Feminism...the Radical Notion that Women are People

(title attribution to Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler)

OK, I know it's not an oft-discussed topic here at BAD, but I have to take advantage of the Count's generosity in sharing this soapbox to simply say it very directly, during this silliest of silly seasons in US politics. What about 51% of the population (for you businesspeople, that's a controlling interest) is not understood? From which backward and unholy cesspool has this War On Women bubbled up to the surface of the GOP dialogue?

Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds - what we used to call non-consensual, forcible penetration; or, more colloquially, "rape" - positively embraced in principle, and backed away from only minutely and at the last minute, in Virginia. The marginalizing of women's health issues in the form of a fresh assault on birth control, coupled with the utter travesty of a panel of men testifying largely to other men on the issue (and the GOP-controlled House is refusing, with blatant hypocrisy and in unprecedented style, to broadcast footage of a Democratic hearing finally giving Sandra Fluke her day at the microphone - I suppose it will be a wonder if they don't cut the electrical power entirely). It's a laughable picture tantamount to a bunch of non-driving pedestrians holding forth on matters of automobile maintenance. Continuing efforts to abrogate women's ability to control their own reproductive destinies in multiple states. The looming danger that contraception apparently represents by its mere existence, in the form that sexual intercourse might - gasp! - be engaged in just because, you know, it's enjoyable. All capped by the bizarre spectacle of an Indiana legislator refusing to commemorate the Girl Scouts' 100th anniversary, for crap's sake, on the grounds that he thinks those adorable cookie-wielding Daisies and Brownies are closeted radicals intent on emasculating American manhood and unleashing the gay agenda. Because he read it on teh Innertubes, and everyone knows how completely authoritative and accurate whatever you encounter on the Internet is. (Consider the sad case of that Nigerian Prince, for instance...)

Are these candidates - Santorum in particular, who seemingly would like to return us to the 17th century and witch hunts for anybody who, you know, might think that preserving the Earth for future generations is a good idea - really going there? To points of view that marginalize the privileges of basic citizenship and human rights for more than half the population? Or, more to the point of their own self-interest, to alienate as much as half of their potential voting base?

Not only does this seem to me to be a stupid strategy overall, but creeping every day so much further and further to the most remote right-wing fringes as to be completely untenable for anybody with half a brain cell to spare.

Go re-read Margaret Atwood's depressingly prescient novel The Handmaid's Tale, everyone. And then tell me it can't happen in the US. The signage is on the roads already being trod.

In the meantime, I thank my lucky stars my daughter and I are here in Canada, where she has the right to protect her health as she sees fit; love and marry whom she wants, if she wants; and where her freedom of conscience guarantees that she need never submit to anyone else's set of beliefs and strictures. Because the way the dialogue is going down there in the lower 48, I wouldn't want her there for an instant.

Public Relations: SGK, Ur Doin It Wrong

A great deal has been said about the Susan G. Komen Foundation's massive PR debacle in de-funding and then nominally re-funding their support of breast exams performed through Planned Parenthood outlets. I won't try to replace a good Google search for the latest developments, but I'll say a few things from the perspective of someone who has worked in marketing her whole adult life, including intersections of various sorts, paid and not, with several non-profit organizations.

Observation #1: Whether you are a commercial or a non-profit concern, the moment you conclude as management thereof that you and/or your board of directors are involved with the organization for the same reasons that your customers or donors support you, you are deeply in denial and on the road to disaster.

If you're a nonprofit, your management probably has a certain level of passion for the mission, whatever it is, but also wants to make a living and perpetuate some personal job security. Your board - more often than not - wants something spiffy to add to their resumes while doing as little tangible work as possible. With the rarest of exceptions, non-profit boards are there to see-and-be-seen.

That's not why your members and supporters donate their money or time or involvement. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.

Same thing for commercial companies. If you successfully sell a widget or a windmill, that sale will have happened because the customer feels better about buying from you than buying from someone else. They won't have a passionate conviction that your product and yours alone fulfills their needs because of your fabulous technology, legendary customer support or attention to detail. They just somehow like you better.

That's the core mistake the Komen Foundation made to begin with: they assumed that just because the makeup of their board and management structure had changed to include a different political attitude, those changes could be successfully reflected in their external mission, without any fallout. They failed utterly to understand their audience/support base or to take that base's concerns into account.

Observation #2: Don't just make shit up in a vain attempt to have your cake and also eat it when you change - or change again - a policy or a product or the story you're trying to convey about either. It never, ever works. You have to be straightforward and provide factual information and a plausible reason, not smoke and mirrors. No, we're not supporting this position any more because x-y-z. Yes, we're phasing out this product's support for format a-b-c because we believe j-k-l is the path of the future. Will you lose friends, supporters, customers? Undoubtedly. That's why you need to understand your base (Item #1) and choose carefully which segments of it are most important to your success.

Komen blew it here because they wanted both to hang onto the broad, bipartisan, largely apolitical base they had cultivated for a decade, and at the same time to appease the anti-choice fringe crowd whose whispers seem to be having an impact on the organization's current CEO and new Senior VP. As a result of their waffling walk-back of the PP de-funding decision (with, as others have ably noted, completely toothless language that does nothing to confirm that any actual funds will be forthcoming), Komen has now lost substantial chunks of both groups. A double blunder from which I see no way back that doesn't involve executive-level resignations, a massive restructuring effort, and, above all, time.

Observation #3: It's a brave new world out there. You'd better understand the Internet sandbox well before you go there to play with your pail and shovel.

Not that there isn't still a place for traditional media. It's nice to be able to send the CEO a clip file of warm, fuzzy ads; cover stories; glossy feature article reprints. But, let's admit it - most of the real work of forging public opinion, especially for an organization as prominent as Komen (or, for that matter, Planned Parenthood), is going to happen online. That's not a place where you can bury a story on Page 12 of Section C and have it reliably fade out with the weekly recycling. Just the reverse: it's a place where your offhand comment or major misstep can be in front of hundreds of thousands of people within a matter of seconds. Very often, in places where you can do nothing to mitigate it. Scrub your Tweet or a blog post? Doesn't matter. Astute netizens will have already grabbed, archived and shared copies. Huge, amorphous networks of connection spread the word and translate into action very, very quickly. Just ask Planned Parenthood, who received roughly 1 million dollars in donations within the first 24 hours of this circus act. Ask anyone who has ever gleefully joined in one of Stephen Colbert's pranks.

You need to be regularly present, you need to be engaged, and you need to draw a sharp, clear distinction between an individual's private expression and one made on behalf of the organization. Komen did the first two, but in the same kind of unconvincing, inauthentic language I mentioned above. Their online voice doesn't read as genuine, and it must. And, clearly, the third thing did not happen.

What I would have done, had I been the marketer presented with the task of conveying something like this to the public? (Well, had I not resigned in disgust. Always a possibility - it wouldn't be the first time...) I would have moved heaven and earth to persuade the brass that more research was needed, both of our affiliate organizations and our supporters. What did they see as being most effective? Where did they feel our most important support was being delivered? In this case, the results of that kind of investigation might well have turned up data so persuasive as to trump ideology and avoid the whole debacle.

Yes, that's a long shot. But at the bare minimum, much more should have been done to anticipate the likely fallout. Newbie-level mistakes were made here.

Observation #4: When apologies are called for, they need to be real ones. Hardly any company ever gets this one right. Just say you're sorry. Not sorry if, not sorry that, not sorry for any (your epithet of condolence here). Just sorry.

This, again, is part of the genuine voice remarked on in Item #3. Just as you can always tell when somebody is issuing an insincere, non-apology apology, so can your base. That's true whether or not you're apologizing directly to them or to a third party. Words matter. Use few, choose them judiciously, and be factually and emotionally honest. If you don't, and the insincerity bleeds through - as it is doing, with Komen's reversal - whatever goodwill you hoped to regain will just become more elusive.

So, there you have them: my four basic rules. Know your audience, tell the truth, understand/respect the power of the Net, and be sincere. Doesn't sound that hard, does it?

I have absolutely no idea whether Komen will survive this PR fiasco they built for themselves...or, indeed, whether or not the organization should. But I do know one thing for sure. If they're hoping that Super Bowl hoopla will bury the story, they're really fooling themselves. The Count noted that the group has some male supporters on Facebook. They'll likely be watching the big game on Sunday. But the millions of women who have invested donations, volunteer time and their own personal stories/lives, and those of their friends or families, in what Komen has historically been about? Not too many of them will be gathering with the guys for beer and buffalo wings. They're the core constituency Komen needs to be concerned about here. And, come Monday, they'll remember.

Year-End Wingnuttery

It's back to the office or the classroom for many of us tomorrow, so in a fond farewell wave to the 2011 holiday season, I thought I'd drop in on our old pals at Fundies Say the Darndest Things and see just what they'd uncovered for us during the week most of us sane people spent relaxing with our families. I wasn't disappointed. Here are some of the choicest bits:

From this source, we discover this gem...

Veganism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God created adam alone--both Adam and Eve--in His Own Image. He did not create animals in His Image. Thus those whose morality has descended to Veganism and the claim of personhood and legal standing for animals are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell

Vegans? Really - this guy went there, of all places? I don't seem to recall anything mandating carnivorous eating habits in the Bible they're so fond of thumping. Well, unless it's on God's part. All those Old Testament accounts of burnt offerings and pleasing smells. Yeah, that must be it. You're going to be letter-perfect? Don't think you can pick and choose. Better start booking those goat-burnings at the next church auxiliary luncheon right away! But no blasphemous salads.

We also have this, from the Department of No We Don't Understand Parody...

The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.

For this reason, this website was created to try and stop one of the more vile and dangerous misuses of the Internet: using it to mock Our Lord Jesus Christ, His teachings, and His followers. And one site in particular stands out in need of stoppage: Landover Baptist.

Link to Landover Baptist website
WARNING: Should not be viewed by anyone under 21
Landover Baptist claims to be a church. Moreover, they claim to be the only church in America that understands the Bible! In fact, neither is true. Landover Baptist is a fraud. A joke. Their true purpose is not to spread the Gospel of our Lord, but to trick people - especially those who have not received the Word and Salvation or have been programmed by secular culture to distrust Christianity - into believing that Christianity is evil and rejecting it.

For this blasphemous atrocity, the Landover Baptist website must be removed from our Internet.

It never ceases to amaze me how the crowd that is the first to cry abridgment of their rights of self-expression whenever anyone disagrees with them, and the crowd that wants censorship and to mandate what everybody must think or believe, or else, is invariably the same crowd. It makes Orwell's "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" a truly and scarily prescient observation.

But, wait - there's plenty of room for the misogynists to weigh in once more before the year runs to a close (Note: the quotation comes from the comment thread, and you'll love the typos, unaltered for your reading pleasure)...

Its just not true that men and women acheive equally.
Science axhievement still reflects this.
I’m not saying women are intellectual inferior.
Actually Darwin did say this.
I’m saying womens failure is due to motivation.
I see this as a very real identity of them due to their biblical calling to support their husbands first or only.
women don’t have ambition and despite or society pushing them they still fail to keep up anywhere where results are unbiased.
Only in school or other simple enterprises of mere studying do they compete.

This is a Mans world because we were created to do well before God.
We are on the make.

Yes there is a organized and profound agenda to raise women up at the immoral and illegal loss to men.
Affirmative action is for anyone the establishment wants to raise up and knows can’t without it.

First, guy - somewhere, I bet that several women who tried at one time to make you understand that coherence and good spelling would take you far in life are shaking their heads and saying "I told you so," at this precise moment. Second, do I smell some sour grapes here (no doubt in one of those Satanic salads)? Because this reads like the whining of someone who was first trounced in the...I'm guessing nothing beyond high school...academic environment, and then either lost a job to or (gasp!) found himself in the position of working for a mere woman.

And, of course, we are treated to a parting shot (again, in the comment thread, which must be perused beyond the post in question to be believed: these people could all do with visits from Scrooge's trio of ghosts and an IV drip of marginal sanity) in the War on Christmas...

The non-Christmas Xmas tree at the WH is a perfect symbol of democrat-muslim anti-Christian secularism that must be in place to satisfy liberals.

The liberal resentment of Christmas is understandable since liberals are not generally much more than OWS vagrants looking outside in at families with traditional trees, warm clean homes with Bing Crosby playing (laugh – the man could sing), friends, food, Tom&Jerrys, gifts, a sense of childhood and a respect for something larger than oneself.

Everything about Christmas is antithetical to a liberal’s self-centered, life position. They have to destroy it.

The BO tree speaks the attempt to destroy Christmas in a hypocritical way in not acknowledging Christianity – why not just put in a prayer rug where the Holiday-Solstice tree is now?

OK, what exactly is "democrat-muslim anti-Christian secularism"? Anyone? Are we now saying that Muslims are secular? All Democrats are Muslim? Only Christianity is a religion (must be news to Israel)? The whole concept of a plurality of religions? You're doing it wrong at a fundamental level.

And where did the Occupy people come from? If they were vagrants outside-looking-in...they would have already been outside. Clearly, that was not the case. So I think it's safe to assume that they too came from warm, clean homes, families and friends, etc. Only they did so to make a statement about something larger than themselves, not about being self-centered or solipsistic. (What's self-centered about living in a tent on a city street for weeks on end? If that's your idea of self-indulgent behavior, I confess to bafflement.) That it's a statement other than your preferred one makes it no less valid.

Finally, I find it laughable that the talking points lines for this most recent WoC (War on Christmas) are outrage that the First Family spent part of it in Hawaii (Oh, the expense! Oh, the exotic not-Norman-Rockwell quality! Oh...the place the guy was BORN?) and a sense of horror that taxpayers actually foot the bill for the White House tree and decorations. I remember when many of us were routinely being accused of Bush-bashing, it was over trivial little things like...gee, I don't know, starting unnecessary, costly and deeply destructive wars on false pretexts. But I don't recall any of us suggesting that the existence of a tree on the White House lawn was an abomination. The pettiness and vitriol is unbelievable. And it's not even full-on campaign season yet.

And don't get me started on the outrage that there is a STAR on top of the tree. Heavens forfend what nefarious thing that might stand for.

But, be that as it may - it is a New Year and we can all look forward to a fresh new batch of idiocy to entertain us from clowns like these. Watch for it to ratchet up big-time later this Spring, as maybe by then a front-runner for the GOP finally begins to emerge from the Rat Pack.

Thanks for all you do here, Count, and for allowing me a share of the sandbox. Best to you all for 2012!

Supplies for the War On Christmas

It isn't often that I dabble my toes in the sludge at World Net Daily, but a link from Daily Kos to this screed lured me in...

check out WND's online store for your personal "Christmas-defense kit." What you'll find are three choices of bumper stickers:

• "This is America! And I'm going to say it: 'Merry Christmas!'"
• "It is STILL a wonderful life – Merry Christmas!"
• "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition"

They're all magnetized for seasonal use. Buy them separately or all together. Use them this year, next year and for many years to come.

In addition, there's the "Reason for the Season Auto Magnets," also perfect for your refrigerator or office file cabinet or desk. Part of every purchase goes to Christian charities.

It's the perfect way to make your statement this Christmas – that Jesus is the reason for the season. Buy one, buy 25, buy 50!

There's one more component of your Christmas-defense kit: It's the "Operation: Just Say 'Merry Christmas' Bracelet." They make great stocking stuffers, but why wait! Make your feelings about Christmas known to one and all. Wear them to pick up the kids, when you buy groceries and when you go to work. They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches.

Read more: Get your Christmas-defense kit

So, here's the thing. First, doesn't it seem confrontational and not at all festive to rely on bumper stickers to convey your holiday message, presumably all about peace on earth and goodwill toward mankind? Are these people trying to get themselves keyed?

Second, I doubt that Jesus' message to his followers would be "buy one, buy 25, buy 50."

And, quite apart from the bankrupt philosophical viewpoint, this exposes decisively WND's most honest motivation in the whole "War on Christmas" hoopla - to score some $$$. It's part and parcel of what makes me laugh half the time I pass a so-called "Christian Supply" store. Who knew you required supplies, or that a prefabbed toolkit was needed?

I hope someday everyone will wake up to the absurdity of this whole thing and the "War on Christmas" can be consigned where it belongs: to the realm of mass delusion/deception. Until then...warm thoughts to you and yours, Gentle Reader, whether it's Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, Yule or Christmas or Saturnalia that you mark at this cocooning, renewing time of the year.

P.S.: Don't you love the phrase "magnetized for seasonal use"? Kind of like "sanitized for your protection"!

Oh, Poor, Persecuted Herman Cain....

So, in my travels this evening through the Series of Tubes, I happened upon this from our old friend Jeremiah...

Mr. Cain had a lot of promise, and was leading in the polls early on in his campaign, but as always, Democrats in their greed, desire for power and deceitful ways found someone they could pay to tell lies about him, and destroy his candidacy for the Presidency....It's the Liberal Democrat way, folks, they don't know any other way to win than to belittle, lie, cheat, and steal from and to the American people to get their way...

Really, Jer? REALLY? After a blogging hiatus on your part of almost six months, you choose to throw your hat in the ring for Mr. Pizza? Cheering him on in his quixotic quest to transcend the many allegations surfacing against him? Where is your evidence that these are ginned-up "Liberal" plots? Why should not these individuals choose to come forward now, at a meaningful time, to share their evidence? Had I been a victim of the same behavior, I would certainly choose NOW to step up and say so in a broad public forum, absent other relief. And as for greed, desire for power, and deceit...I'm pretty sure that pursuit of same is reasonably nonpartisan. Plenty of evidence for that is available on both sides of the aisle. Convince me I'm wrong. I'm waiting.

And as for the statement that Cain was leading "early on" in the campaign...oh, please. Nobody was buzzing about him until a handful of weeks ago, and now he's old news. Deservedly so. The guy hasn't a clue, any more than most of the GOP field have. You're all scrambling so as to avoid having to anoint a reasonable, vaguely rational individual like Romney, preferring instead to christen some wacko wingnut-panderer like the likes of Bachmann or Perry to carry your standard.

Good luck with that.

Up in the Pulpit...Wait, I Meant "Soapbox"

They're at it again, ladies and gentlemen - your ever-diligent Congress-critters. Creating jobs? Fixing the economy? Nope. Surely you jest!

No, they're busy voting on a resolution to affirm "In God We Trust" as a national motto.

First of all, what about the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, stating that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, do they not understand...apart from, apparently, all of it?

Second...when, exactly, did elected political representatives assume (and presume) this kind of quasi-preacher role? They ought to be busy rendering unto Caesar rather than playing in the clerical sandbox. I don't know about you, but I don't cast my vote in the expectation that the person whose box I dutifully fill in with my Number 2 pencil will have any authority whatsoever to dictate my convictions of faith to me. I find it offensive.

Third...this notion that just because something is non-sectarian - i.e., "God" in the generic as opposed to the Catholic or the Baptist or the Mormon or whoever's version - makes it non-controversial is just, as my long-ago British boss would have said, "Not On." Words have power, and once you enshrine a "God" into government, people will start to ladle on their interpretations and make it into their particular version, something more definite and defined both. The more who weigh in, the more solid that single interpretation becomes. That does nothing in service of the nation's diversity. It's borderline fascist.

And, finally...appropriately enough, just headed out of Samhain into what for me is the New Year...where exactly does this leave those of us not in any kind of traditional mold? The agnostics? The atheists? Individuals like myself, newly brave about being out of the broom closet, at least here on the Series of Tubes? People for whom God is, perhaps, more often than not, Goddess? Or both in tandem, male and female principles alike, equal but not separate?

Are we not equal citizens? Should we be obliged to kowtow to something we do not believe in, just because some sanctimonious politico thinks it's OK to mingle his/her personal faith with the national interest?

And what about the Buddhists and the Hindus and the Muslims and many another marginalized faith? What happened to "I lift my lamp beside the golden door," and the welcoming shores that used to characterize the States?

I really do fret about what is going on, there south of the border. Those joking maps online labeling so much of the country as "Jesusland" are looking more frighteningly real every day. And for the sake of my friends and family still there, I really don't like to see this kind of garbage taking precedence, when there is so much that could be so much more meaningful that desperately needs doing.

Thoughts on Occupation

I confess I have been watching the Occupy protests worldwide with mingled pride and nostalgia. I remember being in grade school in the mid-1960s as the campus protest movements took steam, and knew even then that I was watching something momentous and earth-shifting in the making (despite my uncle's caustic background rants about how all those filthy, useless, long-haired hippie freaks ought to get a haircut).

The spirit animating the Occupy movement feels to me much like that behind the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s: a shared interest in advancing human justice, around what is shaping up now to be today's central issue - economics and the corporate hostage-taking of what we all used to know as "the common good." These outpourings worldwide are not an astroturfed effort quietly fronted by a well-heeled lobbying organization (yes, Tea Party, I'm looking at you), nor a precisely orchestrated political convention populated by entrenched establishment types. This is a genuine grassroots movement. You can see that in the diversity of those it has attracted to the streets: all ages, all genders, all ethnicities, all occupations (except, perhaps, hedge fund manager). You can see it in the genuine character of all those hand-lettered signs.

And you can certainly see it in the rush by the right wing to de-legitimize Occupy, first with their baffled cries of "What do they want? Where are their concrete suggestions?" (apparently the phrase "economic justice" isn't in their dictionary) and then with the fearmongering by the likes of Glenn Beck to try and cast Occupy as a dangerous, deadly mob of malcontents. All those people in the streets are no longer quietly compliant about the misinformation bomb we've been pushing back at here, on Newshounds, and elsewhere, for years. And no longer are they afraid, of color-coded terror alerts or, frankly, even of police response and arrests. This is a movement with guts, and it makes the wingnut Wurlitzer-operators crazy that they can't either shut them up, or terrify them sufficiently not to call bullshit by its real name when they see it unfolding.

I hear a lot of people, even in my immediate family, making the argument that Occupy's best opportunity is ultimately at the ballot box, and working the system rather than taking to the streets to try and change the rules. I disagree.

The system, for one thing, has been so thoroughly rigged over these past decades to be beholden to the moneyed class and to a corporate-friendly/corporate-funded agenda, it is never going to change from within at this stage. I don't care who you put up for office or how progressive their policy thinking might appear: as long as the American political landscape depends on multi-month or even multi-year campaigns, and the crazy artificiality of pandering to obscure early-primary states like Iowa, any viable candidate will have had to acquire a huge chunk of campaign change just to be able to cut through the noise, much less have a real shot at electoral success. Honest campaign finance reform, previously given lip service to but never truly enforced, has been off the table for a while now, and nobody's going to put it back there anytime soon. The system runs on money, and it's not in the interest of any incumbents to change that for a more egalitarian model.

Second, when there have been seismic shifts in the social landscape before, they have never achieved success by playing the game as written. Look at the French and American Revolutions - how successful would they have been had the disaffected sat politely down with the aristocracy or the British to hammer out a compromise? Look at the rising union movement in the early 1900s - in a 1911 memorial speech following the disastrous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, an activist put it very succinctly when she said, "I can't talk fellowship to you who are gathered here. Too much blood has been spilled. I know from my experience it is up to the working people to save themselves. The only way they can save themselves is by a strong working-class movement." Look at the persistence of the civil rights marchers of the Sixties, making themselves a thorn in the side of segregationists: had they not taken to the streets and stayed there with such tenacity, and spoken out with such fervor, we might well today still be looking at separate drinking fountains and the back of the bus.

No, the genius of Occupy so far is that it operates outside the corridors of power in order to make the point that we're tired of polishing them for the Italian-shod 1%. And, also, that it is finding strategies to be an ongoing rather than a fleeting presence. Rallies, once concluded and off our radar, are like county fairs or one-time concerts: out of sight for long enough, they become out of mind. Occupy by its nature cannot be dismissed because it is there and Not Going Away. And the longer it persists, the more it works to change the dialogue and the agenda, motivating voices otherwise of obstruction to sit up, take notice, and feel a keen motivation to preserve themselves by giving the people what they demonstrably, implacably, want.

Sometimes, it takes even a peaceful, non-violent crowd of peasants with torches to storm the castle. In Occupy, I think that's exactly what we've got...and not a moment too soon.

23, As We Know, Is An Evil Number

Or, as it was first released in Crazytown, "This Is What Happens To You When Your Apocalypse Pantry Contains That Many Cans Of Pork 'N' Beans."

Seriously. No commentary I might add can possibly suffice. Feast your eyes and ears.

Time To Pray

OK...I received this in my e-mail today. This is not a usual thing for me, as most people who have my e-mail are like-minded enough with me not to share stuff like this, and those who are not thus like-minded tend to know better. This came from a lady I'm doing volunteer grantwriting for to help abandoned cats. So I give her the benefit of the doubt despite the opening line of the forwarded e-mail:

It is time to Pray!

Pray if you want to!

Well...duh. Nobody ever stopped you from praying, as I recall. Knock yourselves out.

CBS and Katie Couric et al must be in a panic and rushing to reassure the White House that this is not network policy -- re: Andy Rooney's commentary on prayer.

As it shouldn't be policy. There's a reason it's called the "establishment" clause....as in a widely-regarded, seemingly-official entity endorsing a religious position. Like, say, a major network weighing in to support one religious view. Or a government.

Folks, this is the year that we RE-TAKE AMERICA & CANADA

OK....who's "we" and what's to re-take? Also, please, leave Canada - where we have freedom of religious association on the legal books, thanks very much - out of it. That's one of the reasons I made the move North...

Keep this going around the globe. Read it and forward every time you receive it. We can't give up on this issue.

And here it comes in its full glory...

Andy Rooney and Prayer

Andy Rooney says:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.

Yes. And I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I'm not going to raid a 7-year-old's pillow for a Sacajawea dollar coin, and I think Freud is full of it but I'll happily entertain a defense of "penis envy." So, what's your point?

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

I agree that someone's 30-second prayer before a football game doesn't endanger me. But someone spouting it over a loudspeaker, on the assumption of broad crowd assent, leading to an atmosphere that suggests hostility to anybody whose views may differ....well, that's the slippery slope.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Damn straight.

Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

OK, first of all, there is no "United States of Canada," so wipe that right off your slate before you start. You want to badger the USA, fine. Don't meddle in other people's countries.

And who said that More was necessarily Better or Preferred? McDonald's claims X-billion served. That doesn't make their food wholesome, healthy or in any way "better." Might doesn't equal right, not even in the Yellow Pages.

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

The larger question looms, though. Why should you expect to hear a prayer at ALL? At a sporting fixture? Over the loudspeakers? On the assumption of crowd approval? Seriously. Prayer is for religious services. Sporting events are for, well, sports.

When in Rome . . .

When in Rome...better cover up if you plan to go to the Vatican.

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

Sure it is. They are equally citizens under the law. They have rights.

What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Let's turn the tables. Let's say that the person at the microphone is going to offer a paean to Zeus in ancient Greek. Would Andy and his fellow Christians be happy with Microphone Guy's fans saying "Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!"

They wouldn't. That is the litmus test for fairness in this issue...and it's what makes Andy so very, very wrong.

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Again, a short prayer doesn't shake the world's foundations. But people can pray all they want to, to whomever, as individuals. It doesn't have to be institutionalized, blazed across the Sony Jumbotron, amplified to the nines to the entire stadium.

What is it about the America-Is-ONLY-A-Christian-Nation crowd that demands the backup of the sound reinforcement stadium crew to get their message across? Keep it to yourself. And if you think that makes your prayers less powerful, then I'm sorry for you, because that diminishes your own convictions.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Excuse me. I grew up in America, too. I never prayed before meals or bed. I have as much right to assert my beliefs as you have. You have no right to dictate yours to me, and I assume no right to dictate mine to you. Why do you persist in doing so, and insist that you have every right to do so? Why is it not enough for you to attend the church of your choice and observe whatever private religious practices you please, as I do? Why do you demand these broad-brush, public, sweeping assertions of a faith that you know damn well not everybody within earshot supports? Does the microphone make faith bigger? Because, if it does, seems to me it's a piss-poor faith to begin with.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

I won't sue you. But I feel sorry for your point of view.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honour Him. That is your right, and we will honour your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

I'm quite sure that Jesus would approve of your kind, welcoming, tolerant posture.

God bless us one and all . . . Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and Canada, despite all our faults, We are still the greatest nations of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

Oh, here we go. Again it's the exaltation of military service as the only calling that matters, the only cause that protects someone's faith. Are we really back in the time of the Crusades in this shabby way?

Clue for you: Nobody in Canada cares about being the "greatest nation." We're bigger than that. We don't have to be the popular guy swaggering around campus to feel good about ourselves. Don't try and make us that...no matter how much Stephen Harper tries to convince you that's who we are.

Let's make 2011 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars.

Silent majority, my ass! You lot have been running the dialogue now for decades, ever since the "I Found It!" bumper stickers and the rise of the so-called Moral Majority. It's time for saner voices than yours to set the terms. Nobody's stopping you from living by your own moral codes - please do! - but you have no right whatsoever to push them on the whole of society, so pack up your Bibles and scoot! Solicitors not welcome.

Though I hope you're right about the war part.

Keep looking up.

If you're waiting for that "Rapture" thing, then you'd better be prepared to wait quite a while and invest in plenty of batteries for your portable radio.

If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not delete it..

Consider it deleted after this post. What a pile of poo.

Dipping A Toe In The Fundie End Of The Pool...

After two weeks uncoupled from the Internet, it was with some trepidation that I once again paid a call at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. I fear I was not disappointed.

First, there was this little gem...

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

And, next, this incredible misconstruction...because, as you know, we Pagans are all about automotive discombobulation...

The assistant director [of the TSA] told [Carole Smith, a Wiccan] he was investigating a threat of workplace violence. He said that her former mentor in on-the-job training, officer Mary Bagnoli, reported that she was afraid of Smith because she was a witch who practiced witchcraft. She accused Smith of following her on the highway one snowy evening after work and casting a spell on the heater of her car, causing it not to work.

And the rest ranged from the silly...

liberalism = no morals

which means liberals are Satanists.

What libs propose when they want more government, is a Satanic world government.

To the downright sad, grammatically and in family terms as well...

(a mother's response to her daughter coming out of the closet)

"My daughter Cara Louise,

"In all the years of my life, yesterday was the worst day. Not only have you turned your back on me and Dad, but you've turned your back on God. Clearly He is testing you and you have Failed this test.

"I don't know what I did wrong to raise a lesbien daughter. Maybe God is puneshing me. All I know is I couldn't sleep last night and when I did for only five minutes, all I could think of was your perverted life style.

"I am sorry but your Dad and I cannot except you back into our house as long as you are following the deeds of the Devil. We will still love you but we cannot except you as our daughter as long as you are living your life in sin.

"I've asked Scarlet and she tells me that she knew this entire time. She has told me that she does not believe in God and I know that she can be saved. I hope that you can be saved my dear daughter but until that time I can not say that we are family. I will miss you and my heart is broken

"Your mother."

I honestly don't know how these people manage to function day in and day out in normal society.

Mind The Store, Boys...

If I'm quieter than usual it's because I'm largely unwired for the next couple of weeks - ET Daughter and I are celebrating Spring Break by taking a girls-only road trip down the West Coast as far as Orange County, across to Arizona, and back, while ET Spouse stays home to babysit (aka, "spoil") the cats and do Guy Stuff. On the agenda: friends I haven't seen in years, outlet shopping (don't try to hide it - I can see you wincing!), Disneyland for a day, Arizona Ren Fest, and my brother's 70th.

Wish us safe driving, and I'll check in with y'all when we get back!

Yet Another Piece Of Ten Commandments Legislation...

...but this one comes with a declaration astonishing in its complete indefensibility.

Seems that for the past ten years, this one legislator in Alabama (where else?) has been repeatedly, but without success, introducing legislation that would allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in schools and other public facilities, at the sole discretion of the administrators of those facilities - school principals, mayors, police chiefs, etc.

Bear in mind that this is the same legislature which has already faced adjudication and, effectively, knockdown of such legislation before...back when former State Supreme Court justice Roy Moore put a 2.5+ ton granite slab with said Commandments engraved thereupon in the rotunda of the State judicial building in 2001.

But, no, Senator Dial thinks it has a good chance of passing this time around. And why? Behold the breathtaking disconnect that is his rationale, as expressed by a member of the legal team of the organization promoting this bill:

But this bill might not be as clear-cut violation of the federal constitution as Lynn and Neal make it out to be, said John Eidsmoe, a member of the Foundation for Moral Law’s legal team. A number of different religions accept the Ten Commandments, he said.

Beyond that, Eidsmoe said, courts have cited it in opinions and laws are based on its guidelines.

“I think you’d have a hard time saying the Ten Commandments are distinctly religious,” Eidsmoe said. “They’re an expression of the basic precepts that just about every society has been built upon.”

Not distinctly religious?

You might argue that successfully for 6-10. Not killing, cheating on your partner, stealing, lying, or hankering for what belongs to your neighbor...all these are certainly good for civilization.

But the first five are all about religion and nothing but, beginning with the first, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." All the rest of 1-5 are couched in the form of marching orders from this very particular, self-described "jealous," God. Because they're - ya know - "commandments." Things that Sky Guy specifically wants you to do or not do.

It reminds me of the time my daughter's Brownie leaders wanted the girls to spend the bulk of their year on a unit called "God And Me" - an adjunct to traditional Scouting provided by some outfit called PRAY Publishing - and tried to sell me on the idea that it wasn't religious indoctrination because it was nondenominational. I held firm and said, no, you are going to offer an alternative activity so my kid isn't railroaded into this program (run by a male pastor of one of the leaders: there's role-modeling for young women's leadership, eh?), or I will go to the regional Girl Scout Council with a complaint that you are violating the core precept of Girl Scouting that there is no religious test or requirement (one of the things that is a differentiating factor from Boy Scouts).

Fortunately, at the end of the year, all the kids said their favorite activity was when I taught them how to make soap in the microwave. Score points for fun over sermonizing!

It's endorsement of religion or it isn't, Senator Dial. Just because you don't name whatever God you're referring to doesn't erase the meaning you hope to push on the public, any more than calling the garbage collector a "sanitation official" makes him something other than your garbage collector.

There's Actually Nothing To Add...

...except that I don't think the author of the below post at Fundies Say The Darndest Things is going to the Build-A-Bear Workshop any time soon. Such new heights (or, perhaps, lows) of paranoid idiocy!

- - - - - - - - - -

A couple had a one-eyed stuffed large frog named “Max”. After some period of time they began to talk about him as if he were a family member. Max sat on a bookcase and eventually the couple “noticed his eye” seemed to be looking at them. God revealed the demonic properties of Max, he was trashed and the curses broken that demons had put on the frog.

There are recorded cases where frightened children had terrifying nightmares and upon checking their room it was discovered the child had dolls and stuffed animals in the room. When these items were removed there came a calm and peace to the child and his bedroom.One very demonic item should never be in any child's bedroom or nursery - the "Dream Catcher". Always a deadly curse.

A serious issue with dolls is that many times the child develops a “relationship” with the doll, teddy bear or stuffed animal. The doll or animal becomes a playmate to the child. Some deliverance cases revealed that children actually talking to their dolls and some dolls talking back to the child ( talking back was the demon in the doll ). Look at the word IDOL and you can see the letters spelling dol. Relationships are built between people, not with dolls, puppets or stuffed animals.

This Just In - The Right Wing Doesn't Get How Government Works!

From Raw Story comes news that shouldn't come as a surprise, but, amazingly, does.

It comes from wingnut poohbah Jim DeMint of South Carolina - that mythical land where "U.S. Americans, such as, don't have maps." It appeared in his comments today to the Federalist Society in DC. And it's about the Presidency.

Obama's a secret Muslim? Nope. Not born here? Not mentioned. In a criminal conspiracy to destroy the nation? Close, but not stated as such.

Turns out, it doesn't really matter...because the President isn't the leader of the country!

Read that last again. The individual occupying the post at the apex of the Executive branch, whose role is also described as "Chief Executive" and "Commander-in-Chief" and who hosts state dinners because, presumably s/he is considered the Head of State - that person is not the country's leader.

"This whole idea that the President is the leader of our country is a mistake," DeMint said during a speech to the Washington, DC chapter of the Federalist Society, according to Talking Points Memo.

"Leadership starts in the homes in the communities, in businesses, in churches," he said. "I've lived in a community and I know where the leaders are and it's not in Washington. And this pretense that he's our nation's leader... I'm not just talking about Obama, I'm talking about any President."

OK. Let's throw out that last line, right now, because this is sure not the kind of thing you heard from DeMint and his ilk during the Dubya years. In fact, in a piece from 2007, he takes candidates Clinton and Obama both to task for lacking in leadership, saying "It's amazing they can get out and say the president hasn't led when they haven't introduced anything serious since they've been there," and continues at length to describe Presidential mettle as requiring CEO-type experience. Because leading a company helps you lead a country, it seems. Or it did in 2007.

But let's say he's allowed to change his mind. Now, today, he doesn't think that the Presidency is a leadership role. It starts in homes, communities, businesses, churches. (Funny how many shots Obama took for having been a "community organizer" - sounds "leader-y," as a Sarah Palin might say, to me, going by DeMint's lexicon!) Apparently none of it is found in government.

Which begs the question...why does he want to stay in the Senate? Why was he, at one point, gunning for a "leadership" role there? What's he doing in government at all, if all the real leadership is elsewhere? Like so many Republicans, he has stepped into the ideological quicksand of supposedly wanting to shrink government down to its bare minimum while simultaneously spending a small fortune to get voters to ensure he continues to be a part of said government. It's like singing the praises of plain cheese pizza but then loading up on the toppings - or, hell, investing in a pizza-toppings company!

It gets better yet. Later in the speech, quoth DeMint:

After implying that the president has overreached in his desire to reform American society, DeMint curiously claimed Obama isn't going to lead and therefore should be replaced.

"It's pretty clear this President is not going to lead," he said. "We've got to replace this President."

OK, the Presidency is not, de facto, a leadership role. Yet Obama must be replaced, stat, because he's "not leading"?

Someone needs to sit down with DeMint and have the "words mean stuff" talk with him, making it clear that you can't describe a government office as two opposite things simultaneously, nor can you call for the ouster of its occupant for failing to demonstrate a quality that you claim isn't part of the job description anyway.

Someone give that U.S. American a map...and maybe the title of Miss Uncongeniality.

Non Sequiturs on Gun Control

Probably like many Banned and Dangerous readers, I've been a little dismayed when I find that old friends I've reconnected with on Facebook or other social media have, shall we say, in the intervening years, sipped the wingnut kool-aid a little too ardently, with the result that I hardly recognize their current points of view. That was the case with me, tonight, when a friend from my Oregon life - with whom I certainly never talked politics, just artsy-craftsy stuff - re-posted this comment which had been forwarded her way, giving it her stamp of approval:

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat ! Remember: Hold the PERSON accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!

So...here's where this breaks down for me. I get the reference to any inanimate object being, shall we say, "neutral" until someone chooses to actively employ it. In that sense, she's right. People, not guns, ultimately kill other people.

But the logical element that is missed in this is that every object has an innate intent for its existence. Pencils exist in order that one can write. Cars exist to serve as transportation. Spoons exist so that we may eat.

Why do guns exist?

At this point you could argue the sportsman's perspective: target shooting, general marksmanship, even hunting (though I find that last indefensible in the modern era). But that represents zero justification for the semi-automatic Glock used in those tragic murders and injuries that occurred in my hometown. Because, beyond any defensible point of view, the innate intent for such a weapon is, purely and simply, killing.

And, if you purchase or own or even endorse such a weapon, you're on board with the free and relatively easy availability of a commodity the primary purpose of which is death.

So don't, in the wake of this soul-numbing episode, trot out that lame defense of the gun culture. Not when a 9-year-old child is dead thanks to a nutcase having free and ready access to firearms. "Second Amendment remedies," my ass! The founders never intended to condone modern-day, single-handed Rambo types, one-man arsenals on a personal mission of destruction. They wanted a "well-regulated militia," a sane group of sane people ready to defend sane things. If you're so keen on "original intent," then why not go out and get yourself a musket and call it good? But it is folly to pretend that the patriots of 1776 could have foreseen this 21st century tragedy, and incorporated its nasty weaponry and toxic political dialogue into their original language. Just as it is folly to say that there should be NO regulation in terms of access to firearm ownership. A functioning mental health system and a requirement for background checks might have gone a long way, in the course of this past week, toward lives saved.

Yes, it's wrong to blame the tool before the user. But it still behooves us to examine the tool's purpose in the course of determining whether the tool, as well as the user, may be equally in the wrong.

Huck Finn 2.0

There's been a lot of news lately about one individual's plans to publish a version of Mark Twain's classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with strategic edits throughout to the "n-word" so prevalent in its pages.

I grant you that the n-word is offensive in the extreme in modern usage. I also understand the sensitivity around teaching this work anywhere in the K-12 curriculum as a consequence of that offensiveness.

But, surely, the answer is not to simply remove anything offensive from any work of literature! (And certainly not to make a terminology substitution that turns many passages into gobbledygook.)

Herewith, some of my arguments for the position that doing this is a bad idea:

• Respect for the literary canon and for the integrity of the author. Works get elevated to the level of "classics" for a reason. They exhibit enduring value for their themes, the splendor of their language, or their status as an accurate portrait/reflection of the times in which they were created. To mess with that is to tamper in a very nonconstructive way with the fabric of global history and culture. Spenser's The Faerie Queene arguably loses much if not all of its value if you rewrite it in modern English and publish it under his name as a valid edition of the original. Would we re-write Faulkner for his use of the n-word? Strip Shakespeare of its iambic pentameter because that's "not how people talk nowadays"? Re-imagine Romeo and Juliet, say, as West Side Story or any number of modern-dress stagings, sure. But don't edit out one of the core themes of the story and still call it by its original name.
  
  
• Respect for the student. Learning is supposed to be about preconceptions being challenged, and new viewpoints explored. Bowdlerize these literary texts and you're basically saying to the reader, I want your horizons restricted, your opportunities to confront important issues sidelined. It's a diet of skim milk and saltines for you: nothing meatier need apply.
  
  
• Latitude for the teacher. As a former English teacher myself, I don't know of any of my colleagues who would approach Twain's use of the n-word as anything but a teachable opportunity; a chance to engage his or her students in the dialogue about what the novel's impact at the time of publication would have been on what was, on the whole, an overtly and prevalently racist society. It's the height of irony to me that when Huck was published, the outcry against it was because it dared depict a black man as, wow, human; and that today's outcry is reduced to a derelict piece of terminology.
  
  
• Artistic honesty. An artist's creation deserves to stand as the artist ultimately left it to us. Changes after the fact are, I think, impertinent and an act of high hubris. Are we going to go and re-erect new monoliths at Stonehenge just because we think we've worked out how it "must" have looked, and some stones have fallen down over the centuries? Paint ancient Greek statues in the colors they were originally adorned with, even though they've come down to us as pristine marble? Give the Sphinx back its nose? Don't second-guess the artist and the verdict of time. Let it stand.
  
  
• Finally...where does it stop? If you re-write Huck - and even though it may seem on the surface an innocuous edit, it truly does amount to a re-write - then where does the march of literary correctness end? Do we eliminate all references in The Merchant of Venice to Shylock's Judaism? The notion of revolution offends some people, so maybe we should excise the guillotine from A Tale of Two Cities, or change the plot of Les Miserables? And don't get me started on what we might do with Lolita, or Fahrenheit 451, or The Handmaid's Tale.

I guess it goes back to one of my core principles, which is that our allowing one another the mutual courtesy of free speech and free expression of our beliefs does not give you - or me - the inherent right never to be confronted with something that might offend. The wonderful, beautiful peril of freedom of speech is that, around every corner, something someone might say will challenge me, make me think, piss me off, or push me out of my comfort zone. Reducing that to the mere forms of political correctness seems to me a sad diminution of the human condition.

I hope that the widespread derision this guy's plan is meeting with comes to cancellation. Because I truly think that publication of this sanitized version of Huck would open the floodgates for a whole host of literary works long in the public domain being excised of all their thematic value, reduced to tidy, "safe" objects of study, for no doubt any number of Texas school districts whose graduates believe that humans once rode dinosaurs. Thinking students, teachers, parents, and societies deserve far better than that. And publishers should be mindful of the responsibility they have to the latter audience, rather than to the profit margin dangled by the former.

Please share your comments. I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about this issue, which I see through a lens that admittedly views the text as primary and untouchable.