to marriage can be revoked on many levels. For example, a couple of old chestnuts… Claim – Marriage is about procreation. Logical conclusion – non-productive consummation of marriage is grounds for annulment of that marriage, as they have done damage to the institution as a conduit for procreation… another… Claim – The love between a man and a woman is special/sacred and must be treated as such. Logical Conclusion – Those found guilty of spousal abuse ought have their right to marry revoked, as they have done damage to the institution as a special/sacred loving union.

Religious rightists railing against marriage equality between hetero and homosexual people are not really interested in protecting’ marriage, nor are they really interested in protecting children, nor are they really interested in protecting the wellbeing of those in marriage. They are by their words, coupled by their lack of action in actually doing what they say they are defending, are simply protecting and defending their own ideology and positions of power.

The institution of marriage, of itself, does not create nor protect children, it does not protect those in a marriage from each other, nor does it elevate one class of couple’s love above another’s – for love simply is… The quality of, relevance of, protectiveness of, and the loving and nurturing nature of the institution of marriage can only be generated in the hearts and minds of those involved in such relationships. Such virtues are not the sole preserve of one class of person or couple, are not found in greater or lesser quantities in straight, gay, bi, or asexual people – but are intrinsic to individuals, and are amplified when coupled through love.

Mother’s Day – do we need to be reminded to love?

It is again May, and the radio and television is full of Mother’s Day this and Mother’s Day that… “Buy this for your mother to show her you love her”…

Do people love their mothers, or are able to express love for their mother, only on the second Sunday in May?

My mother died when I was young, and I have very little memory of her, so my view of Mother’s day is somewhat jaundiced; but even so, can’t people tell their mother they love them on days other than Mother’s day… can’t we tell those we love that we love them without a special day for it?

In today’s personally organised, deadline driven, time-is-money lifestyle, is our capacity to love dependent on what day it is?

“When do I need to tell my mother/father/partner/child/anyone else that I love them?… I’ll put it into my PDA/Mobile Phone/Laptop computer.”

Do we need to be reminded to love? Do we need Mother’s day to remind us of love (or gratitude) we may have for our mother? Do we need Father’s day to remind us of love (or gratitude) we may have for our father? Do we need St. Valentine’s Day to remind us of love we have for those closest to us? Do we need Christmas to remind us of the love we ought to have for each other?

Are we so bereft of love that we need to be reminded of it?

Then, there are some who (seemingly needing to be reminded of their own capacity to love)  judge some people’s love to be wrong, saying it should be shunned or hidden (i.e. the love of gays and lesbians).

Why do people not tell those they love that they love them? is it some kind of secret? is there some level of embarrassment to saying they love them? and if embarrassing…why?

In a love-starved world; witholding your love for another, is akin to witholding food from a starving person. Your words may be that thing that person needs to go on through that day/week/month/life…

If you feel it…say it

To those who judge love and decide what it is, who can experience it, and who can not – I say that you twist love into knots of contrivance. You reduce it to a conditional priviledge, possibly even into a commodity of trade – in that, if you love someone that person must love you in return.

No, love is not something to trade, or something to be bartered – love is

Your love is something that only you can feel – love is

Your love is reflected by another’s love - love is

Love with expectations is trade, love without expectations is love.

Love is not X Y or Z

Love is

Love is

Love simply is

Nuremburg is overturned when the ends justify the means

Obama says that he will not prosecute people who practised the actual hands-on torture (enhanced interogation techniques), arguing that those people were carrying out orders and committing acts that they were lead to believed were legal… They were ordered to do something they were told was legal at that time by their county’s powers that be…. they were just following orders… The Nuremberg defence!!!

If torture techniques are important and successful ways of obtaining information for the Americans… wouldn’t torture techniques have been seen as important and successful ways of obtaining information for the Nazis, Japanese, the Chinese, etc.?? and the Americans prosecuted some of those people and some were sentenced to death because of their acts of torture…. But when it is Americans who are accused and implicated in perpetrating torture how thick and fast the excuses flow…I cannot believe that Americans can justify what has gone on through the Bush administration – especially with what is emerging from torture memoranda and discussions.

The logical conclusion to the arguments supporting the “enhanced interrogation techniques” is that the ends justify the means; that is to say that if lives were saved, it doesn’t matter HOW they were saved… it doesn’t matter HOW information was obtained to potentially save those lives, it doesn’t matter HOW the people who threatened those lives were treated – ANY behaviour, ANY policy, ANY technique  can be justified if the desired ends are achieved… If Americans believe that, then America (the idea of what America once claimed itself to be. The dream of what America stood for – as articulated in its Declaration of independence) as a moral leader in the world is dead, and George W Bush killed it… I hope Obama will not be the undertaker but the resuscitator.

I understand that by international law and by treaty, waterboarding is defined as torture. The US is a signatory to such laws and treaty and as such is duty bound to act against those who prepared and perpetrated such torture… all else is hypocrisy.

Prosecute the guilty without fear or favour

Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, torture, misrepresentation, and Bill Clinton was impeached for WHAT?

In the US another report has been released dealing with an issue from the Bush administration. In this case, a report about the treatment of detainees in the so called war on terror, at places including Guantanamo Bay Cuba and  Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

I will not yet make comment on this report or the memoranda that were released by the Obama administration last week lest I speak too soon and other reports on the actions of the previous US President and his administration are released to a (now) not too disbelieving world.

With every disclosure on the behaviour of the Bush White House I think of just two things… That administration lead Australia and other countrys into an unnecessary and illegal war… and in the face if the illegality, imorallity of the things we are learing about the government of George W Bush, I can’t help thinking that his predecessor was impeached, hounded and publically condemned for having (and lying about having) a blowjob (oral sex).

Obama not looking back, like a hit-and-run driver

The Obama administration has just released memoranda from the Bush administation that detail techniques of enhanced interrogation imposed on prisoners of the war on terror, many of which are recognised as torture. On the surface (in my unqualified opinion) these memos could form the basis of either war crimes charges, or even simply charges within the US military or civilian court system.

On waterboarding, in which a person gets the sensation of drowning, the memo said, “although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result” to violate the law.

In my mind, it stands to reason that a country that prides itself, and describes itself,  as the defender of freedom and justice through the rule of law, would (as a matter of course) in the light of such damning evidence of immoral and (by international law) illegal activities, lay charges, try these people in a court of law, and if found guilty, punish them…. But not in Obama’s America... no… the crimes of the Bush administration both foreign and domestic will not be answered for, no charges laid, no courts to examine what happened, no punishment meted out – no responsibility accepted.

President Obama said in an interview with CNN “I’m a strong believer that it’s important to look forward and not backwards,” Like a hit and run driver, Obama does not wish to examine the damage the vehicle he now drives has caused in the world.

What if the situation were reversed and it had been US or ‘coalition’ members being tortured by agents of another country in contravention of international law? Would ANY US President stand to see such a country wash its hands of responsibility for its stated actions? That would be hypocrisy at its most pure.

Barack Obama, your predecessor blackened the name of the US around the world through his administration’s cavileer, even illegal, approach to international laws and conventions. PLEASE do not carelessly spend the good will that your accension to the Presidency is leant to your country around the world, by giving tacit approval for the actions of the Bush adminisration through not prosecuting crimes committed in your county’s name.

Why should this concern an Australian writer? Apart from the assult on basic human morality that torture must elicit in most people, Australia was/is a member of the “coalition of the willing” lead by the US. If Australian forces surrendered JUST ONE person who was subsequently tortured by US interrogators using techniques outlined in these newly released memoranda; then not only were these crimes committed in YOUR country’s name… but also in MINE.

You have a responsibility to the world to prove that the US does indeed defend freedom and justice through the rule of law, even when the accused criminals are American.

Once again the internet lets the world share a moment of pure magic

The object lesson here is – Never judge a book by its cover.

There are times when some people (with their own agenda) will point to the internet and highlight something that may be dangerous, unsavoury, or just plain stupid or hateful; but then there are times when the internet allows the world to share wonderful moments of human experience, from which we may learn, grow, or just appreciate.

I am grateful that I live in a world that has something called the internet, the connectivity of which allows me to choose what I want to see and lets the world share some moments of pure magic.

What worth inalienable rights? What worth ANY rights? A note to Australians contemplating a bill of rights

In oral submissions in the case seeking to overturn Propoition 8 in California, Kenneth Starr, the chief lawyer defending Proposition 8, on Thursday said that the majority has the power to overturn any right it so chooses to, including that of free speech.

As reported by Reuters – Kenneth Starr… repeatedly told the court that a simple majority could limit rights up to and including free speech under a state constitution designed to give citizens broad power to legislate through the ballot box.

Think about it  – any right, to anyone, would be subject to the whim of the majority at the time.

Starr’s position is extremely dangerous.

Scenario, the government creates an environment of extreme hostility against a specific minority at a specific time. There is a propposal launched to punish or ‘get rid of’ this minority, and the majority like sheep vote for it.

Imagine if Kenneth Starr’s opinion was law during the 50s comunist witch-hunt period?

Could the majority be so convinced to act in an extreme fashion against a disfavoured minority? Remember, a democratic Germany was convinced enough to vote for the anti-semitic Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps some of the words in the US declaration of Indepndence should be rewritten thusly:
We hold these truths to be generally agreed to at this time, that all men are created, if they correspond to cetain acceptable conditions, equal. That they are endowed by the majority with certain momentarilly granted Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as the majorty may define them.

Is that the way it should read Mr Starr?

It seems to me that some Americans love their Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights like a boxer loves their punching bag.

Coming Out 1

Coming out is firstly about bestowing ownership of ourselves to ourselves.

During the American Civil War, the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This document lead to the end of legal slavery in that country. It is now considered basic morality that no person can own another person, but do we really own ourselves?
From the moment we are born, we are labeled, categorized, pigeonholed in one way or another, and we become both slave to and defender of categories and labels. Such labels and categories carry with them not only dictionary definitions, but can be defined in many ways, and such labels can often have confining expectations placed upon them.
As children we taught what everything is called, for example, the names of colours, and things that are associated with that colour. We are made aware of the differences between boys and girls, and words that are used to describe each. As we get older we are socialized into what is expected of ourselves and other people as far as behaviour, dress lifestyles. As children we are expected to become slaves to society’s expectations, by convention, by religion. We become owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the demand that we fit in to the straight-jacket labels imposed upon us, and that no matter what, you must fit in, and difference to the norms is not to be accepted…
Differences to what is considered ‘normal’ are often ridiculed, vilified, and sometimes condemned. From a young age many people learn derogitory words that are used against people who are perceived as different, many learn to pour scorn on those that are not considered ‘one of us’ in whatever way.
For those who are perceived as different, and are the target of hostility of those around them and the society in general, the upset, shame and internalised pain is felt deeply and can be carried for a lifetime. The constant struggle for acceptance, the inability to fit in to a patriarchal heterosexist society can rob a person of their self worth, or of a sense of belonging in their family, community, or even themselves.
Coming out – to ourselves
Coming out is a term generally used to describe an act of disclosure, a finishing point, but there does not seem to be a term for the journey taken to reach that point. I define coming out as both the journey and the disclosure. To me, the journey begins when a person first recognizes that they are different to the societal norm, in this illustration, the heterosexist norm; lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans (or whatever term applies). This recognition can be an extremely scary experience for some, and my cause them to fight against it and do things to show that they are not what they may be (in a sense trying to ‘cure’ themselves), a homosexual person marries heterosexually, the trans person may do extremely stereotypical activities corresponding to their sex designation at birth (in the case of MTF – sometimes dangerous activities). This is done in an attempt to fit in… both internally, dealing with their socialization and expectations imposed upon them by the society they live in, and externally to give the appearance of fitting in. We are slaves to perceptions..
But there comes a time when the ‘act’ wears thin and not even the actor can believe it anymore, and the person must at last join those who didn’t fight, and accept who they are and learn to own themselves.
Coming out is firstly about bestowing ownership of ourselves to ourselves. Recognising that we have a right to define ourselves as we are, live our lives as we decide, and deserve the same dignity as anyone else, is knowing you own yourself and you belong as you. The journey may be smooth, the journey may be difficult and painful, but we are freed by the transitive journey from trying to fit in to belonging.