Tomyamaguchi’s Weblog

Another Where Were You Story

With the 30th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, I had one of those “Where Were You” memories. For example, all of us who are old enough remember where we were when we heard JFK was assassinated. I happened be in the last periods of my junior high school in Barrington, New Jersey. It was actually my last day of school there before moving to California. We were stunned when the administration put CBS News over the PA system. Before we could grasp the significance of what was going on, Walter Cronkite was announcing Kennedy’s death.

I remember TMI not for my connection to the event, but for my disconnection. That was the weekend that my ex-wife and I had planned to go camping on Catalina Island. Neither of us had been there before. Melissa wanted to camp in the northern part of the island called Two Harbors. This where the island is at its narrowest, and a short hike provides a spectacular view of both harbors. The accident had just occurred when we dropped off our daughter at her grandparents house and drove my old pickup to Long Beach where we caught the ferry. We realized how spooky this was, considering the China Syndrome movie had just come out. However, the news was reporting everything was under control, so we boarded the boat to enjoy our weekend.

Melissa did express concern while we were away from the radio and other media, but I reassured her. After all, I thought the possibility of a total meltdown was the weakest of the anti-nuke arguments. I was more concerned with the transportation and storage of wastes. So I was in shock when we returned to Long Beach to find the giant doomsday headlines in all the newspapers. A giant hydrogen bubble threatened to blow the plant and Eastern Pennsylvania sky high. That pretty much sold me against nuclear fission power. I have more on http://tfyamaguchi.tripod.com/nuclear_power.html.

March 31, 2009 Posted by tomyamaguchi | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Palin Family and the Media

The Palin family continues to be the Simpsons of Alaskan politics. We can take the advice of the producers of the animated TV show. Whatever they do, we should do the opposite. It seems every story about the Palins could be condensed into two words: bad judgment.  Not that I am lacking any sympathy or compassion for them. I am not gloating over the latest news that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have broken up. Back in my college days, I had a few male friends caught in the situation of getting a girlfriend knocked up. In those situations, the couples got married and were able to work it out. Of course, they were able to do it outside the glare of worldwide publicity or the focus of a gossip-driven media. They didn’t have a parent running for national office. Sarah Palin does blame the media for everything that has gone wrong for her and her family. Then again, what else could we expect from the media, and what was Palin’s responsibility in how her family was covered? We could also ask about John McCain’s role.

I am not arguing that Palin’s nomination was a mistake. Placing a woman on the ticket was a move in the right direction for the Republicans. And nobody expects a perfect family life from any candidate. Parenting skills shouldn’t determine one’s fitness for office, and, even if they did, we should not base our judgment of Sarah Palin on her teenage daughter’s pregnancy. These things happen to the best and worst of families. The mistake was the way the nomination process was handled, and that is where McCain and Palin bear responsibility.

While Sarah Palin’s name had been circulating in the conservative media for months, she was never placed on any official short list. The announcement that was made just before the Republican Convention took most reporters by surprise. There had been no high profile meetings in the weeks before the announcement.  And yes, the selection was intentionally kept secret to steal Obama’s and the Democrats’ thunder. Even the Palin children were kept in the dark and misled on the reasons they were traveling to Dayton. And suddenly, there they were at a huge rally, posing for the cameras. Bristol was handed her youngest brother Trig to hold in front of her swelling belly.

Knowing so little about the VP candidate, it was natural that the media would start digging for stories to fill the vacuum. This quickly led to the admission of Bristol’s pregnancy after the denials of blog rumors that she was Trig’s real mother. At least one serious issue emerged with the story, the effectiveness of abstinence only education. Otherwise, the Palin soap opera generated more heat than light.

Conservatives complained the Palins were victims of a double-standard. Would a liberal candidate get nicer treatment by the press? I don’t think so. The media didn’t shy away from the Lewinsky scandal and was happy to supply us all the details about cigars and stained dresses. Nor did the media deal any differently with John Edwards.

In fact, both John and Elizabeth Edwards deserved exactly what they got. Both of them lied about John’s affair and did not consider the potential damage when he decided to run a second time for President. Imagine what could have happened if Edwards became the presidential or vice-presidential nominee and this story came out just before the general election. I feel bad that Elizabeth Edwards is fighting breast cancer, but she has lost all credibility with me. She was willing to sacrifice the causes she believed in to achieve the selfish goal of taking residency in the White House.

Nor has the media been unfair to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich . The silliest argument against his impeachment was that he had not received his day in court. Yes, we all have a right to a fair trial, but the holding of public office is not a right. It is a privilege. Impeaching Blagojevich didn’t land him in prison. It just removed him from office. The voters have a right to demand a higher standard from its public officials and fire them if scandals prevent them from adequately handling their jobs.

And how could have McCain and Palin acted differently? McCain could have been upfront with the media about considering her for the ticket from the beginning. There could have been a well publicized visit to McCain’s Phoenix home, similar to those visits by the other short list candidates. Palin’s story could have been aired weeks before the Daytona rally. By that time, Bristol’s pregnancy would have been old news. With more time, Levi Johnston could convincingly explain his comments on his MySpace page as immature jokes. Actual sympathy for the teenage couple could develop, allowing Sarah Palin to address more serious issues, such as her qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Instead, McCain took a gamble. Maybe he was afraid that an early announcement would land Hillary Clinton the VP spot. Maybe he really wanted  Joe Lieberman so bad and hated Mitt Romney so much that Palin became the compromise that would satisfy his party’s social conservatives. In the end, he came off looking weak and impulsive as a decision maker. His reaction to the economic collapse a month later didn’t help. Not only did the gamble backfire on McCain, it showed he was more interested in using Palin as a publicity stunt than finding the best person to potentially lead the country. That is especially odd for a candidate who’s motto was “Country First.”

I do feel compassion for Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston in their decision to end their engagement. I feel even more for the infant Tripp who didn’t volunteer to be involved in any of this. But, like the rest of us who must live with the mistakes we make, I am sure the three of them will get by one way or another. A compassionate news media may allow them to fade from public attention until at least 2012. Then God help us.

March 14, 2009 Posted by tomyamaguchi | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proposition 8 and the future of same sex marriage

While I am disappointed that my fellow Californians decided to restrict marriage in the state constitution to heterosexual couples, I am not surprised. I told people I knew before the election that I expected it to pass. I based it on the history of the issue. While heterosexuals are becoming more accepting of gay and lesbian people, marriage remains the last barrier to complete equality. In 1989, the San Francisco Examiner conducted an extensive poll in connection with the twentieth anniversary of Stonewall. The poll found more tolerant views of homosexuality and homosexual rights, including employment nondiscrimination and service in the military. However, those polled overwhelmingly rejected the concept of same sex marriage. That opposition was reaffirmed when Californians passed Proposition 22 in 2000.

Proposition 22 was approved 61.4% to 38.6%. In contrast, the vote on Proposition 8 was 52.3% to 47.7%. To me, the fact that it was close at all was a victory. Slowly, this last barrier is coming down, and I predict it will come down. Most likely, relief will come through the courts, the activist judges that Republicans complain about, though the majority of the state’s Supreme Court judges that ruled in favor of same sex marriage were appointed by Republican governors. Eventually, this will be a non-issue. It is already to young people who grew up in the post-Harvey Milk era. These young people will eventually be in the majority.

In 1964, voters repealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, making it legal to discriminate against minorities in housing. Property owners argued that they had the right to sell or rent to anyone they pleased and did not need a reason to refuse a qualified buyer or renter. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and based its decision on the fourteenth amendment. In the same election, voters approved a ban on pay TV. The court overturned that on first amendment grounds. Today, neither initiative would even get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, but these were hot issues in the mid-sixties. We, the people, do evolve.

I am not advocating passivity on this issue. I marched in San Francisco last week to affirm my belief that the vote was wrong. We need to act, but we need to act positively. First, let us stop blaming black voters. While homophobia does exist in the black community, there is an increasing awareness that this is a civil rights issue. More black people are coming out and being more visible to their families as gay people. As more of them demand the right to marry, this barrier will fall. Our gay and lesbian black brothers and sisters could use our support.

Don’t blame the initiative process. Initiative, referendum, and recall are a part of the legacy of the progressive movement at the turn of the Twentieth Century. They have been used to hold politicians accountable and to act when elected representatives refused to act. The process has been abused as with the examples above. More often, progress has been made through initiatives, such as Proposition 20 in 1972 that established the Coastal Commission, a major achievement in environmental protection. I have worked on a number of initiatives and have found the process to be a great organizing tool for grassroots democracy.

Stop blaming Southern California. The traditional North/South split that has pitted the so-called liberal North against conservative South has eroded over the years. What has emerged is more like an East/West split. The West Coast counties, which are more urbanized, are more liberal than the agricultural inland counties. If you look at the map on the Secretary of State’s web site (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm), just about all of the counties that voted against Proposition 8 are along the central and northern California coast. The two exceptions are Alpine and Mono counties that sit against the Nevada border. Now look at the map for the presidential contest. (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/map010000000000.htm) Obama’s counties are solid along the coast, except for Orange and Del Norte, and he has a fairly large share of southern and central parts of the state. Proposition 8 barely carried Los Angeles County, which usually votes liberal. LA would be a good place to turn things around on marriage.

Forget boycotts. There have been calls to boycott California, Utah, the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and businesses owned by Mormons and Catholics. Within these states, religions, and businesses are people who had nothing to do with Proposition 8 or are actually on our side. Why hurt them? Besides, boycotts are used by the anti-gay movement against businesses that promote equality. I prefer the positive approach by rewarding those that opposed Proposition 8. Apple gave $100,000 to No on 8 and reported it at the top of its web site. I sent an e-mail of support to Apple. I am sure they would be grateful to receive more such letters. If you are thinking of vacationing in California, consider the counties that voted against 8 as good places to spend your money.

I know that much of the letdown was fueled by early polls that indicated strong opposition to Proposition 8. That was before the proponents weighed in with their ads and captured many undecided. The first caught Gavin Newsom on camera proclaiming same sex marriage is here to stay, “whether you like it or not.” Ironically, he is right. Newsom sees the change of attitudes that is being ushered in by his and younger generations. Unfortunately, the shot makes Newsom look arrogant and threatening, especially threatening to the older voters who may not know openly gay or lesbian people.

Then, there were the ads that warned gay marriage would be taught to school children. It didn’t help that a class of San Francisco school children decided to attend the wedding of their lesbian teacher. It echoed of the failed Briggs Initiative in 1978 that would have fired gay and lesbian school teachers. Briggs would have us believe children learn how to be gay in school. I never learned anything about homosexuality in school, so I should be straight, right? Instead, I learned that there must be something wrong with me after getting continually beaten up by other boys in gym class. Again, our younger generation knows better. Sexual orientation is biologically determined. Tolerance needs to be taught.

While the passage of the amendment is a setback, the size of the opposition is a good sign. The road to equality is always bumpy. Forty years ago, politicians ran on platforms opposing integrated schools and housing.  Today, an African American has been elected President. Can we change popular opinion on same sex marriage? Yes we can.

November 11, 2008 Posted by tomyamaguchi | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Friendly Blog

I would like to use this blog to explore how Quakers can make an impact on the social and environmental problems that challenge our world today. I like to think of the Society of Friends as a religious organization that may not have all the answers, but we have a lot of good questions. We call them queries. One of them is “What is God/Spirit calling us to do?” It is easy to feel overwhelmed by the work that needs to be done. How can our skills and experience be used heal the injuries we have caused to the earth and to each other? We can’t do everything, but we can do what we do best.

I see many of these problems as interconnected, particularly the connections between the health of our planet, the health of our cities, the health of our minds, and the health of our bodies. My interest in bicycles started during the first oil crisis in the early 1970s. That is when I bought my first 10-speed and set a goal of being able to live without a car, especially to get to work. I was a janitor at the time and needed a car to transport my cleaning equipment to the various work sites. By 1976, I was working in a factory and commuting by bicycle.

Moving to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1980, I eventually sold my pickup truck. In addition to my bicycle, I rely on public transportation as much as possible. At times when a car is needed, I have City CarShare to rent one on an hourly basis.

I am not out to rid the world of cars. I am just looking for a more just and balanced transportation system that benefits all. The present monopoly that cars have on transportation discriminates against the poor and the disabled. It has destroyed our cities where most of our poor and disabled people live. That is why I believe access to adequate public transit is a Quaker value. My personal commitment is to use a car only when walking, biking, or riding public transit is not a viable option. That means turning down a carpool if there is a bus that can get me there at on time.

Sometimes, a carpool is the only alternative to driving alone. A number of us just returned from Pacific Yearly Meeting, held this year at Walker Creek Ranch in Marin County. I feel very fortunate to be able to ride a bicycle to the meeting. Unfortunately, there is no bus service to the ranch for those who can’t pedal. Since the 2009 meeting will be in the same location, it is not too early to think of how we can better organize transportation to keep the number of cars traveling to the ranch at a minimum. I would like to offer this blog as a way to dialog on how that can be done.

March 29, 2008 Posted by tomyamaguchi | Uncategorized | Leave a comment