Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

Marriage equality may be closer than you think

Momentum is moving the gay-marriage debate in teh right direction, thanks to an aggressive push from marriage-equality activists.

Consider the poll released today by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute that shows a plurality of New Jerseyans — 49 percent for, 43 percent opposed — backing the legalization of same-sex marriage, a sea change when compared with a December 2006 poll that found marriage-equality opposed by a 50-44 margin. The poll also found that voters, by a 63-30 margin, support the existing civil unions law.

“Two years after New Jersey’s civil union law went into effect, sentiment for allowing same-sex marriage in the state has shifted from six points against to six points in favor,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“Support for the same-sex civil union law has risen dramatically and New Jersey voters do not see gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriages between a man and a woman. Support for allowing gay couples to adopt children is nearly 2 – 1.”

Another key finding of the poll is the complete rejection of the claim made by the homophobes at the National Organization for Marriage and other like groups seeking to demonize gays and paint the LGBT community as somehow a threat to American values. Groups like NOM have long argued that same-sex marriage is a threat to so-called “traditional marriage.” They’ve never explained what that threat entails, beyond saying that it redefines marriage and parenthood — an argument that is beyond specious and appears to be losing steam.

From the Quinnipiac Poll:

New Jersey voters reject 66 – 30 percent the argument that same-sex marriage “is a threat to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.” Even Republicans disagree with this claim 51 – 46 percent, as do those who attend religious services weekly, 52 – 43 percent.

Think about it — two-thirds of New Jersey voters find this argument unconvincing, meaning that the chief pillar on which the opposition has built its case is melting.

Let’s keep up the heat.

Runner’s diary, Thursday

Stayed inside again — a cool wind, sore legs and general wimpiness were the culprits — but managed four miles on the treadmill in about 36 minutes.

iPod: Recent podcast of recent Fresh Air interview with poet W.S. Merwin

Plumbing the depths of absurdity

Joe the Plumber will make an appearance in New Jersey to endorse Steve Lonegan for governor.

What I find amazing about this is that John McCain’s campaign mascot — a man discredited with the vast majority of sentient beings — remains a part of conservative discourse, that Joe the Plumber is viewed by people like Lonegan as someone who can sway voters.

And what is funny is that Lonegan, in an e-mail to members of “Team Lonegan” that somehow found its way to my inbox (I’m on his mailing list for some reason), refers to Joe as “America’s Taxpayer Hero.” Hero? Only if taking full advantage of your brush with fame qualifies one to be a hero.

Thoughts on school board votes: Divining meaning from the random

Before anyone jumps to conclusions about Tuesday’s school election results, they need to consider the history.

Yes, more than 70 percent of school budgets were approved around the state, according to NJ.com. (The percentage was higher locally.) This may seem like a shockingly high percentage. When placed within its historical context, however, it isn’t.

A quick review of school budget results going back to 1976 shows that in 23 of the last 34 years, including this year, more than two-thirds of budget passed statewide (more than 70 percent passed in 19 of those years); in only five years did less than 60 percent pass — including 1976, when 44 percent passed, the only year in which the numbers dipped below 50.

The lean years, for the most part, correspond with public anger over New Jersey taxes — 1990 and 1991 were the Florio backlash years, 2006 was the property tax reform/budget shutdown year, 1994 featured Christie Whitman’s assault on spending and the 1976 votes came just a month after the creation of the first state income tax in response to court rulings on education funding (Robinson v. Cahill).

Given this history, perhaps yesterday’s results were surprising. Republicans, for instance, are trying to cast Jon Corzine in the role of Jim Florio and re-stoke the anger of that earlier era. And voters are angry about a lot of things — at least according to polls that show a majority of New Jerseyans disapproving of the governor’s efforts to date.

And yet, most budget passed — many by comfortable margins.

What does this mean? It is difficult to say. There are two historical trends butting up against each other — one in which a generalized state-level public anger is taken out on school budgets and another in which voters tend to support educational spending.

Remember, Jim Florio lost by less than 25,000 votes to Whitman in 1993 despite being one of the most unpopular governors in the state’s history and Brendan Byrne won a second term in 1977 despite predictions to the contrary. And Robert Menendez, in the 2006 Senate race, was down by double digits in the polls late in the campaign against Tom Kean Jr. — and he won by double digits.

I have no idea where all of this is going. What I do know, however, is that we have a long way to go before voters have to decide (we don’t even have an official Republican challenger yet). And yesterday’s results did little to clarify this.

Literary Nobel-ity

The Nobel Prize for literature has, to put it mildly, a rather awful track record — as this piece in The Record by Marie Arana, the former editor of The Washington Post Book World, makes pretty clear. While I disagree with some of her judgments — I like Steinbeck and think the downgrading of his contribution in recent years is unfortunate — her larger point is well taken.

How could judges who profess to know literature shun Tolstoy, James Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Nabokov or Henry James? If the goal, as the original mandate proclaimed, was to identify those who have “conferred the greatest benefit on mankind,” why extol the muddled pornography of Elfriede Jelinek? Or the unremarkable output of Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, former judges themselves?