Most are Average
From "Framing The GOP", by Parker Blackman (which I read at TomPaine.com), this stunning tautology:
Most Americans are moderate in their views; extremism on either side of the political spectrum makes them uncomfortable.
I've known for some time that most people don't have any sort of feeling for statistical concepts, and few of them seem to have any intuition about what an "average" is. This is another brilliant example of that truth, and an excellent starting point for discussing the "average", which I don't really feel up to starting yet; but here are a few notes.
Years ago, I had a student in an introductory physics lab, who was concerned that his data were not very good because, in his words: "some of the values were above the average and some were below the average". How could it be otherwise?
Since then I've claimed that one of the funniest thing about Garrison Keillor's witticism that, in the fictitous Lake Wobegon, "all of the children are above average", is that so many people overlook the irony in their rush to agree that it would be a very desirable state of affairs.
Although we take the author's rhetorical point, how could "most Americans" not be "moderate in their views", since the only sensible meaning for "moderate" would be in reference to viewpoints help by "most Americans"?
Until next time, interested readers are asked to work on their essays addressing the topic "The Normal Distribution and its Relation to Normal Things".
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
Negative Fluidity
From "DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern", by Mike Allen (Washington Post).
"If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.
Another reason for speaking on condition of anonymity: a marked over reliance on platitudes and silly, inappropriate metaphors.
I think I understand now why I have no aptitude for political consulting, although I do admit to a certain attraction for "negatively fluid".
In: All, Common-Place Book, Such Language!
Oh No! Gay Porn!!
Noted with irritation:
Gay author Greg Herren said he was surprised when he was asked to give a presentation to the Gay-Straight Alliance at Manchester High School in Chesterfield County, Va.
He was told that his presentation had been approved by the faculty adviser of the school’s one-year-old Gay-Straight Alliance, as well as by the principal of the school. He was even asked to donate copies of some of his books for a new gay section in the school library.
“I found myself, whenever I thought about it, kind of bemused at my own prejudices about Virginia, and red states in general,” said Herren. “Obviously, my preconceived notion that red states are hotbeds of intolerance, ignorance, and hatred masquerading as Christianity and ‘family values’ was pretty off base.”
But last Thursday — just one week before his scheduled presentation — Herren said he was contacted by a reporter from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, who wanted to interview him about the controversy surrounding his scheduled event.
That was the first he had heard about any controversy.
Herren then discovered that the Virginia Family Policy Network had initiated an e-mail campaign characterizing Herren as a “gay porn” writer and suggesting that it was not appropriate for him to be in contact with students. The e-mail urged parents to contact the school and object to Herren’s visit.
[Reported by the Washington Blade in "High school cancels appearance by gay author: School officials rescind invite after e-mail protest", by Eartha Melzer.]
Not only do I take the "gay" snub personally, I take the "gay porn" snub personally, since I, too, am an [avocational] "gay pornographer". I haven't met Greg, but we move in the same friendly and devoted circles of authors and editors — circles, mind you, that don't meet behind dumpsters in dark allies or in dimly lit, filthy basements.
No, our writing, our books, can be found on the shelves at your local mega bookstore — I still get a small kick out of having my words in 4 or 5 books on the shelves when I visit my local Barnes & Noble.
This, I think, is as it should be. I have written elsewhere (see, e.g., the link to the right or above to Jay Neal's website; Jay Neal is my nom de porn) that what started out as an exercise for me in writing fiction for an outlet that presented itself, soon became something that I practice with care and deliberation, which I think is important, and to which I feel something of a calling. In my case to do what I can to help bears (stereotypically: fat, hairy men) see themselves as positive sexual beings, and to help everyone who will read my words to get over their unhealthy squeamishness about sex.
Yes, yes, I can hear the hounds in the background yelping that such stuff is not "appropriate" for school-age children. (I am confounded by this: let them graduate from high school before they hear the word "homosexual" — to describe already familiar urges — but take the 5-year-olds to fundamentalist anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage protests to carry signs like "God Hates Fags"? Is it just me, or is there some double-standard going on with this?)
Well, get this: we gay pornographers can speak about writing without using "dirty words". Imagine that! I know that it must be quite a surprise that I've written this much without saying anything relating to the male sexual anatomy or used any of the words commonly used to describe what two men do … together.
To be honest, when I write a story the sex bits don't always come out that well, because I find them significantly less interesting than the characters and their interactions as full-blooded, social, and sexual beings. But please don't tell anyone I said so, because some people think my sex bits are hot, and I don't want to disillusion them.
But I usually don't say that, because I don't want to protest that there's not much sex in my stories anyway, because I don't think it should matter one way or another when it's adults reading them. I really don't want to facilitate (by claiming that I write artistic "erotica" rather than "pornography") those who would make the Playboy excuse that they only read the articles and never look at the pictures, because I don't think there's anything wrong with the pictures.
And that's one reason why I write stories with sex in them: I'm demonstrating in the clearest way I know that I think it's good to talk about sex.
Which, now that I'm back to the topic, has nothing to do with anything, because Mr. Herren's visit to the school would have had nothing to do with sex, or gay porn, and I guess I'm just a little outaged at all these reactionaries' thinking that it would. Do they think that a grown man doesn't know how to speak appropriately to children, young people, even young adults, just because he writes "gay porn"? I'd rather expect him, as a professional author, to have a better command of appropriate language and topics than his critics, who evidently can't help thinking about sex whenever they hear the word "gay".
Honestly, they need to grow up a little and take a lesson from happy, well-adjusted gay authors about how to integrate sex into lives so that they might hope to become fully functioning human beings.
You Snollygoster You!
I enjoy words quite a bit, often more than I should, sometimes to distraction. Years ago I wrote a short essay about my then-fondness for the word "madcap", which I'm still fond of even if it's not at the top of my list of favorites.
Yesterday I was reading and something reminded me that I've been enjoying the imported word "snarky" (apparently British English, but is there something Australian or New Zealandish about it?), and I've adopted it for now as a personal adjective — "curmudgeon" is just too nineties for my taste these days. (I've also adopted a latin epigraph, thanks to St. Ambrose, since something in Latin seemed a bit snarky, and since Google already likes me for this one: search for "ambrose nullus pudor" here or there.)
Anyway, as I was getting some background on "snarky" (there's a lot more ground to cover still) I came across this enlightening bit in Snollygosters at war: A new mot juste for snipers and snarlers (The Guardian [UK], 11 November 2000).
[The author began by quoting Al Gore saying "You don't need to get snippy about it" to George W. Bush.]
A word which, like this one ["snippy"], not only conveys its own meaning but hints at other related ones, is doubly blessed. And few groups of words are as useful for verbal snipers, those who sneer, snap and snarl, who resort to the snide, sniffy, snarky, snooty and snotty, as those which begin with an s and an n. That is not to say that all belong exclusively to the world of vituperation. Snug and snuggle are cosy agreeable concepts. So is snow, except when it's clogging the roads and blocking the railways. (So even is sny, rarely employed nowadays, which means taking an upward curve.) But it must be some sign that words beginning s-n mean trouble that the novelist William Faulkner awarded a horrid family which haunts his pages the surname of Snopes.
Oh, and to explain the title of this entry, the author of that piece ended with this (still speaking of Democrats and Republicans speaking to each other):
By Thursday one or other may be invoking the snallygaster, a mythical monster supposedly found in Maryland (though perhaps now in Florida too). At which those so assailed may denounce their detractors as snollygosters (US: a shrewd unprincipled person, especially a politician of this class.)
For what it's worth: I've lived in Maryland now for 20 years, and I've never seen a mythical snallygaster, at least I don't think so.
The Right to Vote
I'm actually surprised and maybe even shocked to read:
Last week, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Il., introduced House Joint Resolution 28 with 54 original co-sponsors. The Jackson amendment would reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore that the citizen has no constitutional right to vote. Currently, voting is a state right, and all 3,067 counties in the 50 states have different rules about who votes and how. The congressman says it's time to make voting a citizenship right.
A state right! While I try to catch my breath, read the whole article: "The Fundamental Right You Don't Have", by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
In: All, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
"…this goes without saying."
Excerpts from the unequivocating words of Howard Troxler, columnist for the St. Petersburg [FL] Times ("Name-calling only reveals ignorance, not truth"):
Well, this goes without saying. But a lot of things that go without saying need to keep getting said over and over anyway.
Being gay is not the same thing as being a pedophile.
Frankly, it feels kind of silly to have to say it.
[…]
This is 2005, and we ought to be past this. And yet, some people go out of their way to keep the confusion going.I am sure that my clumsy definitions will offend somebody, but …
Being gay is remarkably like being straight, except you pursue your life's interests with consenting partners of the same gender. And there's more prejudice.
Being gay is fairly common and therefore in my book normal. Whether people are born that way, formed by their surroundings, or even (although I do not believe this happens much) gay by choice, they are entitled to the same rights as I am.
[…]
But as for this constant attempt to equate all gay people with child molesters: At the very best, it is based in lack of knowledge; at the worst, something much darker. Decent people, even those who believe homosexuality is a sin , ought to speak out against it.
All that, and Mr. Troxler didn't even go out of his way to be very clear about his own sexual orientation. How refreshing!
Preserving Citizens' Rights
From an interview that Raw Story had with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), this excerpt:
“It seems like on every front they’re [Republicans] trying to frustrate, obfuscate and make it as difficult as possible for citizens to assert their rights,” he added.
Conyers said he believes the American democracy is struggling under the weight of current policies.
“This should be a wake up call to a lot of people who begin to realize that we’re moving backwards in terms of democracy,” he said. “We’re moving backwards in terms of economic security, we’re having many of our rights taken away that we thought we had in the courts. ”
Which is confusing me when it's put this way, I have to admit. After all, I'd think that if it's one thing that "conservatives" would want to "conserve", it would be constitutional rights. Even if they are more libertarian in bent, when you boil down both of the "legitimate reasons for government" that libertarians believe are the only ones (that would be protecting property and ensuring military strength), don't they basically distill into "preserving constitutional rights"?
Clearly, being a conservative takes lots more brain power to unravel all these complicated philosophical things than I can muster in my tiny little liberal mind.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Splenetics
Blame the Phone
In Brick, New Jersey, the Board of Education seems embarrassed over an incident that occured on their watch. In brief, according to the Asbury Park Press,
…a videotape showing a Brick Township High School teacher [Stuart Mantel] screaming at his students to show respect for the national anthem — and then pulling the chair from underneath one student who refused to stand — was posted on several independent Web sites.
I watched the video, which had been recorded by a student with his new-technology wireless phone (and please: he didn't "videotape" the incident, he recorded it digitally). The teenagers were acting pretty much like teenagers, and I wouldn't have the patience for it, but if this is how Mr. Mantel typically responds to being dissed by teens, he's got some serious issues that should be resolved if he's going to continue to try to teach them.
Anyway, what interested me was a couple of other things later in the story. First:
According to a written description posted on some of the Web sites, the student who taped the confrontations was suspended for 10 days. Mantel was not disciplined.
District spokeswoman Jennifer Strano declined to say whether anyone had been disciplined, but said "appropriate administrative action" had been taken….
Not surprising, I suppose, that it was all the students' fault, but we are assured that "appropriate administrative action" was taken. Were any of the students, perhaps, "rendered" to other torture-prone countries where we were assured that they would likely not be subject to torture? Does one see the influence of Republican propaganda vernacular in this response?
But what, do you suppose should be the response of the school board to the incident?
Strano said each school in the district has a policy prohibiting the use of wireless phones in school during school hours.
In the statement, [Schools Superintendent Thomas L.] Seidenberger said he may ask the school board to adopt a stricter policy. He also said he may ask the board to consider developing a policy regarding unauthorized taping.
That's right! The problem was obviously caused by lax rules about wireless phones being used during school. Who could argue with that logic: if the student hadn't "taped" the incident, there wouldn't have been an incident. Ta da!
And taking one from the Jeff "There's just so much misinformation out there" Gannon playbook
…Seidenberger issued a statement that "not all details cited on the Internet regarding this incident are factual." The statement did not elaborate.
In: All, Raised Eyebrows Dept., Splenetics
Market Morality
Paul Ruschmann wrote a very nice opinion piece ("Shifting standards plague TV and radio indecency rules") about the silliness of indecency rules.
First, the basic theme:
This [new indecency] bill once again proves an old adage: Bad laws beget worse ones.
The bad law in question is the broadcast indecency rule. It dates back to the 1970s, when the FCC concluded that a radio station broke the law by playing George Carlin's monologue, "Seven Dirty Words." Even though Carlin's routine was not obscene, the commission nevertheless found it "indecent" and ruled that it could not be aired when children were likely to be listening.
In 1978, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's ruling by the narrowest of margins. That decision led to the current rule, which bans indecent broadcasts between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Many consider that a reasonable compromise: It protects young people from offensive broadcasts, but preserves adults' rights to watch and listen to them.
But the indecency rule was flawed then and even more flawed today.
It's nice to know that history, since I was still at high school age at the time, and more likely to giggle at the mention of "dirty words" than to appreciate the issue. Later on, however, I did learn to say all seven words really fast, and I've always thought "tater tits" exceedingly funny sounding, sophomoric as it is.
But here's the new eureka! insight for me:
The FCC's stance is also at odds with its free-market philosophy. Instead of letting the audience decide, it allows the indecency agenda to be driven by groups like the Parents Television Council, which orchestrates hundreds of thousands of complaints per year. A year ago, Powell admitted that his agency couldn't ignore those complaints — even though its official policy is to judge indecency from the standpoint of the average person, not those most easily offended.
There you go: in the tiny, controlling, regressive mind, free-market forces rule and determine the good for all, except when dealing with those same tiny minds looking at (or listening to) filthy pornography, in which case stronger forces are evidently required. Phew. Glad to have that cleared up.
No Pajamas, Please!
Okay, so there's this interesting court case going on in California in which the question, arises: "At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?" (by Johathan Glater, in the NYTimes). It's fascinating, and the question is interesting and all that, but here's the bit that bothers me:
Attempting to draw a distinction based on the medium used by the blogger or reporter is misguided, said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School (also a blogger). "In 15 years, there may be no clear distinction between reporters on the one hand and bloggers on the other," he said. "It won't just be an either-or, where you have a reporter for The Chicago Tribune on the one hand, and a guy sitting in his pajamas drinking beer on the other."
This is such a stupid stereotype. I mean, if we're all really sitting here in the privacy of our rec rooms, drinking beer (generally: tea or diet soda for me) and scratching our balls (no comment) and belching (I probably fart more than belch, actually), why in the world would we be wearing pajamas (regardless of whether I'm an actual "blogger" or merely someone who uses blog software instead of scraps of paper that I keep losing)?
If I'm going to go to all the trouble and lonliness of solitary typing (as Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac: "That's not writing, that's typing."), I'm not going to wear pajamas: I'm going to sit at my computer naked, without a stitch on, in my birthday suit thank you very much! (Although, if I wanted to spread a rumor about it, I'd probably claim to be wearing SpongeBob SquarePants pajamas, just to drive all the right-wing wackoes crazy worrying about hidden and not-so-hidden messages about the recruiting and the militant homosexual agenda in everything I type.) So deal with it.
But anyway, he's probably right and they'll be indistinguishable in very short order. I'm wondering how long it will be before some outfit, possibly a real newspaper or some other outfit, hires a bunch of bloggers to sit at computers in cubicles in some office building and type their stuff which may or may not be journalism, just so that the owner of said outfit can force all those bloggers to wear real clothes instead of pajamas.
Refreshing & Threatening
What made Teresa Heinz Kerry so refreshing to some voters, and threatening to others on the 2004 campaign trail, is summed up when THK talks about her speech to last year's Democratic convention:
"Nobody told me what to do," she told a Saturday fund-raiser here.
[…]
Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes."Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."
"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.
"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."
[…]
[Teresa] Heinz Kerry is still steamed at what the Republican attack machine did to her husband."Think about last year," she said. "Once John had his nomination, the Republicans spent $90 million to destroy his reputation."
[From "In The Northwest: Teresa Heinz Kerry hasn't lost her outspoken way", by Joel Connelly, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.]
Radical Homo Operatives
To my eyes via Digby quoting Garance Franke-Ruta, this snippet:
Which brings us back to Jordan. He was brought down not by outraged citizen-bloggers but by a mix of GOP operatives and military conservatives.
I have always wanted to an "operative" — on the side of the forces for good, of course. Maybe this my chance.
Clearly I'm not cut out to be a "military conservative", not even a "military liberal" since I can't imagine quite what that would be.
On the other hand, I feel that I'm perfectly positioned to be a pinko-homo-liberal operative and, since I'm still looking for gainful employment, I'm particularly susceptible to recruitment by pinko-homo-liberal operators. If necessary, I'm quite prepared and willing to become a gay prostitute / escort to fill out my operative portfolio. (Did I mention that I stopped being a "practising homosexual" some years back, by which time I was already pretty accomplished at it.)
I just thought I'd mention it in case someone could put me in touch….
PM Paul Martin: Step Forward Canada
I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.
[…]
The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.
We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.
Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships …falls short of true equality.”
Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal.
[…]
Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law.
[…]
Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.
[…]
If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward.
[Excerpts from Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act), on February 16, 2005 in the Canadian House of Commons.]
Those Ill-Bred Ilk
A Press Release from US Congressional Representative John D. Dingell (MI) (thanks to Media Matters), had this to say:
Congressman Dingell said, “Helen Thomas is an esteemed, unbiased journalist who deserves respect for her decades covering both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Ann Coulter and her ilk have done nothing but poison our political discourse with their vile, hate-filled harangues. She is not a journalist, a public-servant, nor an analyst and if not for her venom she couldn’t come up with enough words to fill a classified ad, let alone a column.”
Much deserved, although I might point out in my plaintive, long-suffering gay falsetto, that this little bit of venom spewed towards Helen Thomas and Arabs is nothing compared to that she reserves for her best homophobic pronouncements. But you knew I'd say that, so I guess I shouldn't really mention it right now.
Heterosexuals Support Gay Marriage
The fabulous Deb Price, in "Heterosexuals increasingly back gay marriage" (the Detroit News), talks about the welcome support that we get for marriage equality from some unexpected quarters. She leads with this story:
When Baptist Pastor Stephen Jones talks about what makes for a happy marriage with Janice, his wife of 35 years, one special ingredient might surprise you: Double-dating with coupled friends who happen to be gay.
"We've double-dated so many gay couples over the years. They've been a real strength to our marriage. We've simply had wonderful times," says the pastor of Seattle's First Baptist Church, a big-steeple house of worship with many gay people in its congregation.
Moving on to the issue as it's coming up in court in Washington State, she points out that Lambda Legal, in their In Court section, make available a number of interesting friend-of-the-court briefs. She mentions some of her favorites; I particularly liked this first example:
Among those urging Washington state to join them in standing up for marriage-minded gay couples:
African-American, Latino, Asian and women's legal groups. Reviewing religious, cultural and pseudoscientific excuses for bans on interracial marriage before the Supreme Court knocked them down in 1967, the legal groups point to striking similarities to today's battle over marriage.
- In 1912, a Georgia congressman proposed amending the U.S. Constitution to declare: "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians … is forever prohibited."
- Defenders of racist restrictions on marriage could point to their popularity. A 1958 Gallup Poll found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages.
I'm heading over to Lambda Legal to read further in Andersen v. Sims Friend-of-the-Court Briefs.
So In Love
A PAIR of Scottish councillors yesterday revealed their plans to marry in Britain’s first gay wedding when such ceremonies become legal later this year.
Neil Fletcher and John Stewart, who serve alongside each other as Liberal Democrat councillors in Aberdeen, have been together since 1992 and have been waiting to declare their love in a legal, public ceremony for years. New legislation which comes into force in December this year can now make their dream a reality.
Accountant Mr Fletcher, 40, who heads Aberdeen City Council’s finance committee, said: "We are very much in love and have always wanted some kind of marriage. However, we’ve been forced to wait for this legislation to go through.
"But now that it has, we’re hoping we’ll be the first gay couple in the country to take part in what’s called a Civil Partnership.
"We have always wanted a public and legal acknowledgement of our relationship and are over the moon that is finally going to happen. All our family and friends are delighted. It’s going to be a very special day."
Mr Stewart, 32, and Mr Fletcher first came across each other at a Lib Dem meeting 13 years ago. Their romance blossomed when Mr Stewart gave Mr Fletcher a lift home. Within six months the relationship had progressed and they set up home together.
They both won council seats in the last local elections and now play major roles in Aberdeen City Council’s joint Conservative and Lib Dem administration.
The Civil Partnerships Act was passed in November last year and comes into force this December. It enables gay couples to tie the knot in a ceremony similar to a civil service, presided over by a registrar and two witnesses. The pair will subsequently enjoy similar rights to married couples.
[Stuart Patterson, "We're so in love, say councillors in Britain's first gay wedding", in The Scotsman.]
What 'vision'?
That's the title that the Boston Globe used to introduce this Letter to the Editor by Len Jekanowski, which I quote here in its entirety.
PERIODIC REFERENCES to George Bush's "vision," though amusing, are misleading and ill fitting. The word "vision" implies an underlying intellect capable of creative and conceptual thinking. Bush and his dangerous circle of advisers are deficient in that and other qualities our world needs in these complex and troubled times. They should all fear the judgment of history.
I Meant "Aviatrix"
Tonight I wanted to look up some information online about the musical "Wings" (music by Jeffrey Lunden, book and lyrics by Arthur Perlman, from the play "Wings" by Arthur Kopit). I was far too lazy to walk into another room to find a bit of information, so I decided to Google with a few words that I thought would get me quickly to what I wanted to know, namely
wings aviatrix
NB: I used the word "aviatrix" because: 1) I've always enjoyed the word immensely and don't get to use it in daily conversation very often; and 2) the main character is definitely described as an "aviatrix" — none of that "woman aviator" stuff for this woman!
You know that irritatingly superior way that Google has sometimes, usually when one misspells a word, of asking "Did you mean …?" Well, this time is was irritatingly sexist when, in response to my search string above, it asked
Did you mean: wings aviator
No, I certainly did not, thank you very much!
In: All, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
The Warm-Up Battle
Digby writes in his blog about feeling that the President's stumping for social-security "reform" is, well, hard to explain:
I think one of the things that is hurting Bush is the fact that he's putting so much energy into something so abstract and far away. He's supposed to be the dude who deals with bad guys, not some social engineer who's trying to fix some complicated future problem that isn't evidently broken. It's weird. It doesn't fit. … With all the problems we have in this world, does it make sense that the Republicans are so weirdly fixated on this?
I don't have an explanation yet, certainly not something coherent, but I believe that I'm beginning to see the pattern in ideas and analysis that I've been exploring (here and in my head) for the past several months.
The best way in would seem to be Robert Reich's explanation of the Right's notion of evil, and how eradicating evil is the most important thing to do. This notion can motivate invading Iraq, limiting equality for gays, censoring the media, etc. Realize that Social Security is not just a program, but also a symbol: it represents all the worst that was wrong about Roosevelt's New Deal, that abomination of Liberalism and curse on the modern world. Seen this way, Social Security is quite evidently a manifestation of an evil force lose in our society. It has been a thorn in the side of much-suffering reactionaries since the beginning, and they have been biding their time, waiting for an opportunity to kill the program and try to put the evil genie of social programs back in the bottle.
The time is here, and they are siezing the opportunity like there is no tomorrow (there may not be: for some this is all bound up in the effort to prepare the way for The Rapture and the second coming of Jesus). If they lose this battle, which may well be a warm up for Armageddon, much more is lost than just Social Security "reform". The battle itself is symbolic of the upcoming cosmic battle between good and evil, and evil must not be allowed to triumph.
Or something like that.
A Climate of Hate
In a fascinating and provocative entry in his AMERICAblog, "A judge's family is brutally murdered, and the religious right spews crap like this", John Aravosis says:
[…] That then got me wondering what else the religious right has publicly said about judges, and whether a climate of hate against judges is being created in America. Here's what I found doing just a cursory look.
He follows that with a dozen excerpts of visciously over-the-top statements made by familiar right-wing voices — familiar from their strident anti-gay rhetoric built from the same tiny phrasebook of hateful platitudes.
As John implies, it leaves one scratching one's head with a still deeper confusion over why they do it? It's so incomprehensible sometimes.