Monday, February 28, 2011

The Return of the Know Nothings


An article in this Sunday’s NYT Magazine lamented the politicization of science – specifically, the extent to which global warming denial has become a knee-jerk Republican stance.

Now, I can fully appreciate the Republican position. They’re pro-business, and the nasty truth of global warming could result in laws or restrictions that cut into corporate profits for major donors. I’m a little less comfortable when Illinois Republican congressman John Shimkus says the government doesn’t need to make a priority of regulating greenhouse-gas emissions because “God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood.” He apparently takes the fable of God’s covenant with Noah as a rational basis for discounting that possible future, thus obviating any action.

The article also notes that the Tea Party’s “anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite worldview has brought both a mainstreaming and a radicalization of antiscientific thought.” I blogged well over a year ago about the teabaggers’ anti-intellectualism, prompted in part by opinions of conservative columnist David Brooks. It’s clear that TPers aren’t impressed with academic credentials.

Back before the Civil War there arose a political movement that called itself The American Party, a semi-secret organization that was primarily concerned with curtailing immigration by German and Irish Catholics. Its members came to be called “Know Nothings” because when pressed by outsiders about their party they were instructed to reply, “I know nothing.” It’s also interesting to note that their platform mandated daily Bible readings in public schools.

Antebellum Know Nothings accepted their name on account of their secrecy. Today’s Know Nothings would probably assume the mantle as a point of pride – for an entirely different reason.

Some may say that the jury is still out regarding human-caused climate change, but citing a Bible story goes beyond knowing nothing. The old Sunday School song “How do I know? / the Bible tells me so” isn’t a testimony to knowledge but to a willful belief in folklore. And folklore has no place in shaping the laws of a civilized nation.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Scratching TPers


Observers of the turmoil in the Middle East are both excited and wary. These are populist uprisings, but will they result in new militant Muslim regimes?

Observers of the turmoil in the Midwest are equally excited and wary. Will this populist uprising have any effect on the new militant Republican regimes?

People rebel when their leadership doesn’t reflect their wishes. Public servants in Wisconsin feel their state’s new leadership has betrayed democracy – the voice of the people as expressed through collective bargaining. Citizens of some Middle Eastern countries obviously feel their leadership has been oppressive; the question is, what do they see as the remedy – democracy or sharia?

This leads me back to my main argument with the teabaggers. Granted, I was put out with their hypocrisy from the start: accusing Obama of dictatorial leanings when they’d previously given a pass to W and his abuses of power. And in their opposition to overhauling health insurance, let’s not forget the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” mentality. But, open-minded guy that I am, I’m willing to concede that their advocacy of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets,” as expressed in their recent gathering in Phoenix, is worthy of intelligent debate. And if this crowd has its way, I’m up for a laugh; the proof will be in the pudding. But is this all they want?

What really bothers me is that teabaggers are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Scratch a TPer and you’re more than likely to find a social conservative.

In America’s rebellion scenario, social conservatives see liberal leaders as a threat to the bedrock of the family as challenged by gays and abortionists. It’s clear that the religious right’s remedy is an American version of sharia, since they unabashedly invoke “God’s law”; given the chance, they’d restore prayer to public schools and display the Ten Commandments in every courthouse (along with sending gays to the back of the bus and extending voting rights to fetuses). And true to conservatives’ black-and-white thinking, anything liberal – including labor unions – is lumped in with that which must be opposed.

Why are social and fiscal conservatives so often one and the same? I suspect it’s largely a Calvinist thing, morality and frugality going hand-in-hand. But when it comes to activism, it’s also a reaction to their feeling that government is telling them what they can and can’t do. What they don’t see is that government telling them they can’t impose their religious beliefs on society safeguards the liberty they purport to defend. They think they’ve been robbed of the freedom to practice their religion, when what they really lost is the freedom to ram it down everyone else’s throat.

While we can’t be sure whether Middle Eastern protesters want to create new Islamic republics in the Iranian mold, we know exactly what American demonstrators have in mind. Union members are looking for justice (remember that concept?); those opposing them are looking, deep down, for their own form of sharia.

So when teabaggers come to power, it’s their hidden agenda I fear the most.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

In further praise of cheese...


Another cheese-related early memory:

When I was very young, my family went to a church that had a signboard out front on which was placed the title of the upcoming sermon, whether to entice passers-by or simply to provide a preview for the congregation I’m not sure. I remember one and only one such title, for what was presumably a Thanksgiving-theme sermon: “A turkey dinner or a cheese sandwich?” I don’t even remember the sermon itself, but I suppose it made the analogy of salvation being a sumptuous feast contrasted to the spartan cheese sandwich of an unsaved life.

Given what I believe today, I’m more comfortable with the reverse analogy: that life is a turkey dinner of over-bloating unnecessary distractions, while the simplicity of the Tao is all one needs.

Why did this sermon title stick in my head? Was I so fond of cheese sammiches at an early age (Velveeta on white) that I cast my lot early? To this day, cheese and bread strike me as the real feast – although I admit that I’d prefer it be a hunk of Stilton and some LaBrea whole grain, or perhaps herbed brie with a baguette.

Christianity could argue either analogy, but I can’t help but feel that today’s American Evangelicals identify more with salvation-as-feast. This is the promised land. God provides for us in abundance. There’s no need to settle for second-best. If you want something, just pray for it. Pass the stuffing.

So now you’re thinking that the Last Supper featured a 20-pound Butterball? No way! It was Easter-time, Dude – think Honey Baked Ham!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

I can has pasteurized processed cheez food?


As I tried to think of how I might express solidarity with Wisconsinites, I of course immediately thought of cheese. True, I could wear a cheese hat while out and about in my Arizona town. But better still to partake of cheesy comestibles.

When reviewing my cheese preferences, however, I realized with chagrin that most of my favorites are from elsewhere. Gouda from Holland. Stilton from England. Brie from France. Jarlsberg from Jarlsberg. And I confess that even my favorite cheddar is from Vermont.

But while at the supermarket, my eye was caught by an old favorite right there on the shelf next to the powdered milk: Velveeta! I don’t know for sure that they make it in Wisconsin (I can’t seem to find any reference to where it comes from), but since it’s [allegedly] a dairy product and Wisconsin is America’s Dairyland, I figure there’s a fair probability that some of the state’s milk goes into it.

Mmmm, Velveeta.... Takes you back, doesn’t it? Grilled cheese sammiches. Melted on a burger. Mac & cheese. Or just Velveeta on white with mayo in my school lunchbox. One of my earliest childhood memories – I couldn’t’ve been more than 5 – involves my parents having company and my preparing Velveeta and Ritz crackers to serve the guests. Even then I knew what people liked (and I suspect they liked cute kids more than Velveeta).

But when you’re a kid, Velveeta is like Chef Boyardee or Chun King – it’s what you eat before you discover the real stuff. I only wonder how many adults still shamelessly consume it when they aren’t merely humoring a five-year-old. Googling on “Philly cheese steak” along with Velveeta produces an embarrassing number of hits.

Even Kaukauna comes from Illinois (Wisconsin milk maybe?), so I guess I’ll do my solidarity thing with some BelGioioso’s sharp provolone or asiago.  And make my mac & cheese with the real thing. I just find Velveeta a little scary – almost as long a shelf-life as stupidity.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Civility on the dance floor...


I clicked-through on the headline reading “National Institute for Civil Discourse to open at University of Arizona”; but the tab in my browser truncated it to “National Institute for Civil Disco...” Which I find a much more interesting prospect.

Not that I don’t think civil discourse a worthy endeavor. It’s entirely appropriate, just not likely to occur. Call me a pessimist; I prefer to think of myself as a realist.

But we obviously need more civil disco. Take, for instance, that clown who went into a disco a few years ago with a gun in his pants that went off. That’s pretty friggin’ uncivil. And I imagine a lot of people are hitting on one another in those clubs – what could be more uncivil than assault? But I understand at least that a lot of those who go to discos are in the business of spreading ecstasy. That sounds like a good start. Evangelical, even. There was a time when discos were a hotbed of cocaine use, so it’s good to know things have improved. Now if they could just do something about that music. If it hasn’t improved since the Bee Gees and Village People, it’ll take a lot more than civility to help the disco scene.

Hats off to the U of A for instituting this much-needed effort!

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Get ready, sports fans...


With a big windstorm hitting the east coast and blowing down the National Christmas Tree, I think it’s pretty clear. Our Muslim president has called in the power of Allah to deal a blow to Christmas – and on Presidents’ Day weekend! Double perfidy!

Just how did Allah manage this? Was Jehovah catnapping? Or busy keeping watch over activities in the Middle East, looking for easy inroads? If His eye is on the sparrow, why did He take it off the tree?

There’s obviously trouble brewing in Heaven. A major Battle of the Gods is shaping up, and soon the other deities will be forced to take sides. Maitreya Buddha may be called off the bench. There’s word that Thor might come out of retirement. The big question is whether Allah will sneak the Antichrist into the lineup. But watch to see who Shiva will cast his lot with – I suspect that could be a deciding factor.

Broadcast rights for the contest have yet to be determined, but Fox News will likely get the nod. (And we all know who their viewers will be pulling for.) And I suspect everyone will find that the commercials will be especially worth watching. “Burning Bush” fireplace logs (“they never go out!”). Uncle Noah’s survivalist supplies. Plus a new Charlie Tuna ad devoted to feeding large groups of people.

Heck, we all knew it was coming, but having that tree blow over was a sure sign. A promo spot, if you will. Holy guacamole, it’s gonna be a great game!

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Form over Function in Wisconsin


So let me get this straight. Teabaggers are supposed to be anarchists, distrusting government every step of the way. Yet they’re staging a counter-demonstration to the protesters in Wisconsin, who object to the state’s attempt to take away the collective bargaining rights of civil servants. The Wisconsin protesters want to ensure that government won’t push schoolteachers and other public employees around; the teabaggers object to this???

I realize, of course, that the TP people (is this label less objectionable? or does it just make them sound like a bunch of ass-wipes?) are offering a knee-jerk response in support of cost-cutting and of the state legislators and governor they just voted into office. And they’re also making a knee-jerk response in opposition to unions – another example of a “them” out to get “us.” But besides this, they’re providing yet another example of how they ignore the whole concept of justice. (That’s knee-jerk, too.)

According to the NYT: “FreedomWorks, a Washington group that helped cultivate the Tea Party movement, said it was trying to use its lists of activists to turn out supporters for a variety of bills aimed at cutting the power of unions – not just in Wisconsin, but in Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio as well.”

It used to be that unions were the voice of the people against the power of big business – and when it comes to oppressive overlords, you can easily substitute government, whether federal or state (which, I believe, is the whole point of the teabaggers). So why is it that a grassroots movement that purports to be the voice of the people is opposed to the most formidable expression of popular power that has ever emerged in this country? Are they just jealous? Wait, let me guess: unions = socialism. Sheesh. If someone pointed out to them that a political party (or movement) is analogous to a union and that voting is akin to collective bargaining, would that double-bind be enough to fry what passes for their brains?

A former boss of mine used to wisely counsel against placing form over function when making decisions, and that’s exactly what the teabaggers are doing. The Wisconsin protesters have thrown tens of thousands of flies into the ointment of the TP agenda. And it’s clear now that promoting that agenda – come hell, high water, or popular protest by citizens just like themselves – counts for more than people.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Ignorance made cool...


Seems I missed Charles Darwin’s birthday. Oh well, you can’t keep up with everything.

But according to an article I just read, scientists kept it kinda low-key anyway for fear of ruffling too many fundamentalist feathers. But they persevere, God love ’em [sic], in the hopes of convincing some kids that science is cool.

There is a struggle over coolness, however. A few times when I’ve cleaned out my spam folder, I’ve noticed messages from an outfit promoting “Almighty Bible,” so decided to investigate. What it is, is a graphic-novel rendition of the scriptures, complete with apps, to show kids that the Bible also is cool.

Frankly, I find this worrisome. To present the Bible as what it is – a collection of often-inscrutable writings passed down through the centuries – provides necessary context. To modernize it for today’s electronic media suggests that it’s as relevant as an iPad. I know there’ve been biblical picture books before, but I don’t know that such prior publications had ever promoted coolness so aggressively.

Let me suggest the danger in this through a thought experiment for kids. (Adults, you can participate too.) Imagine a vast hall like a convention center or an indoor stadium. And imagine thousands of feathers floating in its emptiness – but the interior is so vast that the feathers are yards apart. And imagine that they’ve been floating there for longer than anyone alive can remember. The hall is like the known universe, and each of those feathers is a galaxy. Take just one of those feathers and imagine a speck of dust on it; that’s Earth. The speck gradually appeared and will eventually disappear. But it has no more importance than other specks on that or any other feather. And the same must be said for any message purporting to convey the truth for all of the feathers, or even for the whole hall.

So on the one hand, we have a demonstration of the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of our human existence. And on the other, we have modern people attempting to convince children that Bible stories are true – that the age of the Earth can be measured in thousands, not billions of years – and are true for all of Creation. And if kids can see this on their iPads, then they know it must be true. Hey, kids, check this out! God created the world in just seven days! Is that cool or what?!

Science had better get on the stick. The coolness gap is widening. And ignorance along with it.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

It’s Limbo Time! (or: Somebody call me a cab...)


I’m one of those people who don’t watch TV. Had a satellite dish before moving upstate, but after losing free sports feeds over the years my viewing frittered down to The Daily Show and The Sopranos. Now I stream the former and have DVDs of the latter, and there’s nothing on the tube that commands my interest anymore – so much so that we don’t even have dish or cable.

But I’m a veteran viewer of classic 70s/80s sitcoms – MTM, Newhart, Cheers, Taxi, MASH, Barney Miller, WKRP – and haven’t watched any such series since Seinfeld called it quits. What these great comedies all had in common was terrific writing delivered by great ensemble acting. Occasionally I’d come across something like That ’70s Show in reruns where the writing left something to be desired but the cast managed to lift the script to a level of enjoyment. (Plus, okay, I admit Laura Prepon turned me on.)

Appreciated Frasier and 3rd Rock but never became stay-at-home-and-take-the-phone-off-the-hook addicted. Moved on to a few Brit shows like AbFab, Master of the Glen, and As Time Goes By (reruns of which remain our sole viewing vice). And believe it or not, I never saw Friends – mostly as a matter of principle – so consequently lack any comprehension of why such a fuss is now made over Jennifer Aniston’s every move.

But when I was visiting a relative and had occasion to sample some of today’s fare, I was appalled.

Granted, it was a thin sample: The Big Bang followed by (let’s not mince words) Shit My Father Says. Each of them seemed to rely on penis references, or maybe I just hit a good night. Interesting (even “fascinating”) to see William Shatner in an ostensibly comedic role, but not enough to watch again. Beth assures me, based on a previous visit, that another night’s tandem of 2½ Men and Mike and Molly are just as popular and just as bad (apparently “nut sack” stood in for penis in the former). She suggested I witness them for myself before posting this blog, but I’m willing to take her word for it.

But the big jaw-dropper was catching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond – four in a row on TVLand. I had never seen this show, but was given to understand it had been phenomenally popular and was possibly even good – after all, it won Emmys. But it appears the bar for quality in sitcoms has been seriously lowered. (Anyone for limbo?) The writing was wretched, the situations trite, the characters utterly two-dimensional (with Peter Boyle sadly wasted as he wrestled with dismal lines). It kind of struck me as an anti-Seinfeld: lame, pedestrian, cast in the mold of dozens of family sitcoms that had come before it ... in short, phenomenally boring. Seinfeld joked about being about nothing; Raymond hit the bulls-eye. (And what’s with the blond kids? Was the milkman Scandinavian?) While I admit I may have been harsh to judge Bang and Shit on the basis of one viewing – at least the Bang characters were as appealingly eccentric as those from 3rd Stone (although that, granted, is the whole premise in each case) – four Raymonds showed me nothing other than commercials I’d never seen.

I take it that the big must-see comedy these days is 30 Rock (also The Office: checked it out once and thought, well, okay, let me know when I’m supposed to laugh), but frankly I’m afraid to watch – so if anybody with deep experience in the classics has any current recommendations, I’m open to suggestions. Meanwhile, I’ll just replay my MASH and Seinfeld DVDs, thanks, and keep an eye out for a good price on Taxi.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Here's to the State of Mississppi



I've already said what I have to say.

But as Phil Ochs so eloquently put it:
Here's to the land you've torn out the heart of;
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of.

Friday, February 11, 2011

So help me...


The other day I needed to have something notarized. Technically speaking, what I needed was to have my signature witnessed on a legal document, and I also had the option of having two people “not related by blood or marriage” attest that it was me who had with my own hand applied my name.

I could have just trotted it over to my neighbors, but then that would have required some explanation, if only for civility, of what I was having them put their John Hancocks to, and while they’re lovely people I didn’t care to go into details. And I don’t live in a neighborhood that gets a lot of foot traffic, so I couldn’t’ve just hauled a couple of strangers in off the street. I suppose I could have taken the document down to the square and accosted passers-by until I found two who were willing to sign without caring what it was, but then I’d run the risk of some joker signing “Mickey Mouse” and I wasn’t sure that it would slip by unnoticed. So it was easier to just drive up to the credit union where I banked and have the receptionist, who was a notary, do the deed. They provided the service free for members, so all it was costing was my time.

I presented the form – not even the entire document, just the final page requiring my signature, and she didn’t ask to see the missing pages or question their purpose. She took my driver’s license to confirm my identity, entered the transaction in a logbook, and had me sign off on the entry. Then it got wacky.

Because the legalese of the form where the notary was to fill it in began “sworn to me this day...,” she advised me that I’d have to swear an oath. And so she had me raise my right hand while she rattled off a stock statement in which I attested to the truthiness of the transaction and ended “so help you God.” Not wanting to muddy the waters by pointing out that (a) it was merely my identity as signatory that was at issue and not any question of “truth,” and (b) I was an agnostic, I simply muttered “yes” and she cheerfully applied her stamp, handed over the form, and told me to have a nice day.

There was no indication on the form that, had I gone with the dual witness option, such a gesture would have been required. (There was nothing even to verify that two witnesses were in fact real people, so I suppose I could have talked my in-laws into doing it using fake names.) But notarization went the whole nine yards – not only ascertaining the authenticity of the notary (via the stamp) but also requiring me to “swear.”

Just this small example of how the system works makes me kinda glad I never pursued my high-school notion of becoming a lawyer.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Guilt – the Silent Crippler of Young Liberals


Okay, let me get this straight. According to the NYT, social psychologists have suddenly realized that their ranks are underrepresented by people whose political values tack to the right. And so they’re making a concerted effort to attract them.

Talk about liberal guilt. After all, these are people who stand up for oppressed minorities, so they’re not about to tolerate oppression within their own group.

And it’s very decent of them. (I made it a point to not say “mighty white of them.”) You don’t really expect Republicans, for all their big tent pretensions, to do whatever is necessary to ensure they have enough Hispanics or blacks. Just like you wouldn’t expect an organization of biologists to make sure they had a few token creationists, just for balance. But here are these liberal social scientists who, garsh darn it, just want to be fair.

I think they’re really missing the point. The fact that they and many other soft-side academics tend to be liberal is nothing to feel guilty about. It comes with the territory. (“Liberal arts?” Duh!) Training in such disciplines makes one open-minded. Even the one closet conservative cited in the article tilts right only with regard to fiscal matters, and there’s nothing unusual about that.

The article says that some in the Society for Personality and Social Psychology seek an “affirmative action goal” of 10% conservative membership. Just so they can feel better about themselves, I’m sure. Wouldn’t it be more to the point of their calling to ascertain why any of their peers would be social conservatives at all – and seek to convert them?

Monday, February 7, 2011

Revenge of the also-also rans...


There’s a movement afoot to ignore Sarah Palin for a week. Would that we could – but it would be much like trying to ignore a squeaky floorboard or a nagging tooth. If she’s not nattering on about Ronnie Raygun or weighing in on Egypt (after having somebody help her find it on the map), she’s trying to trademark her name. (Sheesh. I mean, if your last name is Mxyzptlk, fine, but really...)

Pursuant to my recent post about presidential auctoritas (or lack thereof), I started to wonder which failed vice presidential candidates in recent history have ever garnered so much attention. Then I started to wonder just who those failed v.p. contenders were, since it’s sometimes hard to even remember the successful ones.

Here, then, a list of presidential tickets going back to Ike:
  • 1952: Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon over Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman
  • 1956: Eisenhower/Nixon over Stevenson/Estes Kefauver
  • 1960: John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson over Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge
  • 1964: Johnson/Hubert Humphrey over Barry Goldwater/William Miller
  • 1968: Nixon/Spiro Agnew over Humphrey/Edmund Muskie
  • 1972: Nixon/Agnew over George McGovern/Sargent Shriver
  • 1976: Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale over Gerald Ford/Bob Dole
  • 1980: Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush over Carter/Mondale
  • 1984: Reagan/Bush over Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro
  • 1988: Bush/Dan Quayle over Michael Dukakis/Lloyd Bentsen
  • 1992: Bill Clinton/Al Gore over Bush/Quayle
  • 1996: Clinton/Gore over Bob Dole/Jack Kemp
  • 2000: George W. Bush/Dick Cheney over Gore/Joe Lieberman
  • 2004: Bush/Cheney over John Kerry/John Edwards
  • 2008: Barack Obama/Joe Biden over John McCain/Sarah Palin
I never would have guessed Sparkman and Kefauver. And it’s only because I was politically aware during my late teens that I remembered Lodge, Miller, and Muskie. But after that it was kind of a blur. Who the hell was Lloyd Bentsen anyway?

But what’s notable is the fact that most of these people simply faded into the woodwork, except for Bob Dole who made another bid for high office after twenty years. And of course John Edwards, who went on to capture other headlines. But no failed v.p. candidate went on to win the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt ran with James Cox against Harding in 1920. Before that, you have to go all the way back to John Tyler, who was v.p. on a regional Whig ticket in 1836 and then succeeded William Henry “We Don’t Need No Steenking Coat” Harrison as president in 1841.

This is not to suggest that Ms. Palin isn’t entitled to exercise her aspirations. Gerry Ferraro remained active in politics, although with her sights set not quite so high; Joe Lieberman stayed in the Senate, although I’m not sure to what purpose; and Dan Quayle of course went on to become a successful potato farmer. The real issue is, just because she was nominated for our second-highest office doesn’t give her opinions any more validity than those of, say, Jack Kemp. What confounds me is that people – and the media – continue to hang on her every word. It’s the same as breaking news about Lindsay Lohan. Is there some reason we should care? 

So continuing that thought, why not ignore Sarah Palin on a regular basis? Except of course for blogs that mention her in order to advocate ignoring her.

And while we’re at it, how about a Palin/Lohan ticket in 2012?

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Two Edges


As I’ve commented before, the dual concept “liberty and justice for all” doesn’t get a lot of play in right-wing circles. Not only are teabaggers preoccupied with the former, the latter has come under suspicion by Beck and his minions. Now I’m reading about the latest efforts by the wife of Clarence Thomas to serve as an advocate for “liberty-loving citizens” and “ambassador to the Tea Party movement” via a trio of organizations that sport “liberty” in their titles: Liberty Consulting, Liberty Central, libertyinc.

Listen, folks, I’m not knocking liberty. It’s a wonderful concept; I’m all for it and think we should have more of it. But why is it that justice doesn’t get equal time? Maybe it’s because of conservatives’ short attention span.

When you read the Declaration of Independence, it’s easy to get caught up in an expression like “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” that comes near the beginning. I suspect, however, that many people are so enamored of this phrase that they don’t bother reading on.

As it turns out, that’s the only mention of “liberty” in the whole document. But when it gets down to brass tacks, “justice” is cited three times: the signers’ complaint that King George “has obstructed the Administration of Justice” and the statement “We have appealed to [our British brethren’s] native justice” but they “have been deaf to the voice of justice.”

It’s clear that the Founders were as much concerned with justice as with liberty. And I suspect they would have roundly approved the wording “liberty and justice for all” in the Pledge. The irony is, “justice” has become a cause identified with oppressed people – the “Them” that stands opposite most citizens’ conception of “Us.” It’s as if l&j had to be divvied up; and since blacks, Indians, laborers, migrant farm workers, the poor, you name it, have usually been associated with cries for justice, upstanding Americans have opted for liberty as their cause. “Deaf to the voice of justice” indeed.

Now if there were only some way of convincing our politically fundamentalist citizens that justice – justice for all, including anyone fucked over by the law, by the courts, by the wealthy, by banks, by corporate shenanigans, by any person or entity unfairly granted privilege – is nothing to shy away from. Come on, teabaggers, it’s a two-edged sword.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

I Liked Ike


Some people are making a big deal over celebrating Ronnie Raygun’s centennial. I realize that he’s a hero to conservatives, so they’re as entitled to him as liberals are to JFK. Each of those two presidents represents a kind of ideal, even though each has aspects (one a philanderer, the other a bumbler) that don’t hold up under close scrutiny.

Problem is, when you go back and look at post-WWII presidents, each of them has detractors with legitimate gripes. Only Eisenhower seems to emerge relatively unscathed. You just don’t mess with a war hero. Or at least (sorry, McCain) one of that stature.

It’s difficult to disassociate Ike from the era with which his name is linked. After all, it was a time of rampant cold war paranoia, overzealous red baiting, Jim Crow, and sanctimonious public morality (such as in response to nascent rock ’n roll). The only real dissidents were beatniks, and they pretty much kept to themselves. But Eisenhower himself had an air of authority and at least was savvy enough to recognize the problems coming with the “military industrial complex.”

Ike was a guy that a majority of Americans seemed to respect, and just consider how respect went out the window after he left the White House....
  • Kennedy – blew the Bay of Pigs, was hated enough to be killed
  • Johnson – mired us in Vietnam
  • Nixon – yes, he was a crook
  • Ford – a bumbler who pardoned a crook
  • Carter – a wimp in a Cardigan who stranded the hostages
  • Reagan – gave us voodoo economics and Contragate
  • Bush I – mo’ voodoo, and stopped short in Iraq
  • Clinton – victimized by the right for a loose zipper
  • Bush II – an idiot
  • Obama – victimized by racists and Islamophobes
What do all these guys have in common? They’re all politicians! I think America lost its shot for another Eisenhower when Colin Powell declined to seek the presidency – and we apparently have his wife to blame for that. (What would Mamie say?) Leaders with auctoritas are few and far between. Too bad Ross Perot didn’t have it.

So for those celebrating Reagan, all I can say is “party on” – with the knowledge that it’s pretty much limited to your party. You have to go back another 20+ years to find the last time we had a president for all Americans. Trouble is, it was an America we wouldn’t want to go back to.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Let us bray...


Why didn’t anybody tell me that this morning was the National Prayer Breakfast? Was it a potluck? I could have made a coffee cake or something. Or at the very least stopped somewhere for donuts. (Nothing filled, of course, just “holy” ones.)

Prayer and belief-in-a-deity-that-answers-prayer form a kind of self-stoking mechanism. If people didn’t think their prayers could be answered, they wouldn’t bother believing in God. But as long as they cling to the notion that there’s a kindly old gent in the sky who sometimes takes requests, they’ll go ahead and seek divine intervention for their own desires, failings, or bad luck. It’s kind of a fallback position.

Prayer on a national scale is, to my mind, entirely too suggestive of trying to get God to choose sides. The fact that we’re probably the only nation that does this no doubt convinces those who participate in the ritual that it just might work. After all, who’s He gonna listen to except those talkin’ right to Him? (That’s right, God is Travis Bickle.)

But it ain’t prayin’, it’s brayin’ – the participants puffing up their own sanctimoniousness behind a façade of public piety. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about guys like that?

Prayer seems like a contradiction in a nation steeped in Calvinism. Believers are always insisting “Thy will be done,” as if to say “Here’s what I want, God, but if that’s not cool, then go ahead and do what You were gonna do anyway.” As if He wouldn’t. And for those who are really into the notion that God’s plan is already decided, how you gonna change His mind? Why even try?

I have no idea what requests were sent up during the NPB. Maybe somebody even ordered up a Grand Slam. But you can bet God must be getting a little tired of all this holier-than-thou nonsense He sees in America. Maybe if it were a National Prayer Barbeque (with a keg), everybody could loosen up a little.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Today’s forecast: 50% chance of schadenfreude


The blizzard barreling across the county the last 24 hours produces a gut reaction for some of us not affected by it: Glad I’m not in its path!

News of tragedies often provokes empathy, genuine sorrow for lives needlessly lost. But news of bad weather impacting other people produces, in me at least, a giggle of relief.

Not that I’ve never been on the other end. Living in the desert for 29 years, I watched the rest of the country marvel that we could tolerate temps of 110 day after day. Then I got my satisfaction in the winter.

Now that I’m living in a more temperate climate – although still in the “arid west” – I share the inconvenience of paralyzing snowstorms, although admittedly not as often or on such a grand scale. (It just doesn’t take all that much to paralyze a city of 40,000, but 10 inches was enough to immobilize the guy who was coming to fix the snow blower I was unable to use.)

So to all my friends and family scattered across the storm’s path, I really do extend my empathetic best wishes. But I’m smiling with relief that it didn’t affect me.

Because my overnight lows in the single digits for two nights running, with sub-zero wind chills, are about all I can handle right now.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Calling Gliese 581, Come In, Over...


A front-page feature story in Monday’s NYT describes the efforts of scientists to find an answer that’s bugged us for a long time: is there anybody else out there?

Such efforts can seem agonizingly slow. Sending out probes and studying the prospects for life-sustaining planets is pretty much a crapshoot when you consider the vastness of the heavens. Which is why I think the whole undertaking is a monumental waste of resources.

Supporters have a rationale: “as astronomers keep reminding us, humanity will eventually lose Earth as its home, whether because of global warming or the ultimate plague or a killer asteroid or the Sun’s inevitable demise. Before then, if we want the universe to remember us or even know we were here, we need to get away.”

That rationale, I believe, contains two flaws.

First is the notion that if we screw things up we can always move to a new neighborhood. Talk about setting an example for the kids! Let’s just pack it in and head for someplace where climate change, microbes, or vagabond space junk can’t find us. What if the brainpower being devoted to space exploration were directed instead toward solving the very problems they’re suggesting we run away from?

Second is the idea that we’re worth the universe’s recognition. We think of ourselves as a pretty nifty outcome of natural selection, but in the big picture we’re hardly a blip. And if all the UFO sightings have any basis in fact, it seems likely that no space-faring race that’s cruised by has considered us worth contacting yet (except of course for the random abduction and anal probe). Maybe the fact that we’ve got our eye on the cosmos while we haven’t cleaned up after ourselves has them a little concerned. Face it, we’re just a teeming mass of bad karma.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big sci-fi fan, and am even now juggling DVD re-viewings of Babylon 5 and Farscape while reading an Ian M. Banks “Culture” saga in between. But one thing seems clear to me: to venture out into space, a species needs to be not only technologically capable but also worthy.

When you think about it, humanity’s worthiness leaves a lot to be desired. So let’s not waste our own time and money on this search. If they’re out there, they’ll let us know – if  they want us to know, that is. Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to give them a reason?