Who's Your Daddy?

In her Jan. 9th 2010 column entitled, “Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool,” Maureen Dowd writes something I would like to comment on. Once again, and as so often in recent years, we meet the language of the Papa Bear State, a concept I have been snorting at and stamping against for some time now. Et tu, MoDo, et tu! Then fall, Blogging Dino. (Cue heavy thud just short of impact tremor. Impact tremors are reserved for T-Rex.) We are told towards the end of the column, if I understand rightly, that President Obama, in supposedly failing to respond quickly and passionately enough to the Christmas-day near miss over Detroit, has squandered his opportunity “to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders” and who “reassures and instructs” Americans when danger threatens or disaster strikes.

The second formulation may encapsulate a reasonable expectation, but the first is unfortunate. The president is an intelligent and capable man, and I am glad I voted for him. “That hope and change thing” is still working out for me, thank you. But “strong father”? He is no more than a few years my senior, and probably several years the junior of many people reading or contributing to this blog. I didn’t vote for a National Father last November; I voted for the individual I hoped would become the 44th POTUS. What I like about Barack Obama is precisely that he seems intent on rejecting the “papafication” of the presidency, even though he can hardly be said to have diminished the powers of the office in his one year at the helm. In short, he tends to speak to the citizenry as if they were rational adults. That’s a risk, of course, because a disturbing number of Americans become terrified for their skins quicker than you can say “exploding underwear.” But I give Obama credit for taking the risk, and I find his allegedly too-aloof way of dealing with crises preferable to the tendencies of the previous administration.

Employing the language of the Daddy State, in the long run, only encourages the brutes who deny the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s dictum, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, London: Henry Colburn, 1818. 270; Franklin places the sentence in quotation marks.) The president may be the most powerful individual on the planet, and he is undeniably invested with a great deal of symbolic value; he bears some responsibility, most of us would probably agree, for keeping the country as safe as it can be while still observing the constitution he swore to uphold. He is not, however—and apparently does not want to be—“Our Father, Who Lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.” Never mind “the limits of cool”: the discursive limits or boundaries that President Obama takes into account are those required to maintain a healthy relationship between a republican citizenry and the individual they have chosen for a time to serve as their highest official.

So please, call the honorable Mr. Obama a clean and articulate communo-fascist Kenyan Muslim terrorist-fist-bumping negro-dialect-free granny-killer if you must, but not “Daddy.” We have enough outlandish descriptions for Barack already, and there is little doubt the pie will be made still higher in coming years. It's Permanent Silly-Season Revolution for this man's opponents, and evidently even some of his well-meaning supporters can't help playing the useful idiot from time to time. I will just go with “President Obama.” Simple. Dignified. Even a dinosaur can roll with that....

Stop Texas from Rewriting History

As a retired Philadelphia Public School teacher and member of a family blessed with European/Latina/African/Navajo/Chinese ethnicity, I find omitting historical facts related to any human being of any ancestry totally unacceptable. Therefore, I am outraged that the Texas State Board of Education is even considering taking a vote on January 13 that would, for all intents and purposes, erase Cesar Chavez and all Latino historical figures from the state’s public school textbooks.

Since most public school students in Texas will soon be Latino, this is a particularly egregious omission. We are not educating children if we are indoctrinating them with a very biased set of partial facts. It was Hitler who did that in Europe, and the beauty of American democracy is that we try not to do that with our children. It is important that our children learn about all historical figures, European, Latino, Native American, Asian, African and more.

My grandfather migrated from Austria-Hungary in a region now part of Poland. He joined the union of John Lewis and worked in the coal mines as well as maintaining his own business as a huckster of fruits and vegetables. He supported a family of six children, all of whom rose to upper middle class American society through hard work and education. I would not like to see John Lewis removed from text books. Neither would I like to see Cesar Chavez removed. It is totally false for ignorant, racist extremists to say that he "lacks the stature...and contributions of so many others" and should not be "held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," as claimed by one of the "experts" advising the Texas Board of Education.

Texas should not let its status as a powerful state in this great United States be diminished by a few radicals who want to rewrite history.

For more information, see: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/10/texas-conservatives-closer-to-banning-cesar-chavez-from-school-textbooks/

http://action.ufw.org/page/speakout/cectxjan10

Ruminations on a cold morning

App - app app app - app app! No, it's not the AFLAC duck, or a farmyard full of turkeys a week before Thanksgiving. It's not your neighbor's nasty little Lhasa Apso, it's the sound of consumers quacking away in consumer-speak in the American night. The malls are full of it, the AT&T and Verizon stores should hand out earplugs because of it --APP APP APP! Getcher apps here -- apps! Apps, apps.

"To most people, an "app" is something you download on your smartphone to help you do a specific task."

says CNN.com this morning. I guess most people now means airheaded and hysterically eager to buy consumers between the ages of 13 and 24. Those are the people most retailers are interested in and the most likely to speak the language of consumerism, invented to make it difficult to speak without advertising a product or concept thereby.

So what happens when you want to apply for something? Do you app on some sunscreen at the beach? So what ever happened to "application" in the sense of software designed to perform some function? I guess it got teenagerized into a form more easily entered on a telephone keypad derived from the dial phones that began to go out of fashion around 1960. Most people indeed. So I guess for the newspeak speaker it's now silly to talk of developing computer applications and ridiculous all the more if we shorten it to "app." To me it's all something that springs most rhymingly to mind. Two craps for Mr. App.

Yeah, yeah, it's more "evolution" only it's not - it's intelligent design because language now is a consumer product which changes to suit corporate sales, not our communications needs. That's why we have "realtor" for real estate broker, why they sell "homes" and not houses or apartments, why we have "mobile estates" rather than trailers and why health is now "wellness." It's why we have pre-owned cars on the used car lots, patriot acts and worse.

Of course it's not all bad. We now have "tweet" which is easier to type than "mind-numbing and narcissistic banality" although "blog" works almost as well there; which brings me to the point at which I'd better rest my case.

Why Are Liberals So Timid?

It must have happened in the 1980’s….


That was when those who profess to be liberals started talking above the buzz; when they started having conversations among themselves that were above the heads of the average citizen.


Historically, Liberals or Progressives were at the forefront of the issues that mattered the most and made the greatest change to our standard of living: Education, health care, unionized labor and civil rights for example.


After the last administration and the greatest financial meltdown this country has seen since the Great Depression the only movement that has any pulse whatsoever is a bunch of anarchists parading under the banner of “Teabaggers.”


These malcontents even claim a direct link to the Founding Fathers!



The Founding Fathers were LIBERALS!



They were directed by, “…A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.” This is also the classical definition of LIBERALISM!


Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition. Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism, which, simply stated, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, which seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order.


The Teabaggers represent nothing more than a populist movement that is focused on the concept of statist; where sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.


If you really think about it they are actually voicing what should be an anger that should be heard from the left. This anger, against what is now obvious to everyone, the unveiling of what 25 years of supply side economics created: The United States of Wall Street!


It was the same anger that drove so many Americans to the polls in November last year to vote for HOPE and CHANGE!


Its time for Liberals to get behind such grassroots campaigns as Move Your Money and the 3/50 Project. Its time for the Liberals to stand up and protest and to do so on the one issue that effects all of us and effects everything: Economic Justice.

EARTH: THE BIG BLUE ICEBALL?

I live in the South where cold, unrelenting temperatures are very rare and when it lasts over two weeks, it is almost unheard of. There are still patches of snow and ice around my yard from the storm before Christmas! The sun is shining today so there is that.

I hate the cold, I really do. I don't bundle up and go out in it or even stick one hand out the door. Mostly, I sit near the woodstove that my husband so considerately keeps stoked because he knows how much I hate being cold and I try to stay busy doing indoor things.

While perusing the various news feeds, it occurred to me that much of the world is seeing record breaking temperatures, snow, ice and wind. Here are just a few examples:

“Irish province Munster's Celtic League match against Welsh region the Scarlets was called off on Saturday, a day before Sunday's kick-off, due to the freezing weather sweeping Britain and Ireland.” The heartiness of these Celtic people is legendary but this weather has even defeated them!

“Frozen Europe: 100s of flights canceled in Germany.” Planes are skidding off runways and numerous car accidents have caused cancellations and long delays.

And from the upper tier states to the Florida orange groves, there is cold, ice and accidents. It would seem that the only places in the US where you might be able escape the cold is Southern California or Hawaii.

Until the temperatures rise, I'll be holed up in my warm, little burrow, dreaming of sunny skies and warm breezes. Stay warm and stay safe!

Cry Havoc -- please!

Adis Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay were arrested very early this morning in New York as part of an investigation into a foiled plot to explode a bomb on the 8th anniversary of 9/11/2001. Najibullah Zazi and two other men are already in custody on charges related to this attempt. The evidence against the men seems substantial and we can expect that he won't be the only one to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Of course this is an outrage. If we had a real Republican he-man in office we wouldn't be calling this a foiled plot or talking about trials and convictions, we'd be screaming Terrorist attack - terrorist attack and the cruise missiles would already be on course for somewhere.

So, I'm sure it won't be long before Snarlin' Dick is back on TV explaining to us that our educated and therefore unmanly President is pretending, by not running naked through the streets screaming TERRORIST ATTACK, that "we are not at war." Of course it takes considerable screaming and snarling to keep the discussion away from what a real war really is -- especially one in which victory is nearly impossible to define much less than to achieve.

Like our valiant war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime and war on pornography, this one resembles a struggle against human nature; that nature including religion, nationalism and the tendency to hate people we see as exploiting and manipulating us. Fail to make that all change and you fail to win. In saner times and amongst saner people the eternal struggle against crime has usually been seen as the job of law enforcement and indeed this failed plot was foiled by good police work and a little luck. To men like Cheney, the danger in foiling plots and prosecuting the criminals who attempt to carry them out is precisely that we have a harder time crying war and without a war, we have to conduct ourselves more in accordance with the law and indeed with reasonableness and sanity.

That the terrorist acts carried out in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center resulted in the perpetrators being caught, imprisoned and even executed will remain a thorn in the paws of people like Cheney for whom the system needs to be shown as not working when it's under a Democratic administration and working well when under a Republican. So what if it results in hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties, the destruction of countries, the exile of its citizens and of course, the creation of vastly increased anti-American hatred. In this respect, Cheney's objectives, being aided by every attack and thwarted by every foiled attack or captured terrorist, are often congruent with the objectives of al Qaeda and similar groups. In other words, America's success -- Obama's success and Clinton's successes in finding and capturing terrorists hurts Cheney and Associates; hurts their chances of defaming the Democrats, returning the berserkers to power and keeping those huge Halliburton checks rolling in.

If you're following this line of reasoning, you won't be surprised that I'm concluding that Snarlin' Dick wants more than anything to keep us all crying "terrorist attack" and to keep them coming. By the way, isn't being on the side of terrorists treason?

BRRR …

As the water in my aquarium clears from my recent ink-fit, perhaps I should close the week on a lighthearted note. In case you missed it, here is a hilarious send-up of arch-climate denier munchkin-in-chief, Lord Christopher Monckton, complements of Bouphonia: The Habitual Dirigisme of Etatistes.

About this record-breaking winter, the jealous among you might note that it is bitter cold in Florida too. When parking the car, our normal strategy is to play for shade so you don’t burn your fingers on the steering wheel. This week, we play for sunshine so our fingers don’t stick to the steering wheel. As I looked from my window this morning at the yard below, the birds were using mittens to pull worms from the ground. Here is more cold comfort for you:

Something in the water

New York City water tastes like turpentine
Lord, Lord
And I ain't gonna drink it any more

-from an old blues song-

There must be something in the water if former New York Mayor Ed Koch is insisting that "hundreds of millions" of Muslims are terrorists, but that we're all too afraid to mention it for fear of offending. I don't think it's turpentine.

He didn't give Foxman Neil Cavuto any source for this magic number yesterday or for any other part of his assertion or did he attempt to explain why anyone would feel we're afraid to offend countries we're bombing, maintaining sanctions on, or already occupying. Is it true what they say about New Yorkers if not blowing someone to bits is considered timidity or perhaps an excess of politeness?

And then there's Rudy "9/11" Giuliani who announced to ABC's George Stephanopoulos today that there were no domestic terrorist attacks during George W. Bush's watch.

" . . . we had no domestic attacks under Bush; we had one under Obama."

There must be a lot of something in the water. Between 9/11 and the Anthrax bio-attack, there were over 3000 victims of domestic terrorism. To think there were people who wanted to elect this putz president!

The real agenda of course, is to find fault with the president for not running down the street screaming "terror - terror" which the victims of Republimentia feel is the best way to deal with an unsuccessful suicide bombing. He needs to be more theatrical, to talk more of fear than of courage, to scream and yell and look for bogey men rather than calmly to get on with the business of improving our defenses. Sadly it's not just ex-mayors of New York drinking from this well. They're hardly alone in their hatred of Democrats of color and they're hardly alone in their desire to make the government so dysfunctional that they can slither back into control amidst the chaos. There are millions of them, you know.

A BLESSED KRISTALLNACHT TO ALL

When I first thought of this post, I didn’t know what to call it. My intention was to recognize a conservative blogger for her courage and strength of character in withstanding a deluge of criticism from fellow conservatives.

I decided to take a generic approach because this post is no longer about the subject blogger but about a more widespread and pernicious phenomenon: The subculture of invective, dishonest hyperbole, and slash-and-burn character assassination that has metastasized into our political life, our media, and our online interactions.

This is not the first time your liberal (O)CT(O)PUS has defended a conservative blogger. Last year, another conservative blogger asked a fair question: Do we really want President Obama to fail? Since liberals and conservatives alike are riding in the same ship of nationhood, she asked, do we really want to sink the entire boat? An intellectually honest question, I thought, but not according to rabid reactionaries who accused the writer of spreading apostasy and treason.

Rightwing critics disparage the term political correctness as a Marxist plot whose aim is to undermine conservative values and impose social conformity. The linguistic argument is one more front in the so-called culture wars. Yet, the same rightwing critics employ a far more sinister version of political correctness. They make use of litmus tests to enforce ideological orthodoxy in thought, speech, and personal associations. They will not hesitate to browbeat fellow conservatives into submission with condemnation and excommunication. How ironic! The rightwing accuses the left of using political correctness to impose social conformity; yet, the same rightwingers use coercive means to enforce groupthink within their ranks.

This post has a background story in two parts. Part One begins with Shaw, our fellow Swash Zone colleague, who asked me to look after her weblog in her absence while she underwent cancer surgery. In due course, I enlisted mutual friends including one conservative writer as guest contributors. There were no constraints or guidelines imposed on any writer; and there were no objections from Shaw for any contribution on her behalf.

Part Two: This drama moves to the weblog of our conservative friend, who posted a simple holiday greeting, A Blessed Christmas to All. As expected, her comment thread filled with good wishes from followers of all persuasions … until a few days ago when one reader discovered her name as a contributor on Shaw’s weblog:

[Name redacted] said: “I saw your name on the Progressive Eruptions blog as one of the contributes [sic] to that FILTH (…) If you wish to be part of that commie-Marxist blog then so be it. That's your mistake and I for one won't be part of it or of this. And I hope that my fellow republicans [sic] will feel the same way.”

To assuage whatever demons my invitation had summoned, I replied:

“[Name redacted], if you want to blame someone for putting [her] name on the contributor list at Progressive Eruptions, blame me because I am the one who invited her (…) The civil and respectful thing to do is give [name of conservative friend] an appropriate greeting in keeping with the holiday spirit. So be a human being, a mensch, and do the right thing.”

The story should have ended here, but it did not. Within a day, another reader left this comment: “Goo [sic] there if you wish or if you must [[name redacted], but I will not be a follower.”

As chum in the water attracts predatory sharks, news of my friend’s so-called “defection” spread across conservative Cyberspace: “I too am disappointed in you [name of my conservative friend]. But like someone else here has said. [sic] we have to do what we have to do. And I too must do what I must do.”

When chatting with rightwing reactionaries, there is nothing to be gained in talking about helping a friend in need, about acts of kindness and compassion, about appealing to our higher angels, or pointing out what separates human beings from savages. There is no profit in mentioning freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to associate, or in pointing out the shared American legacy that binds us together. Trust me: Every attempted outreach drew an inflamed response, as examples:

SLIME-BUCKETS … libtards … I’m sick of people like YOU … liberal holier than thou crap … The only standards liberals have are double standards … house flies … STUPID … the infectious horrible disease known as Liberalism … terrorist sympathizers … stupid and ignorant … filthy mouthed JERKS … take a hike … (O)CT(O)PUSSY …

Returning to the subject of political correctness, liberals prefer the term cognitive linguistics to describe the framing effect of language and word-choice in shaping the attitudes and actions of speakers and listeners. In concept, the abuse and misuse of language contributes to negative stereotypes that can restrict the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of people. One goal of cognitive linguistics is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes.

There are critics who regard political correctness as a “euphemism treadmill.” And there are defenders who view those dismissals as a distraction to avoid a debate about racism, sexism, and other forms of class discrimination and inequality.

In his book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, David Neiwert takes cognitive linguistics a step further:

Rhetorically, [eliminationism] depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic.

(…)

It is by small steps of meanness and viciousness that we lose our humanity. We have the historical example of 20th fascism as a reminder. The Nazis … didn’t get that way overnight. They did this by not simply branding their opponents as the Enemy, but by denying them their essential humanity, depicting them as worse than scum – disease-laden, world destroying vermin, in desperate need of elimination.

In short, reactionary ideas and talking points have infected public discourse to such a degree that it is poisoning how we treat each other in our daily lives. It is a political subculture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of outright elimination of the opposing side through suppression, condemnation, ostracism, or extermination.

On July 27, 2008, Jim David Adkisson entered a Unitarian Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, killed two people, and wounded seven others. The shooter was motivated by hated of liberals, Democrats, African Americans, and homosexuals. A police search of his home found: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity, and other hate literature (source).

Liberal-bashing trolls harassed my friend on home turf and defiled her holiday message. Make no mistake. My friend has fallen victim to reactionary rhetoric as much as any liberal, or any other group targeted by this rabble. Perhaps one of her moderate followers said it best:

Seems your "friends" don't think you have the strength of your convictions. That you will somehow be "turned" or "brainwashed." That just by engaging with liberals you will be tainted and changed (…) How silly (...) She doesn't back off her beliefs. She knows irrationality when she sees it. She knows how to be a "true" friend (…) How many times has [she] asked her readers to cut the ad hom (…) you deserve better "friends" [my bold].

On a clear day

"I don’t see a clear angle on the anus." Said Adam's Apple Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly last night.

Never mind Ann, I think we have a very good angle on an anus right here.


Objecting to the idea of Body scanners at airports, Ann insisted they wouldn't be effective because you can't look up people's rectums or under their foreskins, so those would be a great place to hide bombs. Of course Muslims circumcise their sons but that's OK, nobody expects sanity from Ann and her fans wouldn't know sanity if they saw it. They sure seem familiar with looking at assholes in the mirror though.