"F*cking espresso, Cappuccino, we invented this shit. . . now all these c*cks*ckers are making money on it . . . It's not just the money, it's a pride thing. . . This? this is the worst, this espresso shit."
-Pauly Walnuts-
So we're sitting at this rustic, open air coffee shop in Port Salerno, looking over the Manatee pocket and the old fishing docks where slick yachts, beat up trawlers, catamarans and open fishing boats are moored. The building is a collection of old fish houses that went bust years ago when commercial net fishing was outlawed in the area. A glass blower rents a corner and a potter, and there is a gallery and some workshops -- and a coffee house that's a great place to enjoy the view, the breeze, the sounds of a harbor; maybe have a cup of coffee, eat a home made cookie, play some checkers in the shade and watch the boats come and go. It's the kind of American ambiance that attracted me to the coast and to this part of Florida; an island in the river of change; a river that's ever rushing toward commercial strip mall plastic mass produced national franchise sameness. Panama hat and Ray-Bans, flowered shirt and deck shoes; you feel afloat in the serenity, you're part of the scenery. You remember why this feels like home rather than an address.
So when a young dude dressed in Urban Black sidles up to the counter and asks, without apparent embarrassment, for an "Americano" with soy and demerara sugar, I could feel the air turn stiff and brittle as a plastic strip mall sign.
Am I wrong to single out Starbucks as a singular agent of phoniness in America? Rightly or wrongly I do just that. Of course you can't cheat an honest man and you probably can't make a pretentious ass of him either. It was all here, that sense of provincial inferiority that makes people who've never been near Europe feel good about paying more for a 20 ounce coffee by calling it a Venti even though in Italy and the rest of Europe they don't use ounces. Perhaps we could solve the problems of General Motors by having them sell Voitures because for all our narcissistic nationalism, Americans hate being Americans -- or so it seems at Starbucks.
No matter how you feel about Starbucks, I had to smile at the planned closing of 600 locations in July and the additional 300 announced this last week. Perhaps now, that piece of untouched Florida wilderness still remaining where Bridge Road crosses US1, Starbucks has been trying to get a zoning variance on will remain the home of Sand Hill Cranes and alligators and not be replaced by "baristas" (baristi in real Italian) serving up overpriced, oversized plastic buckets of Italian breakfast coffee to pretentious lunchtime provincials.
Trying to open a Starbucks in the real Italy, where people want a glass of Vino Bianco with lunch and the salad comes after the main course and no two coffee shops are the same, would be as difficult as opening a ChopSuey joint in Shanghai. To the locals, as it is with Pauly Walnuts, our phony expropriation of their culture is just that: phony.
Truth be told, I find the coffee in Vienna - and the pastry that goes with it - far better and a morning "bica" at some hole in the wall shop in some Portuguese fishing village is incomparable. It's also not separable from the matrix. I do love espresso and I do love a plain ordinary cup of drip coffee from one of those Bunn coffeemakers you see in every diner on our continent. It's authentic, it fits, it's real and as American as red checked table cloths and waitresses named Flo.
So they've stolen one more piece of America from me. Oh sure, I can still go to Dunkin' Donuts or a Waffle house and get served a cup of coffee by a waitress and a damned good doughnut too and I don't have to feel like a jackass with pretend Italian nomenclature either. You can't see the water from there though.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Mortification of a Child
Awhile back I was in the parking lot of Target putting shopping bags in the back of my car. My young child had already gotten into the car. A woman and a child came up to me. The child looked to be only a few years older than my own. The woman matter-of-factly asked me for money. She was polite, civil. She did not beg. She simply explained that she & her daughter were hungry & had no money - that she was hoping to get into a shelter later that day. If the woman was embarrassed to be begging in a Target parking lot – she did not show it. Not because she was arrogant or clueless about the dynamics of the situation but because, if anything, she seemed to be numb, necessarily detached. She had no money. She had a hungry child. She had no option but to beg – to request – a handout.
As she looked me steady in the eye I opened up my purse. I told her the truth – that I did not have much but that she could have what I had. I handed her the money. She thanked me with reserved, but genuine, gratitude in her voice. Then she & her daughter left.
Throughout my encounter with this woman – her daughter hung her head in shame, her face turned toward her mother – unable to face the reality, the meaning of my presence – her presence next to me as her mother was asking for help. The young girl’s body, her posture never moved. She was frozen in her mortification. Her mother’s hand resting gently, though not embracingly, across her shoulders. My heart broke for the child. So young to experience so much. How many times, I wondered, had the child been witness to her mother’s requesting of money from strangers? Would she ever forget the experience? Would it haunt her dreams, informing her sense of herself as she grew over the years?
These were my thoughts as I slowly got into my car. The child – whose face I never saw – broke my heart. I felt heavy inside. As I closed the car door behind me, my child asked – “Mommy, who were they? What did they want?” Another child about to learn a harsh life lesson. I told him the truth – or what I thought he could understand. I explained that there were people who had less than we did. I explained about homelessness. I explained that the mother was trying to care for her child as best she could. I hope he understood.
I hope the woman’s daughter understood. I hope the girl someday finds it in her heart to forgive her mother for so embarrassing her. I hope the girl finds it in her heart someday to be hopeful & happy and forgiving of her, our, harsh world.
The memory of the girl’s sense of shame, her lowered head and hidden face, is still etched in my mind, like a heavy scar.
I did not know then – I do not know now – the truth of the circumstances that led to my encounter with this woman and her child. Were they really on the streets? Was it because of a lost job? An abusive man? Drugs? Etc? Who knows. And I can not, will not bring myself to judge the “worthiness” of their victimhood – to look for accountability in their circumstances. Whatever the truth was, and still may be, it ultimately boiled down to the mortification of a young girl far too young to be blamed for anything.
GOP Heeds the call
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.
-Bob Dylan-
Perhaps imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, perhaps it's coincidence, perhaps it's desperation, perhaps it's deja vu. After five rounds of balloting, Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is now the chairman of The Republican National committee. Governor Steele is, for those not familiar with him, an African American and while some call him a moderate, others find him staunchly conservative. Whatever he may be, he's a first for the GOP and in y opinion, it's about time.
Does this represent the beginning of a new RNC? Is the old order rapidly aging, or is Steele much more of the same old song? He has been a commentator on Fox News, he lead the crowd in cries of "drill baby drill" at the 2008 convention. Is it enough that his ancestry is African to bring more minorities into the GOP or will a change in complexion not be enough of a change in everything else?
It remains to be seen, but whatever Michael Steele is, he is not Barak Obama, much less Bob Dylan.
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.
-Bob Dylan-
Perhaps imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, perhaps it's coincidence, perhaps it's desperation, perhaps it's deja vu. After five rounds of balloting, Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is now the chairman of The Republican National committee. Governor Steele is, for those not familiar with him, an African American and while some call him a moderate, others find him staunchly conservative. Whatever he may be, he's a first for the GOP and in y opinion, it's about time.
“It’s time for something completely different. . . . We’re going to bring this party to every corner, every boardroom, every neighborhood, every community. And we’re going to say to friend and foe alike, ‘We want you to be a part of us, we want you to work with us. And for those of you who are ready to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over.’ ”said Steele according to ABC this afternoon. A bit reminiscent of the 1960's hit Dylan song, if lacking in conviction.
Does this represent the beginning of a new RNC? Is the old order rapidly aging, or is Steele much more of the same old song? He has been a commentator on Fox News, he lead the crowd in cries of "drill baby drill" at the 2008 convention. Is it enough that his ancestry is African to bring more minorities into the GOP or will a change in complexion not be enough of a change in everything else?
It remains to be seen, but whatever Michael Steele is, he is not Barak Obama, much less Bob Dylan.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
On the Dinosaur Gods, Any Other Gods Whatsoever, Perceived Lesbians, and “Tommy C”
I’m not a member of any church (though I admit to a firm belief in the Divine Toothsomeness of the Dinosaur Gods, may they loll ever peacefully beside the Pierian Watering-Hole) and I don’t agree with the Catholic view of contraception or family planning any more than most liberals. It seems to me that the Church speaks in metaphysical absolutes about the sanctity of life (which is understandable) and then supports policies that end up diminishing that sanctity. The Church’s leaders believe life is sacred, so they should approach the matter of how and why children are brought into the world with common sense: common sense and the sacred need each other more than either would care to admit. Still, I think it best to make that point with due respect for a man who is revered by millions as il santo papa.
As I grow older, I grow less patient with arguments extolling the merits of reason and human self-sufficiency as opposed to the alleged irrationalist abyss of religion. Perhaps it is true, as Tennyson says, that “Our little systems have their day, / They have their day and cease to be,” but I also have great regard for the lines that follow: “They are but broken lights of Thee, / And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.” It’s the spiritual principle that matters; it’s the willingness to put kind hearts before coronets, as his verse goes: to privilege decency and generosity over rank and lust for material things. The forms and rules are helpful only if they advance the principle, in my view. All of this is pure Carlyle – yes, George Costanza’s “Tommy C” – but there’s something to be said for believing in belief, even if (as an irate reader once wrote of Carlyle’s own ranting prose) it leads us into the wilderness and leaves us there.
Now on to the lamentable case of the “perceived lesbians.” Wilde wrote that Jesus’ greatest cause for sorrow was that so few people ever understood a word he said. Well, to adapt a Blake verse, “A fool sees not the same Jesus as a wise man sees.” Anyhow, the problem permits of a solution, even if it isn’t a happy one: the parents of the two girls will most likely come around to the conviction that it would be a mistake to want their kids to remain students at the school in question. If the school isn’t taking public money, I don’t see how the state can force it to accept or even overlook beliefs or practices most of its members probably find abhorrent. I think the school is behaving in a bigoted and harmful manner, but forcing it to change its admissions and retention policy won’t change hearts: “those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.” It would be different if we were dealing with a public school, or even a private country club that discriminated against minorities or gays without the veil of metaphysics to hide the nakedness of its ignorance. It’s true as Octo says that there’s a line to be drawn here: a church can’t abuse children, sacrifice puppy dogs, etc. – if they break the law, the offending parties can be prosecuted. Of course, what we’re dealing with here is the combustible mix of alternative sexuality and religious tenets, so that complicates things.
Perhaps the parents have learned a painful lesson about the belief system of the church to which they had given their allegiance (if indeed they were members – I’m not familiar with the particulars of the case and am therefore treating it in a general, hypothetical manner): if they were members, they should now be able to see how that system impacts people close to them, so it’s high time to put the girls in a more congenial school where they will not risk persecution or ostracism for what they either are or are “perceived” to be. I am very friendly to religion, but one feature of some religious communities is their tendency to define themselves by a process of exclusion: strict rejection of anyone who doesn’t hew to their notions and standards. There is room for the rejected to challenge the rejecters—else is no progress ever made—but I wouldn’t advise making a couple of children run such a gauntlet: I’d leave it to adults who know what they’re in for when they try to broaden minds.
The unfortunate side-effect of this kind of solution is that it encourages the perpetuation of sealed-off, self-defining communities. But there’s not much one can do about that in the short run. Jesus told his disciples to “shake the dust off their feet” when they ran into people who outright disrespected them; parents in such a bad situation might do well to follow that example.
As I grow older, I grow less patient with arguments extolling the merits of reason and human self-sufficiency as opposed to the alleged irrationalist abyss of religion. Perhaps it is true, as Tennyson says, that “Our little systems have their day, / They have their day and cease to be,” but I also have great regard for the lines that follow: “They are but broken lights of Thee, / And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.” It’s the spiritual principle that matters; it’s the willingness to put kind hearts before coronets, as his verse goes: to privilege decency and generosity over rank and lust for material things. The forms and rules are helpful only if they advance the principle, in my view. All of this is pure Carlyle – yes, George Costanza’s “Tommy C” – but there’s something to be said for believing in belief, even if (as an irate reader once wrote of Carlyle’s own ranting prose) it leads us into the wilderness and leaves us there.
Now on to the lamentable case of the “perceived lesbians.” Wilde wrote that Jesus’ greatest cause for sorrow was that so few people ever understood a word he said. Well, to adapt a Blake verse, “A fool sees not the same Jesus as a wise man sees.” Anyhow, the problem permits of a solution, even if it isn’t a happy one: the parents of the two girls will most likely come around to the conviction that it would be a mistake to want their kids to remain students at the school in question. If the school isn’t taking public money, I don’t see how the state can force it to accept or even overlook beliefs or practices most of its members probably find abhorrent. I think the school is behaving in a bigoted and harmful manner, but forcing it to change its admissions and retention policy won’t change hearts: “those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.” It would be different if we were dealing with a public school, or even a private country club that discriminated against minorities or gays without the veil of metaphysics to hide the nakedness of its ignorance. It’s true as Octo says that there’s a line to be drawn here: a church can’t abuse children, sacrifice puppy dogs, etc. – if they break the law, the offending parties can be prosecuted. Of course, what we’re dealing with here is the combustible mix of alternative sexuality and religious tenets, so that complicates things.
Perhaps the parents have learned a painful lesson about the belief system of the church to which they had given their allegiance (if indeed they were members – I’m not familiar with the particulars of the case and am therefore treating it in a general, hypothetical manner): if they were members, they should now be able to see how that system impacts people close to them, so it’s high time to put the girls in a more congenial school where they will not risk persecution or ostracism for what they either are or are “perceived” to be. I am very friendly to religion, but one feature of some religious communities is their tendency to define themselves by a process of exclusion: strict rejection of anyone who doesn’t hew to their notions and standards. There is room for the rejected to challenge the rejecters—else is no progress ever made—but I wouldn’t advise making a couple of children run such a gauntlet: I’d leave it to adults who know what they’re in for when they try to broaden minds.
The unfortunate side-effect of this kind of solution is that it encourages the perpetuation of sealed-off, self-defining communities. But there’s not much one can do about that in the short run. Jesus told his disciples to “shake the dust off their feet” when they ran into people who outright disrespected them; parents in such a bad situation might do well to follow that example.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Drop that Bible!
When will the time come when we no longer look to religion for moral guidance? Perhaps it should have come a long time ago; perhaps it never should have begun. The idea of rules for human behavior being based on compassion never really took hold in the Western world, although lip service has been paid to the notion, and our codes of behavior seem to owe more to fear of sexuality and the terror of what might happen if someone believes differently than directed by the priestly class.
At any rate, the idea that people should be left alone to pursue happiness and restrained only from acting to harm the same right in others is essentially American, essentially secular and essentially opposite to the teachings of American Christianity. Should young people be at liberty to form strong bonds of affection without the approval of Christian authority? Do I really have to ask? The religious say no to love, the secular humanist, the believer in the American way speaks for it.
I read in Raw Story this morning that A California appeals court ruled this week that a Christian high school can expel students perceived to be lesbians. [Italics mine] Of course a Christian school or a secular private school is not a public school, but it is, at least in part, subsidized by special tax treatment. Here they are denying the benefits of liberty and the pursuit of happiness without any protest from the law and with the assistance of your tax dollars.
I don't want to get into the legality of this and I recognize that those perceived to be too fond of each other have other educational choices, but haven't we come to the point where we can recognize that religious moral authority is not imposed for the good or the happiness of humanity but for the sake of fear mongering authority and those who make a living from it? I think most of us may be more morally evolved than Ted Haggard or Pastor Muthee or Pat Robertson or the ex-Nazi in the Vatican for whom minding your business, is their business. Yet we allow them to rule us and we don't find it strange.
I find it stranger still that people who profess patriotism and pretend to promote a government that only keeps us from killing each other and stealing each others' property and little else, will also promote a government that forces us to follow the mandates of ancient, bearded, angry and probably demented men against private consensual and harmless behavior? Why is it terrible to tax the population to support the elderly and sick but fine to force us all to adhere to their religious taboos? Where is the Christian morality in this -- unless Christian morality has nothing to do with love at all.
Of course it's all rhetorical. What I'm saying is that we can have prosperity, we can beat the swords into plowshares but we will never be free to love or live in peace until we stop allowing the perverts of "the cloth" to bend us over their Bibles and have their way with us.
At any rate, the idea that people should be left alone to pursue happiness and restrained only from acting to harm the same right in others is essentially American, essentially secular and essentially opposite to the teachings of American Christianity. Should young people be at liberty to form strong bonds of affection without the approval of Christian authority? Do I really have to ask? The religious say no to love, the secular humanist, the believer in the American way speaks for it.
I read in Raw Story this morning that A California appeals court ruled this week that a Christian high school can expel students perceived to be lesbians. [Italics mine] Of course a Christian school or a secular private school is not a public school, but it is, at least in part, subsidized by special tax treatment. Here they are denying the benefits of liberty and the pursuit of happiness without any protest from the law and with the assistance of your tax dollars.
I don't want to get into the legality of this and I recognize that those perceived to be too fond of each other have other educational choices, but haven't we come to the point where we can recognize that religious moral authority is not imposed for the good or the happiness of humanity but for the sake of fear mongering authority and those who make a living from it? I think most of us may be more morally evolved than Ted Haggard or Pastor Muthee or Pat Robertson or the ex-Nazi in the Vatican for whom minding your business, is their business. Yet we allow them to rule us and we don't find it strange.
I find it stranger still that people who profess patriotism and pretend to promote a government that only keeps us from killing each other and stealing each others' property and little else, will also promote a government that forces us to follow the mandates of ancient, bearded, angry and probably demented men against private consensual and harmless behavior? Why is it terrible to tax the population to support the elderly and sick but fine to force us all to adhere to their religious taboos? Where is the Christian morality in this -- unless Christian morality has nothing to do with love at all.
Of course it's all rhetorical. What I'm saying is that we can have prosperity, we can beat the swords into plowshares but we will never be free to love or live in peace until we stop allowing the perverts of "the cloth" to bend us over their Bibles and have their way with us.
A Norman McLaren Moment
This week, my intention was to contribute another article on right wing hate radio (in honor of my friend, Spocko), but an eye infection has been distracting me. Instead, I am posting this YouTube video:
Norman McLaren is one of the more inventive but lesser-known pioneers of animation and stop-motion photography in cinema history. Born in Scotland in 1914, he studied set design at the Glasgow School of Art and eventually moved to Canada where he started the animation studio at the National Film Board. This short film, Neighbors, won an Oscar for Best Documentary (short subject) in 1953.
Norman McLaren is one of the more inventive but lesser-known pioneers of animation and stop-motion photography in cinema history. Born in Scotland in 1914, he studied set design at the Glasgow School of Art and eventually moved to Canada where he started the animation studio at the National Film Board. This short film, Neighbors, won an Oscar for Best Documentary (short subject) in 1953.
Monday, January 26, 2009
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Today marks the start of the Chinese New Year, the Year of the Ox.The Chinese Zodiac is said to follow the stations of Jupiter's orbit around the sun, which is just shy of 12 years. The animals mark years in a 12-year cycle that begins with rat, horse, ox, goat, tiger, monkey, rabbit, rooster, dragon, dog, snake and pig.
The animals were not always a part of the Chinese calendar and when exactly they were integrated is unknown, although there are several legends:
One story has Buddha, others, the Jade Emporer inviting all the animals in the kingdom to a meeting. Some animals outwit others to get there first, with their places in the zodiac assigned according to when they arrived.
Another involves a competition that includes a river crossing followed by a gathering at the emperor's palace. The kindly ox agrees to carry the scheming rat and the cat across the water on his back, but the rat betrays his friend the cat by pushing him into a swift current and hops off the ox to claim the top spot.
However the animals and their order were chosen, each animal has a set of characteristics said to be shared by any human born in their year. My year is the year of the Goat and, according to the Chinese zodiac, I am:
Creative, wise, gentle, artistic, passionate, elegant, warmhearted, honest, ability to solve their own problems, deeply religious, able to make money from their own business.
AND
Pessimistic, timid, shy, disorganized, vulnerable, like material much more than spiritual comforts, easily fail from pressure, complaining.
I don’t know, makes me sound like a multiple personality! You can find your own corresponding animal and traits, plus buy some very nice charms :) at this site. Scroll down to the end of Q4 and click on the animals to find your year in the sentence:
“An animal is rejected by the one on the right opposite site in the Zodiac Circle. Rat and Horse, Ox and Goat, Tiger and Monkey, Rabbit and Rooster, Dragon and Dog, Snake and Pig are all rejected each other.”
Or, just visit your favorite Chinese restaurant and read the placemats!
The golden finger
High above the Summer Palace outside of Beijing, there's a temple housing what is billed as a thousand armed Buddha. After some huffing and heavy breathing, one finds that it doesn't have a thousand arms and it really isn't the Buddha, but even this amazing, arm laden idol doesn't have enough middle fingers to flip the bird to every religious leader arrogant enough to tell us what to do.
I only have two of my own and so, being in the mood today, I'll concentrate on two of my favorites. Let's start with Ted Haggard. Remember Ted, the hypocrite who tried to use tears and maudlin prayers to regain his status as someone fit to tell you how to live your life after he was exposed as having "prayer sessions" with a male prostitute? Well it seems he liked amateurs even more, having had a lengthy affair with a very young male parishioner who cost the Church a good deal of money to pay off. I wonder if the upcoming HBO documentary intended to rebuild his reputation will include this new embarrassment and whether all this money taken from the pockets of pious parishioners and intended for good works will be enough to whitewash the hypocrisy and the impudence of advising other people about the immorality of his own favorite pastime: buggering young men. I'd sooner ask Bernie Madoff for investment advice than listen to this self-appointed con-man. This finger is for you, Ted.
And speaking of flim-flam, what about the fantastically finger-worthy ex-Nazi in a dress from Rome who has the arrogance to condemn the United States for sending aid to sick and impoverished Africans without their strings attached. The Vatican has now condemned the "arrogance of those in power who think they can decide between life and death." I'd briefly summarize the arrogance of the organization that has been doing exactly that for about 1700 years, but even the brief version is far too lengthy for this venue. I'll limit the summation of my discontent to Rome's disregard for the lives of millions and millions of raped African women and the millions of AIDS infected pregnant women and the millions of African women with infected husbands who need protection. Sure, the few bucks taken from widows and orphans elsewhere in the world often go to heal the poorer and needier, or what's left over after paying off the children raped by agents of Rome, that is -- but no mention of birth control and no mention of Abortion. That would be immoral.
The beauty of the Finger lies in its brevity -- and so this finger is for you, Ratzinger -- and I really mean it.
I only have two of my own and so, being in the mood today, I'll concentrate on two of my favorites. Let's start with Ted Haggard. Remember Ted, the hypocrite who tried to use tears and maudlin prayers to regain his status as someone fit to tell you how to live your life after he was exposed as having "prayer sessions" with a male prostitute? Well it seems he liked amateurs even more, having had a lengthy affair with a very young male parishioner who cost the Church a good deal of money to pay off. I wonder if the upcoming HBO documentary intended to rebuild his reputation will include this new embarrassment and whether all this money taken from the pockets of pious parishioners and intended for good works will be enough to whitewash the hypocrisy and the impudence of advising other people about the immorality of his own favorite pastime: buggering young men. I'd sooner ask Bernie Madoff for investment advice than listen to this self-appointed con-man. This finger is for you, Ted.
And speaking of flim-flam, what about the fantastically finger-worthy ex-Nazi in a dress from Rome who has the arrogance to condemn the United States for sending aid to sick and impoverished Africans without their strings attached. The Vatican has now condemned the "arrogance of those in power who think they can decide between life and death." I'd briefly summarize the arrogance of the organization that has been doing exactly that for about 1700 years, but even the brief version is far too lengthy for this venue. I'll limit the summation of my discontent to Rome's disregard for the lives of millions and millions of raped African women and the millions of AIDS infected pregnant women and the millions of African women with infected husbands who need protection. Sure, the few bucks taken from widows and orphans elsewhere in the world often go to heal the poorer and needier, or what's left over after paying off the children raped by agents of Rome, that is -- but no mention of birth control and no mention of Abortion. That would be immoral.
The beauty of the Finger lies in its brevity -- and so this finger is for you, Ratzinger -- and I really mean it.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Foxed up
President Obama has made so many egregious mistakes that we're all in terrible danger. He's sending the "worst of the worst" from Guantanamo to your children's playgrounds. His appointments can't be trusted and most "shocking" of all, even though Mike Wallace all but forced Chief Justice Roberts to swear him in the second time, Obama isn't really the president because he didn't have his hand on "the Bible." No, I haven't gone completely insane, I'm quoting Fox News. If you watched The Daily Show Thursday night, you saw the following clip:
You see, I'm not making this stuff up. The same people who told you we have to, in the name of freedom and our safety obey theFührer president and the same people who supported each and every act that brought on our dire predicaments; who insisted that economic collapse was a liberal lie, that we were about to "win" in Iraq every day since we arrived, are telling you this one really can't be obeyed. Of course those with longer memories remember when Bill Clinton wasn't, for some Foxed up reason I no longer remember, really the president either and shouldn't be listened to.
So whether or not Fox lives up to its promise of revealing some hideous hidden "truth" behind every aspect of the Obama presidency once a day for the first hundred days, I won't be watching them. Unfortunately others will and for them the fiction will seem real and the fear will grow. I find it hard to feel any kind of optimism and those who think that we've "won" and that things are in good hands now may soon find that the process of losing started on November 20th.
The people who watch Fox usually don't watch anything else. They have no idea that the lies and distortions they've been hearing are often repudiated and disproved by all the other news services. They haven't a clue that one of the largest anti-American campaigns, indeed the most organized program of treason against truth, justice and democracy is broadcasting 24 hours a day. Fox is using and will use everything they can find to undermine confidence in our government and anything it does and as you can see is hoping our country will fall and our hopes will fail. To me, it constitutes as great a danger to our future as any foreign enemy or global economic collapse. Traitors, saboteurs, liars and purveyors of irrational hate, Fox News is the enemy and anyone who hopes not just for our survival, but our improvement owes it to the world to use every opportunity to expose them.
You see, I'm not making this stuff up. The same people who told you we have to, in the name of freedom and our safety obey the
So whether or not Fox lives up to its promise of revealing some hideous hidden "truth" behind every aspect of the Obama presidency once a day for the first hundred days, I won't be watching them. Unfortunately others will and for them the fiction will seem real and the fear will grow. I find it hard to feel any kind of optimism and those who think that we've "won" and that things are in good hands now may soon find that the process of losing started on November 20th.
The people who watch Fox usually don't watch anything else. They have no idea that the lies and distortions they've been hearing are often repudiated and disproved by all the other news services. They haven't a clue that one of the largest anti-American campaigns, indeed the most organized program of treason against truth, justice and democracy is broadcasting 24 hours a day. Fox is using and will use everything they can find to undermine confidence in our government and anything it does and as you can see is hoping our country will fall and our hopes will fail. To me, it constitutes as great a danger to our future as any foreign enemy or global economic collapse. Traitors, saboteurs, liars and purveyors of irrational hate, Fox News is the enemy and anyone who hopes not just for our survival, but our improvement owes it to the world to use every opportunity to expose them.
Friday, January 23, 2009
How To Privilege Moments in History
Today I spoke with a friend who was present for President Obama's historic innauguration. His story about the enormity of his experience was remarkable to hear. And my friend - an older white man - spoke also about the need to be present when history is made, that that is what living is all about.
While I appreciate his sentiment about living life within the pulse of history - I think for many people the concept of being "present when history is made" sounds exclusive - as if it is the stuff of the lives of those who are privileged enough, or just plain lucky enough, to manage to be in the right place at the right time. Or to be a Forest Gump & accidentally stumble into historical moments. However - history is being made every minute of the day in every little corner of the world. It is true that our cultural ideology privileges historical events that can be photographed, filmed, dated precisely, documented and otherwise readily & neatly cataloged as the REAL stuff of history. The REAL important stuff of record.
And that's the key word - Record. But recorded history has - & always has had - blind spots. For example, for generations history textbooks have been written about the history of the world as if women didn't exist. Often as if NO minorites existed. History books have privileged the stuff of men, usually white - wars, politics, inventions, explorations etc. Tangible, recordable stuff. For generations history failed to look between the cracks of such bias at other important societal forces as work.
This has changed in recent years - finally. Textbooks are beginning to insert into the old narratives "new" information about the lives, experiences & contributions of women & minorities. Books are changing, curriculums are changing - but - in light of this man's comment to me today about life being lived by participating in historical events I thought - mmmmm - I wonder if his words, albeit unitentionally, still speak to a certain bias of thought. In other words, privileging the recordable. The tangible.
For many Americans, such as myself, the innauguration was something to be experienced electronically. We were not present. Our heads, our bodies did not help to create the mass of humanity now recorded by photographs and film, documenting the day for posterity. But we were still a part of the story. CNN.com reported that its circuits were overloaded during the innauguration. Well - guess what!? I helped to overload them! My contribution to the day!! I will not be able to tell my grandchildren about the day I stood in the cold to be present to usher in President Obama, but I can claim to have overtaxed CNN.com's resources - my historical story between the cracks of bias. Trying to watch an innauguration vie the internet instead of television - a first for many?
And what about people who took off from work (no small sacrifice today) to stay at home to watch the event on television? They were living their part of history as best they could in support of their new president. And . . . what about those who literally could not afford to take time off from work to watch or attend the innauguration lest more bills be left unpaid. Their un-able-to-watch situation is also part of the Obama innauguration story - Obama's historical moment in the midst of economic meltdown. For the un-able-to-watch folk this was a moment to be shared with fellow Obama supporters in spirit - "only?"
I do appreciate my friend's sentiment about the excitement of actually being THERE, in the moment. I once experienced a moment of privileged history myself - in the moment, in the place, in the presence of Nelson Mandela. And yes, it was a wonderful, unforgettable thing. But living is also about participating in any way you can. Making the effort to do so in the best way that you can is equally the living of life - in the cracks of properly recorded history - often the truest lived story behind the official story.
While I appreciate his sentiment about living life within the pulse of history - I think for many people the concept of being "present when history is made" sounds exclusive - as if it is the stuff of the lives of those who are privileged enough, or just plain lucky enough, to manage to be in the right place at the right time. Or to be a Forest Gump & accidentally stumble into historical moments. However - history is being made every minute of the day in every little corner of the world. It is true that our cultural ideology privileges historical events that can be photographed, filmed, dated precisely, documented and otherwise readily & neatly cataloged as the REAL stuff of history. The REAL important stuff of record.
And that's the key word - Record. But recorded history has - & always has had - blind spots. For example, for generations history textbooks have been written about the history of the world as if women didn't exist. Often as if NO minorites existed. History books have privileged the stuff of men, usually white - wars, politics, inventions, explorations etc. Tangible, recordable stuff. For generations history failed to look between the cracks of such bias at other important societal forces as work.
This has changed in recent years - finally. Textbooks are beginning to insert into the old narratives "new" information about the lives, experiences & contributions of women & minorities. Books are changing, curriculums are changing - but - in light of this man's comment to me today about life being lived by participating in historical events I thought - mmmmm - I wonder if his words, albeit unitentionally, still speak to a certain bias of thought. In other words, privileging the recordable. The tangible.
For many Americans, such as myself, the innauguration was something to be experienced electronically. We were not present. Our heads, our bodies did not help to create the mass of humanity now recorded by photographs and film, documenting the day for posterity. But we were still a part of the story. CNN.com reported that its circuits were overloaded during the innauguration. Well - guess what!? I helped to overload them! My contribution to the day!! I will not be able to tell my grandchildren about the day I stood in the cold to be present to usher in President Obama, but I can claim to have overtaxed CNN.com's resources - my historical story between the cracks of bias. Trying to watch an innauguration vie the internet instead of television - a first for many?
And what about people who took off from work (no small sacrifice today) to stay at home to watch the event on television? They were living their part of history as best they could in support of their new president. And . . . what about those who literally could not afford to take time off from work to watch or attend the innauguration lest more bills be left unpaid. Their un-able-to-watch situation is also part of the Obama innauguration story - Obama's historical moment in the midst of economic meltdown. For the un-able-to-watch folk this was a moment to be shared with fellow Obama supporters in spirit - "only?"
I do appreciate my friend's sentiment about the excitement of actually being THERE, in the moment. I once experienced a moment of privileged history myself - in the moment, in the place, in the presence of Nelson Mandela. And yes, it was a wonderful, unforgettable thing. But living is also about participating in any way you can. Making the effort to do so in the best way that you can is equally the living of life - in the cracks of properly recorded history - often the truest lived story behind the official story.
YEAR OF THE MELTDOWN
Happy New Year, everyone! Americans are famous for customary greetings that bear little relevance to events or context. By all accounts, the New Year will be anything but happy. For some, 2009 will be called, “Year of the Ox.” In my book, it should be called, “Year of the Meltdown” … in more ways than one.
The Economy
Since the first of the year, 100,000 job cuts have been announced including: 30,000 at Circuit City, 5,000 at Microsoft, 6,000 at Intel, 2,500 at United Airlines, 11,000 at General Electric, as examples.
According to Futurist.Com, our economic problems are "deep and structural and even cultural. It has to do with energy, with lifestyle, with the shape and form of what we build, and with global politics, and more."
In Florida, for example, our local supermarkets stock oranges from California and vegetables shipped from Chile, Mexico, and Peru. Most of this produce is grown locally, transportable to market at little cost, and far cheaper than inferior store-bought varieties. Yet, local growers are struggling or going out of business. Why? It seems chain stores favor a procurement model that ignores long distances, higher energy costs, inferior quality goods, and impacts on local economies. Hardly a model of efficiency, one would think.
James Howard Kunstler of Clusterfuck Nation says we should "prepare for the end of current global commerce as currently conducted, prepare psychologically to downscale, take a time out from immigration, prepare for a lot of paper “wealth” to disappear, prepare for a psychology of resentment."
America’s Defense MeltdownOur country supports an annual defense budget of $600-700 billion and rising but gets less bang for the buck with each passing year. We have the fewest number of navy combat ships, submarines, and combat aircraft, and the smallest number of personnel in uniform at any time since the end of World War II. Why are we spending more and getting less?
According to Winslow Wheeler, "In Congress they're interested in jobs and campaign contributions. In the Pentagon they're interested in various political and bureaucratic agendas. They're not paying attention to the lessons of combat history … we should only fight when we truly have to fight rather than pursue agendas and political dogmas and help politicians posture as patriots."
Global Climate Change
In March of 2002, a giant ice sheet known as Larson B broke away from Antarctica and went adrift. According to global climate scientists, the Antarctic continent as a whole warmed at the same rate as the rest of planet. Local conditions, however, are another matter of special concern: The western peninsula warmed at a rate five times faster than the rest of Antarctica. Ice sheets such as Larson B hold back the glaciers behind them. If they were to collapse completely, scientists say, the entire western ice shelf would fall into the ocean … resulting in a 16-foot rise in sea level.
In 2009, an even bigger chunk threatens to break away. The Wilkins Ice shelf, roughly equal in size to the State of Connecticut, is literally “hanging by a thread” and “could go at any minute,” according to the latest observations.
ExxonMobil gave $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute in an attempt to undercut the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a report widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of climate change science. The Bush administration sought to further undermine public understanding of the issue by censoring the findings of climate scientists. Thus, our government, under pressure from the oil lobby, suppressed meaningful data to influence the debate.
Apparently, a little propaganda money goes a long way. This comment from a conservative blogger is representative of how public opinion is shaped by good ol’ boys:
CB (12-20-2008 at 9:35 AM): I am an outdoorsman and a conservationist. I support clean air, water, etc. What I object to is the leveraging of carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas and not a pollutant, into anti-capitalist redistribution schemes.... and some of my best friends are [fill-in the blank]. When a conservative blogger makes a statement like this, claiming to appreciate the outdoors while debunking climate science, it reminds me of a pedophile who says: “I like children.”
Shadows of the Indignant Desert Birds
There will always be shrill voices resistant to change. Public policy debates have an aspect of “advertising jingle” to them. A catchy melody repeats endlessly on the radio over months and years, then plays continuously inside the head long after the product has disappeared from the store: “Its not how long you make it, its how you make it long.” Once firmly imprinted, it is difficult to reshape public opinion.
Or perhaps one can look at the issue of changing public opinion from the perspective of a psychotherapist whose client engages in reckless behaviors. An addict clearly knows the risks of substance abuse but is unable to break the habit in emotional terms, such as a chain smoker who reaches for another cigarette after being told of dire health consequences. Even when understood intellectually, it is hard to change old habits and perceptions.
For those of us who read scientific studies, the data may seem compelling, but how do we convince others who don’t study graphs and maps, who listen only to long imprinted jingles?
And then there are lobbyists trying to protect their dirty franchises. They would have us focus attention, not on the data points clustered around a trend line, but on the statistical outliers … the confounding dodge and feint. Once imprinted, only a catastrophe will change minds.
There will always be voices from a bygone era still hearing messages the dead have stopped sending. There will always be voices arguing, not for the common good, but from pure self-interest. Implementing public policy changes are difficult at best. We can understand these quirks of human nature with all due patience, but we are running out of time, and there is little wiggle room left.
Happy New Year, everyone.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I hope he fails
I've called him all kinds of names, from Limpboy to liar to Rush the magic blowhard. This time Rush Limbaugh has left me at a loss for a proper pejorative. I guess that puts me in the drivers' seat as a "driveby journalist" but when I listen to him this time, listen to him saying he hopes Barak Obama fails as president, hopes the "liberalism" he represents fails and pretends it's all about the kinds of people Obama appoints, the decisions he makes, I can only descend into obscenity.
He blames Obama, he says, for a policy that includes massive bailouts and the nationalization of the private sector. I shouldn't have to point out the distortion or the irony. The "Liberals" he says, were out to get Bush even before Bush ruined the world so it's fair, even though Bush and his fake war were supported massively by such straw men as the New York Times, even though the economic policies Rush supports have failed consistently for 30 years.
Hoping Obama succeeds is "affirmative action," it's "supporting incompetence," it's advocating "socialism." He's the "last man standing" says he, but it's all about a better America for his nieces and nephews. I wish he were the last man standing -- against the wall, because if Obama fails to undo what people like Rush and the pirates and buccaneers he supports have done, the country will only be worth living in for the heirs of plutocratic bloviators and the world will be in ruins. If Obama fails, we all fail.
Was anyone ever so thoroughly dishonest, completely reprehensible? Perhaps yes. Did anyone ever make so much money at it, maybe not. Behold the man who hopes you lose your job and your home because it offends hisReaganoid ideology. Here's the man who avoided the draft because his anus was sore, here's the man who tries to pin a drug charge on his housekeeper. Here's his 51,000 square foot home on the Atlantic ocean in Palm beach where he sits in the sun and complains about being a victim. You bought it for him, because you hate America, because you hate justice, because you're a coward, because you think bigotry is cute, because you're afraid someone will pull the rug out from under your miserable life if you don't side with the people who kidnapped America and held it for ransom.
Our country faces a world economic crisis as dangerous as anything we have faced. You and I are more likely to lose everything we have than at any time in the last 80 years; Rush isn't. In fact the worse it gets, and as he says, he hopes it will, the more material he has and the more support he will get from those who insist we need more of what Reagan and the two Bush's gave us.
If Obama succeeds, if we succeed in turning around the economy, stopping the biggest incursions on personal liberty in our history and in extricating ourselves from the war Bush started for his own reasons, Limbaugh will become as embarrassing and repugnant as the equally popular Father Coughlin did in the 1930's when it became obvious that his policies were indistinguishable from Hitler's. It can happen. We can be rid of him. Yes we can.
He blames Obama, he says, for a policy that includes massive bailouts and the nationalization of the private sector. I shouldn't have to point out the distortion or the irony. The "Liberals" he says, were out to get Bush even before Bush ruined the world so it's fair, even though Bush and his fake war were supported massively by such straw men as the New York Times, even though the economic policies Rush supports have failed consistently for 30 years.
Hoping Obama succeeds is "affirmative action," it's "supporting incompetence," it's advocating "socialism." He's the "last man standing" says he, but it's all about a better America for his nieces and nephews. I wish he were the last man standing -- against the wall, because if Obama fails to undo what people like Rush and the pirates and buccaneers he supports have done, the country will only be worth living in for the heirs of plutocratic bloviators and the world will be in ruins. If Obama fails, we all fail.
Was anyone ever so thoroughly dishonest, completely reprehensible? Perhaps yes. Did anyone ever make so much money at it, maybe not. Behold the man who hopes you lose your job and your home because it offends hisReaganoid ideology. Here's the man who avoided the draft because his anus was sore, here's the man who tries to pin a drug charge on his housekeeper. Here's his 51,000 square foot home on the Atlantic ocean in Palm beach where he sits in the sun and complains about being a victim. You bought it for him, because you hate America, because you hate justice, because you're a coward, because you think bigotry is cute, because you're afraid someone will pull the rug out from under your miserable life if you don't side with the people who kidnapped America and held it for ransom.
Our country faces a world economic crisis as dangerous as anything we have faced. You and I are more likely to lose everything we have than at any time in the last 80 years; Rush isn't. In fact the worse it gets, and as he says, he hopes it will, the more material he has and the more support he will get from those who insist we need more of what Reagan and the two Bush's gave us.
If Obama succeeds, if we succeed in turning around the economy, stopping the biggest incursions on personal liberty in our history and in extricating ourselves from the war Bush started for his own reasons, Limbaugh will become as embarrassing and repugnant as the equally popular Father Coughlin did in the 1930's when it became obvious that his policies were indistinguishable from Hitler's. It can happen. We can be rid of him. Yes we can.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
This land was made for you and me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."
-Barak H. Obama, 1/20/2009-
And isn't it time someone affirmed that fact? In a country that still, in many states, requires religious belief as a test for office; in a country where accepting Jesus of Nazareth as a savior as a requirement for public office is on the books in at least one state, isn't it time our leaders stood up for the freedom of religion we have been promised?
-Barak H. Obama, 1/20/2009-
And isn't it time someone affirmed that fact? In a country that still, in many states, requires religious belief as a test for office; in a country where accepting Jesus of Nazareth as a savior as a requirement for public office is on the books in at least one state, isn't it time our leaders stood up for the freedom of religion we have been promised?
Cherche la slime
There is a broad and thick trail of slime following Mr. Cheney out of Washington and indeed if we could follow that trail, history could actually reflect what happened over the last 8 years, but sadly, Cheney seems to have succeeded in establishing a separate agency, outside the executive branch but funded by it, that is as invisible, yet as massive as the dark matter physicists are in love with these days. In short, the evidence that might foster indictments has disappeared, some reported destroyed. Of what remains, only that which Cheney allows to be viewed by posterity will be released. Cheney and Bush may have left behind a Temple of History as filled with booby traps, poison arrows, rolling boulders and pits of quicksand that no future historian, with or without fedora and bullwhip can penetrate.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a US District Judge often sympathetic to the legal arguments of the junta, has written a 63-page opinion stating that:
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a US District Judge often sympathetic to the legal arguments of the junta, has written a 63-page opinion stating that:
"Congress drastically limited the scope of outside inquiries related to the vice president's handling of his own records during his term in office."In other words, the National Archive will no longer be able to determine what's important to keep of the records not yet shredded or destroyed. Dick Cheney's legacy will be what he wants it to be, not what it is, and in the language of Tense Logic: p→GPp “What is, will always have been.”
Monday, January 19, 2009
Why Respond to Disrespectful, Non-Serious Comments?
When we receive posts obviously written by those who don't mean us well, why not just ignore them rather than respond? A blog isn’t an invitation for others to call the blog’s authors names or write flippant, disrespectful comments. Differences of opinion are fine, but it’s clear that somebody who posts a comment merely to call a poster names isn’t trying to advance an intelligent viewpoint. If you respond, you’re doing exactly what they want you to do. Please ignore them. I don't even bother reading comments written by people with trollish handles -- it saves me time and spares me annoyance.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
THE WEATHER OUTSIDE IS FRIGHTFUL!
Much of the country is experiencing frigid, record breaking cold and the eastern US is especially hard hit. Watching the news, it seems Northerners pretty much take this in stride, but for those of us south of the Mason/ Dixon, this kind of weather is a real shock.
My water pipes partially froze last night and we were downn the single digits. I can’t remember the last time it was this cold here. The only saving grace this morning is that the sun is out and we aren’t expecting precipitation until Sunday. Which is a good thing since a couple of inches of snow usually means the highway gets closed. Of course, if Sunday’s rain turns ice, then we can listen on the scanner to the demolition derby on the surface streets.
These fountains in Myrtle Beach, SC and Atlanta, GA. respectively are testaments to the fact that is as cold as (_______________________) fill in your own comparison. Just the fact that these two fountains were running at the time they froze testifies to the fact that this weather is indeed a rarity in these parts.
My water pipes partially froze last night and we were downn the single digits. I can’t remember the last time it was this cold here. The only saving grace this morning is that the sun is out and we aren’t expecting precipitation until Sunday. Which is a good thing since a couple of inches of snow usually means the highway gets closed. Of course, if Sunday’s rain turns ice, then we can listen on the scanner to the demolition derby on the surface streets.
These fountains in Myrtle Beach, SC and Atlanta, GA. respectively are testaments to the fact that is as cold as (_______________________) fill in your own comparison. Just the fact that these two fountains were running at the time they froze testifies to the fact that this weather is indeed a rarity in these parts.
We have two beagle type dogs who are “outside” dogs, mostly because they came as adult strays and were never housebroken. Last night, we laid down newspaper in the mudroom, threw down an old blanket and brought them in for the night. Amazingly they waited to “toilet” until they went back outside this morning.We’ve been filling the bird feeder three times a day and I’m not sure if the birds or the squirrels are getting the most of it, but, hey, they all want to live. We also have woodpeckers here so we put out suet for them.
I have to go out today. I don’t want to, I’d rather stay here in my cozy little hobbit house with the woodstove crackling and cranking out all sorts of heat, but I have to. I have put off grocery shopping for several days, hoping for a rise in the temperature. Since that’s not going to happen anytime soon, I guess I’ll search the attic and other nooks and crannies for a pair of gloves, a scarf and a hat. Then I’ll use the remote start for my car to warm it up before I go out…
I’m sure anyone up North will read this and laugh at my whimpiness, but I hate the cold!
Poor George
My jaw has been dropping often enough that I've got bruises. After getting over Frist's announcement that Bush has left the world a better place than when he oozed into office, I find that all the major failures of his administration were things, like his personal fortune, he inherited: or so says Fox News.
Bush inherited the 9/11 attack. Bush inherited a recession and the tough times on Wall Street, according to Martha MacCallum and Wendell Goler. Either they deserve the Nobel Prize for physics for having invented a Causality Reversal Time Machine -- or a week in the pillory. I'm sure they'll get neither.
Isn't it interesting how Bush can be given credit for turning around the recession they blame Clinton for, while all the while they claimed there was no recession, but that the "libs" were simply talking down the thriving economy? Interesting, of course is my polite way of combining words like fraud, deceit and lie.
Isn't it interesting that Bush chose to do nothing about terrorism, to essentially disband all investigations into terrorism and ignore direct warnings about terrorism; isn't it interesting that he did inherit the USS Cole attack and did essentially nothing; isn't it interesting that Fox can run it through the Roger Ailes Reversotron and blame this on Clinton, whom they attacked for attempting to retaliate against al Qaeda with cries of "wag the dog?" Interesting indeed.
Far more than interesting though, is the question of how and why Fox continues to produce propaganda for the small minority of people who still think W & C0. are victims. I think the answer may well be found by asking ourselves: whom do the lies benefit and who can afford to produce and distribute them?
Bush inherited the 9/11 attack. Bush inherited a recession and the tough times on Wall Street, according to Martha MacCallum and Wendell Goler. Either they deserve the Nobel Prize for physics for having invented a Causality Reversal Time Machine -- or a week in the pillory. I'm sure they'll get neither.
Isn't it interesting how Bush can be given credit for turning around the recession they blame Clinton for, while all the while they claimed there was no recession, but that the "libs" were simply talking down the thriving economy? Interesting, of course is my polite way of combining words like fraud, deceit and lie.
Isn't it interesting that Bush chose to do nothing about terrorism, to essentially disband all investigations into terrorism and ignore direct warnings about terrorism; isn't it interesting that he did inherit the USS Cole attack and did essentially nothing; isn't it interesting that Fox can run it through the Roger Ailes Reversotron and blame this on Clinton, whom they attacked for attempting to retaliate against al Qaeda with cries of "wag the dog?" Interesting indeed.
Far more than interesting though, is the question of how and why Fox continues to produce propaganda for the small minority of people who still think W & C0. are victims. I think the answer may well be found by asking ourselves: whom do the lies benefit and who can afford to produce and distribute them?
Friday, January 16, 2009
The healer
"A man can smile and smile and be a villain" or at least he can heap praise on one. That Mussolini made the trains run on time has become a metaphor for the practice of singling out certain isolated actions of an otherwise un-praiseworthy person in order to dismiss any clear view of the whole man.
That particular kind of smile is visible on the face of Bill Frist as he tries to portray our outgoing president as a savior of millions. George Bush is a healer, he says. I know, but be careful that nothing flies into your
mouth while it gapes in amazement. No, he's not talking about the hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps billions of lives affected by his economic policies nor the uncounted lives of Iraqi civilians who he has killed or maimed, the millions exiled, the millions forced into fear and abject squalor, he's talking about the lives he's saved in Africa.
While millions have been hacked to pieces, raped, dismembered and starved in Africa without any interference by the United States of America, Bush has none the less committed 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS, according to smiling Bill Frist. Some, of course question the accounting and questionable accounting is the most visible Bush family trait as has been demonstrated. No mention makes Frist of any number of lives that might have been saved by advocating condoms to prevent infections because that, of course, would offend the Christian Right. God, after all, provides sinners so that we can be saintly in our condescension and preventing the infections just gets in the way of God's plan.
Frist has the nerve to continue on and on about how Bush has done wonders for education and health care and I'm sure it's not that he's a damn liar or that he lives on another planet that he doesn't realize that Bush failures in these departments contributed heavily to the fact that Frist is no longer the Majority Leader. That Bush and Frist and their party of God are saintly men, misjudged by sinners and Liberals, is an article of faith for Republicans but they're no different than other men. It's just that faith makes liars of us all.
That particular kind of smile is visible on the face of Bill Frist as he tries to portray our outgoing president as a savior of millions. George Bush is a healer, he says. I know, but be careful that nothing flies into your
mouth while it gapes in amazement. No, he's not talking about the hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps billions of lives affected by his economic policies nor the uncounted lives of Iraqi civilians who he has killed or maimed, the millions exiled, the millions forced into fear and abject squalor, he's talking about the lives he's saved in Africa.While millions have been hacked to pieces, raped, dismembered and starved in Africa without any interference by the United States of America, Bush has none the less committed 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS, according to smiling Bill Frist. Some, of course question the accounting and questionable accounting is the most visible Bush family trait as has been demonstrated. No mention makes Frist of any number of lives that might have been saved by advocating condoms to prevent infections because that, of course, would offend the Christian Right. God, after all, provides sinners so that we can be saintly in our condescension and preventing the infections just gets in the way of God's plan.
Frist has the nerve to continue on and on about how Bush has done wonders for education and health care and I'm sure it's not that he's a damn liar or that he lives on another planet that he doesn't realize that Bush failures in these departments contributed heavily to the fact that Frist is no longer the Majority Leader. That Bush and Frist and their party of God are saintly men, misjudged by sinners and Liberals, is an article of faith for Republicans but they're no different than other men. It's just that faith makes liars of us all.
UNPACKING A PACK OF PICKLED BANKERS
Shocking! The announced breakup of CitiGroup, I mean. Once the largest bank in the world with trillions of dollars in assets under management, this once mighty giant is splitting in two.
In my previous reincarnation, Citi was my venture capitalist and single most important client, whose Board-of-Directors commissioned films, time-critical financial reports, and computer-simulated decision models from your humble servant, (O)CT(O)PUS. Mentored by the legendary Walter Wriston, my relationship with Citi continued through the chairmanship of John Reed.
The break up of Citi marks the passing of an era, and my metamorphosis from human to cephalopod is now complete.
So here is the joke:
Two women were walking through a forest when they hear a voice. Investigating, the women discover the voice coming from a frog.
"Help me, ladies!” begs the frog. “I am an investment banker who has been cursed by an evil witch. If one of you will kiss me, I'll return to my former state!"
The first woman grabs the frog and stuffs it in her handbag. The second woman, aghast, says, "Didn't you hear him? If you kiss him, he'll turn back into an investment banker."
The second woman replies, "Sure, but these days a talking frog is worth more than an investment banker!"
Thursday, January 15, 2009
MY BARACK OBAMA INAUGURATION INVITATION
It arrived in the mail earlier this week; but, no, I will not be traveling to Washington DC to attend. You know, my delicate (O)CT(O)PUS constitution and all. So I will be watching the inauguration on the Telly like most other folks. Maybe I'll just frame it and hang it over the manta piece.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
While reading an ongoing debate on the thread of a post at another blog, the following statement was made:
“First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad that people consider this worthy of debate. The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter? This intenet is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate?”
Now, the First Amendment states in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Apparently the intent of this amendment is not clear enough.
About those framers or founding fathers? We don’t need to guess at their intent since some of them had weighed in and left a record of their opinion.
In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."
Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.
John Adams wrote in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the... It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
My favorite “framer” is Benjamin Franklin. If you have never read his autobiography, you are missing some great reading and a colorful and detailed account of life in “those days.” He was a vegetarian although he would sometimes eat fish which he seemed to be very fond of. He also had within his circle proponents of deism. With his beliefs in natural law, Franklin would probably have had more in common with “tree huggers” than church goers. Here are his own words:
"You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
Benjamin Franklin was also the person who encouraged Thomas Paine (a lifelong Deist) to print his views in what would become the now famous work, “Common Sense.” At the time, those who wanted to declare independence from Britian were in the minority. Many of those at Congress were wealthy landowners who feared losing the protection and trade of England. “Common Sense” came out in pamphlet form and has been credited with turning the tide toward full independence.
Even George Washington had a tolerant view. After he became the president he was approached repeatedly by those worried about their right to practice according to their own religious beliefs. Over and over again, Washington reiterated his belief that, as long as everyone behaved as good citizens, their religious beliefs were not an issue for the government, but were only a matter for each individual and God. These statements were similar to his earlier comments to Tench Tilghman in March of 1784, when he was trying to hire workmen for Mount Vernon, noting that "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
It is no mystery why our founders would want to separate church and state; after the abuses by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the English were pretty fed up with politics corrupted by religion and visa versa.
History is not events frozen in time; it is more a living record of our lives, flowing through time and leaving imprints behind as it goes. Our founding fathers were not all saintly, pious men totally focused on this country’s independence.
In fact, they were not so unlike Americans today with events unfolding as they struggled to make a living and care for their families.. Some were certainly religious men and I’m sure we would recognize the conservatives, but we would also recognize the liberals. They argued about religion, politics, taxes and government structure. These guys were radicals and rebels, mature men and incorrigible rascals. They were us 200+ years ago, living and dying in America.
AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN!
“First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad that people consider this worthy of debate. The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter? This intenet is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate?”
Now, the First Amendment states in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Apparently the intent of this amendment is not clear enough.
About those framers or founding fathers? We don’t need to guess at their intent since some of them had weighed in and left a record of their opinion.
In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."
Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.
John Adams wrote in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the... It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
My favorite “framer” is Benjamin Franklin. If you have never read his autobiography, you are missing some great reading and a colorful and detailed account of life in “those days.” He was a vegetarian although he would sometimes eat fish which he seemed to be very fond of. He also had within his circle proponents of deism. With his beliefs in natural law, Franklin would probably have had more in common with “tree huggers” than church goers. Here are his own words:
"You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
Benjamin Franklin was also the person who encouraged Thomas Paine (a lifelong Deist) to print his views in what would become the now famous work, “Common Sense.” At the time, those who wanted to declare independence from Britian were in the minority. Many of those at Congress were wealthy landowners who feared losing the protection and trade of England. “Common Sense” came out in pamphlet form and has been credited with turning the tide toward full independence.
Even George Washington had a tolerant view. After he became the president he was approached repeatedly by those worried about their right to practice according to their own religious beliefs. Over and over again, Washington reiterated his belief that, as long as everyone behaved as good citizens, their religious beliefs were not an issue for the government, but were only a matter for each individual and God. These statements were similar to his earlier comments to Tench Tilghman in March of 1784, when he was trying to hire workmen for Mount Vernon, noting that "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."
It is no mystery why our founders would want to separate church and state; after the abuses by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the English were pretty fed up with politics corrupted by religion and visa versa.
History is not events frozen in time; it is more a living record of our lives, flowing through time and leaving imprints behind as it goes. Our founding fathers were not all saintly, pious men totally focused on this country’s independence.
In fact, they were not so unlike Americans today with events unfolding as they struggled to make a living and care for their families.. Some were certainly religious men and I’m sure we would recognize the conservatives, but we would also recognize the liberals. They argued about religion, politics, taxes and government structure. These guys were radicals and rebels, mature men and incorrigible rascals. They were us 200+ years ago, living and dying in America.
AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Ann of God
I can fool you once and I can fool you twice and there's no shame on me, you Godless Liberal, says Ann Coulter. Ann weaseled out of felony election fraud charges in 2006 even though the evidence that she used someone else's address when she registered to vote in Palm Beach County, Florida is there in black and white. An "unofficial" phone call from a FBI boyfriend about a "stalking" story bullied the local authorities into dropping the case. No such calls were made concerning the voting rights of tens of thousands of other Floridians illegally deprived of their voting rights, but then few of them wear black pointed hats and fly around on brooms.
OK, so that's water under the bridge, but it seems she's done it before. Ann of God voted in Connecticut in 2002 and 2004 although she lived in Manhattan, illegally using her parents' address. I guess that's the kind of behavior that shows "Liberals" just how bad it is to be Godless.
Private investigator and blogger Joseph Culligan wrote to State of Connecticut Staff Attorney informing him of her misdeeds and Theodore Bromley confirmed that a registered Connecticut voter must list “a residence address in the state where you actually live. It is not enough to claim a relative’s house where you may visit.” So far the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission is waiting for someone to bring charges under oath, but apparently nobody is sufficiently Godless to take Ann of God. Ann can only offer hysterical mockery of Culligan and Bromley, who have never met according to the New York Daily News,
Of Sean Hannity, who apparently does not want her on his show, she offers:
OK, so that's water under the bridge, but it seems she's done it before. Ann of God voted in Connecticut in 2002 and 2004 although she lived in Manhattan, illegally using her parents' address. I guess that's the kind of behavior that shows "Liberals" just how bad it is to be Godless.
Private investigator and blogger Joseph Culligan wrote to State of Connecticut Staff Attorney informing him of her misdeeds and Theodore Bromley confirmed that a registered Connecticut voter must list “a residence address in the state where you actually live. It is not enough to claim a relative’s house where you may visit.” So far the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission is waiting for someone to bring charges under oath, but apparently nobody is sufficiently Godless to take Ann of God. Ann can only offer hysterical mockery of Culligan and Bromley, who have never met according to the New York Daily News,
“Do they have private parties where one of them pretends to be a real attorney and the other one dresses up like me?”No, and they probably don't hold Black Masses or dance naked aournd bonfires either, but she continues her obsession with mysterious stalkers by accusing them of it, adding:
“Tell them both thanks for the flowers and also to please stop killing my pets.”Of course that's falsely accusing them of a felony, which is a serious thing to do, when you do it to a lawyer and State's attorney, but thus do the Godly speak.
Of Sean Hannity, who apparently does not want her on his show, she offers:
“Being [Hannity’s] love slave, I had no choice but to comply. Won’t somebody please rescue me from this awful dungeon [where Hannity] keeps me locked up?”Actually I had pictured a less erotic prison cell for and perhaps, suggests the Daily News, some 9/11 widow who takes umbrage at being called a witch and harpy by this witch and harpy would like to step up. If I had been accused by her of rejoicing in my spouses' death, I would be happy to do the honors, but then I'm "Godless," you know.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Words about Words
Am just responding to recent remarks about the difference between the written and spoken word. Plato's dialogue Phaedrus is suggestive about the key distinction we make: the written word seems to have lost its connection to the body and soul of the person who originated it; another way to put this is to say that the moment a writer sets something down in "hard" form, he or she loses interpretive control of whatever statements have been made. Rightly or wrongly--and Plato's speaker is usually taken to be asserting rightly--we privilege the spoken word, the "utterance," because we believe it to be more closely connected with some kind of inner truth, or truth-to-consciousness, and because we believe we can effectively control our meaning in the presence of other people. It has been cogently argued that everything we say about writing is also true about speaking (Jacques Derrida's critiques begin from that insight), but our motivation to privilege speaking is so strong that it's almost impossible to break.
From a reader/listener's perspective, I think it's fair to say that we would usually respond differently to the same words (especially contentious ones) in writing and in the presence of a live speaker. Part of the difference may be accounted for by basic civility -- not wanting to seem rude or to hurt other people's feelings, etc. But as Plato and his modern critics suggest, the impulse to treat speech and writing differently is ultimately more philosophical than that.
The blogosphere complicates all this -- you have a huge potential audience, many of whom may be genuinely interested in what you write and whose various interpretations might well prove enlightening; but of course, there are also a fair number of sociopaths who seem more interested in giving their demons a workout than in anything resembling communication. Such people obviously revel in the starkness of the written word, and enjoy exploiting the absence of the originator. Best to ignore them altogether, in my view.
From a reader/listener's perspective, I think it's fair to say that we would usually respond differently to the same words (especially contentious ones) in writing and in the presence of a live speaker. Part of the difference may be accounted for by basic civility -- not wanting to seem rude or to hurt other people's feelings, etc. But as Plato and his modern critics suggest, the impulse to treat speech and writing differently is ultimately more philosophical than that.
The blogosphere complicates all this -- you have a huge potential audience, many of whom may be genuinely interested in what you write and whose various interpretations might well prove enlightening; but of course, there are also a fair number of sociopaths who seem more interested in giving their demons a workout than in anything resembling communication. Such people obviously revel in the starkness of the written word, and enjoy exploiting the absence of the originator. Best to ignore them altogether, in my view.
Friday, January 9, 2009
CITY OF ICE!
I don't really like the cold and, given a choice, this bird would fly even further south, but I do find the abilityof these special artisans to create such complex beauty out of bits of snow and ice truly awe-inspiring.
As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Several places around the globe create ice hotels like these in Alaska and Canada where you can get a room and a stiff drink, all at a pretty stiff price, but perhaps worth the cost for a once in a lifetime experience.
Many towns in colder climates have ice festivals that produce some amazing works of art like this sculpture in Alaska. Look closely and you will see not only the animals on top of the ice, but other creatures swimming in the ice!
But, in terms of complexity and sheer magnitude, Harbin, China has no equal! In a town in Northern China where the temps stay below freezing half the year, these hardy souls have found a way to make the ice come to life.
Just breathtaking, isn't it?
As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Several places around the globe create ice hotels like these in Alaska and Canada where you can get a room and a stiff drink, all at a pretty stiff price, but perhaps worth the cost for a once in a lifetime experience.
Many towns in colder climates have ice festivals that produce some amazing works of art like this sculpture in Alaska. Look closely and you will see not only the animals on top of the ice, but other creatures swimming in the ice!
But, in terms of complexity and sheer magnitude, Harbin, China has no equal! In a town in Northern China where the temps stay below freezing half the year, these hardy souls have found a way to make the ice come to life.
Just breathtaking, isn't it?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Explaining My Last Post
I perhaps seemed a bit cranky with my last post. I perhaps seemed to be a bit down on the male sex. Actually – nothing could be further from the truth.
My last post was a satirical, passive aggressive swipe NOT at men but at EXTREME, man-hating radical feminists.
I am NOT a radical feminist. In fact, I am a mild-mannered feminist – believe it or not! Let me clarify – in my personal definition – one is a feminist if one believes that women have the right to live their lives equitably with men and if one actively supports women in doing so. By this definition – men may be feminists.
Now there are those who would criticize such a definition for not being politically specific “enough” – yes, well, but that is where the trouble can begin to start. When we start to define a philosophical point of view too narrowly, drawing the boundaries a bit too snugly – we begin to become exclusive. We begin to become intolerant of those that do not meet our narrow criteria. To my way of thinking – this can begin to become counter-productive. Of course all feminists are not going to entirely agree about this or that. Do Democrats all always agree? Republicans? Of course not. Humans & human nature are far too complex. What is important is to keep in mind our common goals for a better, fairer world.
And this is where my frustration with EXTREME radical feminism begins. The term “radical feminism” basically refers to a brand of feminism that believes that it is not possible to work within patriarchy in order to bring about change. And therefore the patriarchy & the patriarchs (you men) need to be replaced by women. This has always made me a bit nervous as it seems to be privileging one sex over another. Just a different sex this time. Dangerously close to being an example of reverse sexism. However, I’ve usually been able to at least philosophically engage some of its arguments in the spirit of moving the whole issue of women’s equality forward.
BUT – what I am encountering more & more in the blogosphere is a very extreme form of this philosophy. A blatantly MAN HATING strain. And, as if this wasn’t bad enough, many of these women are also rude & unkind to any woman who dares to disagree with them. I have seen this occur in more than one comment thread on more than one blog. They make fun of us women who believe men can be part of the solution rather than the problem. They ridicule us women who enjoy sex with men. (Some claim to be “political lesbians” – which means that they loathe sex with men but feel no desire sexually for women so then, I guess, are largely asexual except for masturbating - maybe. I have no problem with such a lifestyle choice – but I resent their implications about the rest of us who are desiringly heterosexual as if some how that means we are selling out feminism).
Such ill will towards their fellow women distresses me beyond words. I’m not kidding. It angers & saddens me. With such behavior we are making each other the problem, the enemy. This is nuts! And what the hell does such an exclusive club accomplish? It is counter-productive.
It makes me angry – so angry that I feel myself thinking awful things about these extreme radical feminists which means I am going against my own principles of always trying to be supportive of other feminists.
Now – lest anyone think these are just yelling, ignorant hotheads – no they are not. What is unsettling is that many of them are clearly well-educated & know how to frame an argument well.
Finally, I have been readings feminist blogs on & off for a couple of years. Whenever screaming & yelling begins – whether between men & women or women & women – I have often wondered whether the free & open forum for the expression of thought that the blogoshpere provides is really of benefit to feminist discourse in general. I worry sometimes that the anonymity afforded by the blogosphere allows for so much bad behavior that it is dragging such discussions & their participants down into an irretrievably polarizing muck.
SOOOO – I do not want to eat males – squid or human. Some of my favorite creatures are male – always have been & I hope always will be. I hope my satirical angst caused no offense.
My last post was a satirical, passive aggressive swipe NOT at men but at EXTREME, man-hating radical feminists.
I am NOT a radical feminist. In fact, I am a mild-mannered feminist – believe it or not! Let me clarify – in my personal definition – one is a feminist if one believes that women have the right to live their lives equitably with men and if one actively supports women in doing so. By this definition – men may be feminists.
Now there are those who would criticize such a definition for not being politically specific “enough” – yes, well, but that is where the trouble can begin to start. When we start to define a philosophical point of view too narrowly, drawing the boundaries a bit too snugly – we begin to become exclusive. We begin to become intolerant of those that do not meet our narrow criteria. To my way of thinking – this can begin to become counter-productive. Of course all feminists are not going to entirely agree about this or that. Do Democrats all always agree? Republicans? Of course not. Humans & human nature are far too complex. What is important is to keep in mind our common goals for a better, fairer world.
And this is where my frustration with EXTREME radical feminism begins. The term “radical feminism” basically refers to a brand of feminism that believes that it is not possible to work within patriarchy in order to bring about change. And therefore the patriarchy & the patriarchs (you men) need to be replaced by women. This has always made me a bit nervous as it seems to be privileging one sex over another. Just a different sex this time. Dangerously close to being an example of reverse sexism. However, I’ve usually been able to at least philosophically engage some of its arguments in the spirit of moving the whole issue of women’s equality forward.
BUT – what I am encountering more & more in the blogosphere is a very extreme form of this philosophy. A blatantly MAN HATING strain. And, as if this wasn’t bad enough, many of these women are also rude & unkind to any woman who dares to disagree with them. I have seen this occur in more than one comment thread on more than one blog. They make fun of us women who believe men can be part of the solution rather than the problem. They ridicule us women who enjoy sex with men. (Some claim to be “political lesbians” – which means that they loathe sex with men but feel no desire sexually for women so then, I guess, are largely asexual except for masturbating - maybe. I have no problem with such a lifestyle choice – but I resent their implications about the rest of us who are desiringly heterosexual as if some how that means we are selling out feminism).
Such ill will towards their fellow women distresses me beyond words. I’m not kidding. It angers & saddens me. With such behavior we are making each other the problem, the enemy. This is nuts! And what the hell does such an exclusive club accomplish? It is counter-productive.
It makes me angry – so angry that I feel myself thinking awful things about these extreme radical feminists which means I am going against my own principles of always trying to be supportive of other feminists.
Now – lest anyone think these are just yelling, ignorant hotheads – no they are not. What is unsettling is that many of them are clearly well-educated & know how to frame an argument well.
Finally, I have been readings feminist blogs on & off for a couple of years. Whenever screaming & yelling begins – whether between men & women or women & women – I have often wondered whether the free & open forum for the expression of thought that the blogoshpere provides is really of benefit to feminist discourse in general. I worry sometimes that the anonymity afforded by the blogosphere allows for so much bad behavior that it is dragging such discussions & their participants down into an irretrievably polarizing muck.
SOOOO – I do not want to eat males – squid or human. Some of my favorite creatures are male – always have been & I hope always will be. I hope my satirical angst caused no offense.
THE NEW LEPER COLONY: FOR WOMEN ONLY
(O)CT(O)PUS is not done inking the aquarium this week. I did a post-mortem follow-up and found this comment posted by the same author who inspired my last ink-the-aquarium tirade:
A few questions: Why should pregnant teenaged girls be banned from public schools but not the little dicks who caused their pregnancies? Why should young women always bear the brunt of ridicule and social ostracism for the crime of two-to-tango but not their co-conspirators in passion? Will parents of pregnant teenaged girls get a school tax rebate after their daughters are banned from public school? After all, those parents will no longer receive value for money.
In other news, I congratulate the Palin family on the birth of their new grandson, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, 7 pounds 4 ounces, born on December 28, 2009. Dragon Lady has decreed: Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, may now return to school.
In other news, I found these stories:
[Were] pregnant teenagers allowed in school when you were a student? I know they were not. I don't believe in that, because it tells other girls that it's okay to get pregnant. I don't know how you feel about that, but I disagree with it. It's not okay for teenage girls to get pregnant, and I feel fortunate that I was able to teach my girls the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately there are far too many parents who don't realize what's going on in our public school system, and there are many others who simply don't care. As to teenage girls who get pregnant, I believe they should homeschool [sic]. Gayle | Homepage | 01.03.09 - 11:18 am
A few questions: Why should pregnant teenaged girls be banned from public schools but not the little dicks who caused their pregnancies? Why should young women always bear the brunt of ridicule and social ostracism for the crime of two-to-tango but not their co-conspirators in passion? Will parents of pregnant teenaged girls get a school tax rebate after their daughters are banned from public school? After all, those parents will no longer receive value for money.
In other news, I congratulate the Palin family on the birth of their new grandson, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, 7 pounds 4 ounces, born on December 28, 2009. Dragon Lady has decreed: Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, may now return to school.
In other news, I found these stories:
Taleban threaten to blow up girls’ schools if they refuse to close
The Taleban have ordered the closure of all girls’ schools in the war-ravaged Swat district and warned parents and teachers of dire consequences if the ban is flouted.
In an announcement made in mosques and broadcast on radio, the militant group set a deadline of January 15 for its order to be obeyed or it would blow up school buildings and attack schoolgirls. It also told women not to set foot outside their homes without being fully covered.
“Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society,” Shah Dauran, leader of a group that has established control over a large part of Swat district in the North West Frontier Province, declared this week.
Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy. The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Cannibalistic Feminism
Apparently I am not to be trifled with. I am capable of unprovoked acts of aggression. I am sleek, fast & slippery. I can even turn myself red – yes, as in color – at the least little provocation or even just for the hell of it. I possess some of the strongest visual capabilities of any creature on the planet & I have a massive brain. AND – as if all of these attributes weren't impressive enough – I am prone to cannibalistic behavior. Yes, I am – A SQUID.
Yesterday I watched a National Geographic special on Squids & was truly amazed at the awesomeness of my Squidness - almost humbled by NG's particular footage of the Humboldt variety of squid. Such an amazing, still largely unknown creature of the very deep:
I also learned a bit more about my cousin OCTOPUS – impressive – also sneaky, deadly, & inky – but, dear (O)CT(O)PUS – I win the prize, I believe, for ruthlessness 'cause I eat my own kind . . . As I said – don't trifle with a Squid.
NOW – add feminism to this Squid thing & WOW! What a combination! Just think! As a Feminist Squid I can eat – without fear of recrimination from fellow Squids – any male Squid who ticks me off – & I've got the arms, tentacles & murderously sucking mouth with a flesh-tearing beak to do it! - Wow! Just think of the envy of human & Octopi feminists on land & sea!!! To be able to devour one's irritating men with impunity!
Who knew there were Black Widow Squids?! (Well, sort of . . . initial sexual coupling is not a requirement for Squid cannibalism – mmmm – wait a minute . . . those spiders might be on to something . . . )
Morning quickie
So only days before the second Bush leaves town (not that he spends much of his time there) his father is already touting Jeb Bush as a presidential candidate.
Now let's see, we had Prescott Bush laundering money for Hitler and getting caught, We had Neil Bush involved in scandalous S&L shenanigans that cost us billions and getting off unscathed, we had George who made the dubious claim of being "out of the loop" during the Iran-Contra scandal, we had George the second who officially sealed the incriminating evidence and who is certainly a contestant for the worst American president (and I think we can include Central and South America in the contest) and perhaps we'll have another Bush, by and by.
Now how many gang members have to screw us before we can call it a gang bang?
Now let's see, we had Prescott Bush laundering money for Hitler and getting caught, We had Neil Bush involved in scandalous S&L shenanigans that cost us billions and getting off unscathed, we had George who made the dubious claim of being "out of the loop" during the Iran-Contra scandal, we had George the second who officially sealed the incriminating evidence and who is certainly a contestant for the worst American president (and I think we can include Central and South America in the contest) and perhaps we'll have another Bush, by and by.
Now how many gang members have to screw us before we can call it a gang bang?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
“DONE, FINISHED, OUT’A HERE …”
When one lives among sharks and barracuda, one acquires a healthy respect for … shall we say … diversity. To eat or be eaten is not a lifestyle to be taken lightly. It is the way of the reef. Nothing personal. In contrast, (O)CT(O)PUS thinks of human beings as rapacious without purpose and fractious beyond reason. Not unlike cannibals, humans predate their own kind.
The title of this post does not signal my intent to quit The Swash Zone or retreat from Cyberspace. These are my last words in a comment thread posted yesterday at Conservative Convictions, or as Captain Fogg likes to jest, Conservative Convicts.
It started with this post, “The Call to Dunkirk” Launches Mass Exodus From Public Schools. According to a video, it equates public education and “liberals” with fascism and Nazis. I responded to this post with the following comment:
If you are re-reading my first comment, Gayle, I objected to your use of Godwin’s Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy that equates liberals with Nazis:
I cannot, will not countenance discrimination in any form whatsoever based on ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation. And I refuse to be associated with any forum that does. With a heavy heart, I have decided to remove Conservative Convictions from our link list and shall return there no more.
Any objections?
The title of this post does not signal my intent to quit The Swash Zone or retreat from Cyberspace. These are my last words in a comment thread posted yesterday at Conservative Convictions, or as Captain Fogg likes to jest, Conservative Convicts.
It started with this post, “The Call to Dunkirk” Launches Mass Exodus From Public Schools. According to a video, it equates public education and “liberals” with fascism and Nazis. I responded to this post with the following comment:
(O)CT(O)PUS: Gayle, if you don’t want to send your offspring to public school, that is your business; but to imply that those of us whose support of public education is akin to National Socialism, your attitude is disrespectful of other religious denominations and persons of conscience who hold different views.A reasonable reply, I thought, but not according to Robert. Having known him for some time, he has … shall we say … a head for illogic thicker than a stone crab. He obfuscates, perambulates, or simply ignores any point deemed inconvenient. Here are examples:
ROBERT: First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad [Note Appeal to Emotion fallacy] that people consider this worthy of debate …Robert, however, is not the subject of this post. This is:
The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter [Note Analogical Argument fallacy] …
This intenet [sic] is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate [Note Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy] …
I did not find this offensive at all [Note Subjective Argument fallacy].
Public education, as a general rule, has deteriorated to the point of spending an entire year teaching to pass a single test [Note Projective Identification fallacy that blames liberals for a program authored by conservatives] …
I knew more about history, geography, science, and humanities by the 5th grade than my children who are in high school have been taught [Note Questionable Authority fallacy] ….
There is tight local involvement, and because we are a red state and red county, our system is mostly rid of the liberal infestation of Al Gore movies and absurd anti-religious views [Note Appeal to Ridicule fallacy] …
Nowhere does it say that we are to humble ourselves before other religions, nor to place them on a level field with Christianity [Note Special Pleading fallacy].
GAYLE: Wow! I didn't realize liberals were so against people deciding how they want their own children to be educated … I'm an American, and we still have freedom of choice in this country whether liberals like it or not. Public school, private school or homeschool [sic]. It's up to the parents, period.Fine, fine, fine, except that is NOT what I said. If you are reading this, Gayle, please write on the blackboard 100 times: This is not what 8pus said. In fact, your faithful 8pus is himself a graduate of the Sargasso Academy, a posh and exclusive preparatory school for snooty cephalopods.
If you are re-reading my first comment, Gayle, I objected to your use of Godwin’s Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy that equates liberals with Nazis:
(O)CT(O)PUS: Do you mean to imply that Jewish Americans, whose ancestors were killed in the Holocaust, are now consorting with Nazis just because they send their kids to public school?There is more to Gayle’s post that I found objectionable. I referenced the website, ExodusMandate.org, and found this:
"Christians have already become numb to the moral relativism that is taught in all public schools today. Now children will be told that their sexual orientation and gender are relative, too. No longer will children raised in these schools understand that God made us male and female with different, but complementary roles. Instead, children will be taught that sexual orientation and gender are merely a matter of personal choice … The likely consequences of this for children, the institution of the family, our churches, and our culture are horrendous."In other words, The Exodus Mandate is not about reading, writing, and arithmetic, or about a better education, or even about a religious education. The hidden message is all too obvious (my paraphrase): “Since those fascist liberals will not allow discrimination against homosexuals in public, we choose to separate ourselves and practice discrimination in private.” Thus, the covert mission of the Exodus Mandate is DISCRIMINATION and HOMOPHOBIA. I am just shocked to discover Christians engaging in stealth and guile; I thought this was Satan’s work.
I cannot, will not countenance discrimination in any form whatsoever based on ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation. And I refuse to be associated with any forum that does. With a heavy heart, I have decided to remove Conservative Convictions from our link list and shall return there no more.
Any objections?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)