"Staunch" Reactionaries
So, my father is describing to me some character from his past by saying "Now, you've got to remember that he was a staunch Republican…."
He paused, and we both wondered why it so frequently happens that Republicans are described as "staunch".
"Perhaps," I suggested, "staunchness is required if they are to believe even half the silly doctrinal ideas that they pretend to believe in so strongly."
We nodded thoughtfully. That sounded like a pretty good reason, we thought.
Unbeatable Logic
I'm reading an article from The Bedford Minuteman (apparently Massachusetts–why is it that on-line newspapers seem to think we all know where their towns are?) called Gay pink-triangle school sticker stirs debate. It reports on the anguish a few election-emboldened parents feel in Bedford over the fact that they've just noticed "Gay Safe Space" stickers put up in their children's schools, where they've been in place from about the last 10 years.
The reaction appears to be spearheaded by a Ms. Pamela Clare of "Families for Truth" (their quotation marks, mind you), who had this to say while making remarks to the school board explaining how none of this was appropriate, although she has nothing against gay people:
"If you do it for one group, then you have to do it for all groups, and they're not willing to do that," Clare said. "They are not willing to put up anything that they're not willing to put up."
The spellbinding, watertight logic of this last statement is so breathtaking that, that … it takes my breath away.
Dirty, Smelly, & Hairy
Behold, a startling statement published by The Independent [UK] newspaper:
Smelly, dirty and hairy: why men are still strangers to grooming by Oliver Duff and Nathalie Stahelin
One-third of men are strangers to regular deodorant use and 96 per cent care not about excessive body hair.
The authors of the article, obviously, think that these are bad things (as a disguise for their own viewpoint of trying to understand why more men don't rush to use "personal care" and "cosmetic" products). Of course, I and a whole lot of bear friends of mine think otherwise, and might wonder what in the world they mean by "excessive" body hair (since, to some, there can never be enough), not to mention wondering why they so gratuitously add "dirty" to their list of perceived evils along with "smelly" and "hairy", which are not always bad things. Tsk.
President Carter & Same-Sex Unions
From The Southern Voice article Carter backs civil unions for gay couples,
“President Carter opposes all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and believes there should be equal protection under the law for people who differ in sexual orientation,” said Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary…
The former president has also spoken out on gay issues in more general terms. In a widely reprinted 1996 column, he criticized “the politics of hate” as un-Christian.
“We must make it clear that a platform of ‘I hate gay men and women’ is not a way to become president of the United States,” Carter wrote then.
My prediction: while we have the current president doing all he can to ensure his place in American history as our worst president ever (and wondering why he can't seem to win a Nobel Peace Prize), Carter's stature and reputation will continue to grow and his achievements will be seen to outweigh the disappointments of his presidency.
Naming Body Parts
In an Advocate interview with the star from the movie "Testosterone" from the 17 August 2004 issue–I've lost the page with his name on it: when asked how he felt about modeling underwear and did it make him uncomfortable, he said
I'm not shy about anything. I'm pretty cool with walking around in my underwear. I'm happy with my … my thing … my friend … whatever you want to call it.
How about, we wonder, calling it a PENIS. So much for being really cool and comfortable about … you know … his "thing".
This reminds me of a report that I read a few years back in Consumer Repots. The report concerned tampons. The first page of the four-page report was devoted entirely to talking about how the magazine, when it had first reported on tampons a decade before, had felt the climate of the times and therefore resorted to circumlocution and euphemism when talking about, um, feminine hygiene. Hadn't we come such a long way into more modern and enlightened times, they pronounced! Boldly they continued, explaining when and how to use the tampon and how to insert them.
Noticably lacking to my eye, particularly after the page announcing their total freedom from avoiding the delicate, was any mention of what it was that the tampons were to be inserted into. The mouth? The ear? Between the toes? Perhaps, um, the little flower (the thing, the friend…)? Such progress!
Natural Selection II
In my continuing, back-burner research to demonstrate my point that many, many people (including quite a few who should know better) totally misunderstand the operating of natural selection and its relation to evolution, behold this crystal-clear example.
From The Advocate magazine (17 August 2004–I'm behind in my reading), in an article ("It's All Natural") about the work of "biologist and transwoman Joan Roughgarden", the journalist (Christopher Lisotta) writes:
But as every good scientist knows, there has to be some biological reason for homosexuality, or it wouldn't exist at all.
"True" Marriage
Yvonne Stone Slonake, a retired schoolteacher of Roanoke, in her opinion piece at roanoke.com: Conservatives call these 'values'? wrote:
Gay marriage? I do not think that there can truly be a marriage between two people of the same sex, but I do believe that those people who are in a longtime committed relationship are entitled to the same civil rights as a heterosexual couple. I just do not understand this fear that some people have toward homosexuals. It's as irrational to me as fearing someone because they have blue eyes.
Which is nice and supportive, and I'm glad to have her as a fellow traveller down the road towards equality.
However, her statement does rather beg the question: in what way can gay marriage not be a "true" marriage?
Not to mention the startling fact that she has absolutely, positively no misunderstanding, ill feelings, nay, nothing approaching fear towards homosexuals, as demonstrated by her graciously wishing that homosexuals have all the same, absolutely identical civil rights as heterosexuals, just provided — please, please, please don't let them get — "married".
Frank & Kenneth
It was morning. Frank and Ken were up early enough to enjoy a leisurely continental breakfast before heading off to work, since this was at a time when they were both gainfully employed. Sunlight streamed into the kitchen and poured across the breakfast nook, where Ken was reading the newspaper's headlines to Frank.
"It quotes the President here as saying '…free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat,'" he read aloud. "What do you suppose 'the whim of a hat' is?"
Frank sipped his coffee thoughtfully. "Presumably, given the Elmer-Fudd similarity in pronunciation, it's something near the rim, but obviously he couldn't refer to 'the rim of a hat' because it might make people think of rimming, which would itself be very naughty. Plus, it might come perilously close to reminding people of ass holes, which would be very unwise in itself, given the composition of his cabinet at the time."
Ken rattled the newspaper shut and set it on the table. "This past summer," he said as he stood up, "I was rather hoping that the phrase 'step up to the ball' would gain currency, but it seemed to pass rather quickly out of the au courant political lexicon for some reason."
Frank finished the last gulp of his coffee and stood up too. "I'm sure it would have except that it referred to 'balls', and so was nixed by the moral-values watchdogs. Do you think it's Freudian that these train-wreck clichés that the President keeps coming up with always seem to allude to body parts?"
"Well, I'm no big fan of Freud, but I expect you're right."
Frank set his coffee mug on the counter beside the sink, then they left for work together.
Talking While Musicians Perform
This quotation from Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is for Isaac. Franken's talking about being at a big White House Correspondents Dinner, at which Ray Charles was performing. This is what he reports happening (p. 210):
The man [Charles] may be a national treasure, but three thousand Beltway biggies were not very interested in listening to him sing. About five minutes into his set, folks were walking around, schmoozing, speaking loudly in order to be heard over the din. It must have been like playing the lounge at a Holiday Inn in Phoenix, but worse.
Unfortunately, one doesn't have to go to the Holiday Inn in Phoenix to find this kind of unthinking, rude behavior. The church where Isaac is organist (and music director) is far enough (although the problem seems universal). There is no remedy any of us (who care) have found to keep people from talking — loudly! — while people are performing music during services. Particularly popular is important conversation during preludes, and the immediate need to get out pent-up thoughts during postludes. However, any musical interlude is generally seen as a commercial break during which talking is encouraged. I'm always surprised that no one goes down to the kitchen for a sandwich during the anthems. We've even experienced uppity photographers, doing their thing as the congregation is still leaving, whistle and wave at the organ loft and yell out "Hey! Could you hold it down! We're trying to take pictures here!"
I suppose we should take some comfort in knowing that even Ray Charles was not immune, but it doesn't really make me feel any better.
The Top 1%
Indulge me in just a couple more quotations from Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
First, for later use in writing about epidemic innumeracy and its threat to the public, this alarming but illustrative statistic (p. 302):
Are you in the top 1% of earners? 19% of Americans say "yes"!
(This may come originally from an essay called "For Richer", by Paul Krugman, that appeared in the New York Times, 20 October 2002.)
Now, from p. 352, the chapter called "What is a Lie"?:
And all the lies, small and large, add up. They create a worldview in which the mainstream media is a liberal propaganda machine. In which Democrats are ruthless, manipulative power grabbers. And also sissies. Where if you're poor, you should blame yourself, and for everything else, blame Clinton. Where Democrats feed a culture of victimhood, but where the real victims are decent, hardworking white males. The right-wing media's lies create a world in which no one needs to feel any obligation to anybody else. It's a worldview designed to comfort the comfortable and further afflict the afflicted.
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science, Splenetics
Presidential Destiny
I am reading Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. It's worth reading: informative and even funny at times (or, perhaps, riotously funny for those more in tune with Mr. Franken's sense of humor).
In the chapter called "The Blame-America's-Ex-President-First-Crowd", he writes several things that I found fascinating. First, just this comment (p. 105):
On September 11, 2001, NPR had more foreign correspondents abroad than any other network news organization in the United Sates.
This is an interesting observation for those of us who remember the early days of NPR news and its lack of credibility among the "real media". To me, it feels almost like personal vindication, since I used to feel more defensive about Public Radio & Television's reputation for incisive, analytical, and objective news reporting. It's the same way that I felt upon seeing that, for the recent presidential campaign "debates", it was PBS and "The Newshour" that was called upon (no, certainly not for the first time, either) to provide 66% of the moderators.
Now, on to the "desiny" point. On p. 107 Franken writes:
Right-wingers like to call us the "Blame-America-First Crowd." But they've blamed Clinton, who's not just an American, but was the President, virtually nonstop. And Clinton was not just the President. He was the last elected president, who received more votes than any other candidate running against him. In two straight elections! So who's blaming America?
[His italics, by the way. Although written before the 2004 election, this statement may well still be true, since we're unlikely to have any certainty about the actual outcome of the recent election and the true will of the electorate.]
Knowing that the current President himnself, and quite a few of his most ardent supporters, believe that he is in the White House through God's agency, and is guided by frequent conversations with the Head Honcho, there is a widespread belief that this is somehow fulfilling his destiny.
What "destiny", I've often wondered, and why another agonizing, four-year term? I suspect that the current president's destiny is to go down in history as the worst president we've ever had; the second term is just the means to cement that destiny against pretenders and wanna-bes like Nixon, for example.
But, if each presidential office-holder is there to fulfill destiny, what could Clilnton's destiny possibly be?
Thanks to Franken's perceptive analysis, a likely option is now obvious to me. Namely, Clinton's destiny in this scheme of things is to take Presidential blame. For everything!
Remarkably, we've seen how Clinton has come to be blamed for everything that the current administration has found awkward or embarrassing in what resuls from their Rich-Americans-First policies. In the future, I think it will also start to become clear that Clinton was responsible for all the awkward and embarrassing things that have happened to Presidents before he was elected. In addition to fulfilling Clinton's destiny, this will make things easier for historians trying to work out who to blame, for students trying to memorize things for tests, and for conservatives who frequently have trouble remembering facts or staying in touch with reality.
It will be his destiny!
Building a Majority
In her said-to-be-last essay at Democratic Underground before taking a hiatus, The Fat Lady Sings, the Plaid Adder says:
I have never been part of the majority. I don't really know how you go about building one.
I claim here to know the answer:
strong leadership.
The rest is discussion about just what I might mean by that, and I doubt very much that I can think of it all and then write it down within the confines of this entry. First, my election analysis.
For all the talk about "moral values" being the determiner of the election, it's rubbish. Even if it is true that Bush actually won by some number, X, of votes, it can no more be said which X were the surplus of winning votes and why they were cast than it can be said which truss holds up a bridge, but take away enough of them and the bridge collapses.
Besides, it makes a good smoke and mirrors game to suggest that "moral values" are finally back in style (whose "moral values", one might ask, but everyone knows "moral values" when they see them, even if they don't see the same "moral values" until it's too late). It gives politicians something to wave their arms and shout about, as though they were auditioning for an episode of the Jerry Springer show; besides, it helps to distract the electorate from their own self-serving corruption.
I'm not happy with the current round of self-hating gay guilt trips either, politicians and "gay leaders" wringing their hands and anxious to feel guilty about the election results, proclaiming their culpability in the loss because "we" pushed too hard, too soon for marriage equality.
They need to get over it. There was no "we", there were historic situations and events that one could pursue in a positive way or miss a chance that might never return. There was no centralized gay marriage effort this past year, and that's all for the good I say.
The struggle for gay equality is geurilla combat; a centralized leadership of faint-hearted, hand-wringing, well-behaved and soft-spoken homos won't get anyone anywhere. Do they honestly believe that good things come to those who sit meekly and wait, that–as some people seriously claim–black people would have made civil-rights progress faster if they'd behaved themselves better and quietly asked for equality rather than demand it? Never has worked that way, never will work that way. Backlash is the inevitable reactionary response to progress, but the progress only comes more slowly if one crawls rather than strides towards it.
This election was determined by a strategic course of many events that all added up to more votes (presumably, but not without doubt) for the winning guy. In the end, despite hope and desire and hard work, Kerry ended up being too weak a candidate to build a majority.
It was for the reason that we've always known but nearly always fail to recognize because it takes fortitude and conviction. Namely, leadership takes fortitude and convinction.
To build a majority takes leadership, and leadership means taking chances with unwavering fortitude and conviction to set out to do the right things for our country. It does not mean more polling, it does not mean more pandering to some pesumptive "base", and it does not mean desperately trying to grab the "center" away from all the other panderers trying to claw their way to the "center".
Recognizing the right path, the one that includes enfranchising as many citizens as possible, the one that recognizes the rights of all citizens, the one that celebrates the diversity of the American people, and then setting out on that path with clear vision and a strong sense of direction — that is the action that the majority will recognize as leadership, and they will gratefully head down that same path with the leader who recognizes these authentic moral values, embraces them, and acts on them.
Election-Fraud Skepticism
Eric Partridge, in his 2004 election-fraud essay Don't Get Over It, writes some very good things about the possibilities of fraud in the 2004 election. It's worth reading.
I distrust the current administration almost as much as any other right-thinking individual, but–perhaps because I'm a scientist–I have a healthy aversion to conspiracy theories about election fraud: there are way too many fanciful, paranoid thoughts going around. However, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean we're not right.
There is at least enough evidence now to lead me to healthy skepticism that there was fraud committed in this election, possibly even wide-spread conspiracy. There are two things that I find compelling. The first, to quote from Partridge:
Eleven million more votes were cast in 2004 than were cast in 2000. We are expected to believe that of these Bush got eight million (73%) and John Kerry three million.
The second is learning from the statistical analyses of Steven Freeman that exit poll results were "adjusted" at the end of the day to bring them into line with vote tallies. In other words, the statistics were manipulated to support the apparent vote count. This is wrong. Those who know me and have heard me rage against faulty (and deceptive) manipulation of statistics know that I consider this a very serious offense.
Let's be explicit. We heard during the election day that exit polls, which initially showed a majority support for Kerry, through the course of the day and particularly late in the evening and overnight, "veered" towards Bush. One was easily led to believe from this presentation of the results that, somehow, more Bush supporters were showing up later in the day. What we learn now is more interesting and alarming: the actual exit-poll results did not "veer" towards Bush late in the day; instead, the exit-poll resuls were "adjusted" (i.e., manipulated) to bring them into line with vote tallies that apparently favored Bush. They were made to "veer" towards Bush by the poll analysts.
These two facts lead to more than enough skepticism on my part to support the idea that the elections absolutely must be thoroughly investigated, must remain under as many independent microscopes as possible until all questions are uncovered and then settled the best that they can be. This is made even more difficult since, in the face of so many unauditable votes cast on unverifiable computerized voting machines, the exit-poll results that provide one of the few independent measures of the vote are now seen to have been corrupted.
Unfortunately, I don't think any investigation or other actions can take place in so short a time that we will know the actual intention of the electorate before the current incumbant is inaugurated again (but keep in mind that they can still be prosecuted later).
Nevertheless, the process will still yield valuable results that will improve all elections that come after this:
- We must bring back confidence that our elections are fair and open;
- We must end non-democratic efforts to disenfrancise groups of voters;
- We must halt the move towards privatization of the voting process.
Secretary of Smaller Government
The big headline on the radio today is the resignation of Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security. References are made to his memorable association with a useless hierarchy of colors, suggesting that this might be how his tenure will be remembered.
I make my own modest suggestion: perhaps he should be remembered as an icon. No, not an icon of Homeland Security (that problem of securing the homeland against terrorists and criminals had already been taken care of, according to the retiring Secretary of "Justice" John Ashcroft, evidently jockying for position as that icon). Rather, I think we should enshrine Secretary Ridge as a Republican symbol of smaller government.
Indeed, you say: although this Republican administration offers much lip service about smaller government it nevertheless proceeds to expand the government to record size.
Exactly! I say. Who then, is more appropriate in this topsy-turvy lexicon to serve as the poster boy of smaller government than the first ever Secretary of Homeland Security, a shiney, new, giant department with a newly minted cabinet secretary. Apparently Ridge represents everything that Republican proponents of smaller government are looking for, and would be the perfect choice.
Hey! Maybe it's time for a new cabinet-level position: the Secretary of Smaller Government.
Ashcroft's "Mission Accomplished"
From a BBC news report (10 November 2004), Attorney general quits US cabinet:
Mr Ashcroft, who has been a lightning-rod for criticism in the administration, wrote in a five-page handwritten letter to Mr Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved".
I regret that I failed to notice the big banner hanging outside the Justice Department building saying "Misison Accomplished" in the time-honored tradition of the Administration's proclivity for claiming non-existent victories, alas. But surely it was there: who in his or her right mind wouldn't want to celebrate the end of fear from crime and terrorism in the US?
Were it not for my mindfulness about the many recent cautionary manifestations of "be careful what you wish for, it may come true", I'd pronounce myself pleased that at least Ascroft thinks his job is complete enough that he is free to go elsewhere.
They're Both Gay?
Years ago, a friend in graduate school explained to me a curious personal discovery of hers. As a child, she had frequently eaten chicken; also, she knew live chickens from visiting her grandparents' farm. Some years later, she was horrified to discover that they were the same chicken. Yikes! All that time, she'd been eating the animals that she knew. Without thinking about it, she'd sort of assumed that it just happened to be the same word used for different things.
I have now an awkward confession: we are actually acquainted with some people who voted for Bush. Despite their newly revealed homophobia, they continue to talk to me as though we are actually sympathetic friends. They will even go out of their way to ask about Isaac.
Often, what I'm thinking is: Excuse me, but Isaac is my gay partner! Remember, you don't like him! You don't even believe he can exist! You voted against us!
Now I'm wondering: are they like my friend with the chickens? Do these people not realize that our "gay" is that "gay"?
Robert Reich's Reason
I just finished reading Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America, by Robert B. Reich, and I loved it. His thoughts are stimulating and his writing is clear and straightforward. The book is a good pick-me-up, too, for those suffering post-election blues.
There were several passages that I marked as I read, that I wanted to note down someplace, so they end up here.
To understand their radicalism [i.e., that of the radical conservatives, or "radcons"], you need to understand their notion of evil.
To Radcons, the major threat to the security of our nation, the stability of our families, our future propserity, and the capacity of our children to grow into responsible adults is a dark, satanic force. It exists within America in the form of moral deviance — out-of-wedlock births, homosexuality, abortion, crime. It potentially exists within every one of us in the form of sloth and devastating irresponsibilitiy. It exists outside America in the form of "evil empires" or an "axis of evil."
There's no compromising with such evil. It has to be countered with everything we have. Religious faith and discipline are the means of redemption. Punishment and coercion are the only real deterrents. Fear is the essential motivator.
(page 22)
Radcons have blended Christian fundamentalism and right-wing moralism into their larger worldview. Unrestrained sex, they believe, unleahses an evil that hides inside human beings. It threatens the social order. Therefore it must be controlled. The evil sexual impulses inside us have to be disciplined, just as evil forces from outside have to be. The war on sexual "deviancy" is, in this respect, a lot like the war on terrorism: If we lose, Western civilization may fall into chaos.
(page 58)
A society is different from an economy. People aren't just buyers and sellers in a market. They're also citizens engaged in a joint project of improving the well-being of current and future generations.
Radcons are imposing on America a crimped and narrow definition of prosperity. They've given us policies premised on the hypothetical power of human greed and fear. [….]
This Radcon promise of prosperity is an illusion. Perhaps is was well suited to a frontier economy, but it's shamefully inappropirate to a post-industrial society that depends on what we achieve together. [….]
Our real prosperity depends on what we achieve together. This has been a central tenet of American liberalism for over a century, and it's more relevant than ever. In America in the twenty-first century, real prosperity is shared prosperity. That's what we are losing rapidly and that's why Radcons are wrong and their thinking is dangerously obsolete.
(pages 144-145)
God Made us Gay?
David Hawpe, columnist for The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), in an essay called Gay-bashing worked and will be back if those who oppose it stay quiet, wrote:
It's one thing to oppose gay marriage, but it's not really in the American characer to impose broad, encompassing government rules that isolate and punish people for God-given attributes such as sexual orientation.
This leaves me with the next best thing to one of those "Well, duh!", smack-the-forehead moments of realizing the obvious.
Why, I've wondered, is it so vital to the reactionary, fundamentalist camp to believe that homosexuality is a choice and not a fact?
Obviously, if it's something we're born with, then it's something [their] God gave us. Now, there's a quandry. Whatever shall we do with the homos when the love of our fellow men is gracefully granted by [their] God? Oh dear, oh dear.
Reactionary Logic
I'd been puzzling for several days about something. I had read some reactionary whining in a newspaper editorial to the effect that he was distressed that so many people couldn't seem to recognize an honest man [i.e., the President] when they saw one. Obviously, the implied assertion made no sense to me, until a brainstorm hit tonight and the [specious] reactionary syllogism popped into my head.
Attend, now, very closely:
- Clinton lied once.
- Therefore Clinton was not an honest man.
- Bush is nothing at all like Clinton.
- Therefore, Bush is an honest man.
It's so obvious, I can't imagine what took me so long to see it.
What's to Explain?
Kim Kendrick, a staff writer at The South End (the student newspaper of Wayne State University, in Detroit, MI), in yesterday's supportive piece Gay, straight: Who cares?, said this:
And in all honesty, no, I don’t look forward to explaining to my 9-year-old daughter why those two men are holding hands, or why Aunt Rose is always with Linda … I’m just not ready for that.
Kim, I'm not being flippant when I suggest you answer simply: "Because they love each other." Children understand this idea quite readily, and are only disturbed by your discomfort at the fact that it's two men or two women. Homosexuality we're born with; homophobia we're taught.
It's likely you've already heard your daughter say about her best friend–another girl–that she wants to marry her. That used to be a hard one for parents to try to explain away, but now, thanks to recent election results, it's much easier. All you have to say is: "Oh, honey, I'm sorry but it's unconstitutional in our state."