Canadian money

---

I took a friend to my bank to exchange some dollars a while back, because my bank has better exchange rates than his. He turned 354 American dollars into 345 Canadian dollars, just like that.

And what beautiful currency they have in Canada these days!

The twenty-dollar Canadian bills have a little clear plastic window in them, along with the shiny metallic strips. Some of the bills have pictures of Helen Mirren, or possibly Elizabeth II. The five-dollar bills have images of a sport – either curling or hockey, I couldn’t tell which. (My friend tells me that it’s curling, but he’s not Canadian, so how can he be sure?)

These are far more entertaining than our dull old American greenbacks. I’ve folded a one-dollar bill into thirds and made George Washington’s head into a mushroom too often; it just ain’t fun anymore. And who cares what car’s represented on the ten-dollar bill? (I always thought it was a Duesenberg, but evidently I was wrong)

Why can’t we put Walt Whitman on our money, or Mark Twain, or Edward MacDowell, or Leonard Bernstein? What about Humphrey Bogart, or Artemus Ward? We put everything in creation on our postage stamps – flowers and dragons and cartoon characters and movie stars. Why not on our money too?

Most countries celebrate their culture on their currency, not just their political history. They put their writers and musicians on the money. We don’t. I don’t think Americans like to be reminded that we have a “culture.” We’re far too macho to have “culture.” On our money, we have only Founding Fathers, Male Presidents like Wilson and Grant, and Miscellaneous Political Figures, like Alexander Hamilton and Salmon Chase.

I vote for variety, and culture, and entertainment.

If the Canadians can do it, then surely we can do it too.

---

Paula Deen, racism, and social change

---

Back when Barack Obama was first elected President of the United States in 2008, some of us felt pretty good about ourselves. Racial prejudice was over and done with, and we were living in the New Jerusalem.

But, presciently, a New York Times commentator at that time (I think Charles Blow) told us not to be so sure of ourselves. I wish I could find his exact quote. I paraphrase: “American racism is coming to an end, but it’s not dead yet. It’s going to become more concentrated, like sea-salt crystallizing as seawater evaporates.”

This image has come back to me over and over again over the past five years.

Most recently, Paula Deen, whom you would have thought would have been smarter, has shown herself to be a racist idiot of the crystallized-seawater variety. In recent depositions, she spoke defiantly about using the n-word in casual conversation. She defended herself by explaining that she was once held up by a black man.

Well, Paula, then that’s okay! We forgive you! Use racial epithets as much as you want!

Paula has asked for forgiveness via Internet video three times over the past few weeks. She is often tearful, which clearly demonstrates that she’s the victim here.

The great revelation here, for me, was doing research for this blog. I learned that there are a lot of people here in the USA who don’t like black people, and who use the Internet freely!

Man alive.

Have you seen this commercial?:

It’s a cute little girl asking her (white) mother if Cheerios are good for your heart. Mom says yes. Little girl runs into the living room and dumps a bunch of Cheerios on her (black) father’s chest.

Now go on line, look up the video (use search terms “interracial Cheerios”), and see what comes up.

Filthy and vile.

Now how about this commercial?:

Now go on the net and read the comments (search terms “International Delight bouncer”). You won’t need to go far to find something really atrocious. Imagine: a white woman admiring a black man’s body!

I won’t tell you the names of the websites I found these on. If you do the same searches I did, you’ll find the same kind of comments.

I was disgusted by them.

But – you know what? – go look for them. I want you to be disgusted too.

It’ll do you good.

It’ll show you, more forcefully than I can tell you, the kind of world we live in, and what we’re up against.

---

Three good things: refrigerator, DOMA, Proposition 8

---

My poor heart can’t stand it. Three good things happened in one day!

First of all: our old feeble refrigerator got replaced. I wrote a mild email to our landlords two nights ago about how the food in our freezer didn’t seem to be freezing properly, and the landlords replaced the fridge the very next day! And it’s lovely, and they’re lovely people over at the landlord’s office, and we love them and thank them.

Also: the lovely folks in the Supreme Court – five of them, anyway – believe that they should not overturn the California Supreme Court’s rejection of Proposition 8, and as a result, gay marriage is once again legal in the great state of California (as of July 25, 2013, at any rate).

This is nothing to me really, because I’m not a citizen of California. I’m delighted, however, for the gay people who married in California while it was legal, and who are legal again; I’m also delighted for the other gay Californians who can now line up for marriage licenses. And I’m delighted to see one more state added to the illustrious roster of states (including Little Rhody) which have legalized gay marriage.

The third good thing that happened today was this: DOMA – the Defense of Marriage Act – was found, in essence, unconstitutional.

This is key.

Partner and I have long debated the issue of marriage. We’ve lived together for fourteen years, which makes us married in the eyes of any deity who matters. Rhode Island legalized gay marriage a few months ago – hooray! But would it be of any advantage to us to get married? Not if the federal government doesn’t recognize it. It would have no tax advantages, or estate advantages.

But now, after the Supreme Court’s snappy 5-4 decision, it’s a different story.

Do I hear wedding bells?

Or is it just our new (and more efficient) refrigerator humming?

---

The deaccession of the old Confederacy

---

I have been listening with growing despondency to the various gun nuts who have been defending (in the face of the Newtown catastrophe) their right to own guns.

 

 

Get it? Their right to own killing machines overrides any other rights. It’s in the Constitution!

 

 

(Just like slavery.)

 

 

There was one especially virulent nut on “Hardball” not long ago who threatened, in veiled terms, that he and his fruitcake army might rise up against the government if any further attempt toward gun control were made.

 

 

I am feeling more and more these days that I have very little in common with certain of my fellow Americans. The whole blue states / red states thing is getting to be less of an Election Night truism and more of a reality.

 

 

There’s this thing that libraries and art galleries do, called “deaccessioning.” This means getting rid of something that you’ve acquired along the way. Maybe it’s extra. Maybe it’s out-of-date, or has been ruined in some way.

 

 

It occurs to me that, in light of all the secessionist talk after the past election, we might talk about deaccession instead.

 

 

Let’s just give it away.

 

 

Let’s give the crazy people the remnants of Dixie, and maybe a chunk of the Plains, per this map of illiteracy:

 

 

 

 

I could have used lots of other maps: obesity, educational level, etc. But illiteracy seems appropriate.

 

 

(California shows up on this map, because of its immigrant population. California can go its own way, though we in the Original USA would like it to stay. They can make up their own minds. I have a feeling they’ll stick around and not go over to the Neanderthals.)

 

 

Maybe the Deaccessioned Former States of America will be smart and unite, as in the CSA days. But even if they do I doubt that they’ll stay together. Once the secessionist principle has been put into practice, they’ll use it to secede from one another, region by region: King Huckabee of the Christian Republic of Arkansas can secede from President Perry of the People’s Damned Right State of Texas, and the Gulf states can form their very own banana republic, the Free Caribbean States of No Health Care and No Human Rights.

 

 

Naturally they won’t have any kind of government-funded education. How ridiculous! Or income tax. Or gun control. They can legislate all of the race-specific bills they like; they don’t even have to pussyfoot about “voter fraud” anymore. They won’t have to let Hispanics or blacks vote at all, if they like!

 

 

They’ll have some resources, to be sure, mostly the Texas oil basins. If Texas goes its own way (which it most probably would), this will do the rest of Dixie little good, as King Cotton no longer rules the world.

 

 

And what would Texas be? An oil republic, like Venezuela. Neato! Do you think Texas will join OPEC?

 

 

Why wait for secession?

 

 

Let’s go for deaccession.

---

 

 

Democrat stuffed animals and Republican stuffed animals

---

(Warning! If you are nauseated when you read about grown adults playing with stuffed animals, and making them talk, and pretending that they’re real ladies and gentlemen, then look away. This is icky-poo stuff, and you should look elsewhere for something more adult.)

 

 

(Still here? Okay.)

 

 

Partner and I have noticed lately that the stuffed animals in our household are drifting apart. They all began in the bedroom, where we’re most comfortable, but some have lately migrated to the living room, where they seem to feel more comfortable.

 

 

We recently discovered that this was for political reasons. The bedroom animals are Republicans; the living-room animals are Democrats.

 

 

Well, first of all, we found that the bedroom animals were almost always having secret meetings under the bed, and when we dragged them out, they were very tight-lipped about their conversations. And who are they? The moose, whom we acquired in New Hampshire (a Republican state). The polar bear. (He’s white. Enough said.) And the shark (whom we bought at Ikea, okay, but who’s a shark, which means he almost certainly has Wall Street connections). There’s also an Ikea rat in the corner, peeking at the rest of them (probably a lobbyist).

 

 

In the living room, we have a jaguar (whose manufacturing tag informs me that his name is JAMAL, which means he’s either a Muslim or an African-American), and a lion whom we purchased in New York City (liberal enough for you?). Also Pluto from DisneyWorld, who’s a moderate, but with Hollywood connections. And a purple platypus, whom we believe to be emotionally disturbed. In brief: the Democratic caucus.

 

 

They have taken to shouting at one another from one room to another. It started with: “Vote Republican!” “Vote Democrat!” It’s gotten uglier lately: they’ve taken to name-calling. Nasty stuff!

 

 

It’s a shame when fuzzy little stuffed animals can’t agree.

 

 

I fear for the future of the American republic.

---

 

 

2016

---

I’ve already written about the 2016 Presidential election, and Chris Christie, who already appears to be signaling that he’d very much like to be president after Obama. 

 

 

Charming. Maybe, if Chris Christie is a good boy, we’ll look him over and kick his tires and see if he’s the man for the job, so long as we’re all still alive in 2016.

 

 

But, as I wrote in my previous entry: please God, don’t subject us to this yet!

 

 

I am one of those people who just want elected politicians to govern. I want them to state their goals, and work toward them, and compromise (as necessary) until those goals (or some form of them) are achieved. I don’t want it to be all about us/them, for at least two years, and preferably for at least four years.

 

 

But there are political junkies who are really only excited by the competition, by the us/them. Sadly, some of our best political commentators are among them. Chris Matthews is talking about 2016 almost every night; he’s already talking about the facedown between Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie, and what a great race it’s going to be.

 

 

You’d think that a man as smart as Matthews is supposed to be would realize that a lot of things can happen in four years. The parties often alternate the Presidency, for one thing. Also, the economy (while just beginning to show signs of recovery) isn’t quite well yet, and Europe is still teetering, which could bring trouble to the USA also.

 

 

Chris Todd on NBC is another one; he’s not as bad as Chris Matthews, but he becomes visibly excited when he starts talking about the chances of one side versus another. The late Tim Russert, with his little handheld whiteboard on which he wrote numbers and vote counts, was another. They all love the struggle, and the numbers, and the victory.

 

 

The rest of us get tired easily, and just want to know that our rights are being protected, and our retirement and health care aren’t in jeopardy. We don’t care so much who’s in office, so long as the right things are being done. We mostly understand that things keep inching forward. The War on Drugs is showing (very belated) signs of dying, or transforming into something more realistic – not a war on potheads, but an attempt to keep cocaine and meth off the streets, the really dangerous drugs. Gay identity and gay marriage are both becoming less of an issue and more of a reality. And, as the most recent election mostly demonstrated, while people in general deplore abortion, it’s a fact of life, and a necessity. Theology (AKA “personhood of the fetus”) can’t be used to determine public policy; if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, it’s her choice, and no one else’s.

 

 

The old world dies, and we are born into the new world.

 

 

The birth pangs are painful.

 

 

Let’s not relive them, or pretend how they’re going to feel in four years’ time.

 

 

Let’s just try to get things done.

 

 

Okay?

---

 

 

Romney: the sour-grapes candidate

---

There were many times during the 2012 election when Romney appeared to have lost the election. One of the most significant was the 47% video:

 

 

 

 

So, from this, we learn that Mitt Romney believes that almost half the American people are unrealistic, selfish, and greedy.  They can’t be enticed to vote for him, so he won’t bother talking to them.

 

 

Whether because of this video, or for many other reasons, he lost the election.

 

 

Most Presidential candidates shut up promptly after losing the election. The exceptions are interesting. Nixon complained in 1961 that Kennedy had stolen the election. Nixon then roared back in 1968 (and six years later resigned the Presidency in disgrace, having committed most or all of the crimes he’d accused Kennedy of in 1960). Al Gore didn’t shut up after 2000, with good reason; he’d won the popular vote, and the electoral vote depended on Florida, which was (effectively) decided by the right-leaning US Supreme Court.

 

 

But Mitt Romney won’t shut up.

 

 

He said, shortly after the election, that Obama won because he promised “gifts” to his followers. Please follow this link to hear that the Salt Lake Tribune had to say about that.

 

 

A MSNBC commentator made a very sensible point about this recently: of course Presidential candidates offer us “gifts”! They’re called campaign promises! If I’m presented with two candidates, and one of them promises to end legalized abortion, eliminate “unnecessary” programs in the arts and sciences and education, and opposes gay rights – I will tell him that these are not the “gifts” I require.

 

 

Most lately, Romney’s son Tagg (I love that name!) has stated that his father didn’t want to be President in any case. As follows:

 

 

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run,” Tagg Romney told the (Boston) Globe. “If he could have found someone else to take his place . . . he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

The Globe article also noted that “Tagg … worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency.”

 

 

 

So what’s all this about? Did Mitt want the Presidency or not?

 

 

 

Perhaps, as the New Yorker recently remarked, the GOP really ought to have run someone for President who really wanted to be President.

 

---

 

 

Joe Kernan, Ebenezer Scrooge, and how not to be a gadfly

---

A gadfly is, by definition, a person who shakes up the status quo. He/she questions the status quo. He/she challenges complacency and accepted wisdom.

 

 

It’s an important role. Socrates was a gadfly, and died for it. Galileo was a gadfly, and paid heavily for it.

 

 

However (to paraphrase Monty Python): being a gadfly isn’t just contradiction. It’s something more substantial than that.

 

 

There are people in the media who pose as gadflies. They do it by saying ridiculous things, and then they defy their audience to contradict them.

 

 

For example: Joe Kernen on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on weekday mornings.

 

 

Recently, Kernen interviewed someone on the topic of climate change. During thee interview, he told his guest that he (Kernen) was an MIT graduate, and that he (Kernen) knew that there was no such thing as “climate science.”

 

 

This isn’t being a gadfly. This is just being stupid.

 

 

Recently, Kernen was talking about foreign aid. “Someone told me,” he said (I paraphrase), “that going without government aid was a great incentive. Why don’t we apply the same idea to foreign countries? Don’t give them aid. It’ll encourage them to do better.”

 

 

Or, of course, they might perish.

 

 

From Dickens:

 

 

``At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''

``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''

``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

``Both very busy, sir.''

``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''

``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, `a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when want is keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''

``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.

``You wish to be anonymous?''

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

 

 

This was Scrooge’s idea of how to be a gadfly.

 

 

I hope you remember the rest of the story.

 

 

Merry Christmas, Joe Kernen.

---

 

 

The Electoral College

---

The Rhode Island Secretary of State, Ralph Mollis, recently sent me the cutest email invitation, as follows:

 

 

Following the second-highest turnout in state history, our remarkable election year will officially end this Monday when we convene RI's Electoral College for the purpose of casting votes for president and vice president.

 

 

 

The historic ceremony will begin at noon when the Kentish Guards in colonial military garb will escort the state's four Presidential Electors and other dignitaries to the House Chamber, where the event will take place.

 

 

 

If you would like to attend the ceremony, please RSVP to elections@sos.ri.gov because seating in the House Chamber is limited. Capitol TV will also televise the ceremony live on Channel 15 on Cox Cable and Full Channel and Channel 34 on Verizon. In addition, we will set up TV monitors in the State Room to accommodate anyone who cannot be seated in the House Chamber.

 

 

 

State Rep.-elect Marvin L. Abney of Newport, Emily A. Maranjian of Providence, L. Susan Weiner of East Greenwich and Mark S. Weiner of East Greenwich have the honor of representing RI. By federal law, the state Democratic Party got to select the electors because Democrat Barack Obama won Rhode Island's popular vote.

 

 

 

This is sort of adorable, in the way that the Beefeaters in the Tower of London and the Swiss Guards at the Vatican are adorable. We’re a small state, so we like ceremonies; it’s easy for pretty much anyone in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to attend this, if he/she wants to. Notice the reference to “colonial military garb”: we’re one of the original thirteen colonies, right?

 

 

 

The Electoral College is a charming but unnecessary leftover from the early days of our Republic. But it needs to get lost. We need to elect our President and Vice-President by popular vote, nothing more, nothing less. Our history would be very different if we’d done this; there have been four elections (1824, 1876, 1888, and – surprise! 2000) when the popular vote went against the electoral vote.

 

 

 

There is an initiative running around among the states: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In brief: states are declaring that they will give all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (so long as enough other states sign onto the compact).

 

 

 

Sadly, the only states to sign onto this compact so far are progressive/liberal states in the Northeast and West.

 

 

 

The red states seem suspicious of this initiative. I’m not sure why.

 

 

 

Maybe they just love their Kentish Guards.

 

 

 

Kids: time to put away childish things. Let’s get rid of this relic, the Electoral College, once and for all.

 

---

 

Gun control

---

I had some merry little screed planned for today, but something more important has come along.

 

 

Yesterday’s Connecticut tragedy underlines the need for gun control. Not “reasonable” gun control, but gun control: real waiting periods, real background checks, real licensing. It needs to be at least as hard to obtain a gun as it already is to get a driver’s license. Preferably much harder, since cars are at least useful.

 

 

This is a link to a petition on the White House’s “We the People” website. Here’s the wording of the petition:

 

 

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress.

 

 

The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns. While a national dialogue is critical, laws are the only means in which we can reduce the number of people murdered in gun related deaths.

 

 

Powerful lobbying groups allow the ownership of guns to reach beyond the Constitution's intended purpose of the right to bear arms. Therefore, Congress must act on what is stated law, and face the reality that access to firearms reaches beyond what the Second Amendment intends to achieve.

 

 

The signatures on this petition represent a collective demand for a bipartisan discussion resulting in a set of laws that regulates how a citizen obtains a gun.

 

 

Please read. Then, please go to the website and sign.

---

 

Sesame Street, Elmo, and Kevin Clash

---

Over the past few weeks, a mini-drama has been growing over Kevin Clash, who voices Elmo, the little red Sesame Street monster.

 

 

First there was a man who claimed that Clash had relations with him while he was under 18; then he recanted his claim. Since then, however, two other men have come forward with the same story.

 

 

Oh dear.

 

 

I love Sesame Street, and the Muppets. During this past Presidential election, Mitt Romney said he was ready to end funding of PBS and CTW, the homeland of Sesame Street, and there was a backlash: people claimed (very fairly) that Mitt Romney wanted to kill Big Bird, inspiring images like this:

 

 

Well, Obama won the election.

 

 

And now it turns out that the voice of Elmo is a child molester.

 

 

Awful? Of course. But oddly timed. I can’t help wondering if this is Republican reprisal for the election, to weaken PBS as a whole. I wonder if they’ve been digging for dirt on PBS, and finally found some.

 

 

Clash, if guilty, should be punished. But PBS should not be punished.

 

 

The mission of PBS is to make America a little smarter. It made me smarter, back in the 1970s. As for expense: they (together with NPR) receive one one-hundredth of one percent of the Federal budget, for God’s sake!

 

 

If we have to jettison Kevin Clash, fine.

 

 

But let’s not jettison PBS.

 

 

Let your representatives and senators know how you feel about this.

 

 

---

 

 

Chris Matthews: our very own left-wing babbling idiot

---

I’ve written before about right-wing radio and TV hosts whose political rantings drive me up the wall. I know I’ve mentioned Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

 

 

Want to know a surprise? We have a few idiots like that on the left too.

 

 

I like to watch Chris Matthews’s show “Hardball.” His guests are often interesting, and Chris’s politics are close to mine, so I find him easy to watch.

 

 

But, kids, Chris is often unbearable.

 

 

He’s loud and rude. He asks his guests endless “questions” which aren’t questions at all, but long speeches; then, if his guests speak for more than fifteen seconds, he cuts them off. His comments are often pointless. He repeats himself endlessly. He’s very self-congratulatory: recently, when a guest referenced a movie, Matthews cut him/her off to go on and on about the movie, and how he liked it. Who cares, Chris?

 

 

On a recent show, Chris presented Kegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, co-writers and performers on their own show, “Key and Peele,” who do a very funny Obama routine: Peele as the cool rational Obama, Key as his “anger translator” Luther. It was meant to be a friendly encounter, but Chris kept messing up. He called Obama “cool,” which – coming from an aging white man – sounds like an adjective you’d apply to Miles Davis. He kept referencing the fact that both Key and Peele are biracial, like President Obama, and saying that this enabled them to say things other people can’t say.  Really? 

 

 

But the worst moment came when Chris asked Key about his routines about football players with funny names. “Well,” Key said (I paraphrase), “lots of people were given funny names, because their mothers wanted to give them unique names. I’ve got a funny name. And you got it wrong, Chris, when you called me Michael. But that’s okay, because my parents gave me a funny name.”

 

 

Chris suddenly realized that he was being called out – which he hates – and blustered back: “Why? What did I call you?”

 

 

“Michael,” Key replied calmly.

 

 

“And what should I have called you?” Chris bellowed defiantly.

 

 

“Well, my family calls me Kegan,” Key said, still calmly.

 

 

Chris made drowning noises for a few seconds, then calmed down.

 

 

Chris, as a Democrat, was trying to be down with the homies, you see. Except that he had no idea what he was doing, or what he was saying.

 

 

Ah well.

 

 

At least he’s not as bad as Rush, or Glenn, or Sean Hannity.

 

 

(Sigh.)

---

 

2012 Election Post-Mortem: Why Don't Minorities Vote Republican?

---

Partner and I often watch “Up with Chris Hayes” on weekend mornings. I find him a bit shrill and wordy, but at least I agree with him and most of his guests. (And, as we all know, we all prefer to listen to people who confirm our beliefs and – gulp! – prejudices.)

 

 

On the morning of November 10, Chris had a very nice gentleman named Avik Roy on his panel. Avik is an American of Indian ancestry, whose expertise is in health care issues, and was described on the show as FORMER ROMNEY CAMPAIGN ADVISOR.

 

 

He was very gentle and reasonable on the show, which was to be expected; his party (and his candidate) had just lost a big election, and he was surrounded by political opponents (mostly raving liberals, like yours truly).

 

 

But he still said some ridiculous things.

 

 

Such as:

 

 

“My mother is a very conservative person: she’s frugal, she believes in self-reliance. She’s a natural Republican. But she insists on voting for Democrats.”

 

 

And: “The Republican Party is about small government, and fiscal conservatism. It’s not about bigotry or racial disenfranchisement.”

 

 

And: “I understand how Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, must feel in the United States. But I feel more strongly for the people who have tried to enter legally. I think of the Indian school valedictorian who wanted to enter the United States, but who found that he/she wasn’t able to get a visa because of the Obama administration’s policies, and I ask myself if this is really fairness.”

 

 

These are all valid opinions, stated respectfully and intelligently, and I respect all three of them.

 

 

Except that they’re all completely specious.

 

 

#1: “My mother is a very conservative person: she’s frugal, she believes in self-reliance. She’s a natural Republican. But she insists on voting for Democrats.” Kiddo: your mother has dark skin. She has been experiencing American racial prejudice for longer than you have, and in a more intense way. The Democrats are an inclusive party, and welcomes minorities; of course your mother feels more comfortable with them. You, Avik, are younger, and more educated, and have grown up in a more liberal society, and have experienced much less prejudice as a result. Do you get that?

 

 

#2: “The Republican Party is about small government, and fiscal conservatism. It’s not about bigotry or racial disenfranchisement.” The first sentence is more or less true. Sadly, the second sentence is not true. As several other panel members explained to Avik Roy on the show, Nixon’s Southern Strategy was all about using bigotry to get people to vote Republican. At the beginning, it was just a campaign strategy: the Republicans get bigots to vote for the GOP, and once they’re in office, they’ll quietly ignore that section of the electorate. (Nixon was a pretty awful president, and a bigot, but he didn’t legislate bigotry.) Over time, however, the bigots realized they were being snubbed by the GOP, and insisted on representation. So we get terms like “illegals” and “welfare cheats,” and we know that we mean “Hispanics” and “African-Americans.” So, Avik, I’m afraid your party – for many reason – has in fact espoused bigotry as a vote-getting method, and (once in office) tends to legislate that bigotry.

 

 

Worst of all, #3: “I think of the Indian school valedictorian who wanted to enter the United States, but who found that he/she wasn’t able to get a visa because of the Obama administration’s policies, and I ask myself if this is really fairness.” Oh, Avik. Do you think that the average Republican voter, in Mississippi or Wyoming or Arizona, would welcome that Indian school valedictorian in the United States? Certainly not. He’s not white, Avik.  

 

 

Avik, Avik. Go have a chat with your mother. And get a clue.

---

 

 

The Confederate States of America: an update

---

The other day I wrote about Steven Spielberg’s new movie about Abraham Lincoln. The movie ends, not with Lincoln’s assassination, but with the Second Inaugural, a beautiful speech in which Lincoln declared that the rebellious South was not an enemy, but a friend. Lincoln faced the prospect of “reconstructing” a bitter, defeated, impoverished South; it would have been difficult in any case, but Lincoln was a good man for working out difficult issues. It’s commonly thought that, if Lincoln had lived, Reconstruction would have been different: it would have been calmer and less acrimonious.

 

 

But we know what happened, and we know the aftermath. Lincoln was killed, and Reconstruction was led by Radical Republicans, who were further angered by Lincoln’s death. They wanted to punish the South, and they did.

 

 

And the South simmered in its bitterness and anger for decades.

 

 

Here’s the South that defied Lincoln (Union in blue, Dixie in Red):

 

 

And here’s the 2012 electoral map:

 

 

 

 

And here, just for the sake of comparison, is a map of poverty in the USA:

 

 

Here’s a map showing English literacy (remember that the western states and New York have large immigrant populations):

 

 

 

 

And finally, for shits and giggles, here’s a map showing how people feel about religion:

 

 

The Confederacy never died. It’s still with us.

 

 

It's a state of mind.

---

 

 

Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: a cautionary tale

---

Once upon a time there was a Russian scientist named Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov.

 

 

He was a botanist and geneticist in the Mendelian days before the discovery of DNA, in the 1920s and 1930s.

 

 

Vavilov wanted desperately to be non-political, because he perceived – accurately – that to be political was to be vulnerable, in those early days of the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

 

He did remarkable work. He established beyond much doubt that the origin of the apple tree was in Kazakhstan, and he did much other excellent work.

 

 

But Stalin preferred the work of a man named Lysenko.

 

 

Lysenko wasn’t much of a scientist, but he knew how to use politicians to advance his own career. He came up with odd theories, but when challenged, he said his challengers were “armed with foreign ideas.” He claimed Mendelian theory was bunk. On what basis? Well, none, except that Uncle Joe Stalin was his buddy.

 

 

Vavilov ended up in prison. Under torture, he told his wardens what they wanted to hear: he was an enemy of the state. He ended up dying of dysentery in a prison camp in 1943.

 

 

If you are a Republican, you may hear this story as a defense of the brave scientists who have attacked climate change and shale oil and conservation. You probably see those defiant scientists who argue against the rest as Vavilov.

 

 

For me, and for Democrats in general I think, Vavilov is something else. He is Science personified. He is the method by which we try to discover what’s going on in nature. He is not political. He tells the truth, whatever it turns out to be, and whether or not it supports our political viewpoints.

 

 

What’s the end of the story?

 

 

Well, the whole Lysenko thing cost the USSR much time and trouble, since they were out of touch with the rest of the world’s scientific research.

 

 

Now, I ask you: is an American population, brought up on creationism and intelligent design, ready to do scientific work in the world community?

 

 

You tell me.

---

 

 

The 2012 Presidential election: why the Republicans lost

---

Sometimes, when good things happen – as with the reelection of Barack Obama – I begin to reassure himself that things in general are getting better.

 

 

And, I suppose, they are.

 

 

But some things don’t change.

 

 

I had hoped that the GOP would understand, after four years, that Obama is not a fluke or a trickster. I had hoped they would stop pretending that he was the lovechild of Kwame Nkrumah and Lenin. I had hoped also that they would acknowledge that, Obama having won both the Electoral College and the popular vote, that he definitely possesses a mandate from the American people.

 

 

I was wrong.

 

 

Their party line, after two weeks, is still crystallizing. Given that they can’t admit that they were well and fairly beaten at the polls, they have come up with some (moderately ridiculous, and mutually contradictory) reasons for their loss.

 

 

(Naturally they didn’t lose because of their message, or their candidate, or their poor organization, or their alienation of large chunks of the electorate.)

 

 

Here are some of their rationalizations:

 

 

1)    We were outnumbered! (This is from Rush Limbaugh. I let this one speak for itself. Imagine being outnumbered in a democracy!)

2)    Voter fraud was rampant! (See this ridiculous Wisconsin senator’s statement that, if voter ID were universal, we wouldn’t have any more of these silly Democratic victories.)

3)    Obama voters were bribed with “gifts”! (Romney himself said this recently.)

4)    Poor beautiful Paul Ryan – he of the big luminous eyes – recently commented that he and Mitt lost because of the “urban vote.” What do you think that means? Why, minorities, of course. Minority voters kept Obama in, and Romney out, of the White House. How uppity of them!

 

 

I recently found a wonderful graphic showing minority representation in the House and Senate (including women, who are certainly not a minority of the US population). Here it is:

 

 

 

 

Please examine it and tell me how many Republicans you find.

 

 

Now tell me what conclusions you draw.

 

 

Here’s to another combative – but, I hope, constructive – four years.

---

 

The conservative entertainment complex

---

We like to be reassured that our beliefs are valid.  We gravitate to the news sources we prefer: the networks, MSNBC, Fox.

 

 

But sometimes we go too far.

 

 

A few weeks before the election, I saw a commercial for Bing Elections 2012, a Microsoft site enabling users to tailor the news to their own political beliefs.

 

 

Do you see anything wrong with this?

 

 

Opinion is opinion, and facts are facts. I belong to my own little group, and I believe what I believe; I groan when I read David Brooks and I giggle when I read Gail Collins.

 

 

But that’s not news. That’s opinion.

 

 

The idea that news – journalism – can be “tailored” to suit one’s political beliefs – well, that’s just repugnant.

 

 

Except that a good chunk of the electorate eats it up like ice cream, which creates all kinds of problems.

 

 

David Frum, late last week, spoke of the “conservative entertainment complex.” I knew immediately what he was talking about: the huge ungainly conglomeration of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, that feeds on itself and reassures itself that it’s absolutely correct. It's the conservative equivalent of that (imaginary) construct Sarah Palin herself named "the lamestream media."

 

 

It’s not just opinion. It’s “news.” It’s Bristol Palin on “Dancing with the Stars.” It’s radio screamers like Rush and his local followers (Rhode Island and Massachusetts have their share of these, which I’m sure are mild compared to those in other parts of the USA.)  It’s Ann Coulter, the right-wing Lisa Lampanelli.

 

 

They all reassure one another (and themselves) that they’re right, and that they represent America. Not just part of America, mind you, but the whole thing. Anything that isn’t part of their world (the Conservative Entertainment Complex – let’s just call it the CEC from here on) is alien, non-American, un-American.

 

 

This leads to problems.

 

 

Here are a few:

 

 

-          Public polling in October and early November showed clearly that Barack Obama had a significant lead in swing states. No! the CEC shrieked. Impossible! And they created their own “polls,” which showed Romney in the lead. People who should have known better – Karl Rove, even Romney himself – believed those fake polls. And – guess what? – the fake “polls” were utterly wrong.

-          (Side question: why would the GOP want to lie to itself? I know that, as an Obama voter, the mere suggestion that he was behind in any state (not just my own) made me more determined to go vote for him. The GOP really shot itself in the foot with this one.)

-          It’s not just political theory that the CEC simplifies, it’s everything. Do scientists support global climate change? Then let’s vilify and ridicule scientists. Did Obama get Osama Bin Laden? Well, we didn’t want Osama that badly in the first place.

-          Do you see a black man outside a Pennsylvania polling place? According to Fox News, he’s a threat, a menace.

-          Are Hispanics a threat to America, or valuable potential Republican voters? Hmm. Not sure. Let’s talk about Hispanics  as if they’re unwelcome and highly suspicious, and then see how they vote. They’re Catholics, so they’ll vote Republican. Right?

 

 

 

And here’s another thing: studies have actually shown that liberals are more willing to explore other points of view. Conservatives are more likely to ignore opposing beliefs. Ergo: they know less about what’s going on in the world.

 

 

I read the Financial Times almost every day. It’s the British/international version of the Wall Street Journal, except it’s far more free-wheeling. I read conservative and liberal editorials every day. Also I read journalism that’s very unbiased.

 

 

It refreshes me.

 

 

Kids: read everything. Watch everything.

 

 

Don’t let the CEC (or its liberal equivalent) tell you what to think.

 

 

Think for yourselves.

---

 

 

The American Christian politician

---

Todd Akin, last week, made his concession speech in the name of God. I think his point was that God is allowing America to become more and more sinful, so that he (God, not Todd Akin) can destroy it with impunity, a la Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

I picked up a local Christian newspaper last week, just to catch up on the Good News Today. I used to enjoy these papers: they have cute features, like Bible riddles (Who’s the shortest man in the Old Testament? Bildad the Shuhite!) and little homilies about grace and forgiveness.

 

 

But this little newspaper was full of vitriol. Mostly it was about abortion and gay marriage. These are the two worst things happening in the United States, in case you’re wondering.

 

 

Do you remember Jesus, in the New Testament, doing anything or saying anything about either of these issues? He did not. He fed people, and healed people. But apparently health care and world hunger are not important issues for modern fundamentalists.

 

 

I am so sorry that, for so many modern Christians, “social issues” consist of abortion and gay marriage. Why don’t they address health care, and hunger, and housing, and poverty? Their Saviour addressed all those things.

 

 

I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God. But Jesus the man, as depicted in the Gospels, had a lot of good ideas. 

 

 

Such as: Don’t worry so much about how sinful your neighbor is.

 

 

Just make sure he’s fed and housed and warm.

 

 

Let the rest take care of itself.

 

---

 

The 2012 Presidential election: a corporate viewpoint

---

Lots of stuff has happened since last week’s election – almost more than I can keep track of. But here are two wonderful stories:

 

 

The day after Barack Obama won his re-election bid, the chief executive of Murray Energy, Robert E. Murray, gathered his staff and began to read a prayer. He asked God to forgive America for its choice of president, and he prayed for “guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.” He closed with a heartfelt “amen.”

 

Then he fired 156 people.

 

Murray explained that the layoffs were inevitable in light of Obama’s re-election. He’s not the only coal baron to cite the president as the cause of the industry’s supposed death knell. CONSOL Energy Inc. President Nicholas Deluliis blamed Obama for 145 planned layoffs, while Alpha Natural Resources CEO Kevin Crutchfield cited the Obama-created “regulatory environment” as the basis for 1,200 job cuts this fall. (See the full story on Slate.)

 

 

 

Isn’t that nice?

 

 

Here’s another story:

 

 

Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter, who previously said that President Obama’s health care program would force the company to raise the price of pizza, now says the health care law could cause franchises to slice full-time employees’ hours.

Schnatter, who supported Republican Mitt Romney, made the comments Wednesday night to students at Edison State College in Naples, Fla., where Schnatter has a vacation home.

The Anchorage resident’s initial comment came in August when hetold stock analysts during a conference call that the cost of the Affordable Care Act will lead the company to raise its prices 11 to 14 cents per pizza. (From the Louisville Courier-Journal.)

 

 

Some thoughts:

 

 

-      I’m sorry to get all Marxist on you, but I need to remind you that owners will always exploit workers, and owners will always howl when government tries to make them treat workers better. This is why regulation is necessary.

-      Unions are vital to uphold the interests of labor. This ain’t just my philosophy – it’s in my bones. My mother (who grew up in a coal-mining area near Seattle) told me that, when she was a little girl, she used to go down to the mines during strikes and throw lumps of coal at the scabs.

-      Is Schnatter serious? Fourteen cents a pizza? That’s horrendous. Imagine! Just to make sure his employees have health care!

-      The coal industry is horribly corrupt as it is. It’s sweetly evil to see that the coal CEO quoted in the first piece began with a prayer for the salvation of America. I imagine a lot of his employees are praying for something quite different.

 

 

Now the good news: a majority of American voters backed Obama. Republicans are losing seats – not enough to make a huge difference, but the tide is turning.

 

 

So remember not to buy Papa John’s pizza.

 

 

(Not that you would anyway. It tastes like cardboard with pepperoni on top.)

---