Iowa, My Iowa
I went to college in Iowa, having grown up in Kansas. I enjoyed it then and I still have the fondest feelings for the state. It was a pleasant place to live, and a surprisingly progressive and educated state, where in my day all the farm boys went to college, studied classics, then went back home and drove tractors and ran their farms. Therefore I felt I needed to note the sudden arrival and rather quick suspension of marriage equality rights for same-sex couples in the state. As the dust settled, one pair of men was left standing — and married.
On Thursday, 30 August, "Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down Iowa's prohibition on same-sex marriage…."* The reporting continues:
In his 63-page decision, Hanson wrote that the statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage "violates Plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest." Therefore the law is "unconstitutional and invalid."
Apparently this came as a surprise. Iowa court watchers were aware of the case, of course, but presumed that the judge would defer to the Iowa Supreme Court. Instead, what they got is described as a "strongly worded opinion" (that I haven't yet gotten to read). The Independent article continues with some interesting and brief analysis that is worth reading.
Now, immediately upon release of the decision a representative of Polk Country announced that they would appeal. No real surprise there. They also planned to ask for a stay of the ruling. No real surprise there, either. What's interesting is that it was already late in the day and it took several hours the next day for the stay to be requested and to go into effect.
Thus, the "Polk County Recorder's office stopped accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples around 11:30 a.m. today [Friday]."# The story continues with these details:
The move came shortly after Polk County Judge Robert Hanson agreed to suspend his Thursday ruling that overturned Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages pending an appeal by the Polk County Attorney’s Office to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty responded immediately by refusing to accept any more same-sex marriage license applications. County officials said 21 marriage licenses were issued before 11:30, most apparently to same-sex couples.
However, it is thought that a letter will be sent to those couples explaining that, although they have valid marriage licenses, they cannot be used at this time.
With one exception. It seems that one couple, Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan, both students at Iowa State University, managed on Friday morning to get the license, find a judge to waive the usual three-day waiting period, and then get married, all before the stay went into effect.
Here are some remarks (from the Des Moines Register story) from the judge who signed the waiver:
District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg waived the three-day waiting period for at least two same-sex couples today, beginning with McQuillan and Fritz. He turned away couples following word that Hanson had issued the ruling that delays enforcement of his order.
Though Iowa code dictates that judges may waive the waiting period only “under conditions of emergency or extraordinary circumstances,” Rosenberg said it’s not unusual for couples to ask for the three-day waiting period to be waived.
“I did it as a matter of courtesy for the parties involved,” Rosenberg said. “I guess my feeling is if they’re anxious to get married, I have no problem.”
Rosenberg said he doesn’t recall turning anyone down for a three-day waiver, and that his decision was not from an activist standpoint.
“Politics, I don’t care about that,” he said. “I think had I not signed it, that would be a political statement. If I’m going to grant it for couples that are male and female, then why all the sudden should I change because a couple is the same sex?”
The rest happened easily and quickly enough, apparently — getting hitched without a hitch. As CNN reported (from AP newswire)##:
Friday morning, the Rev. Mark Stringer declared the two Iowa State University students legally married in a wedding on Unitarian minister's front lawn in Des Moines.
"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.
Fritz explained their hurry: "We're both in our undergrad programs and we thought maybe we'd put it off until applying at graduate school, but when this opportunity came up, we thought maybe we wouldn't get the opportunity again."
Naturally, some claim that their status is ambiguous; others of us know better, regardless of the ultimate (well, near-term ultimate) decision. Not surprisingly, the anti-marriage-equality crowd were caught off guard and they're not at all happy with the situation in Iowa, vowing to do all sorts of vile things to stop the progress of equality.
Here's what the Polk County Recorder, Julie Haggerty, had to say about their status (again, the Des Moines Register story):
“I have no idea what’s going to happen there,” Haggerty said. “As far as I’m concerned, they have a valid marriage certificate from the state of Iowa.”
I'm so happy that this has happened in Iowa.
———-
*Chase Martyn, "Iowa Judge Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage", Iowa Independent, 30 August 2007, at 5:29 pm.
#Jeff Eckhoff and Abby Simons, "Gay marriage ruling put on hold", Des Moines Register, 31 August 2007.
## Associated Press, "Couple weds before same-sex marriages halted", CNN, undated, accessed on Friday, 31 August 2007.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
My Larry Craig Strategy
Throughout this whole debacle with Larry Craig and his wide stance, the main theme seems to be blinding hypocrisy on virtually everyone's part. The observation would seem to be correct that he didn't actually do anything criminal, although he confessed to a misdemeanor after being pressured and implicitly threatened with exposure.
Was it entrapment? Well, duh. It used to be, not long ago when most states still had laws prohibiting sodomy, predominantly applied only to acts involving men, that the police forces in those states liked to claim that although they had the law they were actually enlightened about the gay lifestyle and never enforced it. Typically there would follow an entrapment or bar raid within about two weeks at which gay men were rounded up, harassed and incarcerated, perhaps a few were caught "resisting arrest" and had to be roughed up, and then with luck — on the part of the police — the men's names would be published in a newspaper.
This was why it was so important that the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional in 2003 — yes, it was that recent — because even if they were only enforced capriciously and infrequently they were frequently used to harass, subdue, and extort. Now there are no more sodomy laws, but attitudes among policy makers, law enforcement, and the public have yet to catch up and harassment continues.
Then the question arises: should Craig resign? Hey, he's a Republican and I like to see Republican hypocrites get their comeuppance, but what's served by his resignation? The governor of Idaho appears already to be salivating to replace Craig and an appointee, so it's yet another Republican with who-know-what skeletons in his, um, closet.
Is Craig gay? Who cares, and why should you care? I don't really care what he calls himself or where he is in his personal road to self-acceptance, although I don't have much time these days for closet cases. He can call himself what he wants but no one should use the technique of "defining gay" to try to get at what was going on. Craig was soliciting for sex in a men's restroom, so he at least has once desired to have sex with another man, regardless of what one wants to call it. And, regardless of the name, there's no there there, to quote a famous lesbian (or: woman who bonded emotionally to women and may have had sex with the same).
Therefore, my considered strategy for Craig that might do some good for him and everyone else involved or observing and snickering is this: Do not resign. Announce that you will not resign because you have violated no laws nor any serious breaches of ethics in the Senate. Announce that you are indeed a man who has had sex with men, that you've denied it for too long but intend to adopt a healthier attitude from here on out, and dare anyone to call you morally broken. Announce that, since the Republican party evidently does not welcome you for the arbitrary reason that you are a man who has had sex with men, henceforth you will be a Democrat and that you intend to run for re-election as a Democrat, thus shocking both Republicans and Democrats who are feeling smug and superior.
So there.
In: All, Current Events, Splenetics
My Italian Underwear
Okay, while I'm thinking about it, here's the story on my Italian underwear.
"Upim" is the name of a department store with quite a few locations around Italy — at least Rome and north. It's a pleasant, upbeat, mid-range department store; Isaac and I liken it to Target here in our part of the US.
When we were in Rome in April I made a point to stop in one of the Upim stores for potential souvenirs. After all, why shouldn't souvenirs be practical as well as evocative of exotic locations? Anyway, we stopped in the smallish store in Termini Station on our way home late one afternoon after some taxing sight-seeing for a bit of restorative shopping.
That time we went to the menswear department where I spotted these neat little packages of knit-cotton boxer briefs — two in each package! — for the rather modest price of five-and-a-half Euros. I was able to figure out my size through various comparisons and conversions and bought one pack to see how they fit, and as one of my special, personal souvenirs.
When I tried them on after we got home, I was delighted to discover that I had exactly the right size and they were about the most comfortable underwear I'd ever put on. Soft and appropriately stretchy material with good fit and excellent cut for my taste. Obviously I was also a little disappointed because, had I tried them on there I could maybe have bought more although we had stopped in almost as we were getting ready to leave.
But I already knew that we'd be returning to Italy in just a few months with our trip to Tuscany planned for July. I looked online and reassured myself that there were several Upim stores in the region and we'd be sure to cross paths with one. I had a mission.
Our group laughed at me when I said one of two things I needed to visit while we were there so that my trip would be complete was an Upim store so I could buy more underwear. Honestly, some people think I make up these things just for effect.
As I'll explain later we stayed the entire time in Pisa. One day we took an inter-city bus to Lucca, a cute little medieval walled city. We were walking along after lunch when we happen to walk down what seemed to be the main street for shops, and what should leap out at us but Upim! I insisted that I had to stop in but the others could go ahead if they wished.
No, no, that's all right they said, humoring me and pretending they could perhaps tolerate spending a few minutes in Upim. (As it turned out they all loved it and couldn't buy enough, and then they couldn't wait to get back to Pisa so they could go to the Upim store there. But anyway….)
As it happened, the end-of-season sale seemed to be just getting underway and there was a bin with perhaps a dozen two-packs of my underwear on sale, 75% off, for only 1.5 Euros. I was ecstatic and snatched up every package they had.* I also bought several swimming suits, but that's really another story.#
I'm wearing a pair right now, as it happens. They really are great, and a lovely souvenir of our trip to Pisa. Practical, too!
———-
* This was a smart move because the stock at the Pisa store, had I waited until we returned, was mostly sold out. What a disappointment that would have been.
# Unlike most American men I like to wear Speedo-style swimming suits both for tanning (something I manage for a couple of days every few years) and for bobbing in the water in swimming pools (since I don't really enjoy recreational swimming). As I pointed out to people who thought my buying of several suits excessive, when I find something that costs $20 to $30 in the US even when it's marked down, on sale for only 4 Euros (say, $5.75), I buy several. Not only that, but at the swimming pool I can always point out that I insist on Italian fashion.
The Old & New Vietnam
How right — in so many ways he hadn't contemplated — the current commander-in-chief is to compare his pretty little war in Iraq with the tragic war in Vietnam.
"For twenty years, first the French and then the United States, have been predicting victory in Vietnam. In 1961 and 1962, as well as 1966 and 1967, we have been told that 'the tide is turning'; there is 'light at the end of the tunnel'; 'we can soon bring home the troops — victory is near — the enemy is tiring.' Once, in 1962, I participated in such predictions myself. But for twenty years we have been wrong. The history of conflict among nations does not record another such lengthy and consistent chronicle of error. It is time to discard so proven a fallacy and face the reality that a military victory is not in sight, and that it probably will never come.
"The best way to save our most precious stake in Vietnam — the lives of our soldiers — is to stop the enlargement of the war, and the best way to end casualties is to end the war."
–Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 [quoted in Joseph A. Palermo, "History Through a Bush", Huffington Post, 26 August 2007.]
Spamish Approbation
Still reading from my Baltimore Sun "Food & Drink Newsletter", I have enjoyed the first part of an article called "The Great Debate: Spam". I agree, naturally, with Mr. Schleicher, who writes to praise Spam; but my four regular readers will be aware already that I do what I can to advance the cause of Spam Cuisine.* I think his point about convenience plus dependability is well taken.
Spam is many things. Some call it gross, some call it disgusting. I have even heard one individual call it "the most vile food product known to man." But for me, Spam is a beautiful thing. It is a feat of culinary ingenuity that should be enjoyed in moderation by all. Spam is perfection. It's delicious the way it is – uncooked, eaten directly from the can. I don't think of it as eating mystery meat. I prefer to think that I'm "dining on Spam tartare."
Spam is versatility. It's easily paired with many different ingredients to create quick, delicious snacks and meals in minutes.
Spam is convenience. Why spend an hour at a meat counter, waiting for your number to be called? Spam takes only minutes to purchase. In fact, I enjoy parading through the meat department with a can of Spam in hand to remind all of the patient shoppers that I will have made a delectable meal, consumed it and taken a nap by the time they get their fresh meat home and in the fridge.
Spam is dependability. I love knowing that the four-month-old can sitting in the recesses of my pantry will be just as good as the day I bought it. Those unfortunate souls who waste hours of their lives standing in a meat line have only days to eat their meat.
[excerpt from Brad Schleicher, "The Great Debate: Spam", Baltimore Sun, undated (and their links don't persist, so….)]
(I see no reason to give any space to the person writing the vapid & scurrilous anti-Spam screed, since she is obviously a person without discerning taste.)
———-
*This reminds me that at a party once — obviously after most of the party-goers had had too much to drink — several of us advanced the idea of creating a Society for the Promotion of Wasabi and Anchovies; it's work should be obvious from the name. The first project we thought of was a cookbook that would promote the two food-like substances. I remember two recipes we created: 1) Wasabi ice cream with Anchovy Sauce; and 2) Anchovy Wedding Cake, with Wasabi icing. Yumm.
Questioning Snobbish Validity
Each week I get from the Baltimore Sun newspaper people an email that tries to entice me to read online various of their "Food & Drink" articles. This week's "newsletter" had this curious teaser in it:
A few gaffes, a lot of golds
The July announcement set the wine blogs buzzing: Charles Shaw Chardonnay, the $2 wine sold at Trader Joe's discount markets, was awarded a double-gold medal at the 2007 California State Fair. One of the most prestigious wine competitions in the country has canonized a wine whose name is synonymous with cheap — bringing into question the validity of all wine competitions.
Now, what's this bit about "bringing into question the validity of all wine competitions"?
Why, for instance, does it not bring into question the validity of opinions rendered by wine snobs?
Why, for instance, should a devoted oenophile not find pleasure in a $2-dollar bottle of Chardonnay, just because the bottle cost $2?
Or, perhaps, this little blurb tells us some things about the assumptions of the person writing the copy.
There are many things about which I'm a hopeless snob — although I can't think of any right off hand, but I'm sure I am — but I nevertheless always try to look for value, and I take particular delight in finding something of quality for a remarkably low price.* I tend to be one of those people who shares such things and exclaims: "Isn't this great? And you wouldn't believe how cheap it was!"
Perhaps, on the other hand, the writers know some truths about wine competitions that I'm not privy to.
———-
*Remind me later to explain about my Italian underwear.
In: All, Food Stuff, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
No Lessons from Vietnam After All
I was reading something else when it hit me: there had been a rumor that the current president would be making a new, know-your-socks-off, back-in-the-saddle speech about his nice little war in Iraq — and evidently, that speech he gave early last week in which he said that his war in Iraq was, after careful consideration, actually like the Vietnam, um, conflict after all was to have been that speech. And to think I hadn't even noticed.
I do feel vindicated. Some time ago in this space, probably even more than once, I posited the notion that W's little war in Iraq was to be the liberal-commies' comeuppance, at the hands of the ever-so-practical reactionaries, for forcing America to withdraw prematurely from the war in Vietnam, thus "losing" it for us. They denied it, of course, but now it's clear that it was their intent.
And, of course, they're being just as idiotic about now as they were then. In Vietnam, we were told, we had to "fight communism over there" so — wait for it! — we didn't have to fight it over here. Those prosecuting the war with such football-fan fervor never did quite seem to realize that "communism" was an idea, not an enemy, and they could never quite enunciate what "victory in Vietnam" might mean, no matter how long they searched for the answer, nor how many soldiers died in the search. How would we know when we'd won? How was "communism" supposed to surrender? I was happy to read Avedon Carol say it ("As if no blood were spilled") with such precision:
It would be nice if we could somehow force them [reactionary supporters of Bush's new "Theory of Vietnam"] into a real debate in which we get to ask them just what exactly it is they think we lost in 'Nam, and what we would have won if we'd stayed. What prize would have been worth thousands more names added to that wall?
And then there's Iraq where, among other specious justifications, we have to prosecute a war on "terror", yet another idea with neither an enemy to defeat nor a territory to invade, which wasn't going to stop us! Also like last time, there is no strategy for victory because "victory" is not a possible end-point when there is no enemy to defeat, only an idea to thrash at in true Quixotic fashion.
I'll leave it to Robert Reich to sum it up for me:
But most Americans know the truth. Not only did we have no strategy once we got to Vietnam but we had no good reason to be in Vietnam in the first place. Tens of thousands of American lives and countless Vietnamese lives were lost because we wrongly assumed that communism in Southeast Asia was a contagion that would spread unless eradicated by force. Yet for the last four years we have heard the same words we heard from Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara forty years ago – that we are “winning” in Iraq, that we must “stay the course” there, that “leaving would be tantamount to defeat,” that “America’s credibility” is at stake, that a “pullout would be disastrous.” And today, seemingly without comprehending the close parallels between the bloodbath America caused by entering Vietnam more than four decades ago and the bloodbath he caused by entering Iraq, our president has the audacity to tell us that our withdrawal from Iraq would result in a bloodbath similar to that caused by our withdrawal from Vietnam. The apparent stupidity of this man — or his assumption of the stupidity of the American people — is unfathomable.
In: All, Current Events, Plus Ca Change...
Approaching Mars
Before I even get that ridiculous e-mail about how Mars will soon look as big as the moon because of a close approach by the Earth, here's a note from NASA:
August 21, 2007: By the time you finish reading this sentence, you'll be 25 miles closer to the planet Mars.
Earth and Mars are converging, and right now the distance between the two planets is shrinking at a rate of 22,000 mph–or about 25 miles per sentence. Ultimately, this will lead to a close approach in late December 2007 when Mars will outshine every star in the night sky. Of a similar encounter in the 19th century, astronomer Percival Lowell wrote the following: "[Mars] blazes forth against the dark background of space with a splendor that outshines Sirius and rivals the giant Jupiter himself."
Contrary to rumor, though, Mars is never going to outshine the Moon.
There is an email circulating the internet—called the "Mars Hoax" or the "Two Moons email"—claiming that Mars will soon swell as large as the full Moon, and the two will hang together side by side on the night of Aug. 27th. "Mars will be spectacular," it states. "No one alive today will ever see this again."
No one will see it, because it won't happen.
It is true that Earth and Mars are converging–you're now 300 miles closer–but even at closest approach the two planets are separated by a gulf of tens of millions of miles. From such a distance, Mars looks like a star, an intense yet tiny pinprick of light, never a full Moon.
[excerpt from Dr. Tony Phillips, "Hurtling Towards Mars", Science @ NASA, 21 August 2007.]
I rather like the poetry of their special-purpose units for velocity: miles / (sentence read).
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science
Sometimes Higher Prices
Isaac and I made a brief visit to Wal*Mart yesterday, in search of something we hadn't been able to locate but were told they had. We went despite feeling that shopping at Wal*Mart is never really a peak shopping experience. As we shopped I thought about a number of the other shoppers, and thought about Wal*Mart's "always lower prices", and wondered whether everyone might prosper a little bit if, instead, Wal*Mart went for a few somewhat higher prices and then paid their workers enough to afford those items with perhaps a bit left over for, say, health insurance. Wouldn't Wal*Mart, then, be growing customers from whom it might expect a growing profit margin in the long run. (Oops! Strategic thinking.)
And now, here's Barbara Ehrenreich with the same analysis in different words, and a reminder of how perceptive Henry Ford could be at times about business:
When, for example, the largest private employer in America, which is Wal-Mart, starts experiencing a shortage of customers, it needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. About a century ago, Henry Ford realized that his company would only prosper if his own workers earned enough to buy Fords. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, never seemed to figure out that its cruelly low wages would eventually curtail its own growth, even at the company's famously discounted prices.
[Barbara Ehrenreich, "Smashing Capitalism", Huffington Post, 20 August 2007.]
In: All, Plus Ca Change..., Reflections
A Political Thriller
I've been thinking of writing a novel, a political thriller. The story goes something like this.
There's this guy — not a terribly bright guy but easily managed — who comes from a rich, political family. Then there's this group of reactionaries, behind-the-scenes types who conspire to get the Guy elected president through a mixture of election shenanigans and extorting a Supreme Court judge. Later the Guy gets re-elected entirely through electoral shenanigans, but that's just a subplot.
So, while this Guy's president there's this big terrorist attack that he exploits to pass some laws that let the government — really, the reactionary, behind-the-scenes types who are always worried that the government is overrun with communists or liberals or what not — start keeping the people (basically, only the liberals, who can't be trusted because they always want openness and fair government) under surveillance. President Guy starts a war with some small, middle-eastern country, the thinking being that war-time powers will let the government get away with some of this stuff but it turned out that it wasn't really necessary, since most of the electorate wanted him to do whatever was necessary to keep their kids safe, including killing them in an unnecessary war.
Besides, the media moguls and heads of telecommunications are all part of the reactionary, behind-the-scenes group and they make sure that nothing serious gets in the way of setting up these censorship / surveillance strategies, only they don't have to be real conspirators because having government on their side is what they want anyway — that's the beauty of the plot (pun intended). Between that and President Guy getting the power from congress to detain citizens arbitrarily and declare them to be enemies of the state keeps the electorate subdued, Well, that and the continuous stream of supportive propaganda from the media moguls and appropriate censorship and meticulous record-keeping of the telecommunications giants, of course.
Now, President Guy — actually, the reactionary, behind-the-scenes conspiracy — writes a secret plan for how to keep the government going in case of another serious terrorist attack and President Guy refuses to share any details of the plan with congress or the electorate because of — obviously! — national security. Then they wait.
Sure enough, there's a big terrorist attack. It might be real, it might be contrived by the government; it's probably best to leave that ambiguous in the book. But anyway, in the immediate aftermath the secret plan is put into effect and involves President Guy declaring martial law and suspending the Constitution in the name of national security. People are shocked but acquiesce, in part because televangelists proclaim it's what Jesus would do. In an ironic touch, the National Rifle Association even helps round up citizens' personal arms when the 2nd amendment is declared un-American, and citizen's militias set up collection centers. Congress squirms but since it gave President Guy all these powers without demur, there's nothing much they can do. Before long President Guy dissolves congress anyway because they just get in the way deliberating and debating and slowing down the work of the state in keeping itself safe.
Now, it happens that martial law comes along just a couple of months before the next presidential election that would choose his successor, so President Guy suspends the election — temporarily! — in the name of national security. The reactionary, behind-the-scenes conspiracy is happy because they accomplished what they wanted: a permanent, presidential puppet and a suspended Constitution. Finally, what's good for large corporations is manifestly good for America!
Of course, someplace there's a lone blogger who knows the behind-the-scenes story and has details and documentation, but he has trouble getting the story out because the media moguls and telecommunications giants are able to suppress all his efforts because of the laws congress passed killing net neutrality and letting the government "monitor" all his electronic communications. Soon the entire country is convinced that he's enemy-of-the-state number one, probably even more convinced when the the media moguls try to smear him with details about his gay relationship of seventeen years. Perhaps they even kidnap one the seven children that he and his partner adopted to try to hold him back.
Just how he gets his message out and saves his beloved American democracy, not to mention his adopted child, I haven't quite worked out in detail but I'm sure he manages somehow. However he does save American democracy, though, it will probably have to be through nefarious inside nastiness because the American people almost surely wouldn't believe anything he tells them until after it's all well over.
The problem I'm having with working out the plot is not the plotting per se, but I'm not so sure that anyone would find the story believable.
In: All, Current Events, Plus Ca Change...
Gravel vs. States' Rights
There were two things that Hillary Clinton said in last week's HRC/LOGO presidential forum that have nagged at me a bit. Whether they're show-stoppers for me is moot right now since I much prefer Mike Gravel or Chris Dodd as my candidate of choice.
Thing number one was, when discussing the "debate" over marriage equality for same-sex couples, Ms. Clinton said something to the effect that "this hasn't yet been a long-term struggle". Now, exactly what she was thinking is one thing, but what I heard is "gays and lesbians haven't suffered enough yet for their equality". How long is exactly long enough, one wonders? When it's finally been long enough does Ms. Clinton come on board with whole-hearted support, finally no reservations? The implication, of course, is that marriage equality will be ours — as it obviously should be — but we have to earn it somehow by waiting. Tsk. Such a limited concept of freedom and civil rights.
And then there's that whole state's rights thing. Yes, she idiotically said that she thought marriage equality was really a state issue. Now, while it's true that marriage is administered by states, civil marriage itself is a federal status, complete with federal benefits, and Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws, demonstrated that the Supreme Court thought so, too.
You, and I, and probably even Ms. Clinton knows that the phrase "states' rights" is just a cover for deferring leadership on the issue and facilitating continued discrimination, just as it has been since the phrase was used in the early days of the anti-racist, civil rights struggle.
Let me give the podium over to candidate Mike Gravel for a moment to say a few words about this issue:
During last week's historic gay debate, Hillary Clinton dredged up the old states rights argument when justifying her opposition to gay marriage. Apparently she thinks that the second class citizenship of gays and lesbians is a matter for the states to decide.
By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation's history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.
States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots. Now Hillary has given rhetorical cover to the homophobes. If she wins the Democratic nomination, opponents of gay marriage will cite her statement to justify their opposition to national marriage equality over the next decade.
[excerpted from Mike Gravel, "Hillary Chooses States Rights Over Gay Rights", Huffington Post, 14 August 2007."
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
A Summer Evening's Dinner
Isaac is away for a few days at his annual conference of choral directors, so I'm doing my best to enjoy this small island of solitude. I redeemed some of the day's laziness by mowing the lawn tonight, which I completed despite the late evening heat that was a little more enervating than I had imagined it would be. But, as compensation, I had planned a nice summer dinner for myself.
In an unusual bit of planning & preparing ahead, I hard cooked a dozen eggs last night so that this afternoon I could make one of my rare treats: egg salad. A week ago a friend of Isaac's sent us some organic tomatoes from his garden, so I cut those up into wedges and doused them with olive oil and some salt.
As we left the campground last week we stopped at a farm stand and bought a bunch of sweet corn and half a dozen peaches. We ate most of the corn on Monday night last, but there were two ears left over. The peaches, which fruit Isaac doesn't like, I've been enjoying all week long. They're ripe, fragrant, and juicy.
Egg salad, corn on the cob, tomato salad, and a peach, all of it fresh and tasty and brimming with the best of summer. Yumm.
HRC/LOGO LGBT Presidential Forum
I felt very 21st century tonight and watched the HRC/Logo Presidential Forum ("The Visible Vote '08") on Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-&-Transgender issues at my computer by streaming video. It was an historic first for presidential campaigning and for me, since it's the first time I'd watched a program over our new FiOS connection.
I found it quite interesting, too. The business of a "conversation" rather than a "debate" sounded almost too touchy-feely liberal when I heard it described — and keep in mind that I'm a touchy-feeling liberal, too — but I think it came off pretty well. It took the panel a little time to get into the flow, but in the end it gave a larger-than-soundbite view of each of the candidates.
- Barack Obama: didn't excite me overmuch, but he didn't bother me all that much either. He's a credible candidate and sounding rather mainstream about gay & lesbian issues without going too far. A bit ho-hum, but not scary.
- John Edwards: I still like him, although he keeps squirming on the hook over this question of his wanting to support marriage equality but he's just not there yet on his personal journey. Well, the leadership litmus says get over it. I'd still consider voting for him.
- Dennis Kucinich: Okay, so he comes across like a candidate too flaky to be president, but then, he's not nearly so scary as George W. and he's got ideas with vitality. He's one of the people we have to be happy is in the race because he helps to push the debate over the issues in a good direction.
- Mike Gravel: I like him a lot. Sure, nobody thinks he's electable, but that's because nobody else thinks he's electable and so many people want to vote for the person who's going to win rather than the person they want to win. I wish people would vote for the best candidate instead. But then, Gravel himself doesn't think he's electable but he's doing a bang-up job on framing debates and bringing up campaign issues, and not expecting to win has made him remarkably relaxed and honest in this setting, like that person who comes to an interview for a job he doesn't expect to get and is charming and witty and smart. Gravel was those things and I may make him my candidate of choice for as long as I can.
- Bill Richardson: He was an unexpected disappointment tonight, and largely because of a very odd answer over the question whether he thought sexual orientation was something GLBTs are born with or "a choice". His stumbling over describing it as "a choice" shocked the audience, leading them to think he misunderstood the question. I'm wondering whether he was taking a stab at the approach that it doesn't matter which it is, because GLBTs deserve equal rights regardless; but, if he was, he needs to think it through some more and clarify.
- Hillary Clinton: You know, she just doesn't scare me. She was good in that mainstream political way — not as much fun as Gravel but probably deemed much more "electable". She wasn't bad on GLBT issues although she's still triangulating. Still, she wouldn't be a bad choice, I think, but I'll still hope for an underdog surge from Gravel.
In the end, I think it was a good thing, this "forum". And despite the hype, there was excitement over it's being a first, and it was a milestone. I'm plenty old enough to remember my community's bitterness over Reagan and AIDS and how many years it took before he could even say "gay" or "homosexual". I can remember Clinton (that would be Bill) being as welcoming as any president we'd seen to that point but who still found talking about GLBT issues to feel awkward and unfamiliar.
So, it was a nice treat tonight to see all these Democratic candidates wanting to come to this forum, wanting to engage this audience, eager to discuss these topics, and hear them talk about these issues without awkwardness, without the sense that the words felt thick in their mouths. Maybe it is progress after all, and maybe Mike Gravel was right when he said he was certain that by the next presidential campaign marriage equality for gays and lesbians would be a huge non-issue.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
Meet 82 LGBT Lutheran Ministers
Here's an interesting sounding event taking place this evening at what appears to be a church-wide Lutheran conference called "Churchwide":
What: [Cameras OK] LGBT Lutheran Pastors, from among the 82 ministers just introduced to the wider Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, speak out in favor of eliminating the policy that prohibits continued service in the ministry by those in committed, same-gender relationships.
Background: The ELCA policy prohibits LGBT ministers from living as family in committed, lifelong, same-gender relationships. Though the ELCA says it welcomes LGBT persons into the life of the church, LGBT ministers are required to remain celibate their entire lives. This prohibition is discriminatory and flies in the face of Martin Luther's strongly stated rejection of forcing celibacy on any individual.
Eighty-two lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Lutheran ministers have chosen to introduce themselves to the ELCA and speak out against the policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that prohibits them from entering into lifelong, loving family relationships.
[from the press advisory: "LGBT Lutheran Pastors Introduced", Goodsoil, undated.]
According to the same advisory, Goodsoil is an organization
… working for full inclusion of LGBT Lutherans in the life of their church and is comprised [sic] of Lutherans Concerned/North America (www.lcna.org), The Network for Full Inclusion (www.inclusivenet.com), Wingspan Ministry (www.stpaulref.org), and the Extraordinary Candidacy Project (www.extraordinarycandidacyproject.org).
[First seen at Box Turtle Bulletin.]
Camping in the Woods
We got back late Sunday evening from our weekend camping trip with our friends Tom & James. They have a very nice camper that they keep at The Woods Campground.*
The Woods is an all-gay, clothing-optional campground; it's very easy to become immersed in that environment and returning to straight-majority, clothing-required civilization is a bit of a culture shock. No doubt it doesn't help that we had such a serene, relaxing weekend, a mood that one would like to maintain. I'm longing to return already although it's easy to see that it probably wouldn't be so serene and relaxing as a permanent home, of course.
Anyone who knows me is likely at this point to exclaim something along the lines of "Jeff? Camping!". Well, yes, and I have done it before although I'm not really the outdoorsy type. However, this wasn't all that rugged and it was a friendly, comfortable atmosphere. Isaac seemed almost surprised that I really had a good time and wasn't just going along, but I did. I also got some sun burn but, fortunately, none of my tender bits were affected.
Think about the environment for a moment and you'll easily imagine that we met quite a number of eccentric and fabulous people.# Many of the permanent sites had lovely gardens with unusual and creative landscaping features. Some of the residents get around on golf carts — at least one was pink and several were decorated with fairy lights. It also happened to be bear weekend at The Woods, so we felt right at home.
There seemed to be three main activities to occupy one's attention. One was simply sitting at the campsite greeting passersby and making conversation with some; the bawdiness of the conversation seemed to depend on whether it was daylight or after dark. The second was walking around the campground so that one could be a passerby, greeting and making conversation with other people sitting at their campsites. Third was spending time in the pool, talking and sunning and bobbing in the water. Clearly conversation was a major activity; perhaps this is a consequence of not having pockets to carry other distractions in.&
Nighttime was particularly charming. The golf carts had their lights on and many campsites were also decorated with colorful lighting displays. Passersby were generally in high spirits — or were high from spirits — and campfires created their own magic. The fires were useful since the evenings could be quite cool and one felt loathe to put on clothes just because of that.
Not surprisingly many of the residents were there just for the weekend, so there was packing-up that began late Sunday morning and departures into the early afternoon when it got rather quiet and much of the mood dissipated in the hot, glaring sun. We lazed around for the afternoon, and spent some time in the depopulated pool sharing desultory conversation with some new acquaintances who hadn't left yet.
We finally tore ourselves away about 5:30 for our long drive back home.
__________
*If you look at the map of the campground, their camper was parked just to the left of the word "Field".
#If you happen to be someone we met this weekend, leave a note so we can say "Hi!"
&As a consequence, one almost never heard a mobile phone ring, nor did one have to suffer through loud, one-sided conversations from people talking on them.
In: All, Faaabulosity, Personal Notebook
Red Queen Syndrome
Gosh but we seem to have been awfully busy this week and I don't know what we were doing to keep so busy; bits of this and that but no big projects that I can summarize neatly. I thought I'd mention, though, that we're going to take a long weekend to visit our friends Tom and James and go camping someplace in the Pennsylvania hills.
Isaac has been very industrious this past week with putting captions on our photo albums for our Italian excursions this year: "Tuscany, 2007" and "Rome, 2007". They're not quite all done yet, but more are than are not certainly. I mean to tell you more about the trip to Tuscany, but now it will have to wait until we're back from the wilds of Pennsylvania. In the meantime, feel free to look through all the pictures, of which there are quite a few.
I'm No Bigot, But….
A little while back my sister forwarded to me yet another of those lists of philosophical observations — typically reactionary attitudes told in the form of jokes with bad timing and worse punch-lines — this one attributed to Andy Rooney. (It's urban legend, of course.) Among it's pithy comments was this gem:
I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it's not a phobia, it's an opinion.
I wrote back with this comment:
Sorry, I can't stomach reactionaries who think homophobia is just an opinion.
To which my sister, ever sensible and even-tempered, responded with
Ok, maybe I have the wrong definition of homophobia. I thought it related to people who were "afraid" of homosexuality or some such thing. In that case, wouldn't it be an opinion?
and to whom, therefore, I wrote the following letter. I don't think she'll mind if I share.
From the roots: "fear of homosexuality". More generally in the vernacular it's used to describe irrational, outlandish, inexplicable, or disproportionate reaction to anything to do with homosexuality.
It's quite common for people with homophobic inclinations to hide behind statements like "I'm not *afraid* of homosexuals, I just think it's disgusting."
Think for a minute, say, about people who don't like chocolate ice cream. Generally they will avoid eating it, perhaps say "I don't care for it" if necessary, but rarely do they advocate making it illegal and attacking people who eat it while claiming they have nothing against chocolate ice cream but it's disgusting.
People who don't care about homosexuality really shouldn't care, rather than caring over much as homophobes do, sometimes to the point of obsession. Have you ever wondered why all these evangelical preachers seem so interested in something that they really should give rather little time to, if they care about it as little as they claim.
On the face of it, remarks like those attributed to Mr. Rooney about "the only real discrimination" or not really being "afraid of homosexuals", are clues akin to "but some of my best friends are…." — innocuous on the surface but usually masking suppressed racism or homophobia. In this case, with the pseudo-Rooney, it's all reactionary politics dressed up to sound friendly and inoffensive in an attempt to get readers to agree without thinking about it, and hoping to gain a little prestige by pretending to have been said by Andy Rooney. As I said, people who claim not to care one way or the other really, really shouldn't care one way or the other or else they're hiding something.
You hear it a lot in the marriage "debate", that "I have nothing against homosexuals, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married." Press that "opinion" to a conclusion and you'll find that the speaker has plenty of unresolved issues about homosexuals. Remember "I have nothing against black people, I just don't want one to marry my daughter?" Not particularly alarming at the time — to white people, at least — doesn't seem unreasonable, but it's still racist, and it's used to paper over those quite unreasonable fears and make the speaker seem ever so reasonable about it.
So much political discussion today — maybe it's always been true — is coded in these phrases meant to be understood by fellow travelers for what they are but seem superficially reasonable. Listen carefully to the "debate" about immigration "reform", which really has very little to do with reforming immigration policy but quite a bit to do with rather hysterical xenophobia. Replacing rational discourse with emotional manipulation is a good way to get people like George W. Bush elected — he certainly wouldn't get a majority if the entire electorate responded to what he actually thought (to the extent, of course, that he thinks).
So, when people go out of their way to be reasonable about homosexuals and tell you how little it matters to them, you might wonder why they brought it up in the first place.
Fruity Slow-Cooker Pot Roast
Last Monday I used the slow cooker to prepare a pot roast and, happily, it came out tasting to me just about exactly as a pot roast should, so I'm going to make a note of the recipe before I forget the details. This is somewhat modified by me from the recipe for "Lazy Day Braised Pot Roast" on page 316 of Beth Hensperger's and Julie Kaufmann's Not Your Mother's Slow Cooker Cookbook (Boston : Harvard Common Press, 2005). The apricots and prunes are something I've always put in with pot roast — they make it taste richer.
Braised, Fruity Pot Roast in the Slow Cooker
- One 3.5 to 4 pound pot roast (seven-bone roast worked well)
- salt, pepper, paprika
- 2 onions, sliced in half moons
- 2 cloves minced garlic
- 10 dried apricots
- 10 prunes
- 3 cups water
- 1/2 cup red wine
- 3 tablespoons butter, softened (optional)
- 3 tablespoons all-purpose flour (optional)
- Cover the roast generously with salt, pepper, and paprika. Put it in the slow cooker.
- Add the onions, garlic, apricots, and prunes.
- Pour in the water and wine.
- Cook on LOW for 6 to 8 hours. (6.5 hours was fine for this roast.)
- Optional (I didn't) to thicken the sauce: lift out the roast after cooking; turn heat to HIGH; mash flour and butter together, and whisk it into the liquids until they thicken suitably.
Mt. Olive Pickles
Oddly, this post's title is not meant to be ironic, metaphorical, or symbolic. We had some Mt. Olive sugar-free sweet pickles with our dinner tonight, and I felt like writing a few words of praise. Mt. Olive is a brand of pickles and condiments and such things that is common is our area; I don't know how widely distributed they are, though, so it's possible that most of you have never heard of them. Nevertheless, think nicely of them, if you will.
It was, now, a few years ago when Isaac and I were doing some grocery shopping and saw a special display of Mt. Olive pickles with a label that looked at the same time familiar and yet unfamiliar. It was a jar of sweet gherkins. Closer inspection revealed the subtle differences: one of the colors in the label was changed, and there were the words "sugar free". Imagine! Someone had finally gone to the trouble of producing and marketing sugar-free sweet gherkins!
It was a joy. Sure, a small one, but one that can perk up a diabetic's life out of all proportion. Simultaneously: validation and a favorite treat now made guilt free. They also quite considerately produce a sugar-free sweet relish, which enhances my hot-dog experience beyond all reckoning.
And again tonight we enjoyed this small yet delightful treat with our dinner. Yumm.
In: All, Food Stuff, Personal Notebook
Bush Coup Finally Realized?
Fascinating, and so, so not surprising. The BBC, in a radio programme* called Document ("The award-winning investigative series returns, in which Mike Thomson takes a document as a starting-point to shed new light on past events.") that apparently aired this past Monday evening asserts that Prescott Bush, the First Grandfather, was once a conspirator in a coup plot to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
From the BBC (radio) website, here is the promotional copy:
Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen.
The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.
Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.
(First seen at Towleroad.)
———-
* Hey! It's BBC, so we adopt British spelling.
In: All, Briefly Noted, Raised Eyebrows Dept.