Obama Eating Crackers

My friend has a line that she uses when she finds someone attractive. She says, "I wouldn't kick them out of bed for eating crackers." Humorous, no? She was recently watching some video on the internet that showed President Obama doing something and she was struck by how good looking he is. She said, "I wouldn't kick him out of bed for eating crackers." And her wife began guffawing.

This story was repeated at a Fourth of July Pie Party (bring your favorite pie, savory or sweet), and the room erupted into laughter. It took some folks longer than others to get the joke, but in the end, no one was in doubt about the joke. My friend smiled as she admitted her obtuseness about seeing the joke when talking about Obama. It was only when her wife started laughing that she realized it was a joke.

I find this interesting because it means that in our social group (myself included), which is vast majority (presumed) white, the topic of President Obama provides an instant racialization of any topic. "Eating crackers" always meant eating a specific crunchy food that left crumbs in the bed and never going down on a white person as long as the "default" person involved was the "default" race--white. But as soon as Obama comes up, the default settings go off and racial innuendos become active.

I wonder if this Instant Racialization effect is true (for my social group) of any person of color, or if it is specific to Obama. Thinking back over other people of color in our social group who come up in conversation, I have not noticed any overtly racialized tone become active in conjunction with them. Then again, I am white, and I wonder what the POCs themselves would say. I will say, though, that the POCs in our social group are a) likely to "pass" as white (though this is not true of all of them) and b) well known as individuals. Since we are such a diverse community in terms of religious practice, gross income, and sexual and gender orientations, knowing each other as individuals instead of labels is crucial to our ability to function as a community, so I will argue that once someone is introduced around, they become a person much more strongly than they are their labels in the group the mind.

Obama, on the other hand, is not known as an individual; he is a symbolic public figure. As such, he represents many things, including various race issues. Because he is more removed from our social group than a direct member, it makes more sense that he would be held up as a symbol rather than considered more transcendent of his "identities."

That said, I am still uncomfortable with the joke. I admit that in the moment, I was one of the first to get it and one of the first to laugh. It was only after the party that I began to wonder why it was so funny, and why a slightly humorous comment suddenly became a hilarious joke due to its inappropriate racial subtext.

Post-racial society, my ass.

***I would like to add that I love using the full name and title "President Obama" since I proudly helped (a little) to elect him, but there is also something iconic about just "Obama" that I am also drawn to. I apologize and own my inconsistency in this post, but I mean affection and respect, not disrespect, in my use of each of the forms.

A Radical Notion of Marriage: Consenting Adults.

A little over a year ago, my partner and I announced that we were going to be handfasting at Beltane and getting married a year and a day later. (The wedding is this Sunday!) Included in our announcement is the fact that we will not be getting legally married. 

On the phone with my mother the other day, I got another dose of "I think you two ought to just get legally married. What about ________ issue? Have you thought of that?" Over the course of the last year, I have heard about health insurance (no longer an issue, thank you Obama), intensive care visitation rights (also soon not to be a problem, a la my favorite president, Obama), protection for our children, tax benefits, and others. 

Yes, of course, legal marriage comes with a whole host of benefits, legal, financial, and otherwise. If it didn't, there would not be a movement to expand the definition of legal marriage to include same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples. For the most part, I support this inclusion and do see it as a human rights and equality issue. 


On the other hand, my partner and I are polyamorous, polyamory being the opposite of monogamy in the quick definition. There are many flavors of poly, but my partner and I are specifically what we call polyfidelitous, meaning that we would like to have more than the two of us in our marriage. So yes, right now we can "pass" as a straight monogamous couple, but that denies who we are in our sexuality and a legal marriage now could seriously complicate power dynamics etc. in the marriage we ultimately want to develop. 


So why are we getting married with just the two of us now? Because we want children and are emotionally ready for children. Making a formal commitment to each other in front of our friends, family, and the gods feels like the right way to start. First, we bind ourselves to each other, make ourselves fast, so to speak, and then from that foundation, we grow. 


I believe, and my partner agrees with me, that the idea of marriage needs to be radically redefined. Marriage needs to be defined as being among consenting adults. Period. If a person is an adult and capable of giving consent, then that person is a viable marriage partner in whatever configuration of partnership they choose to engage in. I do also think that detailed marriage contracts should be negotiated (duration of marriage, procreative goals, procreative consequences, financial consequences of divorce or dissolution, etc.), but then again I think every partnership needs to take a long look at such logistics and negotiate them deliberately regardless. It would certainly clean up divorce court!


We are eagerly looking forward to our wedding this weekend. We have worked with other clergy to craft the binding ritual that will work best for us, and unlike the broken and exclusionary system of legal marriage, our pagan wedding will include all of ourselves, not just the parts that "pass" as conformist and non-threatening to the status quo.

Show Me the Money

I sat down and watched Obama's State of the Union with a friend and it got me thinking. I heard him saying that he has basically three priorities, in this order:
1. Show me the money: jobs, green jobs, economy
2. Fiscal responsibility: spend the money we have to, be responsible and conservative with the rest.
3. Socially liberal agenda: dont ask dont tell repeal, etc.

Perhaps #3 is more my own interpretation colored by my own bias, but I do think I heard it in there.

I think this mirrors my own approach to both the Time Bank and Transition. First priority: Show me the money. Beneath all the problems, all the differences of opinion, all the conflicts, there is the need for everyone to prosper on the physical level. We need to create wealth. Economic wealth first, as it can be manifested alongside resilient resources and emotional wealth through community building. Take it down to the money, to the wealth, and we have a common denominator motivator that is crucial to everyone. Wealth translates directly into basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, heat. When we as people worry about having those, it is hard to lift our heads up to see a bigger picture because our survival is on the line.

There were moments tonight when I literally said, "This is why I voted for him." I know everyone will pick it apart and try to make it into something less or something inadequate or scary, but I still am glad I voted for him. He is an ox, and he is head down, pulling the plow of his choice. Tonight he said, "Look, I plowed that row, and that row, and tried to plow that row, you have been throwing rocks at me, but I will finish plowing it anyway. And when I finish it, I will plow this row, and then this row, and then this row. Walk behind me and plant more seeds in the freshly turned earth. It is what we want."