Friday, August 16, 2013
German Travelogue Day 3
This was a bus tour in the morning with a visit to "Checkpoint Charlie" in the afternoon. We saw what's left of the Berlin Wall, which the city has turned into an outdoor art exhibit. Artists take a section of wall and paint a mural. My favorite was a picture of Leonid Breshnev and Erich Honnecker locked in an intense smooch. The end of the morning part was at the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, officially known as "The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe." It's across the street from the new American Embassy, and I recall the guide saying that the site was the location of the Gestapo headquarters, but I can't find anything confirming that statement. Standing on the edge of the park all of the stone blocks look about the same height. Inside, however, the floor slopes so that in the middle observers are about six feet below street level and all the blocks tower over their heads. It's designed to be disorienting and confusing, a goal at which it succeeds remarkably well. I found it very effective and appropriate.
We skipped the Checkpoint Charlie museum and walked around old East Berlin. We saw a parade of Trabants, the East German horrible car, which now has quite a lot of nostalgia. They were made with a two-stroke engine, which was used in the West for things like lawn mowers and chain saws. Not very powerful. Their exhaust smells like a lawn mower and they don't go very fast, but since that was the pinnacle of consumer goods in the DDR, they were something of a status symbol. The cars in the parade had all been customized, including my favorite one, pink with Gucci stripes. We also went to a chocolate shop that has been in business since the middle of the 19th Century, although they haven't been in the same place that long. They had scale model chocolate sculptures of the Brandenburg Gate, the TV Tower, the Titanic, the Reichstag, and other Berlin sites, as well as a Berlin mascot bear wearing a gold marzipan crown.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Germany Travelogue Day 2
Arrived in Berlin. I couldn't sleep at all well on the plane -- the seats never reclined and the movies played constantly -- so I've been awake 38 hours. It's already Wednesday. We have a walking tour of the city, from our hotel in the old East Berlin, S - Bahn (surface train) to Alexanderplatz, then walk to Museum Island and the Reichstag. The one really serious regret I've got is that the tour never allowed us to go into any of the museums there. The Heinrich Schliemann Treasures of Priam, the first Neanderthal skeleton, and tons of things from Sumeria and Babylon are in those Museums, especially the Pergamon Museum and Neues (New) Museum. The Neues was founded in, I think, 1860, so "new" is relative. I wish I could say something profound about the Reichstag building, but mainly it was a really lovely place, which is no longer used for much serious business. The Bundestag does some ceremonial things in there, but mainly it's a nice backdrop to a lovely park.
Berlin has lots of trees. None of them date before 1947, but they made up for lost time and planted THOUSANDS of linden and chestnuts, which now make Berlin Europe's greenest city. Since it was about 85 degrees while we were there. I really appreciated the trees. We walked about 8 miles that first day, so I really got to love the trees.
There is a farmer named Karl who has set up stands all over the city to sell his strawberries. Karl's strawberries are the platonic ideal of strawberries -- huge, ripe all the way to the top, and sweet. We bought two liters and ate most of them in one night. Karl's berries are to Berlin what Cheetos in vending machines are to the US, which explains why there are no very fat Germans. There are plump, even heavy-set, but nothing like the typical Walmart shopper. Walking ten miles a day, seven miles of which are stairs, plus little junk food, keeps the citizens of Berlin fit.
I made my first discovery of pay toilets today. It costs 75-Euro-cents to use the bathroom here. Charging people who have the audacity to leave home to pee cancels all the benefits from the walking, lack of junk food, and excellent public transport. Really, Europe, this is one thing that is so completely superior in the US. Have you ever thought what happens to someone who doesn't have the right change?
Overall, toilets aside, I have to say Berlin is lovely. There's still a lot of Worker's Paradise grey block buildings, but in the 20 years since the Wall fell the residents have cheered the place up. Most of the grey blocks have been modified and painted, so they don't look quite so much like the set for a movie of "1984." It's still easy to see the difference between East and West, though, in that the old West Berlin has nicer mid-20th Century buildings and better restoration of the old stuff.
Germany Travelogue Day 1
A Very Long Plane Ride. We left at a little before 9 from Austin and arrived in New York at a little after noon their time. I had dreaded this part, mainly because I have had almost no good experiences with airlines, and those few were with Pan Am. We flew Delta, which has automated its ticket counters so that we got boarding passes from a computer. I put three pieces of paper into my passport, gave one to the gate clerk, and never read the others. While we were in flight to New York, I noticed that I hadn't gotten a boarding pass for the Amsterdam - Berlin leg of the trip. I would get to Europe, but that's as far as it went. I spoke to the gate clerk at Kennedy, and got the correct papers in ten minutes. So, Delta Airlines, you have my respect and admiration. United would have told me to hitchhike from Holland to Germany. We had an uneventful flight the rest of the way, including the pleasant and amazingly clean Amsterdam Airport.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Language Instruction
One of my personal crusades is the need for more language instruction in our schools. Languages are usually cut first, right up there with music and art, as "unnecessary." The chair of the University of Virginia governing board recently proposed to eliminate that school's highly-praised German department, because Germany is now a completely unimportant country with no international influence at all, like, oh, Greece. An evil combination of corporate Philistines, misguided school reformers, and legislative skin-flints work together to deprive as many students as possible of the chance to learn a second language.
The foolishness of this idea is evident right now, with the US facing attacks by possibly-coordinated mobs on many of our embassies in western Asia and North Africa. We don't know about this because we have so very few Arabic - speakers who are not imported from that troubled area. We don't teach Arabic in our schools, so we don't have citizens who read Al Jazeera's website and comments. During the era of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," we fired Arabic speakers for being gay, like we had dozens of extras stored somewhere in the State Department supply cabinet. We don't do that any more, but we aren't doing anything to increase the supply, either.
Arabic is a very hard language to learn, and the colloquial form spoken on the street isn't much like the formal version spoken by the upper classes. I understand from the two people I know who speak the language that there isn't anything like standard business English that most fluent speakers use. This is not an insurmountable problem, because there are a bunch of jihadi websites published in European languages, especially German and French. The 9/11 hijackers lived in Germany before moving over here, and presumably talked to other people while in Germany. More Americans speaking German might have made a difference there.
This is very personal to me right now. I am learning both French and Spanish via Rosetta Stone, and my Spanish has gotten good enough for me to read CNN en español and Univision for news. Venezuela detained the captain of an American ship. American officials were attacked in Mexico. I learned of these two events from Spanish websites. I learned a lot about Latin American opinions of us from reading the comments. I am a better and more informed person from knowing this. How much more would we know about the real sources of the current rioting if more of us could read Arabic or Farsi or one of the European languages spoken by the leaders?
I undertand that East Toenail, Idaho can't hire a full-time Arabic or German instructor. With the Internet, however, they can buy Rosetta Stone and allow their students one class period to complete the program. They can administer on-line tests for credit. So what if only six students are interested? The subscription is about a hundred dollars per year for an ordinary consumer; I'm sure the company would be willing to give a price break to school districts, especially if the state leg bought enough for all of its students. Bogota and Powderly, Texas -- the Prairiland Consolidated School District and a real place -- has a couple hundred students. Texas has almost seven million. Giving every student in the state the chance to learn any one of a dozen languages costs very little anymore, but has a tremendous benefit. We should do this, for all of us.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Royal Wedding
30 years ago in late July I got up at truly horrid hour to watch William's parents get married. Diana was lovely, Charles was actually rather appealing, and I got to hear Jeremiah Clarke's "Trumpet Voluntary." Of course, their relationship didn't quite work out, but at least the beginning was lovely. I watched Andrew and Fergie, Edward and Sophie, too. I have to work tomorrow so getting up at 3 a.m. isn't really an option, but I will watch the recap.
Many people wonder why a committed Democrat likes to watch royal weddings. I don't secretly believe that monarchy is a great form of government. What I do think, however, is that modern life could do with more formality. We need pomp. The problem with hierarchies of birth is that it eliminated huge numbers of people from participating in the beauty of ceremonies in any manner other than observers. Instead of my lefty friends' habit of eliminating ceremonial and formality, we need to find ways of getting more people to dress up. After all, the best way to eliminate the class structure is to make it impossible to tell the peasants from the nobles, and not because everyone looks like a slob.
Many people wonder why a committed Democrat likes to watch royal weddings. I don't secretly believe that monarchy is a great form of government. What I do think, however, is that modern life could do with more formality. We need pomp. The problem with hierarchies of birth is that it eliminated huge numbers of people from participating in the beauty of ceremonies in any manner other than observers. Instead of my lefty friends' habit of eliminating ceremonial and formality, we need to find ways of getting more people to dress up. After all, the best way to eliminate the class structure is to make it impossible to tell the peasants from the nobles, and not because everyone looks like a slob.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Bodily autonomy vs. the rights of property
"What's Wrong With The World" is the most ironically perfect name for a blog in the entire electronic world. This post, by Lydia McGrew, is an excellent example of their poorly-analyzed, pretentiously written, and thoroughly mean-spirited output. For those without the stomach to read it, Ms. M takes the position that liberals only advocate for laws requiring accommodations for the disabled because we like to mess with businessmen. (Oh, and she means businessMEN, too. WWWTW's vicious misogyny is, however, the subject for another post.)
Ms. M and her commenters spend many pixels wondering why liberals favor both wheelchair-access laws and support a woman's right to abort a disabled fetus. They believe that compassion for disabled people requires putting the rights of a disabled fetus over and above the woman pregnant with it. She describes the current legal status of abortion as a "search and destroy mission for which the most important thing is that we not miss one, that we decrease the number of babies born with birth defects, which has about the same relation to "eliminating birth defects" that a can of Raid has to eliminating mosquito bites." In her interpretation, the fact that the state does not prevent women from aborting a pregnancy when the fetus has serious abnormalities constitutes an organized campaign. Francis Beckwith, another writer for the site, comments "the fetus is sequestered from personhood because it has diminished capacities as a consequence of immaturity, whereas the postnatal handicapped person has diminished capacities as a consequence of illness." Based on this comment, I conclude that liberals base the existence of rights on, well, something.
Neither the writer nor the commenters ever discuss the real reason liberals support both abortion rights and laws requiring accommodations for disabilities: everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. No one may use another person's body without the second person's consent. (There are a very few exceptions to this, all contained within the criminal law.) Each person's mind is part of the body for purposes of this principle. Fetuses, before about the 26th week of pregnancy, can't exist outside the body of the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman, who already exists, has a right to evict the unwelcome tenant fetus. Once born, however, the child has the same rights to bodily autonomy which much be recognized. Thus, she has the right to be able to use public buildings without requiring assistance from random strangers, which is the preferred solution of Kevin J. Jones in the first comment.
The principle of bodily autonomy for people trumps in all circumstances rights related to property. Owning property automatically makes the owner privileged, and with privileges come responsibilities. Society, using the means of the state's legal authority, is obligated to use its power to ensure that as many people as possible have the ability to exercise their bodily autonomy. (Any commenter who can think of a shorter way to express the idea "exercise their bodily autonomy" wins a prize of my choosing.) Therefore, the state can require developers to build shopping centers with wheelchair parking and accessible bathrooms. The public schools should have to provide classes for students with learning disabilities or neurological defects, so that those students can live as independent lives as possible. The families of the disabled deserve payments from the public purse to support caring for their disabled members with as little inconvenience as possible.
Conservatives of the WWWTW stripe, however, put the rights that come with property ownership and traditional hierarchy over those of individual people. The misery of an abused wife counts little so long as the privileges of husbands are preserved. The fact that being carried up stairs is thoroughly humiliating matters little, so long as the able-bodied carrier gets to feel noble. The fact that the disabled person may be never chance on the random person willing or able to haul him upstairs is never acknowledged.
It is important to note that the principle of bodily autonomy only restricts the government. The state can restrict a person's activities only when those activities constitute an obvious threat of harm to others. Being a drunk adult at home may be stupid, but in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone else. Therefore, the state should not restrict the sale of alcohol to adults in most circumstances. Most intoxicants fall into this category. Non-coercive sex poses no threat to anyone but the participants, so of course the state should stay out of it. In contrast, mountaintop removal mining causes immediate and observable damage to neighboring landowners and people using the area's water. The state, therefore, has a right to prohibit it to protect those neighbors.
It is important to understand that an essential element of bodily autonomy is the capacity to give consent. Children and people with serious cognitive impairments do not have this capacity. Thus, the state should intercede on their behalf to protect them. Age of consent laws are one obvious example. In most cases, however, the best people to make decisions for those without the capacity to make their own are family members. Supporting the family members and eliminating as much hassle as possible is the best way to ensure that those family members make decisions in the best interests of their dependents.
Ms. M and her commenters spend many pixels wondering why liberals favor both wheelchair-access laws and support a woman's right to abort a disabled fetus. They believe that compassion for disabled people requires putting the rights of a disabled fetus over and above the woman pregnant with it. She describes the current legal status of abortion as a "search and destroy mission for which the most important thing is that we not miss one, that we decrease the number of babies born with birth defects, which has about the same relation to "eliminating birth defects" that a can of Raid has to eliminating mosquito bites." In her interpretation, the fact that the state does not prevent women from aborting a pregnancy when the fetus has serious abnormalities constitutes an organized campaign. Francis Beckwith, another writer for the site, comments "the fetus is sequestered from personhood because it has diminished capacities as a consequence of immaturity, whereas the postnatal handicapped person has diminished capacities as a consequence of illness." Based on this comment, I conclude that liberals base the existence of rights on, well, something.
Neither the writer nor the commenters ever discuss the real reason liberals support both abortion rights and laws requiring accommodations for disabilities: everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. No one may use another person's body without the second person's consent. (There are a very few exceptions to this, all contained within the criminal law.) Each person's mind is part of the body for purposes of this principle. Fetuses, before about the 26th week of pregnancy, can't exist outside the body of the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman, who already exists, has a right to evict the unwelcome tenant fetus. Once born, however, the child has the same rights to bodily autonomy which much be recognized. Thus, she has the right to be able to use public buildings without requiring assistance from random strangers, which is the preferred solution of Kevin J. Jones in the first comment.
The principle of bodily autonomy for people trumps in all circumstances rights related to property. Owning property automatically makes the owner privileged, and with privileges come responsibilities. Society, using the means of the state's legal authority, is obligated to use its power to ensure that as many people as possible have the ability to exercise their bodily autonomy. (Any commenter who can think of a shorter way to express the idea "exercise their bodily autonomy" wins a prize of my choosing.) Therefore, the state can require developers to build shopping centers with wheelchair parking and accessible bathrooms. The public schools should have to provide classes for students with learning disabilities or neurological defects, so that those students can live as independent lives as possible. The families of the disabled deserve payments from the public purse to support caring for their disabled members with as little inconvenience as possible.
Conservatives of the WWWTW stripe, however, put the rights that come with property ownership and traditional hierarchy over those of individual people. The misery of an abused wife counts little so long as the privileges of husbands are preserved. The fact that being carried up stairs is thoroughly humiliating matters little, so long as the able-bodied carrier gets to feel noble. The fact that the disabled person may be never chance on the random person willing or able to haul him upstairs is never acknowledged.
It is important to note that the principle of bodily autonomy only restricts the government. The state can restrict a person's activities only when those activities constitute an obvious threat of harm to others. Being a drunk adult at home may be stupid, but in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone else. Therefore, the state should not restrict the sale of alcohol to adults in most circumstances. Most intoxicants fall into this category. Non-coercive sex poses no threat to anyone but the participants, so of course the state should stay out of it. In contrast, mountaintop removal mining causes immediate and observable damage to neighboring landowners and people using the area's water. The state, therefore, has a right to prohibit it to protect those neighbors.
It is important to understand that an essential element of bodily autonomy is the capacity to give consent. Children and people with serious cognitive impairments do not have this capacity. Thus, the state should intercede on their behalf to protect them. Age of consent laws are one obvious example. In most cases, however, the best people to make decisions for those without the capacity to make their own are family members. Supporting the family members and eliminating as much hassle as possible is the best way to ensure that those family members make decisions in the best interests of their dependents.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
What Women Should Be Allowed To Do
I have spent years trying to get conservatives to provide a checklist stating what activities and traits women are supposed to have and which ones we're supposed to avoid. I want a concrete definition of "feminine," straight from the self-described experts on the subject. Mostly what I get are Potter Stewart blathers about, well, stuff. So, I'm going to ask the Internet for help on this subject. I've learned from one John C. Wright that that being taller than a man isn't feminine. All women really long for someone taller, which would surprise a number of Hollywood starlets who married short and ugly producers, but maybe starlets aren't good study subjects.
The Wright article is one giant pile of fail, which deserves a longer take-down, but I'm slowing returning to blogging so this is just the beginning.
The Wright article is one giant pile of fail, which deserves a longer take-down, but I'm slowing returning to blogging so this is just the beginning.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Eating the seed corn
The Austin school district administration has in its very finite wisdom decided to balance its budge by firing teachers, especially foreign language, music, and art teachers. Bowie High School is eliminating German, meaning 135 students will be stranded for their REQUIRED foreign language credit. 135 is too many kids for the existing teachers to absorb, so the school will probably have to hire another teacher anyway. The feeder middle schools will probably eliminate German as well and won't replace it with another language, so I suppose that will save some money.
Now, this might be defensible in other places, but Austin pays its superintendent nearly $250,000 per year, plus another godawful amount in allowances, perks, and benefits. Maria Castarphen, the current bench-warmer in the office, is therefore among the top 5% earners in the country, in the same leagues as big-deal CEO, and the same sort of vampire on society. Cutting her salary in half still puts her in the top 10% earners in the country and would save the salaries of at least three experienced teachers. That, of course, is not an option, apparently because paying boatloads of money ensures us of, well, something.
Then there's the whole bit where Governor Hairball rejected $32 BILLION dollars in school assistance because Congress pegged it to classroom instruction. Our schools are going broke but we're not going to take the extra cash because Perry can't use it for things other than classroom instruction. Danke schoen, Governor. You'll have to ask my son to translate that though. He did get that far in the class he can't take anymore thanks to you.
I honestly cannot understand why some groups in this country have such a loathing of public education. Religious conservatives especially hate it, mostly based on their own idiot myths about what gets taught in schools. Do schools waste money? Sure, but so does every other entity that ever spends money, including the people who complain about schools.
Schools do something that a certain type of conservative really hates: they produce upward mobility. Not only do they provide knowledge and skills for making a living, but schools also provide information that allows students to improve their tastes and habits, mimicking the upper class. (Actually, given the behavior of today's moron socialites, the students have better taste and behavior.) Kids from the projects can learn Shakespeare; kids from the trailer park learn about Beethoven. Even if very few of these kids keep up the study for a lifetime, that's a few more than would have without the public schools. Those kids lives are immeasurably better for attending school.
That, in the minds of the current crop of Republicans is exactly the problem. They've been fighting a war against upward mobility for decades, by undermining unions, public benefits, college grants and funds, and especially public education. If the Unwashed Masses can get a good education and then go on to college, we UM's will displace their spoiled brats who then will have to distasteful things like study instead of get drunk or stoned on the weekends. Further, an educated populace isn't going to continue to consume the smelly dreck the Overlords spew as popular culture. No one who's ever read Shakespeare will buy Dan Brown or "Left Behind" novels. Listening to a good performance of the Brandenburg Concertos precludes listening to whatever crud Clear Channel's selling this week. If the populace develops good taste, then the Overlords will have to pay actual competent people to produce things, meaning less insane profit margins.
There aren't enough members of the Overlord class, however, to explain the hostility to public schools these days. There is something much more sinister afoot here: envy. Actually, the Latin word "invidia," which literally means "evil looks," is a better word for this attitude. "Invidia" was used by the early Christians who defined the 7 Deadly Sins to refer to the attitude of resenting another's good fortune or rejoicing in another's misery. This means more than being less-than-pleased when a friend gets a big promotion or buys a house or car. Invidia constantly tells us that its objects don't deserve those nice things and shouldn't have them, even when the envious person doesn't want or can't use what she envies.
How does invidia connect to a rejection of public schools? Easy. Some people are smarter than others, and some are more energetic than others. Stupid, lazy people find it uncomfortable to know that smart and energetic people exist, because the contrast between the smart and energetic and the lazy and stupid themselves makes the lazy and stupid look bad. The only place where the stupid and lazy can't escape the smart and energetic is the classroom. The stupid and lazy resent anything that shows that improvement is possible. If schools don't exist, then nothing would ever confront the stupid and lazy with their own deficiencies and failures. They're perfectly happy to make better people miserable if it makes themselves happy.
Now, this might be defensible in other places, but Austin pays its superintendent nearly $250,000 per year, plus another godawful amount in allowances, perks, and benefits. Maria Castarphen, the current bench-warmer in the office, is therefore among the top 5% earners in the country, in the same leagues as big-deal CEO, and the same sort of vampire on society. Cutting her salary in half still puts her in the top 10% earners in the country and would save the salaries of at least three experienced teachers. That, of course, is not an option, apparently because paying boatloads of money ensures us of, well, something.
Then there's the whole bit where Governor Hairball rejected $32 BILLION dollars in school assistance because Congress pegged it to classroom instruction. Our schools are going broke but we're not going to take the extra cash because Perry can't use it for things other than classroom instruction. Danke schoen, Governor. You'll have to ask my son to translate that though. He did get that far in the class he can't take anymore thanks to you.
I honestly cannot understand why some groups in this country have such a loathing of public education. Religious conservatives especially hate it, mostly based on their own idiot myths about what gets taught in schools. Do schools waste money? Sure, but so does every other entity that ever spends money, including the people who complain about schools.
Schools do something that a certain type of conservative really hates: they produce upward mobility. Not only do they provide knowledge and skills for making a living, but schools also provide information that allows students to improve their tastes and habits, mimicking the upper class. (Actually, given the behavior of today's moron socialites, the students have better taste and behavior.) Kids from the projects can learn Shakespeare; kids from the trailer park learn about Beethoven. Even if very few of these kids keep up the study for a lifetime, that's a few more than would have without the public schools. Those kids lives are immeasurably better for attending school.
That, in the minds of the current crop of Republicans is exactly the problem. They've been fighting a war against upward mobility for decades, by undermining unions, public benefits, college grants and funds, and especially public education. If the Unwashed Masses can get a good education and then go on to college, we UM's will displace their spoiled brats who then will have to distasteful things like study instead of get drunk or stoned on the weekends. Further, an educated populace isn't going to continue to consume the smelly dreck the Overlords spew as popular culture. No one who's ever read Shakespeare will buy Dan Brown or "Left Behind" novels. Listening to a good performance of the Brandenburg Concertos precludes listening to whatever crud Clear Channel's selling this week. If the populace develops good taste, then the Overlords will have to pay actual competent people to produce things, meaning less insane profit margins.
There aren't enough members of the Overlord class, however, to explain the hostility to public schools these days. There is something much more sinister afoot here: envy. Actually, the Latin word "invidia," which literally means "evil looks," is a better word for this attitude. "Invidia" was used by the early Christians who defined the 7 Deadly Sins to refer to the attitude of resenting another's good fortune or rejoicing in another's misery. This means more than being less-than-pleased when a friend gets a big promotion or buys a house or car. Invidia constantly tells us that its objects don't deserve those nice things and shouldn't have them, even when the envious person doesn't want or can't use what she envies.
How does invidia connect to a rejection of public schools? Easy. Some people are smarter than others, and some are more energetic than others. Stupid, lazy people find it uncomfortable to know that smart and energetic people exist, because the contrast between the smart and energetic and the lazy and stupid themselves makes the lazy and stupid look bad. The only place where the stupid and lazy can't escape the smart and energetic is the classroom. The stupid and lazy resent anything that shows that improvement is possible. If schools don't exist, then nothing would ever confront the stupid and lazy with their own deficiencies and failures. They're perfectly happy to make better people miserable if it makes themselves happy.
Friday, December 11, 2009
"Inside Catholic" once again announces Women Stink
Once again "Inside Catholic" publishes an article devoted to the most important element in Christianity -- the idea that Women Suck.
In this article, the writer discusses how she learned to submit to her husband's desire to own a motorcycle and take it on an extremely dangerous drive. Now, please note that this isn't part of Superhubby's job, it's just something the old boy does for fun. Several thousand dollars worth of fun, but just fun. The writer learns that her husband needs to spend thousands of dollars and risk his life because, well, he's man and men need this.
Now, I have no real issue with people who have expensive hobbies, but Hubby here ignores his wife's pleas and quite legitimate concerns about his safety for his own recreation. Because the author is a Catholic, she submits to Hubby's idiocy with zero expectation that she'll get anything in return. This is the most perfect explanation of why complementarianism is an evil doctrine. She'll never get to spend that much money on herself; she'll never get to indulge her desire for, well, anything.
Complementarians assert that women get as much out of their deal as men do, but they lie. This woman's husband is never going to allow her to have an expensive hobby. Her desires will never be considered; it's always his. He gets his motorcycle and she gets nada, because she's a woman and no man could possibly be expected to listen to her useless babble. No woman ever says anything interesting; her interests are worthless hobbies far less significant that televised sports or expensive motorcycles. Men just have to learn to endure women.
In this article, the writer discusses how she learned to submit to her husband's desire to own a motorcycle and take it on an extremely dangerous drive. Now, please note that this isn't part of Superhubby's job, it's just something the old boy does for fun. Several thousand dollars worth of fun, but just fun. The writer learns that her husband needs to spend thousands of dollars and risk his life because, well, he's man and men need this.
Now, I have no real issue with people who have expensive hobbies, but Hubby here ignores his wife's pleas and quite legitimate concerns about his safety for his own recreation. Because the author is a Catholic, she submits to Hubby's idiocy with zero expectation that she'll get anything in return. This is the most perfect explanation of why complementarianism is an evil doctrine. She'll never get to spend that much money on herself; she'll never get to indulge her desire for, well, anything.
Complementarians assert that women get as much out of their deal as men do, but they lie. This woman's husband is never going to allow her to have an expensive hobby. Her desires will never be considered; it's always his. He gets his motorcycle and she gets nada, because she's a woman and no man could possibly be expected to listen to her useless babble. No woman ever says anything interesting; her interests are worthless hobbies far less significant that televised sports or expensive motorcycles. Men just have to learn to endure women.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Why I Hate Complementarianism
This article from Inside Cathloic attempts to present a particularly toxic doctrine called "complementarianism" as a form of humor. The writer goes to the hardware store to buy an extension cord and fails miserably because she's a silly girl and can't be expected to understand the Einsteinian complexities of extension cords. Apparently she also can't read or write, and therefore is excused from writing down the specifications and taking the note to the store with her. This is all supposed to be a real laugh riot.
The philosophy she demonstrates is called "complementarianism" which teaches that men and women are completely, utterly, and irreconcilably different, and men are supposed to be in charge of everything. The advocates of this view sugarcoat their doctrine by claiming that men and women are equal in dignity but unequal in roles. Men are supposed to be "active" and women are "receptive." Men and women do different things, but they're supposed to be equally useful. In practice, it never works that way.
This article from the same website discusses "Catholic maniliness," but the same arguments apply to other faiths as well. What interests men is important and what interests women isn't. The writer of this article blames feminists for all sorts of horrors inflicted in a church that has no women whatsoever in its hierarchy. Felt banners and bad music are somehow uniquely a female vice, not simply bad taste demonstrated frequently by both sexes. If men were in charge, all this long list of horrible things wouldn't have happened.
The original linked article is the same way. The "I'm a complete idiot who can't make a shopping list, and all women are exactlyl as stupid as I am" is the only subject the writer, one Danielle Bean, ever publishes. She's actually written for a number of magazines but apparently never gets paid for it because . . . . No, of course she gets paid. She gets paid for presenting herself as a perfect epitome of Womanhood, all members of whom are morons. The skills she uses to make this case -- a command of language, organization, the ability to make time to write the article -- are the precise opposite of the dimwitted persona she presents in all her articles, but no reader would ever get that message. That women have to hide their talents even as they express them is the poison of "complementarianism."
Complementarians claim that the only want to support long-term happy marriages, but they do that by positing that men and women really have nothing in common. What they really want is for men to feel superior to women. Men and women have different interests. Men are bored by what interests women and women are baffled -- too stupid to appreciate -- by anything that interests men. This dynamic appears over and over again. When women demonstrate a skill, it's always ascribed to some natural, accidental or unintentional ability, never to logic, effort, or hard work. Men are masters of linear logic; women just sort of pop up with stuff. Somehow, men will enjoy a lifetime with a boring nitwit. Women don't have the mental capacity to enjoy anything.
The worst idea complementarians peddle stems for their idea of men as logical and women as illogical; that men need respect in a relationship and women don't. They don't phrase it that way. The usually say that women need love and men need respect, but what kind of love doesn't have respect as a component? It does not speak well of complementarians that they believe women don't need anyone to acknowledge their accomplishments. My interpretation of this is that they believe they don't believe women HAVE any accomplishments. It's one more way of telling women we're dim. Don't attempt to think, dear, it'll hurt your pretty head.
The philosophy she demonstrates is called "complementarianism" which teaches that men and women are completely, utterly, and irreconcilably different, and men are supposed to be in charge of everything. The advocates of this view sugarcoat their doctrine by claiming that men and women are equal in dignity but unequal in roles. Men are supposed to be "active" and women are "receptive." Men and women do different things, but they're supposed to be equally useful. In practice, it never works that way.
This article from the same website discusses "Catholic maniliness," but the same arguments apply to other faiths as well. What interests men is important and what interests women isn't. The writer of this article blames feminists for all sorts of horrors inflicted in a church that has no women whatsoever in its hierarchy. Felt banners and bad music are somehow uniquely a female vice, not simply bad taste demonstrated frequently by both sexes. If men were in charge, all this long list of horrible things wouldn't have happened.
The original linked article is the same way. The "I'm a complete idiot who can't make a shopping list, and all women are exactlyl as stupid as I am" is the only subject the writer, one Danielle Bean, ever publishes. She's actually written for a number of magazines but apparently never gets paid for it because . . . . No, of course she gets paid. She gets paid for presenting herself as a perfect epitome of Womanhood, all members of whom are morons. The skills she uses to make this case -- a command of language, organization, the ability to make time to write the article -- are the precise opposite of the dimwitted persona she presents in all her articles, but no reader would ever get that message. That women have to hide their talents even as they express them is the poison of "complementarianism."
Complementarians claim that the only want to support long-term happy marriages, but they do that by positing that men and women really have nothing in common. What they really want is for men to feel superior to women. Men and women have different interests. Men are bored by what interests women and women are baffled -- too stupid to appreciate -- by anything that interests men. This dynamic appears over and over again. When women demonstrate a skill, it's always ascribed to some natural, accidental or unintentional ability, never to logic, effort, or hard work. Men are masters of linear logic; women just sort of pop up with stuff. Somehow, men will enjoy a lifetime with a boring nitwit. Women don't have the mental capacity to enjoy anything.
The worst idea complementarians peddle stems for their idea of men as logical and women as illogical; that men need respect in a relationship and women don't. They don't phrase it that way. The usually say that women need love and men need respect, but what kind of love doesn't have respect as a component? It does not speak well of complementarians that they believe women don't need anyone to acknowledge their accomplishments. My interpretation of this is that they believe they don't believe women HAVE any accomplishments. It's one more way of telling women we're dim. Don't attempt to think, dear, it'll hurt your pretty head.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Things for which I'm grateful
In a year in which the country has been visited by three of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse -- War, in Iraq and Afghanistan; Famine, in the form of 9% unemployment and the first actual GDP contraction of my adult life; Plague, swine flu -- and in which my governor has announced his desire to secede to avoid a 2% increase in the top marginal tax rate, it's sometimes really hard to find reasons to be grateful. This morning I found one.
>
> Michelle Bachmann is NOT from Texas.
>
> Michelle Bachmann is a member of Congress from Minnesota, a state generally not known for electing crazies. Granted, Jesse Ventura was unusual, but he was only annoying, not actually certifiable. One can't really say that about Representative Bachmann. If it were only her wackjob opinions, I might be inclined to ignore her and continue being envious of Minnesota's record of electing bland, inoffensive and ineffective lawmakers. But in this case, she's not only crazy, she is willing to admit publicly that she lives in an alternate universe.
>
> Yesterday, on C-SPAN, she noted that the last swine flu outbreak occurred under a Democratic president. Both Representative Bachmann and I were alive then and old enough to know who was the President. In my world, that president was Gerald Ford, but apparently in Representative Bachman's Earth 2, Jimmy Carter was Richard Nixon's VP and took office in 1974. (Being something of a DC comics geek, I have to wonder if Representative Bachmann will use her Canary Cry on the floor of the House someday to get a bill passed.)
>
> Today was even better. I remember discussions of the Smoot Hawley tariff both from high school, and from Ben Stein's scene in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." (Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?) This was enacted in 1929, sponsored by two Republicans, and signed by Herbert Hoover, who was not a Democrat. On Earth 2, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Hoot - Smalley tariff, which led immediately to Al Franken becoming Representative Bachmann's Senator. I presume this bill restricted the import of British comedies, causing the pound to plummet and PBS to wait until the 1960's to be invented. The tariff wasn't good enough, smart enough, and nobody liked it, so Earth 2 experienced the Great Depression.
>
> Michelle Bachmann is NOT from Texas.
>
> Michelle Bachmann is a member of Congress from Minnesota, a state generally not known for electing crazies. Granted, Jesse Ventura was unusual, but he was only annoying, not actually certifiable. One can't really say that about Representative Bachmann. If it were only her wackjob opinions, I might be inclined to ignore her and continue being envious of Minnesota's record of electing bland, inoffensive and ineffective lawmakers. But in this case, she's not only crazy, she is willing to admit publicly that she lives in an alternate universe.
>
> Yesterday, on C-SPAN, she noted that the last swine flu outbreak occurred under a Democratic president. Both Representative Bachmann and I were alive then and old enough to know who was the President. In my world, that president was Gerald Ford, but apparently in Representative Bachman's Earth 2, Jimmy Carter was Richard Nixon's VP and took office in 1974. (Being something of a DC comics geek, I have to wonder if Representative Bachmann will use her Canary Cry on the floor of the House someday to get a bill passed.)
>
> Today was even better. I remember discussions of the Smoot Hawley tariff both from high school, and from Ben Stein's scene in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." (Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?) This was enacted in 1929, sponsored by two Republicans, and signed by Herbert Hoover, who was not a Democrat. On Earth 2, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Hoot - Smalley tariff, which led immediately to Al Franken becoming Representative Bachmann's Senator. I presume this bill restricted the import of British comedies, causing the pound to plummet and PBS to wait until the 1960's to be invented. The tariff wasn't good enough, smart enough, and nobody liked it, so Earth 2 experienced the Great Depression.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
President Obama's Mother - in - Law
This guy has a problem with the new President's mother-in-law living in the White House. Apparently, this means the President is going to be henpecked because of all the old lady cooties spewing about the place with his wife's mother present. Now, why does a guy who describes himself as a 'caveman' have a problem with someone living with his wife's mother? I can only presume it's because Mr. Caveman doesn't treat his wife all that well, and really objects to anyone else's wife having an advocate close by?
Friday, January 02, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thoughts about Rick Warren
Most lefty bloggers object strongly to Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration. While I have no use for Rev. Warren's views on, well, much of anything, I think their objections are a serious mistake.
It's important to remember that "Gay Rights" dates only back to the 1970's. The changes in the acceptances of women, gays, and lesbians in my lifetime is phenomenal, and actually speaks well of humanity, which is saying a lot. This means that many, many people have changed their minds on the issue in what is by historical standards an eyeblink.
What does this have to do with Rick Warren? He is, among leaders of the religious right, one of the most moderate, and easily the most moderate person one with a big following. Many of his followers are likely to be even more reasonable than he is, and will be important allies on environmental and economic issues. If they can be persuaded to work with progressives on those issues, especially if they work alongside feminists and gays and people they won't know otherwise, they are more likely to change their opinion on the issues where we disagree. In order to get to that spot, though, we can't demonize them on that issue now. We have to give them space to change their minds.
There is much good to gain from allowing people to change their minds, and using persuasion rather than anger. The Right is forever pointing out that the Democrats never kicked out Robert Byrd, even though the senior senator from West Virginia was a Klansman in his youth. This is a silly argument on their part, in that there is no evidence that Byrd is still a racist. Byrd's legacy in the Senate is principally protecting the coal industry and hauling back as much highway money for his home state as possible, but the man has genuinely changed his views on African Americans. He doesn't and didn't oppose civil rights legislation, he doesn't make speeches about black inferiority, he just plasters his name on every scrap of concrete in West Virginia. Civil rights leaders understood that vilifying Byrd for what he used to think wasn't going to do any good, and accepted that he really had changed.
Rigid sex roles were typical through the 1960's. Lots of people who grew up even through the 1980's will have said stupid things about gays and women, and many of those things will have been published. Allowing Warren to speak without interruption will win many more converts than a pointless protest.
It's important to remember that "Gay Rights" dates only back to the 1970's. The changes in the acceptances of women, gays, and lesbians in my lifetime is phenomenal, and actually speaks well of humanity, which is saying a lot. This means that many, many people have changed their minds on the issue in what is by historical standards an eyeblink.
What does this have to do with Rick Warren? He is, among leaders of the religious right, one of the most moderate, and easily the most moderate person one with a big following. Many of his followers are likely to be even more reasonable than he is, and will be important allies on environmental and economic issues. If they can be persuaded to work with progressives on those issues, especially if they work alongside feminists and gays and people they won't know otherwise, they are more likely to change their opinion on the issues where we disagree. In order to get to that spot, though, we can't demonize them on that issue now. We have to give them space to change their minds.
There is much good to gain from allowing people to change their minds, and using persuasion rather than anger. The Right is forever pointing out that the Democrats never kicked out Robert Byrd, even though the senior senator from West Virginia was a Klansman in his youth. This is a silly argument on their part, in that there is no evidence that Byrd is still a racist. Byrd's legacy in the Senate is principally protecting the coal industry and hauling back as much highway money for his home state as possible, but the man has genuinely changed his views on African Americans. He doesn't and didn't oppose civil rights legislation, he doesn't make speeches about black inferiority, he just plasters his name on every scrap of concrete in West Virginia. Civil rights leaders understood that vilifying Byrd for what he used to think wasn't going to do any good, and accepted that he really had changed.
Rigid sex roles were typical through the 1960's. Lots of people who grew up even through the 1980's will have said stupid things about gays and women, and many of those things will have been published. Allowing Warren to speak without interruption will win many more converts than a pointless protest.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
King's X
My mother had emergency surgery this week. Now, had things not gone well, I would not be writing this post, but I have to say that "My mother is in the hospital" is the ultimate "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Want to evade any responsibility? Drop that phrase and you're free as a bird. Break in line at the grocery store on Christmas Eve? "My Mom is in the hospital." Christmas dinner has only one side dish? "Well, Mom was in the hospital." Avoid a dull party? "My mother is in the hospital." I managed to get out of doing something for Cub Scouts, having someone else over for Christmas dinner, got my mother-in-law to cook my side dishes, and even got my sons to help me clean house. Now, I'm not so awful as to suggest that my relatives start routinely scheduling surgery on major holidays, but I do encourage you to use this as the silver lining to this kind of cloud. I mean, it sucks to have close relatives get sick, but if it happens, use the advantage it gives you.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
More on the primaries
It occurred to me last night that I had omitted an extremely important point in my previous essay. Neither Obama nor Clinton did anything to invite people to apply those odd sexist labels. Obama is not an effeminate person. He's thin, and likes waffles. Clinton is not particularly masculine, unless someone defines "masculine" as "intelligent, courageous, and ambitious."
Which is, rather, the point. For nearly ever, "female" has been a synonym for "dimitted, cowardly, weakling." Masculinity and feminity aren't primary sexual characteristics like testes or ovaries. Males possessed strength, courage, intelligence, and ambition. Women were passive, stupid, weak, and cowardly. Male = good, female = bad. A man could become woman by being weak or passive or just by being of slender build or short. Women could never become male, and any woman who demonstrated strength or courage or intelligence was playacting or dangerous. A woman's "virtue" was only between her legs, as explained quite well in the last speech in Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie." Kim Novak says that she's a liar, a thief, a con artist, but because she was a virgin on her wedding night, she was still a lady.
In this race, Obama has to be portrayed as less than male, while Clinton is still just a girl playing dress-up in man's clothes. Because being female is always bad. Feminists are always accused of wanting to eliminate differences between the sexes. To the extent that those differences apply bad traits to women and good ones only to men, yes, we do. Women can be strong, brave, and smart. Men are capable of keeping their pants zipped and restraining their fists and matching colors on their own. Laundry detergent doesn't make the penis fall off. If the 2008 election can make the point that women are just as good as men, and that men don't have to be brutes, then it will really have been historic.
Which is, rather, the point. For nearly ever, "female" has been a synonym for "dimitted, cowardly, weakling." Masculinity and feminity aren't primary sexual characteristics like testes or ovaries. Males possessed strength, courage, intelligence, and ambition. Women were passive, stupid, weak, and cowardly. Male = good, female = bad. A man could become woman by being weak or passive or just by being of slender build or short. Women could never become male, and any woman who demonstrated strength or courage or intelligence was playacting or dangerous. A woman's "virtue" was only between her legs, as explained quite well in the last speech in Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie." Kim Novak says that she's a liar, a thief, a con artist, but because she was a virgin on her wedding night, she was still a lady.
In this race, Obama has to be portrayed as less than male, while Clinton is still just a girl playing dress-up in man's clothes. Because being female is always bad. Feminists are always accused of wanting to eliminate differences between the sexes. To the extent that those differences apply bad traits to women and good ones only to men, yes, we do. Women can be strong, brave, and smart. Men are capable of keeping their pants zipped and restraining their fists and matching colors on their own. Laundry detergent doesn't make the penis fall off. If the 2008 election can make the point that women are just as good as men, and that men don't have to be brutes, then it will really have been historic.
Friday, May 09, 2008
My Liberal Identity:
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Thoughts on the primary
It's all but official that Obama will be the Democratic nomimee for President. There are many reasons to be happy at this result, but also many reasons to be happy about the legnth of the primary itself. I know many Obama supporters have been proclaiming that Senator Clinton should withdraw since the middle of March. Now that the nomination really is out of reach, they are getting even more insistent. Let me say that she should withdraw before the convention, but there's no good reason to leave before the end of May. The main thing I want to mention in the post is the reasons to celebrate:
1. 2008 saw the first major primary victory by an African American.
2. 2008 saw the first major primary victory by a woman.
3. The candidates established highly effective organizations in all the states. This will be important in November.
4. John McCain is polling less than 80% in the last few primaries despite running against NO ONE. That is, 20% of the Republican primary voters have been rejecting their presumptive nominee.
Most blogging recently has been about Senator Clinton's remarks regarding her appeal to "hard-working, white voters," and whether this is racist. It's certainly a very poor way of phrasing the idea, what with the implication that people who aren't white don't work hard. I'm certain that Senator Clinton is not a racist. Nothing in her history supports that conclusion. She still said something in a very stupid way. So, what's the proper response?
I think this is part of what Senator Obama meant when he referred to the need for a "dialogue on race." And sex, for that matter. We've established that ascribing bad traits to people based on epidermal melanin is a bad thing. What we have not figured out is how to convince people who think in this way to change their minds. It feels really good to berate people for being wrong on something, but that rarely changes their behavior. If there are a large number of white people who can't bring themselves to vote for an African American, I want to know why and see what we can do to change their minds. For one thing, I want to change their minds because thinking bad things about people based on skin color is a really bad idea. Also, I don't want to give up on any voters that have interests aligned with the Democrats. There are plenty of people who actually think having an aristocracy and an Inquisition is a good idea for this country, since that worked so well for 17th C. Europe. We Dems need to find every vote we can.
Right now, Senator Clinton's supporters are not feeling so great, and I wish Senator Obama's crowd would leave them alone. Hillary Clinton is not killing the party, and in fact the Governor of Montana wants her to stay in the race until his state's primary. I know there are lots of people making stupid blog comments at the moment, but that's mostly an effect of the fact that both Clinton and Obama had lots of really loyal supporters. In any large group, some of its members will have established residence in the tonier neighborhoods of Outer Crazyville. (Liberals live in the nice parts of Outer Crazyville. The trailer parks contain commenters for Michelle Malkin, Redstate, and VDare.)
It doesn't help that Senator Clinton was subjected to really astonishing sexism from her own party, and liberals in it. Kos was so awful I quit reading it. Shakespeare's Sister had NINETY entries in its Hillary Clinton sexism watch. Nine --Zero.
I really don't think Obama faced anything like that on his race. What he did face was, oddly, sexism. The Austin American - Statesman ran an editorial today by Kathleen Parker in which she referred to Senator Obama as "lithe," as in slender, as in girly. Isn't that what all the "latte-sipping" crap is about? Obama is feminine, and being feminine is the worst thing imaginable. Of course, if Obama were heavy-set and didn't wear nice suits, he'd be portrayed as a Scary Thug. As a black man, he's either threatening or feminine.
Clinton, by contrast, is portrayed as an ex-linebacker in drag. She's Tough and Mean and Ambitious and all sorts of other big male things. Maureen Dowd is the worst at this one. Had Clinton had played up her health care and education plans extensively, and worn more pink eyelet, then she would have been too girly to be elected.
Thing is, we have no mental template for powerful people who aren't white and male. Both Democratic candidates are from traditionally powerless groups, and the Punditocracy wants to keep reminding us of this fact. They don't do it in the good, "ain't it great to be an American?" sense. They go out of their way to mention, over and over, that lots of people have a hard time supporting people for high office who aren't white and male. This doesn't get us anywhere. We've been all those places before and left. Now, how do we get to a new place?
1. 2008 saw the first major primary victory by an African American.
2. 2008 saw the first major primary victory by a woman.
3. The candidates established highly effective organizations in all the states. This will be important in November.
4. John McCain is polling less than 80% in the last few primaries despite running against NO ONE. That is, 20% of the Republican primary voters have been rejecting their presumptive nominee.
Most blogging recently has been about Senator Clinton's remarks regarding her appeal to "hard-working, white voters," and whether this is racist. It's certainly a very poor way of phrasing the idea, what with the implication that people who aren't white don't work hard. I'm certain that Senator Clinton is not a racist. Nothing in her history supports that conclusion. She still said something in a very stupid way. So, what's the proper response?
I think this is part of what Senator Obama meant when he referred to the need for a "dialogue on race." And sex, for that matter. We've established that ascribing bad traits to people based on epidermal melanin is a bad thing. What we have not figured out is how to convince people who think in this way to change their minds. It feels really good to berate people for being wrong on something, but that rarely changes their behavior. If there are a large number of white people who can't bring themselves to vote for an African American, I want to know why and see what we can do to change their minds. For one thing, I want to change their minds because thinking bad things about people based on skin color is a really bad idea. Also, I don't want to give up on any voters that have interests aligned with the Democrats. There are plenty of people who actually think having an aristocracy and an Inquisition is a good idea for this country, since that worked so well for 17th C. Europe. We Dems need to find every vote we can.
Right now, Senator Clinton's supporters are not feeling so great, and I wish Senator Obama's crowd would leave them alone. Hillary Clinton is not killing the party, and in fact the Governor of Montana wants her to stay in the race until his state's primary. I know there are lots of people making stupid blog comments at the moment, but that's mostly an effect of the fact that both Clinton and Obama had lots of really loyal supporters. In any large group, some of its members will have established residence in the tonier neighborhoods of Outer Crazyville. (Liberals live in the nice parts of Outer Crazyville. The trailer parks contain commenters for Michelle Malkin, Redstate, and VDare.)
It doesn't help that Senator Clinton was subjected to really astonishing sexism from her own party, and liberals in it. Kos was so awful I quit reading it. Shakespeare's Sister had NINETY entries in its Hillary Clinton sexism watch. Nine --Zero.
I really don't think Obama faced anything like that on his race. What he did face was, oddly, sexism. The Austin American - Statesman ran an editorial today by Kathleen Parker in which she referred to Senator Obama as "lithe," as in slender, as in girly. Isn't that what all the "latte-sipping" crap is about? Obama is feminine, and being feminine is the worst thing imaginable. Of course, if Obama were heavy-set and didn't wear nice suits, he'd be portrayed as a Scary Thug. As a black man, he's either threatening or feminine.
Clinton, by contrast, is portrayed as an ex-linebacker in drag. She's Tough and Mean and Ambitious and all sorts of other big male things. Maureen Dowd is the worst at this one. Had Clinton had played up her health care and education plans extensively, and worn more pink eyelet, then she would have been too girly to be elected.
Thing is, we have no mental template for powerful people who aren't white and male. Both Democratic candidates are from traditionally powerless groups, and the Punditocracy wants to keep reminding us of this fact. They don't do it in the good, "ain't it great to be an American?" sense. They go out of their way to mention, over and over, that lots of people have a hard time supporting people for high office who aren't white and male. This doesn't get us anywhere. We've been all those places before and left. Now, how do we get to a new place?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
I'm an herb
| You Are Basil |
 You have a mild temperament, but your style is definitely distinctive. You are sweet, attractive, and you often smell good. |
http://www.blogthings.com/whatspiceareyouquiz/">What Spice Are You?
Okay, so these things are sorta silly. As it happens, I love basil and grow tons of it.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Back Again
I can't believe I haven't posted anything for nearly 18 months. Oh, well, I'll be back at it frequently very soon, with more and better content, and maybe even a blogroll or a link or two. Later, dudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)